Still killing the tires!!!!

nitro717 wrote:

yellowhorse7 wrote:The concern is that with the relocated uppers, you would need to raise the rear ride height enough to level out the control arm.

so your really just lowering the rear of the lower control arm without drilling any holes or welding on any brackets, by raising eveything else?

By changing tires size it will move the rear hole on the LCA height up or down. I think what yh7 is getting at is to move the rear of the car up or down to get the LCA level as that is an ideal starting point. From there you adjust the UCA's to achieve the IC you are looking for. At least that is the standard starting point most types of rear suspensions use.

jasonf wrote:

nitro717 wrote:

yellowhorse7 wrote:The concern is that with the relocated uppers, you would need to raise the rear ride height enough to level out the control arm.

so your really just lowering the rear of the lower control arm without drilling any holes or welding on any brackets, by raising eveything else?

By changing tires size it will move the rear hole on the LCA height up or down. I think what yh7 is getting at is to move the rear of the car up or down to get the LCA level as that is an ideal starting point. From there you adjust the UCA's to achieve the IC you are looking for. At least that is the standard starting point most types of rear suspensions use.

Yeah that is what I am figuring out. I don't want to drop tire diameter so I will have to make a bracket to drop the rear of the LCA. But By doing so that is going to shorten the IC so I will then have to change the location of the rear UCA mount to get to the desired IC. Which is now my question, what is the desired IC?

soupbean wrote:

Yeah that is what I am figuring out. I don't want to drop tire diameter so I will have to make a bracket to drop the rear of the LCA. But By doing so that is going to shorten the IC so I will then have to change the location of the rear UCA mount to get to the desired IC. Which is now my question, what is the desired IC?

I was actually referring to Lew's post but that's cool. I thought at one time someone already made a lower bracket for that exact reason. Hopefully one of the drag guys will chime in.


Edit: I googled it and there is a bunch of info out there.

mustang rear LCA relocation bracket

jasonf wrote:

soupbean wrote:

Yeah that is what I am figuring out. I don't want to drop tire diameter so I will have to make a bracket to drop the rear of the LCA. But By doing so that is going to shorten the IC so I will then have to change the location of the rear UCA mount to get to the desired IC. Which is now my question, what is the desired IC?

I was actually referring to Lew's post but that's cool. I thought at one time someone already made a lower bracket for that exact reason. Hopefully one of the drag guys will chime in.


Edit: I googled it and there is a bunch of info out there.

mustang rear LCA relocation bracket

Cool thanks

jasonf wrote:

nitro717 wrote:

yellowhorse7 wrote:The concern is that with the relocated uppers, you would need to raise the rear ride height enough to level out the control arm.

so your really just lowering the rear of the lower control arm without drilling any holes or welding on any brackets, by raising eveything else?

By changing tires size it will move the rear hole on the LCA height up or down. I think what yh7 is getting at is to move the rear of the car up or down to get the LCA level as that is an ideal starting point. From there you adjust the UCA's to achieve the IC you are looking for. At least that is the standard starting point most types of rear suspensions use.

Ding ding. Winner

soupbean wrote:

jasonf wrote:

nitro717 wrote:

yellowhorse7 wrote:The concern is that with the relocated uppers, you would need to raise the rear ride height enough to level out the control arm.

so your really just lowering the rear of the lower control arm without drilling any holes or welding on any brackets, by raising eveything else?

By changing tires size it will move the rear hole on the LCA height up or down. I think what yh7 is getting at is to move the rear of the car up or down to get the LCA level as that is an ideal starting point. From there you adjust the UCA's to achieve the IC you are looking for. At least that is the standard starting point most types of rear suspensions use.

Yeah that is what I am figuring out. I don't want to drop tire diameter so I will have to make a bracket to drop the rear of the LCA. But By doing so that is going to shorten the IC so I will then have to change the location of the rear UCA mount to get to the desired IC. Which is now my question, what is the desired IC?

Team Z makes the brackets. So do a few others. Typically, I've had god luck with 46-51". Here's the catch though.....these are just numbers and they are just a starting point. Some cars love a short IC and love to leave with the wheels up. Every one of them is different. Don't get frusterated. It will take some trial and error.

http://autofabcart.net/ford88housing-boltonadjustablecontrolarmbrackets.aspx

I found on Friday before Friday night testing that raising the rear coil overs to max ride height of 15 3/4" and changing my pinion angle to -1* gave me an IC of 55" with the CG being 56" and also dead leveled my LCA. I was excited about this thinking this would make a huge difference but NO. Same deal. Will not get that "initial" hook. Spins about 1/2 a round or more then grabs. I even tried throwing 65 lbs in the trunk but same out come. To the chassis shop to drop off the car I go I guess...

^^^Was this w the 200lb front springs or 150s?

dirt_worker wrote:^^^Was this w the 200lb front springs or 150s?

Still with the 200's as the new springs didn't make it in time. I just don't see a front spring rate change fixing this...

convertor to tight?

dfree383 wrote:convertor to tight?

I mentioned this earlier as well. Car doesn't have enough wheel speed.


And those 200 lb springs dont help...

yellowhorse7 wrote:

dfree383 wrote:convertor to tight?

I mentioned this earlier as well. Car doesn't have enough wheel speed.


And those 200 lb springs dont help...

I'll post a vid in real time to see if you think there is not enough wheel speed...

I don't think it does. Seems to not be throwing much weight at all.

It does make sense that the same converter would act a little tighter behind the 514 than it would behind the 557. It's too bad the car doesn't have nitrous so you could throw more power at it just to see what happens.

It was the same WITH the 557. Even when I bought the car with the 514 and before Lenny went through the converter for the 557, it's never launched happy. Converter flashed 5200 with the 557 and about 4800 with the 514 now. It flashed 5500 with the 514 before I sent it to Lenny to prepare for the 557.

DILLIGASDAVE wrote:It does make sense that the same converter would act a little tighter behind the 514 than it would behind the 557. It's too bad the car doesn't have nitrous so you could throw more power at it just to see what happens.

It had a 150 shot on the 514 when I got it and would blow the tires off.

soupbean wrote:

DILLIGASDAVE wrote:It does make sense that the same converter would act a little tighter behind the 514 than it would behind the 557. It's too bad the car doesn't have nitrous so you could throw more power at it just to see what happens.

It had a 150 shot on the 514 when I got it and would blow the tires off.

Although it did have a 4.56 gear back then...

Converter too tight............... It loads the engine right after the hit. And gains a bunch of rpm before the shift.

my car is set up close to yours .But I have a c6 with trans break had the same problem.Rear was twisted .130 60 ft now ,with mickey 275 pros or 10.5/29 same .Also car pulled to left like yours.

Did you ever get this sorted out?

We have a local guy having the same issues.

Ammosteve wrote:Did you ever get this sorted out?

We have a local guy having the same issues.

Yes. Ended up changing front spring rate to 130 on the strange single adjustables, 110 on the rear qa1 double adjustables, converter change, and new tires. All seperately. The convertor was way too tight as stated above. With the 1000hp 598 was only flashing around 4. Now flashing around 6100. That helped alot but the biggest difference was new tires. Now that I look back, when I started having issues after the tires started getting up there in passes, I put on new tires and still had issues. Never thought about it being the tires since they were new. But after researching, new tires don't mean they are right. After changing this and changing that, when I again put a new set of tires on, it started hooking again. MT 3055s 10.5s. I got a set out of a bad batch I guess???