When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
So if you're all about getting everything right, then that steel-center 9" Ford axlehousing is a fail. At least run a Currie aluminum-center version with a Strange aluminum 12-bolt third-member. If that doesn't fit the budget, the aluminum-center Dana 44 from a Jeep is even lighter, more than strong enough for your build, and uses the same guts as the Viper.
But if you want a steel center, the Ford 8" is lighter, and still strong enough.
What do you think you're gaining by running a reverse Satchell, which is nothing more than an upside-down 'Fox"-chassis Mustang triangulated 4-link, which sucks for anything but drag racing, over a 3-link plus Watt's link?
Being arrogant is ok when you're over 40 and actually have life experience to back up your schooling, but building your ideaology ( spelling? ) will have you driving in denial. Being in your 20s is like that. Eventually you learn that whatever you did accomplish with that build didn't make it a McLaren P1-killer, nor will it make you the next big name in custom car building.
When I get pushy, I'm trying to save others from repeating my past mistakes and regrets. Pushing something just because it is theoretically correct is a whole different matter. Like stiff springs with corrected suspension geometry. It does help for road-race tracks and autocross, but for a grand tourer, it sucks. BTDT. These cars already have the advantage of loading the chassis through a coilover. This allows more wheel rate with less spring rate, as opposed to something like a '79-'85 Mustang or Camaro.
If you're willing to invest a lot in an old production car to make an extreme performer, the better starting point would have been an '84-up 'vette, or at least an '84-'89 300ZX.
These cars can be made to handle decently, but the best, wisest use of them is drag racing. For anything else, start with something else.
I'll let the SirLaughs respond to most of what you wrote but with respect to the suspension design selected here - it is not at all simply an upside down Fox Mustang.
For one thing the roll center is at the bottom of the diff not the top like it is on a Fox Mustang. second, this suspension design has been used successfully in National level SCCA Solo (Frank Stagnaro CP Mustang), Trans Am (Roush Capris/Mustangs ran this setup on street courses like DesMoines) and in SCCA Club Racing. A number of us building E Production/Super Touring cars discussed this design as alternatives to the three link and 4 link setup that are the norm on these cars. We had difficulty fitting a 3" exhaust around the lower tubes however. I will be watching to see SirLaugh's solution.
It is a beautifully simple design and It imposes none of the space issues encountered with a Panhard Rod or a Watts link.
So if you're all about getting everything right, then that steel-center 9" Ford axlehousing is a fail. At least run a Currie aluminum-center version with a Strange aluminum 12-bolt third-member. If that doesn't fit the budget, the aluminum-center Dana 44 from a Jeep is even lighter, more than strong enough for your build, and uses the same guts as the Viper.
But if you want a steel center, the Ford 8" is lighter, and still strong enough.
What do you think you're gaining by running a reverse Satchell, which is nothing more than an upside-down 'Fox"-chassis Mustang triangulated 4-link, which sucks for anything but drag racing, over a 3-link plus Watt's link?
Being arrogant is ok when you're over 40 and actually have life experience to back up your schooling, but building your ideaology ( spelling? ) will have you driving in denial. Being in your 20s is like that. Eventually you learn that whatever you did accomplish with that build didn't make it a McLaren P1-killer, nor will it make you the next big name in custom car building.
When I get pushy, I'm trying to save others from repeating my past mistakes and regrets. Pushing something just because it is theoretically correct is a whole different matter. Like stiff springs with corrected suspension geometry. It does help for road-race tracks and autocross, but for a grand tourer, it sucks. BTDT. These cars already have the advantage of loading the chassis through a coilover. This allows more wheel rate with less spring rate, as opposed to something like a '79-'85 Mustang or Camaro.
If you're willing to invest a lot in an old production car to make an extreme performer, the better starting point would have been an '84-up 'vette, or at least an '84-'89 300ZX.
