Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
The Terminator
Suspension Modifications
Spring rate????
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Stew Stau" data-source="post: 15621229" data-attributes="member: 186254"><p>I know this is an old thread but just in case someone non-technically minded finds it in a search, I'd like to correct a misunderstanding.</p><p></p><p>The rear spring rate on a '79-'04 Mustang is so low compared with the fronts for two reasons. </p><p></p><p>A - the rear roll centre is ridiculously high (16") because it is set by the two UCAs. The higher the rear roll centre, the lower the spring rate</p><p></p><p>B - The stock Mustang 4-link has terrible binding under articulation. This means the control arm bushings effectively act as springs and add to the overall rate. </p><p></p><p>This binding is also why the stock mustang rear end has such bleeding awful handling characteristics and was replaced by a 3-link in the S197. </p><p></p><p>If the live axle '79-'04 Mustang is fitted with a bind-free rear suspension with a lower rear roll centre, whether a Torque Arm (Griggs, MM, GM F-body) or a 3-Link (EVM, S197, NASCAR, etc), then the spring rate balance will change. A stock spring will be way too soft and the back end will hop like crazy.</p><p></p><p>For example:</p><p></p><p>Stock '87-'93: 425-530 Front, 200-300 Rear</p><p></p><p>'87-'93 with TA/3-link: 425-530 Front, 325-430 Rear (ish)</p><p></p><p>If you look at an S197 ('05-'13), you'll see spring rates that are much more balanced, similar to the TA/3-link example above (although much lower overall due to having a much higher wheel rate in general).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stew Stau, post: 15621229, member: 186254"] I know this is an old thread but just in case someone non-technically minded finds it in a search, I'd like to correct a misunderstanding. The rear spring rate on a '79-'04 Mustang is so low compared with the fronts for two reasons. A - the rear roll centre is ridiculously high (16") because it is set by the two UCAs. The higher the rear roll centre, the lower the spring rate B - The stock Mustang 4-link has terrible binding under articulation. This means the control arm bushings effectively act as springs and add to the overall rate. This binding is also why the stock mustang rear end has such bleeding awful handling characteristics and was replaced by a 3-link in the S197. If the live axle '79-'04 Mustang is fitted with a bind-free rear suspension with a lower rear roll centre, whether a Torque Arm (Griggs, MM, GM F-body) or a 3-Link (EVM, S197, NASCAR, etc), then the spring rate balance will change. A stock spring will be way too soft and the back end will hop like crazy. For example: Stock '87-'93: 425-530 Front, 200-300 Rear '87-'93 with TA/3-link: 425-530 Front, 325-430 Rear (ish) If you look at an S197 ('05-'13), you'll see spring rates that are much more balanced, similar to the TA/3-link example above (although much lower overall due to having a much higher wheel rate in general). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
The Terminator
Suspension Modifications
Spring rate????
Top