rough ride.

#41
My house is paid for
Lucky? you say
I say school of hard knocks
I did enjoy flogging the cop cars though (they'd do 85 in 2nd gear)(the first HO's the carbureted ones)
Every single one of them needed to be aligned and have the tires balanced on the car (I drove some of them at 140)
I did all that and some of it was fun
Lincoln air suspension and Taurus racks not so much
The Firestone tire debacle on the Explorers made me the highest paid tire man in our state
Right about then was when I got my masters and soon after I had had enough
Time for your story SHO You been welding subframes and racing mustangs alot?
 

  • Sponsors (?)


#42
Apologies to Bree for cluttering up your thread.

Mm007, I have the ability and humility to admit when I am wrong and to ask about what I do not know about, and do not double down on spreading false tech info.
In this case, I and the other members are not wrong about springs, shocks, bushings and subframe connectors. Simply put, impact absorbing parts on a solid chassis will ride better than a flexing chassis that will send all the jarring throughout the car.

Based on the amount of vehicles you brag about working on, and with the absolute irrelevance and inaccuracy of your advice in several threads, I doubt the quality of your service and product, just like some McDonalds.
Congratulations on the advanced degree. I still have to deal with Doctorate holding arrogant, clueless people in various fields.

Please be better than them.
This forum has been a source of no baloney Mustang info and should remain that way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
#43
OK,,, Let's back up to the sub-frame connector debate. Uni-body cars flex. They flex to the point where the tourque of a built up engine will twist and bend the uni-body. This is why we add our sub-frame connectors, to stiffen the uni-body and eliminate, or at least reduce that flex. Basic phisics would dictate that uni-body flex does indeed account for at least a little bit of shock adsorption. Granted, not nearly as much as "the swingy bits" underneath. Therefore, if we seek to eliminate that flex, we therefore stiffen the ride quality.
 
#47
Bree said:
I'm not even sure what a B cam is?
Click to expand...
Ford Mortorsports (now performance) designed and marketed a line of of camshafts for the then new 5.0 block. Their parts numbers varied by a letter. The B cam should give a lumpy idle. With AC on and the idle about where the factory set it, young ones ask if that’s the Boss motor in my car that is supposed to have a B cam. It’s a bit like a massage chair for everyone at stop lights.
Unlike the B Ford performance springs that are progressive rate, you would not be happy with the B cam now.
 
#48
I think, if my top end ever had a bad day, I would looked into one of those "matched" kits from Edelbrock as a replacement. The cam, heads, and all that comes in a complete top end kit, all matched to work with the performance level you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
#50
I'm not sure I'm sold on hydrolic cam systems. Seems like something subject to failure. I hear a lot of bad things about that. I do however, like the concept (at least on paper anyway) of a roller system.
 
#51
@Bree .
The hydraulic roller cam (you have one in your stang) is the cats azz for street driven cars, everything with a push rod has them now.
As for the B cam, not to be confused with the B cup, is ancient auto parts history, they are the 'new' old school like the 3/4 race cam of the 60s and the RV cam of the 70s.
The top end kits are a good deal and an easy up grade.
 
#53
Bree said:
I think, if my top end ever had a bad day, I would looked into one of those "matched" kits from Edelbrock as a replacement. The cam, heads, and all that comes in a complete top end kit, all matched to work with the performance level you want.
Click to expand...
That’s a safe way to get what you want.
I only have the lumpy bumpy cam as it came with the car when I saved it from the track, and the ported to the max, stock looking combo makes more power than it should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
#54
7991LXnSHO said:
Apologies to Bree for cluttering up your thread.

Mm007, I have the ability and humility to admit when I am wrong and to ask about what I do not know about, and do not double down on spreading false tech info.
In this case, I and the other members are not wrong about springs, shocks, bushings and subframe connectors. Simply put, impact absorbing parts on a solid chassis will ride better than a flexing chassis that will send all the jarring throughout the car.

Based on the amount of vehicles you brag about working on, and with the absolute irrelevance and inaccuracy of your advice in several threads, I doubt the quality of your service and product, just like some McDonalds.
Congratulations on the advanced degree. I still have to deal with Doctorate holding arrogant, clueless people in various fields.

Please be better than them.
This forum has been a source of no baloney Mustang info and should remain that way.
Click to expand...
Doubling down on false tech info what? How to say you are full of sheet nicely?
 
#56
Me and all the engineers at ford
What does it tell you when you go look at a Mustang to, buy that has subframe connectors?
Be honest to yourself when you answer
It means you are looking at a beat POS that is worth little
You gonna cut up a new Cobra worth a ton of money too
Gat a grip
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
#57
manicmechanic007 said:
Me and all the engineers at ford
What does it tell you when you go look at a Mustang to, buy that has subframe connectors?
Be honest to yourself when you answer
It means you are looking at a beat POS that is worth little
You gonna cut up a new Cobra worth a ton of money too
Gat a grip
Click to expand...
One thing is for sure that mustang isn't going to have stress cracking along the roof line or floor pans....... because of the support to the chassis those subframe connectors are providing.

It is amazing in this day and age that there still people who consider tying together a unibody car a horrible idea.. Makes me wonder if your one of those guys who will argue the earth is flat :)

seriously though how does a car without subframe connectors out perform a car with subframe connectors?
 
#59
Now you bring the cars value into the equation, that just muddies the water. Stick to the subject,
how does subframe connectors cause a harsh ride?
And I doubt an automotive engineer/designer will come here and admit they are one.
And there will not be a person on this or any other forum that will convince me that subframe connectors are not beneficial to unitbody cars especially convertibles, I've owned too many of them!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1 user
#60
Ford did add subframe connectors to later SN95s. I believe the convertibles, 03/04 Mach’s and 03/04 cobras got them.

They even had a few TSBs to weld in the OeM subframe connectors on other model 94-04s to solve vibration issues. There’s a thread on this currently on the same page in this subforum right now
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
-Classic-Fit Big Pony Polo shopping online
Replies
0
Views
1K
Regional Forums and Event Information
wvowor09
W
B
Coming in for a landing to run with the stampede...
Replies
4
Views
810
SVT Tech Forum
tvmango
tvmango
Top Bottom
Back
New
Hot
Menu