Why can't a Mustang run a torque arm?

[ShadowBolt]

Prior to Hallett I had my welder weld up the two or three places that had torn on the upper right side control arm. The material did not want to weld and with the small portable welder he brought to my house on 110 power it just made dingleberries. I had never had a problem but this year I went from the stock rubber to the Poly bushing on the chassis side (big mistake!) and I assume this is what caused this tearing. When I ran the rubber bushing I would go through two in a season. Now my big problem. Looks like all our brake issues were from the upper bracket tearing away from the body. It's almost completely gone. I ordered the kit to repair these upper brackets and it's a joke. My right side is gone......torn almost all the way out. The kit will do nothing to help me. Both sheet metal brackets that the bolt goes through (upper control arm bolt) are split.

10751076


I can go to the other side and use the left side but if that tears then what? At this point I would be happy to go back to the four link but how?
So tell me again why it's okay for the Camaro to have a torque arm but Mustangs can't?

JJ

[michaelmosty]

So tell me again why it's okay for the Camaro to have a torque arm but Mustangs can't?

JJ
B/C the Camaro came with one from the factory and the Mustang did not.

[GlennCMC70]

If your chassis is preped like the GM's, they run it through some type of anti-corrosion bath before its painted. You have to grind off all this coating. Sometimes the area to be welded needs to be heated w/ a torch to burn off the coating. At this point the current welds are likely contaminated and will need to be ground off.

About your failure - This is why we allowed the repair kit to be installed PRIOR to failure. Don't take this as a "told you so" type comment. This is why these parts are allowed - they are needed. Obviously this is the downside to the PM3L set-up.

Now - I'm OK w/ you running a torque arm as long as your willing to do so while not earning CMC points. This would allow us to at least see real would laptime data of before and after. No guarantee's for future CMC legality.

[cobra132]

My car has a torque arm. That's one solution. AI.

[Waco Racer]

We all know how Jerry feels about AI.

[ShadowBolt]

We all know how Jerry feels about AI.

Thanks Clifton! Such a good friend.

JJ

[edrock96GT]

My car has a torque arm. That's one solution. AI.

Ditto. AI. :)

[edrock96GT]

We all know how Jerry feels about AI.

Yep. It's too expensive...you have to buy torque arms. :p

[BlueFirePony]

Yep. It's too expensive...you have to buy torque arms. :p
Jerry, if you are happy racing regionally think about how competitive the #55 could be in AI, just as an option to consider.

Eddie placed 3rd regionally last year and I wonder how his expenses compare to any CMC drivers - his talent and perserverance got him there, not $....hell I spent the same $ (maybe $200 more) running AI all of last year that I would have spent running CMC since I ran the less expensive Nittos most of the year. If I drop to 17's (still pondering what will happen next year) I very likely could spend the same year-to-year in AI as CMC - factor in a desire to win week-to-week or go to Nats and that plan is busted but otherwise it's sound - and a win on inverts is still a win ;)

[marshall_mosty]

Jerry,
Buy a torque arm, bolt it on while you are trying to figure out a solution for the car. Run AI for the rest of the year and then with the data you've gathered (delta between you and your closest racer from previous races) would be able to see what a torque arm gives, performance wise. Just my .02

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry,
Buy a torque arm, bolt it on while you are trying to figure out a solution for the car. Run AI for the rest of the year and then with the data you've gathered (delta between you and your closest racer from previous races) would be able to see what a torque arm gives, performance wise. Just my .02

I agree since it just cost $255.00 but why do we try to make some things the same (i.e. power, tires, shocks, weight) but on others we don't. Why not let the Mustang have the torque arm and the coil overs like the Camaro does and put all the cars at thew same weight (except adjust for the aluminum block engines since so many think it's a big advantage)? Don't tell me it's because of money when you let $2500.00 big brakes in CMC. Why would the Mustang be any better than a Camaro just because we added the same things the Camaro has? What part or parts does any Camaro driver want on his car that a Mustang has. Why not make them as equal as possible. I would think if adding these parts make a Mustang faster, then the Camaro has an advantage since they already have them. I really don't have any idea if it would help at all. You certainly do not have to have these things to be able to win in CMC, we saw that when JK was winning everything. The torque arm would just cure this issue for me at very little cost. I also wonder why I can add a Panhard bar but not a torque arm?


JJ

[michaelmosty]

Jerry,
Buy a torque arm, bolt it on while you are trying to figure out a solution for the car. Run AI for the rest of the year and then with the data you've gathered (delta between you and your closest racer from previous races) would be able to see what a torque arm gives, performance wise. Just my .02

That sounds like a possible idea IF the directors are interested in looking at this possible change to the series.
Pardon me if I am a little hesitant but these types of ideas (tq arm - c/o struts - etc) seem to get shot down faster than any idea from Jeremy Gunter!!! ;^)

What outcome "would" the directors like to see?
If the car is now faster would the idea be thrown out b/c it now has an advantage?
If it doesn't make it faster would it then be allowed b/c it doesn't give the advantage some thought it would give?

I just don't want to see time and $$ go into something if there is no possible change out there.

[ShadowBolt]

That sounds like a possible idea IF the directors are interested in looking at this possible change to the series.
Pardon me if I am a little hesitant but these types of ideas (tq arm - c/o struts - etc) seem to get shot down faster than any idea from Jeremy Gunter!!! ;^)

What outcome "would" the directors like to see?
If the car is now faster would the idea be thrown out b/c it now has an advantage?
If it doesn't make it faster would it then be allowed b/c it doesn't give the advantage some thought it would give?

I just don't want to see time and $$ go into something if there is no possible change out there.

If it made the Mustangs faster is it not doing the same thing for the Mustang that it is doing for the Camaro? The question is not if it makes the Mustang faster, the question is, does it help make the cars more even (assuming they are not and I have no idea if they are or not) with the torque arms?

JJ

[AllZWay]

Pardon me if I am a little hesitant but these types of ideas (tq arm - c/o struts - etc) seem to get shot down faster than any idea from Jeremy Gunter!!! ;^)


:D...nearly spit on the monitor here.

