Why can't a Mustang run a torque arm?

[GlennCMC70]

As long as the discussion is open then that is a step in the right direction.
I just would want to know that "IF" the Mustang tested at 3200 lbs and with the extra parts on the car it turned out ran consistent faster times, that the directors would still consider the "possibility" of a change.
Basically what I don't want to hear is something to the effect of, "we think it is equal w/ the current rules and now that the Mustang is faster than before we think your car now has an advantage", end of discussion.

I love the idea of making things as equal as possible with fewer differences b/w the platforms.
I'm glad this is being discussed so everyone can see things from every possible angle, thanks.

Understand, the discussion is only open w/ me. There are zero other Directors here in this thread and its not being talked about amoung the other directors as far as I know. Someone is still going to have to propose this and provide data beyond "I think it will be mo betta w/ a TA."

[ShadowBolt]

I understand that if the data shows a Mustang at 3200 lbs. w/ a tq arm and c/o struts is no faster than without them then there is no need to spend $$ on the parts. Case over.
What if it turns out the parts make the car 1/4, 1/2, or 1 second faster? Would the directors consider making these parts legal or would that be perceived as an advantage?
I just think it would be good to get a general understanding of the possible directions this could go before time and $$ is spent.
Just thinking out loud via my keyboard.

If the car is faster with or without a torque arm is not the issue. The Camaro already has one so if it is an advantage to run a torque arm then the Mustang is at a disadvantage without one! I'm betting it will not make much difference in lap times. If it makes the Mustang a second faster, then Michael is the best driver in CMC and the 55 with Jay and I are right with the Camaro Trophy girls. I really doubt that. My deal on this is I have always had a problem with not making everything as equal as possible. At very little cost we could make track width, tire size, h/p and torque, weight, torque arms and coil overs, and brakes even. The Camaro would still have a tiny advantage in Areo and the LS1 (I have been told) makes better power under peak.

Please don't say we can't run these items because if someone sees a guy winning that runs one he will think he has to run that item also. You guys threw that one out the window when you let $2500.00 big brake kits in CMC.

This is not life and death. I will fix and run my car without a torque arm. This problem just made me start thinking again about why we don't make the cars as even as possible. I want to know for sure when a guy beats me every race that it is because he is just flat better than I am...........not that he had a car advantage. If I drove a Camaro I promise I would want the Mustang guys to be able to run the torque arm (and everything else I could run). I don't ever want to beat another car because of an item that is okay in my car but not in his. I really doubt James, Dan or you Glenn are really worried that the 55 would start kicking your asses with the addition of a torque arm (and if we did that means we have been geting hosed from day one). Lets make everything as even as possible then get the weights even also.

JJ

[Rob Liebbe]

But wasn't the initial issue brought up by Jerry more along the lines of durability of the Mustang upper control arm mounts? Couldn't this be a two-fold argument based on both platform parity and cost effectiveness/durability?

[ShadowBolt]

But wasn't the initial issue brought up by Jerry more along the lines of durability of the Mustang upper control arm mounts? Couldn't this be a two-fold argument based on both platform parity and cost effectiveness/durability?

Yep.

Rob who?

JJ

[marshall_mosty]

If you do add a torque arm, the fundamental change in rear roll center height will require suspension tuning to regain balance. Details would need to be worked by track testing but a doubling of the current rear spring rate would be a reasonable first cut.

Richard,
I'm confused, as the roll center height is only a function of the height of the watt link/panhard bar at the centerline of the rear axle/driveshaft. I see the instant center location changing, as well as the percentage of ant-squat...

[RichardP]

Richard,
I'm confused, as the roll center height is only a function of the height of the watt link/panhard bar at the centerline of the rear axle/driveshaft.

Not on the quadra-bind setup. The upper arms contribute a lot to lateral location and outright bind. This raises the effective rear roll center and roll rate. The effect isn't as great with the PM3L, but it is still there...


Richard P.

[Alien]

Do the mustang torque arm kits bolt to the transmissions or the cross members?

*edit*

Please don't say we can't run these items because if someone sees a guy winning that runs one he will think he has to run that item also. You guys threw that one out the window when you let $2500.00 big brake kits in CMC.

I hate this fact, but it is true. I'm still uber dissappointed that the powers that be allowed the big brakes.*/edit*

[Alien]

But wasn't the initial issue brought up by Jerry more along the lines of durability of the Mustang upper control arm mounts? Couldn't this be a two-fold argument based on both platform parity and cost effectiveness/durability?

Do the mustangs still have the same durability problem when NOT running the poor mans three link? If not then it's a tough one.

I see it similar to how I like to give Glenn sh!t when he talks about the 4th gens being so hard to get to min weight. I like to suggest he put in a T5. Would it make it easier to make weight? Yes. Is there a tradeoff in durability? Yes.

[mitchntx]

If Camaro-Mustang Challenge fornicates itself into a smorgasboard of parts allowed where racers can cherry-pick and cross-platform choose parts from a list, the only difference between the race cars will be the decals.

I guess it needs to be clear if this is REALLY Camaro-Mustang Challenge or AI Light.

[Alien]

I had the following typed up earlier, but walked away from the computer to watch some Aussie V8 Supercars...

And to add (sorry it's not all in one post) the idea of all cars having the same components is a great idea. Just don't see how it'd work in reality as it opens up a huge can of worms. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to build an all out third gen...

Aero? 3rd gen Firebird and go from there.
Aluminum block (since the 4.6 and LS1 are allowed)
Front SLA and Coilovers (4th gen)
Headers (5.0's, a lot easier fabrication for an LS1 or LT1 swap, would be restricting the engine with a plate anyways)
Coil packs
Rack and pinion (everyone but third gens?)
Relocated torque arm (Mustang, since I'm 90% sure the aftermarket mustang ones aren't attached to the trans)
or maybe ditch that and go with a properly built 4 link (Fox based Mustangs)
Fiberglass fenders and doors (4th gens)
Plastic fuel tank (LS1 cars)

Basically, it'd allow you to pick and choose all the best bits and pieces from every platfrom. Sway bar sizes, engine setback over the front axle, turning radius, etc. That sounds more like AI.

My point behind all this is it's one thing to say, "Everyone knows the mustang stock rear suspension sucks, and I think a torque arm would make it better because Herb Adams says so and make things more even and doesn't tear my shit up" vs "Everyone knows the mustang stock rear suspension sucks, and I think a torque arm would make it better because that's what a Camaro has and we'd have more similar parts". The former I can understand; the latter won't end until we all have tubeframe cars.