3rd Gen 4 link Setup - Need it legal to keep up with the Fords

[BryanL]

Looks like someone has finally come up with a nice kit to bring the 3rd gen up to snuff with the factory Ford 4 link setup. Definitely need to submit this for an RCR this offseason.

http://www.detroitspeed.com/1982-1992-F-Body-Products/041721-QUADRALink-conversion-kit.html

[ShadowBolt]

If we could get our uppers straight to get rid of the bind also I agree.

JJ

[mach1]

lol ford guys want torque arm, fbody guys want 4 link

[Pranav]

We should have a "trade" system. Each Mustang that runs a torque arm must account for a camaro running a 4 link.

Superior platform, car parity, and so forth...

[Trublu]

The last thing I want is a torq arm

[Fbody383]

The track bar features DSE cross-axis pivot bushings. Upper and lower links feature DSE “Swivel-Link™” technology.See, Mustangs be slow because they don't have cross-axis pivot bushings.

[mach1]

See, Mustangs be slow because they don't have cross-axis pivot bushings.

Fancy talk for a Spherical bushing??

[AI#97]

Bryan, that setup is so they can install 345mm rear tires and hook on a drag strip...not for cornering.

Also, how is there bind in the mustang 4 link if you have sphericals at all points? The bind in the stock bushings is their inability to deflect in more than the single axls. Spherical bushings can't bind in that manner.....is this just more corner-carver bullshit everyone spreads like gosphel?

[ShadowBolt]

Bryan, that setup is so they can install 345mm rear tires and hook on a drag strip...not for cornering.

Also, how is there bind in the mustang 4 link if you have sphericals at all points? The bind in the stock bushings is their inability to deflect in more than the single axls. Spherical bushings can't bind in that manner.....is this just more corner-carver bullshit everyone spreads like gosphel?

Craig runs sphericals in all four locations and he has made it work and he is very fast running this set-up. I spent a lot of time on the phone with Jack from Maximum Motorsports and he says it will make tons of bind running all sphericals. He said they made a model and it did not work.


JJ

[BryanL]

Bryan, that setup is so they can install 345mm rear tires and hook on a drag strip...not for cornering.


I would disagree. Their setup is for handling-they don't do anything for the drag strip. Their suspension focus is for road course, autocross, street driving. They have made their Quadralink for older cars for years for the Pro Touring crowd and autocross events. Same thing here by getting rid of the torque arm.

[Pranav]

Is there really a need for a 4 link setup on third gens? If you're gonna change anything makes more sense to ditch the TA for a 3 link setup more than anything.

Some things don't need changing...

[ShadowBolt]

Everything I have seen from Detroit Speed has been very nice stuff.


JJ

[mach1]

Also, how is there bind in the mustang 4 link if you have sphericals at all points? The bind in the stock bushings is their inability to deflect in more than the single axls. Spherical bushings can't bind in that manner.....is this just more corner-carver bullshit everyone spreads like gosphel?

I have also tested this, bind city on my tests, because the upper arms are angled and center the axle, if the upper arms can't get "longer" or "shorter" it will bind.
I pulled the shocks and springs and moved the axle through it's range of motion to test this, I had sphericals on 3 of the 4 arms, the last arm had a spherical on one end and nothing on the other, the "length" changed significantly through it's range of motion.

[Suck fumes]

I love the 4 link. I still have the 100k mi bushing on my upper rear arms no issues with bind at all. I use sphericals on the diff side of upper arms though. Rubber and urethane on lowers. If the car is setup right it won't bind. Ford engineers are not idiots.

[Rob Liebbe]

Ford engineers are not idiots.

I agree, Ford engineers are not idiots (I used to be one) but they are saddled with idiotic managers and bean counters. Keep the history of the Fox/SN Mustangs in mind. The platform was originally developed as the Fairmont, a cheap mid-sized car. The canted upper arms were done to eliminate the need for a proper lateral link. It worked well for the mission of the car at the time. However, as time went on, it was less expensive to keep the basic platform and make it work the best they could, which they did. It wasn't until a major platform change some 30 years later that they made any real improvement at the back of the car with the parallel upper arms and lateral link.

Fun.

[mach1]

If the car is setup right it won't bind. Ford engineers are not idiots.
It's progressively binding right off the showroom floor.

[RichardP]

If the car is setup right it won't bind. Ford engineers are not idiots.