[GlennCMC70]

I agree since it just cost $255.00 but why do we try to make some things the same (i.e. power, tires, shocks, weight) but on others we don't. Why not let the Mustang have the torque arm and the coil overs like the Camaro does and put all the cars at thew same weight (except adjust for the aluminum block engines since so many think it's a big advantage)? Don't tell me it's because of money when you let $2500.00 big brakes in CMC. Why would the Mustang be any better than a Camaro just because we added the same things the Camaro has? What part or parts does any Camaro driver want on his car that a Mustang can has. Why not make them as equal as possible. I would think if adding these parts make a Mustang faster, then the Camaro has an advantage since they already have them. I really don't have any idea if it would help at all. You certainly do not have to have these things to be able to win in CMC, we saw that when JK was winning everything. The torque arm would just cure this issue for me at very little cost and made me wonder why I can add a Panhard bar but not a torque arm?


JJ

Best argument I have seen in text for allowing it. The best thing to do is provide data. It is hard to allow something when we don't know the outcome. Some things are allowed for safety and cost reduction. The TA doesn't really fit in either place. If you do some testing, be sure to run the car at your current minimum and at 3200.
Why not run it at Hallet in Sept? It would be a Texas NON-points weekend and a track you just ran. I'm about to contact th Central Region POC and inquire about some of us Texas folks coming up.

[RichardP]

The concept of adding a torque arm to a CMC Mustang has been discussed here before. To summarize, Todd said the reason they are not allowed is because the CMC management experimented with one and concluded that a torque arm on a Mustang isn't workable without doing the full AI treatment to the front end. I expressed a mild disagreement with their conclusion...

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.

Good luck with whatever direction you choose. It doesn't look like an easy fix. I would recommend re-tubing the car as a less expensive alternative to running AI...


Richard P.

[michaelmosty]

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.

[RichardP]

What if it turns out the parts make the car 1/4, 1/2, or 1 second faster?

I see no realistic way of determining this...


Richard P.

[GlennCMC70]

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.


Your asking me to predict the vote of the CMC Directors? Now that is funny. If you want it approved, your best bet is to have me be against it. If I'm for it, a few will vote opposite of me just for spite, some of which drive Foxes.

So Michael - You seem to want this to increase the performance of the platoform. Right? Cause your first sentance seems to say that if I'm reading you correctly.
My responce to that is, if there is no performace gain, but the win is chassis longevity, it could get approved.
If the car gets faster (likely since the aftermarket wouldn't sell any otherwise), but can be offset w/ a higher minimum weight, it could get approved. Perhaps we could even state that the addition of a TA will result in an increased minimum weight. So you could run w/ or w/out. Of course, there is always a possibility that you would have to run a 235 tire. :) All just a hip shot from me.
First you gotta be willing to test what you propose. The better the data, the better chance.

I have done just this myself. I spent $600 out of pocket on a part I'm working to get legalized. I'll not get any of that money back from CMC if they are not deemed legal. I felt it was worth the risk, so I did it.

[michaelmosty]

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.

[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.

[GlennCMC70]

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.

Gary got it right w/ this post.

[GlennCMC70]

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.

Mitch got right as well.

May as well spec a tube chassis from a limited list of builders and allow the engine/trans of ones liking.
I have been wanting to put on paper a series that does this. All the CMC rules and limits w/ one exception - run this tube chassis. Something like a dirt Modified chassis.

Hey - just saw Gary's tube chassis comment. Me and Al have talked about this several times. Perhaps an evolution of CMC will result in Camaro Mustang Stockcar. CMS?

[Rob Liebbe]

How about just letting the Mustangs really beef up the rear suspension lower and upper pickup points? I know there are kits available and they are legal. But did we name any certain ones or are we at the point that as long as the bolts go through the original sheetmetal we can allow gusseting, doubler plates, etc.

[Alien]

Beef me up Scotty!

Ford cars are additionally allowed to completely weld the rear upper control arm body attachment points within the following restrictions:
1. The attachment point must remain in the OEM Stock location and maintain the same geometry.
2. All welding of the existing material must be within 10” of the centerline of the mounting point hole.
Is that enough? It says welding of "existing material", so that almost sounds like no gusseting etc is allowed. I wonder if the ULA should be also have the words that the LCA has subsituting 10" for 12"...

2. All additional reinforcement material or welding of existing material must be within 12" of the center of the mounting point.

This obviously won't help in Jerry's case since it seems the damage is done, but should help prevent it from happening to the other side.

[mitchntx]

cms?

gmf

[MHISSTC]

May as well spec a tube chassis from a limited list of builders and allow the engine/trans of ones liking. I have been wanting to put on paper a series that does this. All the CMC rules and limits w/ one exception - run this tube chassis. Something like a dirt Modified chassis.

Hey - just saw Gary's tube chassis comment. Me and Al have talked about this several times. Perhaps an evolution of CMC will result in Camaro Mustang Stockcar. CMS?

This is exactly what Chuck Taylor and crew are coming up with in the ARRS (American Road Race Series) cars in RM Region. They are taking their time to build it right. Check out the link.

http://www.arrs.us/

[MHISSTC]

...if there is no performace gain, but the win is chassis longevity, it could get approved. If the car gets faster (likely since the aftermarket wouldn't sell any otherwise), but can be offset w/ a higher minimum weight, it could get approved. Perhaps we could even state that the addition of a TA will result in an increased minimum weight. So you could run w/ or w/out. Of course, there is always a possibility that you would have to run a 235 tire.

While I understand the "can of worms" and "slippery slope" arguments for allowing such changes, it is my distinct hope that running a Track Arm WILL increase the performance of the FOX Mustang in addition to increasing chassis longevity. If so, this could allow a distinctly different and potentially cheaper and easier path for folks to follow in order to "equalize" the FOX platform against the other newer platforms from both GM and Ford. This could work out very well since the likely penalty for such an increase in performance is a mandated narrower track width and/or narrower tires and wheels that actually fit inside the factory body work without the extensive modifications currently needed to accommodate a maximized track width along with 275 tires on 9.5" wheels. Perfect! We could keep the FOXes looking much more like they did from the factory than with the modifications we currently allow, keep their performance on par with the other cars, increase chassis longevity, and spend less time and money doing it. Everyone wins.

Why are all the cool discussions like this here instead of the National CMC Forum?