These cars can be made to handle decently, but the best, wisest use of them is drag racing. For anything else, start with something else.
I took a lot of design cues from Winfield Coachman of Coachman Performance (Elwood) when designing a rear suspension setup. It's a Toyota 8", which by all accounts is stronger than any domestic axle of similar sizing and weight. Decades of road racing experience from Paul Yaw of Injector dynamics, Mike Shaffer of Shaffer's Offroad, my buddy Orlando, who's done Baja and KOH more times than I can think of, Abel Ibarra who's world renown for rotary engine development and knows a thing or two about vehicle design, my fabricator, and good friend Tony Ruiz, who's been doing custom 914s, e30s, offroading rigs, etc. There are so many great minds that I speak to on a weekly basis... I didn't go into this blindly.
Currie or Similar Ford 9" - Look, I dealt with these axles when I worked at Lucra Cars (alongside CRB Fabrication) down in San Diego. They are WAY overkill for a 2500lb car. If a Dana 44HD C4 Corvette rear end with 2.7 FD ratio and 335 NT01s can handle 700hp day in, and day out, on a 2200lb car, then this Toyota 8" can EASILY handle whatever I throw at it.
Schooling in itself didn't bring me here. I don't learn well in class and my skill sets (one being the ability to find interconnectivity of varying backgrounds) aren't utilized. I do my best learning alone with books of my choosing, and connecting with people who I can share information with.
That being said, I do have an air of arrogance. I worked my ******* *** off to get this done and to simplify things. I even went as far as laying it all out on this site for people to replicate if they so wish to.
What you're missing out on is the finer details. If you've seen any of the recent photos and videos, you'll find that it maximizes the space I had available to work with, while only taking up unseen space inside the cabin (which my storage bins will still work as intended and I'll still have room for battery, amp, etc in that location). Dealing with NVH there won't be as hard as you'd think, and the whole car will be structurally sound. The geometry is the big player in Solid Axle Design. I have my roll center exactly where I want it, very minimal anti-squat (because this IS NOT a drag racing vehicle, and I want my suspension to do suspension work and my links to do location work), and most important of all, my pinion angle changes fractions of a degree per inch of travel, which is the #1 downside of the factory rear suspension.
If you don't like it, that's fine. If you don't like me, that's just fine as well. Can't please em all.
What I'm stumped on is how you're not appreciating the dedication and development time and money I've put into this vehicle. I'm confused as to why you think they aren't good for gran touring. The build quality is excellent, glass is thick, it's the perfect balance of lightness and rigidity in all the right places, etc. It may not be YOUR dream car, but it is one of mine. I'm just happy to share my experiences with those of similar passions.
I'll let the SirLaughs respond to most of what you wrote but with respect to the suspension design selected here - it is not at all simply an upside down Fox Mustang.
For one thing the roll center is at the bottom of the diff not the top like it is on a Fox Mustang. second, this suspension design has been used successfully in National level SCCA Solo (Frank Stagnaro CP Mustang), Trans Am (Roush Capris/Mustangs ran this setup on street courses like DesMoines) and in SCCA Club Racing. A number of us building E Production/Super Touring cars discussed this design as alternatives to the three link and 4 link setup that are the norm on these cars. We had difficulty fitting a 3" exhaust around the lower tubes however. I will be watching to see SirLaugh's solution.
It is a beautifully simple design and It imposes none of the space issues encountered with a Panhard Rod or a Watts link.
Keep it simple, stupid.
Only took about 60 designs to land on this...ohhh the numbers.
If you have a chance, check out the most recent video on my YouTube page and how I was able to package everything. REALLY nailed it, I thought.
Well, I've now reworked two 1997 Dodge Vipers and can tell you I would never want a Mopar part on this car.
Originally Posted by economiser
What do you think you're gaining by running a reverse Satchell, which is nothing more than an upside-down 'Fox"-chassis Mustang triangulated 4-link, which sucks for anything but drag racing, over a 3-link plus Watt's link?
