GMs in IT

[billf]

Of those choices, the Camaro is the cheaper build, by far, and may make the most power.

Also, I agree with Ron on the live rear deal. I don't think there should be a weight break for it. Setup right, it is not, in my opinion, a real detriment. I do not perceive a handling deficit on my car to the best RX7s, 240s, etc.

While I agree that the live axle is not in itself a detriment, the linkages to it can be. Incidentally, the Live Axle is only one of two designs that accomplish all goals in suspension geometry: constant camber regardless of chassis attitude, whether it is acceleration, braking, or cornering. The other is the De Dion. All others offer compromises under some condition, or the other. Incidentally, as we all know, the give-away with the live axle is of course the unsprung weight. While a De Dion has less unsprung weight, it still has more compared to an Independent Suspension.

Back to my statement about linkages... All live axle cars do not have the same linkage setup. The Camaro has the best, with the factory torque arm, as demonstrated in AS. The Mustang has to have the worst, with the four arm setup, which inherently binds when cornering, or under hard acceleration (when it doesn't matter). (For those who don't know, these four arms are controlling all longitudinal, and, lateral movement of the chassis...at least that's what we would like to happen.) All solutions except two, modify the bind, but do not eliminate it...just make it happen at a different time. Any bushing material replacement has the potential of increasing the bind...it cannot be eliminated because of the dissimilar arcs of motion created by three different planes of control.

The two solutions are the aftermarket three link (not four), and the aftermarket torque arm. Unfortunately, the offerings of torque arms for Mustang are enginereed for the 8.8 inch rear, not the 7.5 which the car is produced with. Thus, no aftermarket torque arm for the ITS or ITR V6 Mustang. Also, a Panhard Rod, or Watts Link must be added to provide the lateral location lost when the upper arms are removed...more weight.

Unfortunately, all solutions to the bind for the Mustang will add weight to an already overweight platform. If it ain't broke...you might find that the car can be driven without the need for additional linkages. I did for years with an ITB.

Just my two cents worth after dealing with the identical suspension in my '87 Mustang...7.5 rear also.

Bill

[dickita15]

When I look at the four link in a Mustang I see the ITA/ IT7. The three link conversion on that works pretty good and has already been accepted as IT legal

[Ron Earp]

When I look at the four link in a Mustang I see the ITA/ IT7. The three link conversion on that works pretty good and has already been accepted as IT legal

Yep, and it does a damn good job on those cars and Jeff's TR8. We're designing our own with the 7.5" in the stang and we have access to some CNC milling in ally. Putting it together in CAD we can design a tri-link setup that is very light and strong, thus minimizing the weight addition. Of course the physical pad/attachment to the car is done with steel. We could do a torque arm for the 7.5" but the weight there is pretty high, even with extensive use of ally. I'm also not convinced the torque arm is ideal.

Ford's tri-link on the new stangs is light and it works well I'm told. If we could reliably weld bosses on the 7.5" cast housing it'd be ideal, but that piece wouldn't be easy to attach to after the fact.