[GlennCMC70]

While I understand the "can of worms" and "slippery slope" arguments for allowing such changes, it is my distinct hope that running a Track Arm WILL increase the performance of the FOX Mustang in addition to increasing chassis longevity. If so, this could allow a distinctly different and potentially cheaper and easier path for folks to follow in order to "equalize" the FOX platform against the other newer platforms from both GM and Ford. This could work out very well since the likely penalty for such an increase in performance is a mandated narrower track width and/or narrower tires and wheels that actually fit inside the factory body work without the extensive modifications currently needed to accommodate a maximized track width along with 275 tires on 9.5" wheels. Perfect! We could keep the FOXes looking much more like they did from the factory than with the modifications we currently allow, keep their performance on par with the other cars, increase chassis longevity, and spend less time and money doing it. Everyone wins.

Why are all the cool discussions like this here instead of the National CMC Forum?

If you set the Fox track to inside the OEM bodywork, you in no way could get the 4th gen's track narrow enough to balance things out. This was the problem w/ setting a "limit" for track. The Fox got a huge bump. The GM's got nothing beyond what had been allowed since day 1 of CMC and folks think the GM's were given something. We moved to a hard number since it was hard to tell if a guy stretched his fenders or had a tweaked body from a crash. The Fox also need this to fit the max wheel size. No way the series is going to require a 17x7 wheel cause that is all the Fox can fit w/ OEM fenders. OEM 17" wheel size for the GM's is 9". Makes no sense to make the wheel width smaller than that. Common aftermarket 17's are 9.5" for Ford and GM. Sounds like a good number. Fox needed help in 2 areas - increase in track and fitting 17x9.5's. We allowed mods - not required them. At this point I still think 16x8's are faster than 17x9's. I picked up 20lbs from the "upgrade". Strongly considering going back to 16's for 2013. So far w/ 17's and 30 more HP, I'm slower.

I don't think the Fox or SN-95 need any help. Kellam ran plenty fast in the SN-95. I can assure you he can only drive the car up to what it is capable of, and not beyond. The potential of the car was demonstrated. We don't allow mod's based on driver skill. Mosty in TX has kicked all our asses. Fox. Kellam has kicked all our asses. SN-95. Wirtz has kick all our asses. 3rd gen. Alford/Proctor is kicking all our asses. 4th gen. Varner has kicked all our asses. Fox. We have a pretty good balance. I see the TA on the Fox/SN-95 likely upsetting that. If it is allowed it will be for chassis longevity. If it provides a increase in performance, the platform will be penalized. Could be increased weight. Could be less track. Who knows. Could be both.
Ford guys want a TA. Why? Cause GM guys have one. So do we require the Fords w/ TA to set the pinion angle to match that of the GM (stock by the way). How about requiring it to be made of thin stamped sheet metal that induces wheel hop of the likes that you have never seen? Think the T-5 is weak now? Wheel hop that TA Fox/SN-95 w/ a 4th to 3rd downshift at 90-100 mph. Ever grenaded a ring gear and pinion from it? Since the Ford aftermarket like optimized the pinion angle and optimized the material it is made from as well and designing it to be very rigid, we will now have to allow the GM's to use aftermarket TA's as well. Cause we all gotta have the same crap, right?


Your gonna be had pressed to find a CMC Director who thinks the Fox/SN-95 needs an adjustment at this point. If there is one, they need to speak up in the Director emails, cause I haven't see any evidence of it.


Rant off.

[AllZWay]

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.


JJ

No kidding... I still disagree with this decision.

[rpoz27]

You guys asking for ta's and running cheap shocks will regret it. Axle hop under braking is terrible unless you have good ear shocks. Also the mounting bracket and required subframes is a huge weight penalty. Weld the stock pickup points and go racing.

[michaelmosty]

If you set the Fox track to inside the OEM bodywork, you in no way could get the 4th gen's track narrow enough to balance things out. This was the problem w/ setting a "limit" for track. The Fox got a huge bump. The GM's got nothing beyond what had been allowed since day 1 of CMC and folks think the GM's were given something. We moved to a hard number since it was hard to tell if a guy stretched his fenders or had a tweaked body from a crash. The Fox also need this to fit the max wheel size. No way the series is going to require a 17x7 wheel cause that is all the Fox can fit w/ OEM fenders. OEM 17" wheel size for the GM's is 9". Makes no sense to make the wheel width smaller than that. Common aftermarket 17's are 9.5" for Ford and GM. Sounds like a good number. Fox needed help in 2 areas - increase in track and fitting 17x9.5's. We allowed mods - not required them. At this point I still think 16x8's are faster than 17x9's. I picked up 20lbs from the "upgrade". Strongly considering going back to 16's for 2013. So far w/ 17's and 30 more HP, I'm slower.

I don't think the Fox or SN-95 need any help. Kellam ran plenty fast in the SN-95. I can assure you he can only drive the car up to what it is capable of, and not beyond. The potential of the car was demonstrated. We don't allow mod's based on driver skill. Mosty in TX has kicked all our asses. Fox. Kellam has kicked all our asses. SN-95. Wirtz has kick all our asses. 3rd gen. Alford/Proctor is kicking all our asses. 4th gen. Varner has kicked all our asses. Fox. We have a pretty good balance. I see the TA on the Fox/SN-95 likely upsetting that. If it is allowed it will be for chassis longevity. If it provides a increase in performance, the platform will be penalized. Could be increased weight. Could be less track. Who knows. Could be both.
Ford guys want a TA. Why? Cause GM guys have one. So do we require the Fords w/ TA to set the pinion angle to match that of the GM (stock by the way). How about requiring it to be made of thin stamped sheet metal that induces wheel hop of the likes that you have never seen? Think the T-5 is weak now? Wheel hop that TA Fox/SN-95 w/ a 4th to 3rd downshift at 90-100 mph. Ever grenaded a ring gear and pinion from it? Since the Ford aftermarket like optimized the pinion angle and optimized the material it is made from as well and designing it to be very rigid, we will now have to allow the GM's to use aftermarket TA's as well. Cause we all gotta have the same crap, right?


Your gonna be had pressed to find a CMC Director who thinks the Fox/SN-95 needs an adjustment at this point. If there is one, they need to speak up in the Director emails, cause I haven't see any evidence of it.


Rant off.

I'm going to keep my rant simple.
First off, the "common aftermarket" wheel for the Mustang is 17x9" (not 9.5", that is the common GM size).
Second, you say the Fox got a "huge bump" in track width. I was at 71.75" in CMC trim w/ 16" wheels and it cleared the stock fenders. The HUGE BUMP moved the max to 72.5" and then 72.75" for this year. This is not that Huge IMO.
You say the GM's got nothing beyond what was allowed since day 1. This is ASSuming the rule has been fair since day 1. That is the exact reason I had complained to Al for over 2 years, b/c I knew how much wider any GM was over any Ford. You imply that everyone got upset when the numbers came out (b/c the GM is wider than Ford) but we had already had known this for years.