This made me giggle. Let's set the scene:

It’s the mid 1970’s. In a smoke filled room sit several engineers in white short sleeve button down shirts with 4” wide ties and pocket protectors. Some of them are nursing a hangover from a late night of Disco. They are there to discuss the new Ford/Mercury economy mid-size sedan platform to be available in two door, four door, and station wagon versions. They are the company’s best and brightest, looking to create Ford’s first semi-unibody car.


Team lead: “We need to set some goals for this new platform. Anyone have ideas?”

Engineer: “I’m thinking that in 40 years, a couple of dozen budget racers around the nation are going to try and road race a derivative of this platform in a class that is very stingy with allowed modifications. We should optimize for that!”

Team lead: “Excellent suggestion. Consider that priority one!”



Richard P.

[Rob Liebbe]

This made me giggle. Let's set the scene:

It’s the mid 1970’s. In a smoke filled room sit several engineers in white short sleeve button down shirts with 4” wide ties and pocket protectors. Some of them are nursing a hangover from a late night of Disco. They are there to discuss the new Ford/Mercury economy mid-size sedan platform to be available in two door, four door, and station wagon versions. They are the company’s best and brightest, looking to create Ford’s first semi-unibody car.


Team lead: “We need to set some goals for this new platform. Anyone have ideas?”

Engineer: “I’m thinking that in 40 years, a couple of dozen budget racers around the nation are going to try and road race a derivative of this platform in a class that is very stingy with allowed modifications. We should optimize for that!”

Team lead: “Excellent suggestion. Consider that priority one!”



Richard P.

It's almost as bad as that. In 1993-ish I worked on Mustang suspension development for the upcoming 94 and 96 cars. Somebody else designed it, we got to do all the performance testing and make the tuning. Some of the supervisors were from the Fairmont era. The only one I know of that raced a Mustang in the early 80's ran rallies with it; dirt road through the forest in Upper Michigan rallies, on TRX tires. He also wore 4" wide ties.

One of the reasons I left Ford was because my Chief Engineer at the time was an accountant.

[AI#97]

I have also tested this, bind city on my tests, because the upper arms are angled and center the axle, if the upper arms can't get "longer" or "shorter" it will bind.
I pulled the shocks and springs and moved the axle through it's range of motion to test this, I had sphericals on 3 of the 4 arms, the last arm had a spherical on one end and nothing on the other, the "length" changed significantly through it's range of motion.

I love maximums parts, but....over the years I've found, in my opinion, jack is stuck in 1992. How a four link binds with heims even only in the axle end....with 1.5-2" of total suspension travel.....I don't get it. Can see pinion angle issues being a problem, but not bind.

[mach1]

I love maximums parts, but....over the years I've found, in my opinion, jack is stuck in 1992. How a four link binds with heims even only in the axle end....with 1.5-2" of total suspension travel.....I don't get it. Can see pinion angle issues being a problem, but not bind.

Just look it as a little more roll stiffness, you can run a lighter rear bar :)

[Rob Liebbe]

Just look it as a little more roll stiffness, you can run a lighter rear bar :)

Just learn to counter-steer.

[Suck fumes]

Even if it does bind some under load, using squishy bushings in the upper arms on the body side helps it behave enough to be able to drive it.

[marshall_mosty]

I love maximums parts, but....over the years I've found, in my opinion, jack is stuck in 1992. How a four link binds with heims even only in the axle end....with 1.5-2" of total suspension travel.....I don't get it. Can see pinion angle issues being a problem, but not bind.

Matt,
I binds when it rolls and moves vertically.

[Supercharged111]

How a four link binds with heims even only in the axle end....with 1.5-2" of total suspension travel.....I don't get it.

Having followed a few Mustangs, I call shenanigans on the 1.5-2" travel.

[michaelmosty]

This made me giggle. Let's set the scene:

It’s the mid 1970’s. In a smoke filled room sit several engineers in white short sleeve button down shirts with 4” wide ties and pocket protectors. Some of them are nursing a hangover from a late night of Disco. They are there to discuss the new Ford/Mercury economy mid-size sedan platform to be available in two door, four door, and station wagon versions. They are the company’s best and brightest, looking to create Ford’s first semi-unibody car.


Team lead: “We need to set some goals for this new platform. Anyone have ideas?”

Engineer: “I’m thinking that in 40 years, a couple of dozen budget racers around the nation are going to try and road race a derivative of this platform in a class that is very stingy with allowed modifications. We should optimize for that!”

Team lead: “Excellent suggestion. Consider that priority one!”



Richard P.

I wasn't even around then but still got a perfect visual, that is hilarious!!