Why can't a Mustang run a torque arm?

[ShadowBolt]

I think the bigger problem is the person behind the wheel.
Every year the bar gets raised higher and higher.
Lap times have steadily dropped.

Learning minute nuances of the tracks, how the platform of choice responds to 1/2 lb of air pressure and race
craft has created more and more loading being placed on ANY platform.

Example:
Lap times are the reason tires don't last as long as they used to ... not compound.
Its to the point where tenths seperate drivers and circumstances play a bigger and bigger role.

If you want CMC to get back to where it was 3 years ago ... leave the freaking rules alone.
No one wants to jump into a series with the rules in such turmoil as witnessed over the last couple years.

I agree with most of this Mitch but if I were king we go back to CMC 1 and lose big brakes, Aluminum blocks, headers, big tires and wheels, H/P and torque, and the S-197. I have also thought maybe the tires are not the cause of the wear issue but that we just keep getting faster and faster. IMHO the series would be better off for at least the next ten years. Can I get an Amen?

JJ

[GlennCMC70]

This would be the key. None of the problems being discussed are inherent to four links, three links, or torque arms. We are just abusing these cars way beyond their original design and the rules severely limit what can be done to reinforce the problem areas. It wouldn't be unreasonable to believe that the change from CMC1 to CMC2 power, along with heavier wheel and tire packages, is exacerbating the problem.

I would be OK with allowing properly mounted, sufficiently stiff torque arms on both Mustangs and Camaros. I also see that as a pretty big step outside the concept of CMC. Glad I'm not making the decisions...


Richard P.

I for one would like to put 17's and big brakes back in the bag it was let out of.

I'll say this, If Ford gets a TA, GM wil get an aftermarket option as well. Do not take this comment as implying that the CMC Directors are talking about allowing it, much less considering it.

[GlennCMC70]

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-5...d-mustang.html

Looks like a 3 link w/ a PHB.

[GlennCMC70]

I agree with most of this Mitch but if I were king we go back to CMC 1 and lose big brakes, Aluminum blocks, headers, big tires and wheels, H/P and torque, and the S-197. I have also thought maybe the tires are not the cause of the wear issue but that we just keep getting faster and faster. IMHO the series would be better off for at least the next ten years. Can I get an Amen?

JJ

I'm voting no changes for as long as I'm CMC Director! Elect me!

[Rob Liebbe]

The 5-link hardware isn't too bad (other than being incorrectly named). On the other hand, I would run it with the left side link missing. Better geometry than the PM3L...


Richard P.

Richard - How is it incorrectly named? Two upper links, two lower links, and a lateral link - counts five to me. Or are you going by the Machine Design/Mechanism terminology. Damn engineers.

I would run it with both upper arms and take improved geometry over stock and hopefully improved durability over PM3L. I know of a car running this in open track and the owner is very happy with it.

Glenn - One of the pictures on the Steeda website shows only one upper arm installed, there are actually two uppers, see the parts picture instead of the installed picture and you will see two upper arms and corresponding mounts.

[michaelmosty]

Mitch,
the current thought on the PM3L is to run air (no bushing at all) in the upper chassis side arm on the left and a rubber bushing on the right side upper chassis side. When I went from rubber to polyurethane it tore the right side upper chassis mount out of the car in two events (Michael has been running this bushing without issue on the upper but he is tearing up his lower torque boxes). The lowers are a lot easier to fix. I assumed with no bushing in the left side there was no bind (I did not know the problem was as Marshall describes above. I just found out a few minutes ago we Mustang drivers have another issue that is going to hit us all. When I was running the arm with the rubber bushing on the chassis side (the bushing comes installed in the arm, you don't install it yourself) I would go through two in a season. Ford Racing (and Ford) stopped producing these so the only place I can find them are Maximum Motorsports at $200.00 a set!

JJ

My upper passenger side mount was torn all to hell last year until Glenn and Mitch welded it up for me. I have run the heim joint in the diff. end and poly bushing in the body end since converting to the PM3L the very end of 2009. They also "touched up" the lower torque boxes on both sides at the same time, although they were not near as bad as the passenger upper.
I think they did such a good job on the upper that the new weak link became the lower tq boxes, thus the lower boxes tearing at Houston this year.

[GlennCMC70]

Glenn - One of the pictures on the Steeda website shows only one upper arm installed, there are actually two uppers, see the parts picture instead of the installed picture and you will see two upper arms and corresponding mounts.

So a 4 link w/ a PHB?

[mitchntx]

if I were king we go back to CMC 1 and lose big brakes, Aluminum blocks, headers, big tires and wheels, H/P and torque, and the S-197. I have also thought maybe the tires are not the cause of the wear issue but that we just keep getting faster and faster. IMHO the series would be better off for at least the next ten years. Can I get an Amen?

JJ

Amen ... I'd consider re-tooling if that happens.

Many tried to tell me that moving to the duece was a mistake, but I didn't listen. Big mistake on my part.

[Rob Liebbe]

So a 4 link w/ a PHB?

Basically.

[GlennCMC70]

Amen ... I'd consider re-tooling if that happens.

Many tried to tell me that moving to the duece was a mistake, but I didn't listen. Big mistake on my part.

Not saying the old CMC will be back, but I wouldn't sell your car just yet.