You said: "you in no way could get the 4th gen's track narrow enough to balance things out".
Why not? Almost every GM I know is running b/w .5" to 1" of spacer / side to get to max track width. Why not just remove the spacers and get down to the same track width of the SN95+SN99 Mustangs? This would help make the platforms closer to EQUAL.

[MHISSTC]

No need to rant back and forth... ...merely discussing potential pros and cons and a variety of fallout issues concerning TA setups. Glenn is much more familiar with GM and TA setups than I am and brought up several potential cons I was not familiar with. Likewise, Michael responded with items and considerations GM folks may not be as familiar with. I can appreciate both sides of the story and provided my input as a single viewpoint to contribute to the discussion.

[GlennCMC70]

I was a little agitated yesterday due to working outside in the heat till noon at home and then off to work till 6pm, so my tone was a bit harsh due to not having much free time to debate this and being a little tired. My POV is still the same.

I don't know of any GM's running more than 1/2" spacers on each side. It can't be done w/out getting outside the fenders w/ 17x9 wheels. If you ran 17x9.5's, the spacers have to come off. The 1/2" is to the outside for GM's.

The huge bump for the Fox was the total change over a short period of time. You are correct that "GM's width was a "complaint" from the Ford camp for years - including you. But I don't recall a time when the Fox/SN-95 and the 4th gen shaired the same minimum weight. So there has always been an adjustment. You (and me) came in to the series just after the 4th gen came down from the 3600lb minimum (I think the weight is correct). So the 4th gen was being adjusted as needed. Perhaps the move to 3200lbs for the 4th gen was too low. And perhaps the fix was to drop the Fords down. Things have been evolving long before me and you came along. They will continue to do so if history serves as any indication. The tools are better now. No longer do we use wins and Championships as the only factor for adjustments.


So tell me why a Fox needs the TA to be equal w/ the GM's. And the answer isn't "Cause the GM's have one."


The short of it all is this.......
The cars are different. They have different performance envolopes. Adjustments have been made. How much of each adjustment goes towards coilovers vs no coilovers, or TA vs no TA, or better aero vs poor aero.... (the list goes no) ... who knows. . The fact remains that the platforms are balanced when viewed from a peak performance perspective (laptimes, lateral G's, accell/decell G's). I welcome anyone to prove different.

[michaelmosty]

I just don't understand how you can look at both platforms on paper and say they are equal. The Mustang is a lighter weight, the GM is wider, has a T/A, Coil-overs, aero, etc. Do these extra parts equal the 50/100 lb difference in weight for the Mustang? What is each part worth in weight? Nobody knows!!!

I'm not mad at anyone about this but it does make me frustrated. There are features of all platforms that just can't be changed. Then there are features that are easily changed (and for very little $$ at that).

You stated you don't know of any 4th gen running more than 1/2" of spacer / side. Fair enough, I haven't taken a super close look at any of them to know the exact dimensions. I do however not understand why it wouldn't be in the best intent of the rules to put the GM max track width at whatever the width is with 275 on a 17x9.5" wheel with NO spacers. Then that is just 1 more thing that is closer to equal b/w all platforms.
The only reason I see not to implement this rule is IF you feel that without the extra inch of track width the Mustang then would be the superior platform. Is that the case?

Look at all the regions across the nation at their car count and the successful drivers and see if there is a common theme in platform.

**edit**
And for the record: I would prefer to not go down the road of having the Mustang add a T/A, Coil-overs, and add weight. That is why I have been pushing so hard for the track width equalization for so long b/c there is so little cost involved vs. other options.
I also agree there to be a discrepancy in Mustang aftermarket T/A vs. the GM stock piece. I am not an engineer but I can understand the GM piece has its issues.

[BADVENM]

My comment is in no way a complaint and is simply an observation and some concern.

In Rocky Mountain region the dominate platform is GM...specifically one with the LS motor. There are only 4 Mustangs out of 15 or so cars that show up to an event regularly, I'm the only Fox.

I regularly finish about 5-6 seconds (fastest lap) behind the front running GM's. I attribute this to speed into and out of the corners, my driving line and experience compared to the faster cars. I've shown that I can hang with the LS cars on the straights (this year) but have to scrub speed going into the corner which impacts exit speed coming out of the corner. I'm hoping that getting to the max track width will allow more stability into and out of the corner which hopefully will keep my speed up and as a whole get closer to the GM platforms. I'm also up against some very talented drivers.

Over the past month or two I'm starting to realize that car prep, time spent on test n tune days, and the driver are so important to ones success and podium finishes. I do have concern with the spirit of CMC when I hear at least one GM driver talk about dyno tuning/testing shocks and who knows what else. Granted its legal and if you have the money to do it I guess go for it, at the end of the year you get a little trophy and Toyo bucks for your effort. Maybe I'm not taking the sport as seriously as I should but when it comes to race day dont get me wrong, I compete as hard as I can.

We (several of us in Rocky Mountain region including those who regularly podium) do have concern that some of our drivers who are also our friends will get discouraged when the same cars podium at every event and simply not show up anymore. We (like I'm sure other regions) have a general pecking order of who's fast and who's not as fast. We're not sure how to equalize the field and have often talked about ideas on how to do so, only to come up empty.

There is no easy answer to equalizing the platforms. We could all jump to 4th GM platforms but then it would be the Camaro Challenge or General Motors Challenge.

I would be curious if its less expensive to reduce the track width of the GM platforms or increase the track width of the Fox platform to match that of the GM.

Not sure what I just typed made much sense but I wanted to at least share what I was feeling/thinking.

[RichardP]

I don't know of any GM's running more than 1/2" spacers on each side. It can't be done w/out getting outside the fenders w/ 17x9 wheels. If you ran 17x9.5's, the spacers have to come off. The 1/2" is to the outside for GM's.


Orange is running 3/4" spacers on the front with 17 x 9.5" wheels. That is roughly 1/2" narrower that we were last year before the track width measurement rule change. Backspacing is critical to this. We are running C5 Z06 front wheels. I don't know what their backspacing is...


