My setup..Steeda Lower Control Arms..and Adjustable Panhard Bar and Steeda Lite rear Springs...Stock front Springs....what else if anything do i need....?
Upper Control Arm WHY???
- Thread starter Jim Vaccaro
- Start date
SicShelby09
Banned
The upper is the part that controls the axle twist, and is all you would need to replace to stop the wheel hop. The other parts are nice to firm up the rear, but the golden part that will stop the hop is and always has been the upper. The lowers dont do much but stop the axle from dancing forward and backward. And the panhard stops it from swaying left to right. The upper controls the twist. Plus the upper is the hardest part of the rear to install.
The UPR ones come with a better mount... Huge difference between the stock and UPR mount
SicShelby09
Banned
Anything with rubber bushings. aka, the stock setup.
Those with polyurethane bushings.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatwat
The Roush billet lowers and Roush uca with mount. They both use much stiffer rubber bushings than stock. I have this setup on my Brembo car which had some nasty wheel hop from the factory, once I put the Roush setup on the hop was completely eliminated. One thing to note though is for the 11+ cars Roush does not offer a uca and mount for stock ride height cars. Their stop the hop pack is only for cars lowered 1". I found this out after the fact and when I called Roush they confirmed that it is only for lowered cars on the 11+ Mustangs. They do not indicate this on their website, they only note that it is intended for cars with their Stage 2 suspension kit. Not a problem as I lowered the car with P springs anyway. Absolutely zero wheel hop or increased NVH.
By the way I have had numerous lca's on my previous S197 and everyone of them including Steeda tubular (poly bushing) and Metco (poly/delrin bushings) and they all clunked and/or increased the road noise even using brand new Ford bolts.
Last edited:
I would suggest a Steeda 555-4109. This is an adjustable upper 3rd link with a HD adjustable bracket. This also comes with our 3 piece bushing to help improve the NVH. Let me know if I can get you one of these. I try to take care of SVTP guys.
As for the clunking, typically when you add stiffer UCA's and LCA's, the clunking sound is from the factory 2 piece drive shaft. These have very loose tolerances from the factory that hide in the soft factory bushings. The best remedy for this seems to be a 1 piece drive shaft. Given that the tolerances differ from car to car sometimes this is not needed after stiffening up the rear, and some cars from the factory need this, that have all stock rear end components.
Hope this helps!
As for the clunking, typically when you add stiffer UCA's and LCA's, the clunking sound is from the factory 2 piece drive shaft. These have very loose tolerances from the factory that hide in the soft factory bushings. The best remedy for this seems to be a 1 piece drive shaft. Given that the tolerances differ from car to car sometimes this is not needed after stiffening up the rear, and some cars from the factory need this, that have all stock rear end components.
Hope this helps!
I understand where the clunking comes from and adding any bushing other than a rubber one will increase the noise transmission. It's not the arms or bushings causing the noise it's the driveline slop but stiffer bushing material is the cause of the noise transmitting through the cabin. The S197's suspension is connected to the cabin and adding stiffer poly, delrin or spherical bushings will transmit the noise directly through the interior. The only way to have a stock like nvh is with the Roush setup or like someone mentioned stock setup. If your not pushing serious horsepower and cutting 1.3 60' times you should never have to worry about blowing out the stiffer rubber bushings.
Last edited:
I have the Roush UCA and billet LCAs on my base GT, which is not lowered. Zero wheel hop, zero added NVH and no issues at essentially stock ride height(I have CJ rear springs). All bolts were torqued with the suspension loaded with no binding. I can see with the different pivot point of the UCA, the instant center is much improved. If the UCA changed the pinion angle, it certainly wasn't noticeable on my car so I'm curious why Roush would not recommend it for stock ride-height cars. Maybe out of the box, the UCA pivot bolt is torqued for a lowered car, but that is easily fixed when installing.
Just sayin' it works for me!
Mike
Just sayin' it works for me!
Mike
Uncle Jimmy, go with the steeda upper to match the lowers. Works great for me.
Did you compare it next to the stock arm and mount by any chance? If not then do so and you'll see the pivot point centerline is different on the Roush arm. With stock ride height springs that bushing is binding and not set to where it should be for static ride height. You can fix that by loosening the pivot point bolt at ride height and re-torquing it to remove the bind. That bushing will wear at a much higher rate if you just install it in a stock ride height 11+ Mustang out of the box. This is not like the 05-10 cars where Roush sets it up for stock ride height. Besides that, you would not notice any issue with it binding except in extreme driving conditions or unless the bushing failed. I took the time and called Roush when I opened my box and saw a big white sticker that said lowered on it. The part number for the arm also ends with an "L". I took the time to speak with them about the difference from the 05-10 & the 11+ setups and how to properly put it on a lowered and stock ride height car. The intention of this arm and bracket are for lowered vehicles, will it work on a stock ride height car? Yes, but that is not it's intent.
Last edited:
He mentioned that the IC was different, so I would say he noticed.
There shouldn't be any binding if he torqued it loaded.
Exactly. Thanks. I re-torqued properly with the suspension loaded.
Actually he didn't mention anything about adjusting the preload on the pivot point. All he said is he torqued the mount and axle end bolts with the suspension loaded and no binding. Meaning he's assuming that because he torqued it with the suspension loaded it didn't introduce binding into the upper arm he installed. Understanding that under normal circumstances that would be true but the 11+ Roush upper arm and bracket is setup for a 1" dropped vehicle therefore altering the pivot point, centerline & pinion angle. The bracket is thicker than stock and the front spacer is shorter than stock. Combine that with the altered pivot point centerline and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if you put this onto a stock ride height vehicle the pivot point bushing will be binding if torqued at (stock) static ride height. You obviously don't know this or it would click in your head what I'm talking about but the upper arm bushing and bolt are pre-torqued by Roush from the factory. If you loosen that bolt and retorque it at static ride height then you will remove the bind that bushing will be under when put it on a stock ride height car. He also mentioned that he noticed the pivot point was different and the instant center was improved. That's all good and well except he never mentioned anything about loosening the bushing bolt and retourqing it under static ride height. Which I'm surehe didn't but will come back and act like he did...blah blah blah. There is no way you would see the bushing binding anyhow by eye.
Read above, no one is saying you didn't torque the suspension properly. Maybe you should listen instead of acting like you know it all. You WILL introduce bind into the Roush bushing on a stock ride height car if you do not loosen and retorque the bolt already preloaded from Roush. Don't believe me just call Roush and chat them up about the differences with the 11+ UCA/bracket.
op:
Whatever, doesn't matter to me it's his car. If he wants to do sh*t half ass, that's his problem. The original question I was answering is about nvh, and the Roush setup is by far the closest to stock you can get.
Users who are viewing this thread