Well, packaging is a big deal.
I can see you used a worm-tooth hose clamp and washers on your 3-link with the wrong size heims and swedge tube. Assuming you went with a quality 1/2" heim joint, that's still only 12k lbs load rating. (7/16" is 9k lbs load rating) I'd likely be able to break that setup with 100whp in mountain driving on 200 TW tires.
Did you model your geometry using this 3-Link Calculator? 4x4 Excel Spresheets What figures did you aim for? Anti-Squat? Roll Center? Pinion Angle Change?
What's the stroke on your dampers? Did you use the model to see what maximum travel is doing as far as Anti-Squat, Roll Center, and Pinion Angle? Besides elongation of wheelbase, was there another reason for the further-aft solid axle? Are you worried about bumpstop deformation since it's not true'd to the chassis? What about the lack of a misalignment spacer on your "Watt's Link"?
I did end up using the 79-04 Ford Mustang Rear Suspension for my car. If you looked back at my thread at all where I clearly stated Toyota 8" Solid Axle Swap and 5x114.3 Conversion, you would see the 6.15" Stroke, Double Adjustable Varishock Coilovers. If you're really wondering why Mustangs don't handle well, maybe you should drop in those dimensions into a 4-Link calculator and get back to me.
So let me get this straight... Just because you weren't able to get a 4-Link to work for you, you're saying it's a crappy option? Did you fix the factory pinion angle issue? Do you even understand what these figures do to the vehicle and it's handling dynamics? How many miles a week do you drive aggressively in the tight canyons of Utah? Just because many racers who have fully gutted interiors and 10+pt cages have 3-Link setups (which they should tie into the cage), doesn't mean it's the only good option, or that it's suited for everyone.
Whether it's a Watt's Link or Panhard bar, you do realize you're getting a lateral arc of travel that the entire axle moves in as you compress and droop the suspension, right? In other words, your axle shifts left to right as your rear suspension moves vertically. Those setups are inferior to a triangulated link setup. Adds weight in the wrong spot.
Weight - So, even with all the bracing on this car, I might have added 50lbs of steel to the bottom of the chassis, centered, and slightly aft. Well, when you consider the V-Mount adds fore-weight, I need more weight in the aft to dial it in. You wouldn't understand corner balancing or safety with weight management though, because your battery location is about as dangerous as it gets. Why you didn't put that into a smaller metal box that could have been welded to the floor (Ultimas are sealed cell anyways) and put it in one of your storage bin areas (lower and safer in the case of an accident) is beyond me. Even just put it in the passenger corner to balance your weight out...
Originally Posted by economiser
Eventually you learn that whatever you did accomplish with that build didn't make it a McLaren P1-killer, nor will it make you the next big name in custom car building.
I'm going to tell you a secret... If I wanted an EASY project, I would have hacked in an LS swap and pulled entire front and rear subframes from an S2000 or Rx8. Utilizing a McPherson Strut front end and a Solid Axle rear end is the entire point of this as an engineering experiment. Will it be perfect? No. But I won't be cutting corners in the build design and implementation. I planned a 10 year build, something you couldn't fathom with your 40yrs of wisdom. My design parameters will easily be met, and a Ferrari 599 killer is what you're looking at, buddy.
Here's a list of cars that I've built or tuned over the years (I'm 26 now):
1976 Datsun 280z
1976 Triumph Spitfire
1994 Acura Integra
2005 Audi S4
2x 1997 Dodge Viper GTS
5x NA Miatas
3x NB Miatas
3x FC Rx7s
2x FD Rx7s
2x Honda S2000s
3x More Acura Integras
1x Acura RSX-S
1x Porsche 914
1x Porsche 356 Replica with EJ25 swap
12(+) x Lucra Roadsters LC470s
1x Porsche Boxter
3x Subaru WRX STi
1x Subaru Legacy
2x BMW M3 e36
1x BMW M3 e46
1x BMW M3 e30
1x 2016 Mustang GT (S550 Chassis)
5x S13 240sx
2x S14 240sx
2x MKIII Supras
Various other trucks and compact cars which aren't very important. But hey, I don't know how to differentiate vehicle setups and geometry is all the same...