Richard P.

[Al Fernandez]

I just want to commend everyone on the civilized discussion. Other than Glenn's little comment about other directors voting against him out of spite that is (cut that shit out Glenn, or it'll be a self fulfilling prophecy)

Has anyone tried a spherical bearing on both sides of the PM3L upper link? Would that maybe provide the degree of motion needed to keep from twisting the mount?

[GlennCMC70]

Orange is running 3/4" spacers on the front with 17 x 9.5" wheels. That is roughly 1/2" narrower that we were last year before the track width measurement rule change. Backspacing is critical to this. We are running C5 Z06 front wheels. I don't know what their backspacing is...


Richard P.

C5 ZO6 wheels have a deep offest. way more than the Camaro wheels. In fact, those guys running them on street cars run spacers on them. My info was in reference to F-body wheels.
C5 ZO6 wheels have like a 56mm offest where a F-body will have a 36mm. I ran a 56mm offset w/ my 17x11's on my street/track 4th gen. So the 3/4" makes sence.

[David Love AI27]

Well if you want my opinion...


I just want to commend everyone on the civilized discussion.

Oh... Nevermind...

[mitchntx]

I gotta idea ...

TAs for the Ford Platform and the 4Gs get to chop 6" out of the wheelbase.

Seeking the same suspension, track width, wheel size, HP/TQ, weight ... why stop there?

Finds complete parity, its the weight needed for the 4G and eliminates all fairness questions.
Ford gets blue decals and GM gets orange.

Eliminates the need for directors, rules lobbying even the internet.

yer welcome.

[y5e06]

I gotta idea ...

Finds complete parity...

Eliminates the need for directors, rules lobbying even the internet.



I got a good one too! How about CMC?
just CaMaro Challenge? then we don't have to worry about the disadvantaged fords. we can leave the 3rd gens out too. oh, and no LS1s because everyone should have to deal w/ the crapti-spark. oh toss the firebirds too since it is a ridiculous pain in the rump to find body parts.

I'm glad I don't visit the forums often enough...

hmmm, pass the popcorn

[ShadowBolt]

From the Maximum Motorsports web site.

•Never replace rear upper control arm bushings with urethane, due to induced binding, and resulting chassis damage.
•Upper control arms must rotate and pivot with axle motion, and rubber is the only material that sufficiently allows for this twisting without chassis damage.

I knew this but I thought with only one arm in place (using the PM3L) that I could get away with it. Boy was that a big mistake! I never had any damage at all until I switched to Urethane. I hope it drives the same using the left side upper than with the right side. For whatever reason (I'm sure Richard can tell us) everyone says to run the right side only when doing the PM3L.


Several of you are not understanding what Michael and I are saying. We don't want tube chassis. We are not pissed and we are not going to take our toys and go play somewhere else if we don't get our way. The question to us is why would the Mustang be better than the Camaro with the same items that are on the Camaro? I do understand (now) that the stock torque arm on a Camaro may be a POS and adding a aftermarket t/a to a Mustang would be some kind of advantage but I never knew or had heard that before reading it here in this post. I assumed that if you put both cars at the same weight, same track width, both with torque arms and coil-overs, and at the same power that they should be the same or at least very close. Are we sure that the Mustang would be any faster at all with these mods? This is the reason I wanted Glenn to run Boudy's car this year. I would have been glad to help with the money for him to get the car set-up to his liking. If he goes out and by the end of the year he is as fast as he was in the Camaro then all us Stang drivers shut the crap up from now on! If he can't beat Jay and I then something is out of whack.

JJ

[RichardP]

For whatever reason (I'm sure Richard can tell us) everyone says to run the right side only when doing the PM3L.

Since you asked...

The screwed up bias of the offset arm sort-of, kind-of tries to compensate for the inherent solid rear axle bias due to driveshaft torque. In other words, it should put down power better with the arm on the right...


Richard P.

[marshall_mosty]

Has anyone tried a spherical bearing on both sides of the PM3L upper link? Would that maybe provide the degree of motion needed to keep from twisting the mount?

Do NOT put spherical bearings in both ends!!! The shorter upper control arm travels through a different arc than the longer lower control arm. This is why the factory lower control arms had the oval bushings. The soft rubber will allow the fore/aft deflection in the lower arms and not cause any more bind than 100% necessary.

Once you go to polyurethane in one end of the lower and then a rod end in the other end, the lower basically is a rigid link. That is why the PM3L uses the stock rubber bushing on the frame end. This is the "last link" that will allow for that different arc travel.

[mitchntx]

OK ... all joking aside ...

So the way I understand it is the bushing is removed altogether from left side UCA so that bind is eliminated as the solid axle moves through it's range of motion.
And it's the left side UCA that is causing all the issues with the mount.

Not 100% on top of it all, so if that's a true statement, then ...

Why not allow removing the left UCA altogether? If it serve no purpose other than it's a factory suspension piece and it causes major relibility problems, nix it.



If that's not the case and its the fact that all loading is directed to one mount instead of shared between two, then ...

... adding a TA similar to what a an F-Car has will be just moving the problem.

The TA in my car has been systematically tearing and ripping the floor pan out of my car for several years.
Most any 4G will show signs of the spot welds being pulled through on the floor in front of where the passenger seat bolts.
I had to repair the trans mount at one point. Its a common problem.


I think what gets lost in these kinds of discussions is that we are taking these platforms to a level of loading no one ever intended them to go. Think about it ... there is suspension loading being transmitted to a pick-up point that is spot welded to 14 gauge molded steel pan. And the expectation is that will endure repeated G-loading seen coming off the banking at TWS? Hopping curbs through Rattlesnake at MSR-C? the washboard at ECR? The canyon exiting T6 at Hallett? And we do it year after year. Not even custom built tube chassis cars can last through that kind of punishment.

I think we generally expect too much of these platforms.

[BryanL]

From the Maximum Motorsports web site.

•Never replace rear upper control arm bushings with urethane, due to induced binding, and resulting chassis damage.
•Upper control arms must rotate and pivot with axle motion, and rubber is the only material that sufficiently allows for this twisting without chassis damage.

I knew this but I thought with only one arm in place (using the PM3L) that I could get away with it. Boy was that a big mistake! I never had any damage at all until I switched to Urethane. I hope it drives the same using the left side upper than with the right side. For whatever reason (I'm sure Richard can tell us) everyone says to run the right side only when doing the PM3L.


Several of you are not understanding what Michael and I are saying. We don't want tube chassis. We are not pissed and we are not going to take our toys and go play somewhere else if we don't get our way. The question to us is why would the Mustang be better than the Camaro with the same items that are on the Camaro? I do understand (now) that the stock torque arm on a Camaro may be a POS and adding a aftermarket t/a to a Mustang would be some kind of advantage but I never knew or had heard that before reading it here in this post. I assumed that if you put both cars at the same weight, same track width, both with torque arms and coil-overs, and at the same power that they should be the same or at least very close. Are we sure that the Mustang would be any faster at all with these mods? This is the reason I wanted Glenn to run Boudy's car this year. I would have been glad to help with the money for him to get the car set-up to his liking. If he goes out and by the end of the year he is as fast as he was in the Camaro then all us Stang drivers shut the crap up from now on! If he can't beat Jay and I then something is out of whack.

JJ
We all know you are just looking for an advantage for the 55 over the 24.

You know I understand where you guys are coming from. I don't like the Fox having to do bodywork for the track width either. But all the platforms are just different. I don't think getting the cars closer in weight, track width, TA's etc. will get you closer because there are too many other variables like wheelbase, suspension points, and lots of other engineering things that I don't understand. I don't think its possible to have it perfect but I think its pretty close. If Mosty would just put a racing steering wheel in his car and fix his handling issue then he might be untouchable. I'm all for narrowing my track width so the Fox doesn't have to do bodywork but what about the SN95 track width or do I then get a weight break? I don't think I'll be any slower without the spacers. I believe (and think others have proven) that if you prep a platform, test, test, seat time, seat time, great setup, fresh tires then any of the platforms would be the best.
Are you wanting someone to say that the Mustang would be better with the same items on the Camaro so therefore the Camaro has an advantage?

[ShadowBolt]

OK ... all joking aside ...

So the way I understand it is the bushing is removed altogether from left side UCA so that bind is eliminated as the solid axle moves through it's range of motion.
And it's the left side UCA that is causing all the issues with the mount.

Not 100% on top of it all, so if that's a true statement, then ...

Why not allow removing the left UCA altogether? If it serve no purpose other than it's a factory suspension piece and it causes major relibility problems, nix it.



If that's not the case and its the fact that all loading is directed to one mount instead of shared between two, then ...

... adding a TA similar to what a an F-Car has will be just moving the problem.

The TA in my car has been systematically tearing and ripping the floor pan out of my car for several years.
Most any 4G will show signs of the spot welds being pulled through on the floor in front of where the passenger seat bolts.
I had to repair the trans mount at one point. Its a common problem.


I think what gets lost in these kinds of discussions is that we are taking these platforms to a level of loading no one ever intended them to go. Think about it ... there is suspension loading being transmitted to a pick-up point that is spot welded to 14 gauge molded steel pan. And the expectation is that will endure repeated G-loading seen coming off the banking at TWS? Hopping curbs through Rattlesnake at MSR-C? the washboard at ECR? The canyon exiting T6 at Hallett? And we do it year after year. Not even custom built tube chassis cars can last through that kind of punishment.

I think we generally expect too much of these platforms.

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

[RichardP]

Do NOT put spherical bearings in both ends!!! The shorter upper control arm travels through a different arc than the longer lower control arm. This is why the factory lower control arms had the oval bushings. The soft rubber will allow the fore/aft deflection in the lower arms and not cause any more bind than 100% necessary.

Once you go to polyurethane in one end of the lower and then a rod end in the other end, the lower basically is a rigid link. That is why the PM3L uses the stock rubber bushing on the frame end. This is the "last link" that will allow for that different arc travel.


Huh??? If you are running both upper arms, spherical bearings in both ends is a very bad thing to do. If you are running only one upper arm, spherical bearings in both ends of the upper arm would be the best from a suspension geometry/bind standpoint. The spherical bearings could transmit more impact load into the chassis mounts and accelerate their destruction. The rubber bushings aren't strong enough to get the job done, though. Pick your poison...


Richard P.

[ShadowBolt]

Are you wanting someone to say that the Mustang would be better with the same items on the Camaro so therefore the Camaro has an advantage?

This is the $64,000 question that I don't think anyone knows the answer to. If a top driver switched platforms, by the end of the season you would know the answer. Either Michael would be faster in your car then he is in his Mustang or not. Hell, they may be as even as we can ever get them but how do we know......just because someone spends lots of time and tons of dollars and wins in a Mustang, that means the cars are equal?

JJ

[rpoz27]

Do NOT put spherical bearings in both ends!!!

You can run sphericals in all 4 ends...in fact, I would recommend it over the PM3L. Call Wolfe Racecraft in Arlington who puts 1500hp through the stock design. http://www.wolferacecraft.com/detail.aspx?ID=267 I think their claim to fame is 7's on the stock 4 link. Since bushings are open, install a heim in the stock UCA and go to town. You are going to get a TON of gear noise and you will need to up your rear spring rates to account for the lack of bind but the PM3L guys are already doing that.

You guys are over thinking this and just need to run the right bushing setup that isn't overtaxing half of the stock design and just gusset the pickup point as the CMC rules may allow. Problem solved and you keep $750 in your pocket.

[ShadowBolt]

You can run sphericals in all 4 ends...in fact, I would recommend it over the PM3L. Call Wolfe Racecraft in Arlington who puts 1500hp through the stock design. http://www.wolferacecraft.com/detail.aspx?ID=267 I think their claim to fame is 7's on the stock 4 link. Since bushings are open, install a heim in the stock UCA and go to town. You are going to get a TON of gear noise and you will need to up your rear spring rates to account for the lack of bind but the PM3L guys are already doing that.

You guys are over thinking this and just need to run the right bushing setup that isn't overtaxing half of the stock design and just gusset the pickup point as the CMC rules may allow. Problem solved and you keep $750 in your pocket.

This is a drag car and what does that have to do with a road racing car? Also I only see the bushing for the axle end. They sell another one designed for the chassis end?

JJ

[RichardP]

You can run sphericals in all 4 ends...in fact, I would recommend it over the PM3L. Call Wolfe Racecraft in Arlington who puts 1500hp through the stock design. http://www.wolferacecraft.com/detail.aspx?ID=267 I think their claim to fame is 7's on the stock 4 link. Since bushings are open, install a heim in the stock UCA and go to town.