Originally Posted by economiser
Like stiff springs with corrected suspension geometry. It does help for road-race tracks and autocross, but for a grand tourer, it sucks. BTDT. These cars already have the advantage of loading the chassis through a coilover. This allows more wheel rate with less spring rate, as opposed to something like a '79-'85 Mustang or Camaro.
At this point, you entirely prove my point about you not knowing what suspension links actually do for a solid axle. Let me give you a hint....They locate it. So with ZERO Anti-Squat, what do you think happens? The world doesn't end, that's for sure. What happens is that ALL of the vertical forces acting on the rear wheels are transferred into the suspension, and ALL of the horizontal forces (if you watch the vehicle pass in front of you from right to left) are transferred into the links.
How does 100% Anti-Squat work? Well, instead of the suspension doing it's job of absorbing vertical movement (bumps), part of that energy is transferred through the link design (the axle locators) which actually shocks the chassis (high Noise, Vibration, and Harshness, as well as misalignment of the axle itself). Guess what though, the suspension is less likely to travel...because for some reason, some moron thought travel was a bad thing, even after bumpsteer was understood and improved upon greatly.
What does that do to spring rate selection? Well, if you have more anti-squat, you don't need as much spring in the rear of the car, because now the links are activated AS YOUR SPRINGS. Ouch, that wasn't smart, now was it? So 200lb springs with corrected geometry are probably perfect for a COMFORTABLE setup because my anti-squat is damn near 10% at ride height.
More wheel rate with less spring rate? I think you're talking about lateral location of the coilover here. So if the springs are located at the widest parts of the axle, you can run less rate and have less deflection than if they were near the middle of the car. Whooptie doo, that's not saying much. Your wheels/tires need space, and just because the rear fenders have 11.5" of space doesn't mean you can fit a 11.5" tire in there. The axle itself, even on a perfect system, pivots around the ROLL CENTER, in which the sweep of the tire effectively cambers it, taking up at least 3/4" in either direction. A safe bet would be 10" wide tire maximum in rear, which is 255.
Originally Posted by economiser
These cars can be made to handle decently, but the best, wisest use of them is drag racing. For anything else, start with something else.
How did you ever expect to get 50MPG out of a **** V6 and without extensive aerodynamics modifications? You'd lose all the practicality of the car when it gains 10ft of tail and nose.
I'm done with you. Get out of here.
Last edited by RGHTBrainDesign; 11-22-16 at 03:20 AM.
So, let's turn the page here a bit and go further into the design details...
This wedge has a LOT more going on with it than some might notice. First off, and most importantly, it's designed to still clear the factory storage bin enclosure metal. Yep, these beautiful wedges will be HIDDEN AWAY.
Next, once the crossbar is installed and everything tidied up, the wedge and cross bar(s) will support my Phoenix Gold Elite.5 amplifier (or if I decide to run something else, that will go on the top there). Adjustments and access to the connectors on the side of the amplifier would be easy, seeing as I have two huge openings (where the bins are going to be) to get to them. The bins themselves will be cut and re-stitched to leave clearance for things.
The shape in the base of the wedge is for ease of wiring. 0ga or larger off of the 270A alternator and batteries will be relocated to this bin area. So amplifier, batteries, fuel pump controller, alarm, relays, circuit breaker box, etc will all be housed here in a low-profile manner (so I still have storage room, of course).
Make sure you verify what the restrictor is and/or weather it's in the adapter fitting or in the turbo itself.
The turbo has it restricted itself, and Borg Warner states that for feed lines over 18" long (mine is ~22") to go up to -6AN. That works out really well because of how I did the rest of my block. Easy peasy.