What! Of course it works for drag racing. That's not what we are doing. Going around a corner is what puts the 4 link into a bind and tears things up. It's been proven that the spring rate has to go down because most of the roll rate is from bending the chassis mounts around (until they fail).


Richard P.

[RichardP]

Ford Racing (and Ford) stopped producing these so the only place I can find them are Maximum Motorsports at $200.00 a set!

If they are not being made, the fact that one vendor still has a stash of them (and prices them accordingly) just means that the issue gets kicked down the road a bit...

Richard P.

[ShadowBolt]

If they are not being made, the fact that one vendor still has a stash of them (and prices them accordingly) just means that the issue gets kicked down the road a bit...

Richard P.

Just placed an order at $240.00 for a set delivered to Hutto, TX.

JJ

[RichardP]

I think we generally expect too much of these platforms.


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.

[BADVENM]

Interesting that we're mentioning doing things in these cars they werent designed for.

My first event this year in the Fox was filled will moans, groans, what I thought was rubbing/grinding etc with the same shock/suspension setup I had last year in CMC1. This was generally in hard/sharp turns...mostly right. I turned the shocks to full firm and alleviated 70% of the groaning noise. I thought for sure something in the transmission tunnel area was rubbing or grinding against something else. We couldnt find anything that would support that idea.

Seems as if the chassis was possibly flexing and doing things with CMC2 power, bigger for me (not 4 piston) brakes and just overall harder running of the car compared to last year. I still get the un-nerving noises at times but nothing since the first event.

[marshall_mosty]

If you look at the combination of 4 arms, not parallel to each other, 2 with different lengths from the other 2, and then lift one side and drop the other, arc lengths do nothing but get all crazy... Even with a T/A and only running lower control arms, you still have an arc length change between the two arms that will introduce a itsy bitsy amount of rear end steer, as one wheel will move forward or aft and the other the opposite direction (unless you compress and droop the exact same amount from the parallel reference point of the lower control arm to the ground)... Okay, enough nerd stuff.

This $hit's complicated. It sucks. There is no "magic bullet". There are drawbacks to longer T/A's (poor forward bite). There are advantages (less brake torque to cause axle hop). However, the 4th gen has a shorter torque arm than the Mustang replacement (Griggs or MM) and so are more prone to brake hop. The 3-link (real or “poor man’s”) will have better bite than a MM or Griggs T/A since the instant center will allow for more anti-squat (depending on the angle of the arms).

Unbalanced Engineering has done a decent “Freshman level” writeup on their decoupled torque arm.
http://www.unbalancedengineering.com/Product_Development/Development%20of%20the%20Unbalanced%20Engineering% 20Decoupled%20Torque%20Arm.pdf

[mitchntx]

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 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.

[Rob Liebbe]

How about the Steeda 5-Link? This setup essentailly replaces the upper arms with longer and parallel units, comes with a panhard bar for lateral control. Should be better designed for the rigors of racing. Half the price of big brakes. There is adjustability, but you find your setting and weld up any adjustment holes or slots.

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-5-link-rear-suspension-system-for-ford-mustang.html

[RichardP]

How about the Steeda 5-Link? This setup essentailly replaces the upper arms with longer and parallel units, comes with a panhard bar for lateral control. Should be better designed for the rigors of racing. Half the price of big brakes. There is adjustability, but you find your setting and weld up any adjustment holes or slots.

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-5-link-rear-suspension-system-for-ford-mustang.html


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.

[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-link-rear-suspension-system-for-ford-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.

[AllZWay]

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

Mitch...you definitely should NOT sell your car. You can always take a break unitl the itch strikes again.

I keep saying I am going to take break for a while, but seem to get sucked back in every year.

[Al Fernandez]

Michael, why not spherical bushing on both sides of that upper arm then? Does nobody make the parts or are you running urethane on one side on purpose? What are you running on the lower arms?

[michaelmosty]

Michael, why not spherical bushing on both sides of that upper arm then? Does nobody make the parts or are you running urethane on one side on purpose? What are you running on the lower arms?
You can not buy just a spherical bushing for the body side of the arm. The only way to get a spherical bushing in the body side is to get an aftermarket UCA and I think all of them are adjustable. (Not 100% sure though) Like the link below:
http://www.latemodelrestoration.com/item/UPR-20011/79-04-Mustang-UPR-Pro-Series-Rear-Upper-Control-Arms-Double-Adjustable-Chromoly-Solid-Bushing

On the lower I am running the MM "Heavy duty" arms. They have spherical on the diff end and poly on the body end. MM does make an "Extreme Duty" arm that does have spherical on both ends.

[RichardP]

You can not buy just a spherical bushing for the body side of the arm.


I seem to remember Boudy selling a spherical bearing setup for the body side of the upper arms at one point? It would be conceptually the same as the lower front control arm bushing he sold. I'm not sure if either is available anymore???


Richard P.

[David Love AI27]

Everyone wanted more hp, bigger brakes and more traction (CMC2).. ALL these things add stress to a stock chassis.

I believe someone mentioned AI lite... well thats where its going...

there was NOTHING wrong with CMC1... BUT NOOOOOO...

Instead of practice and improving driving skills, we work on making the car faster instead of making the driver faster...

I would love to switch cars sometime and compare lap times... Owner drives contingency races and switch for the other two..

Just sayin....

[GlennCMC70]

Everyone wanted more hp, bigger brakes and more traction (CMC2).. ALL these things add stress to a stock chassis.

I believe someone mentioned AI lite... well thats where its going...

there was NOTHING wrong with CMC1... BUT NOOOOOO...

Instead of practice and improving driving skills, we work on making the car faster instead of making the driver faster...

I would love to switch cars sometime and compare lap times... Owner drives contingency races and switch for the other two..

Just sayin....

I was told of a East Coast region that is running a CMC Vintage type class. I have no details, no more facts, and names to point you to. Perhaps a revolution has started?

[David Love AI27]

I was told of a East Coast region that is running a CMC Vintage type class. I have no details, no more facts, and names to point you to. Perhaps a revolution has started?

Instead of revolting (anymore).. I have decided to spend my efforts on my driving... My goal is to put a true CMC1 car on the podium... 2013 may be my last year to compete in CMC then I'm going back to AI in the 27 car, so its now or never

[marshall_mosty]

If a rule change would be made to allow aftermarket upper arms, you could put together a spherical bearing upper arm for about $75 from the Coleman Catalog...