Welding up the Axle Housing, then Truing the Axle, then welding on the back truss, then truing again, then final assembly w/ brakes and axles, and paint.
Serious question, why did you not extend the pocket all the way to the floor? From an engineering point of view it would help stiffen everything up.
So I can route electronics there (270A Alternator needs some serious battery cables, and battery is located in this storage bin area). The strength in the floor there isn't really that much anyways, it's mostly gained by boxing in the 2"x 2" square tube (0.083" wall) and all the MIG work.
So I can route electronics there (270A Alternator needs some serious battery cables, and battery is located in this storage bin area). The strength in the floor there isn't really that much anyways, it's mostly gained by boxing in the 2"x 2" square tube (0.083" wall) and all the MIG work.
Fair enough, the upper links see much less force than the lowers anyway.
Either way, I do appreciate the input and the comment about "hacks". That cracked me up, Andrew.
My buddy is yelling at me for not TIGing the entire housing and I'm scratching my head as to why... Just a waste of time (expensive) and definitely not stronger. The MIG is the right choice here.
Either way, I do appreciate the input and the comment about "hacks". That cracked me up, Andrew.
My buddy is yelling at me for not TIGing the entire housing and I'm scratching my head as to why... Just a waste of time (expensive) and definitely not stronger. The MIG is the right choice here.
Lol anytime. I can pretty easily figure out from a few pictures if someone is building a car the right or wrong way.
If you have a skilled welder and use good filler, the TIG could be stronger and lighter. But really it just looks cooler. Since you aren't doing the work yourself, MIG will be fine for what you are doing.
I never realized you were in school or maybe I just missed it. What are you doing?
Well, I finished up a minor in Environmental Engineering at Chico State and had to move home to find a job that would pay enough for me to continue college. I took a break to save money, spent a year in San Diego working at Lucra Cars, and headed home to San Jose in which I was able to find a job working in San Francisco on the weekends. I'm now continuing my Mechanical Engineering Degree at San Jose State University (Chico was a better college for the way that I learn). I've used this car as a test bench, as well as my daily driver (94 Integra) to start up my own company, RGHTBrainDesign - Engineering Firm.
While it's still illegitimate in legal standings, I help people from across the country on a weekly basis, and in my area, I do suspension tuning and calibration services when time allows.
There isn't any time. Full time ME is tough as is, and working on the weekends makes it harder still. Countless all-nighters this year... It's all worth it though.
So...once I finalize the accessory/belt setup, and new turbo setup, I'll be looking again to Mike @ Bell Intercoolers for a new design. Really hoping to cram some MASSIVE intercooler under the hood...but clearance and heat locations are everything.
Currently, I have a 24" x 5.8" x 3.5" Core (with Air Diverted/Divided Endtanks) flowing 1600CFM with ~ 0.1psi pressure loss. It was a PERFECT setup for the T04B V-Trim setup that I built, but has no chance in keeping the 9174 based setup dialed.
Frontal Area = 24" x 5.8" = 139.2 sq. in.
Internal Volume = 24" x 5.8" x 3.5" = 487.2 cu.in. (487.2 converted to cu. ft. = 0.281944 cu.ft)
Lag Time = [Internal Volume / Flow Rate] x 2
[0.281944 cu. ft. / 1600 cu. ft./min] x 2 x 60s/min = 0.021s
Newly proposed dimensions (not releasing them yet) will be 2100CFM with a surface area MUCH larger. Damn it. So much $$$$. We all make mistakes.
Frontal Area = 336 sq. in.
Internal Volume = 1512 cu. in. (0.875 cu. ft.)
Lag Time = 0.05s
Dahmmm.
Last edited by RGHTBrainDesign; 12-06-16 at 12:31 AM.
11-18-16, 02:05 PM
It's all worth it though. 
We all make mistakes.