[MHISSTC]

If a rule change would be made to allow aftermarket upper arms, you could put together a spherical bearing upper arm for about $75 from the Coleman Catalog...

If such a rule were written, is your intent to replace only the right side upper control arm with a custom arm with spherical bearings, or would you come up with something that connected a fabbed single upper arm down the centerline to some type of bracketry that tied the two body and the two axle attachment points together for potential added strength?

[ShadowBolt]

If such a rule were written, is your intent to replace only the right side upper control arm with a custom arm with spherical bearings, or would you come up with something that connected a fabbed single upper arm down the centerline to some type of bracketry that tied the two body and the two axle attachment points together for potential added strength?

It would take an act of God to let us run the part Marshall decribes. No way anything like this would fly. As I have said before I changed to a Poly bushing the one side (all stock) held up fine.

JJ

[marshall_mosty]

$2500 brakes are okay, but a $75 control arm... well, that's outside the intent of CMC... I know, the Mustang boys can't replace their upper control arms because the rules were written by a bunch of GM guys who didn't think about that because they had a superior platform with a torque arm already and they don't have upper arms...

:)

[GlennCMC70]

$2500 brakes are okay, but a $75 control arm... well, that's outside the intent of CMC... I know, the Mustang boys can't replace their upper control arms because the rules were written by a bunch of GM guys who didn't think about that because they had a superior platform with a torque arm already and they don't have upper arms...

:)


You really don't know who wrote the CMC rules do you?
I do, and they all drove Fords. Don Trask is the only exception I know of.

[jeffburch]

---

LMFAO!

jb

[michaelmosty]

You really don't know who wrote the CMC rules do you?
I do, and they all drove Fords. Don Trask is the only exception I know of.
"Drove".....they have all since switched to GM.

[mitchntx]

http://lawmotorsports.net/NASAOstrich.jpg

[marshall_mosty]

You really don't know who wrote the CMC rules do you?
I do, and they all drove Fords. Don Trask is the only exception I know of.

I really didn't know... My statement was a poke that it could be viewed as biased that the Mustang's are the only platform with upper rear control arms, but they were excluded from the list of allowed modifications (no good reason why)... I speculated (ASSumed) that the rules were written by 4th gen guys... But it was just a poke.

[ShadowBolt]

Why do we assume the Mustang would be faster than the Camaro with a torque arm added? Is it because the GM unit is a POS?

JJ

[GlennCMC70]

Why do we assume the Mustang would be faster than the Camaro with a torque arm added? Is it because the GM unit is a POS?

JJ

Faster than what? Faster than a 4th gen? or faster than it is? My answer to both is yes.

[mitchntx]

Jerry/Michael

Tell you what ... you want to find out if all this is banter is rhetoric or truth, I have a couple stock, factory torque arms just like came on a Camaro hanging in my storage shed.
You are wlecome to them to put this to rest once and for all. At this point, its all just guess work and speculation.

Being as this is such a contraversial and sensitive subject, I'm sure the powers that be would allow you two guys to adapt a factory torque arm and run a series of tests just to see.


But again, the whole point of this thread is to find a solution to damaging a suspension mount on the floor pan. So taking a 3' lever and replacing it with a 5' lever probably isn't the answer you are looking for.

But, you are welcome to them in the name of getting to the truth.

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry/Michael

Tell you what ... you want to find out if all this is banter is rhetoric or truth, I have a couple stock, factory torque arms just like came on a Camaro hanging in my storage shed.
You are wlecome to them to put this to rest once and for all. At this point, its all just guess work and speculation.

Being as this is such a contraversial and sensitive subject, I'm sure the powers that be would allow you two guys to adapt a factory torque arm and run a series of tests just to see.


But again, the whole point of this thread is to find a solution to damaging a suspension mount on the floor pan. So taking a 3' lever and replacing it with a 5' lever probably isn't the answer you are looking for.

But, you are welcome to them in the name of getting to the truth.

I really like your idea Mitch. Never looked at the GM unit so I don't know how much of a job it would be. One thing though......it would not be replacing a 3' lever with a 5' but replacing a 1' lever (the stock upper is barely a foot long.

JJ

[ShadowBolt]

Faster than what? Faster than a 4th gen? or faster than it is? My answer to both is yes.

But you don't think the Camaro is faster with the torque arm than the Mustang is without one?

We need the Stig.

JJ

[GlennCMC70]

But you don't think the Camaro is faster with the torque arm than the Mustang is without one?

We need the Stig.

JJ

We have seen class dominance w/ Fox's, SN-95's, 3rd gens, 4th gens. It comes and goes.
So no, I don't think there is a difference here worth making an adjustment for. But don't leave it up to me, submit a rules change resquest and see what happens. My opinion is only one of many.

[michaelmosty]

We have seen class dominance w/ Fox's, SN-95's, 3rd gens, 4th gens. It comes and goes.
So no, I don't think there is a difference here worth making an adjustment for. But don't leave it up to me, submit a rules change resquest and see what happens. My opinion is only one of many.
The only time a Fox has dominated the class was back when it was Varner, Covini, and Ginsberg.....and they all drove a Fox!!
Not sure what your classification of dominance is. ;^)

[ShadowBolt]

The only time a Fox has dominated the class was back when it was Varner, Covini, and Ginsberg.....and they all drove a Fox!!
Not sure what your classification of dominance is. ;^)

I agree that was streatching.

So a Camaro with a torque arm and coil-overs does not have an advantage over a Mustang (without these items) but if you add these things to a Mustang it will be a way better car than a Camaro is. I guess I understand now.

JJ

[BryanL]

I agree that was streatching.

So a Camaro with a torque arm and coil-overs does not have an advantage over a Mustang (without these items) but if you add these things to a Mustang it will be a way better car than a Camaro is. I guess I understand now.

JJ
I think a Camaro with a torque arm WITHOUT coilovers has an advantage-look at the dominance that has been done with the 3rd Gen chassis.

Are you looking for a way to fix the chassis problems of the PM3L or do you want to talk platform parity? Do you want to allow the Fox a torque arm only and not the SN95 or do you think the SN95 is at a disadvantage too? What would it prove if you put a torque arm on a mustang and it ran 1 second quicker? Then it would get weight to bring it back in line don't you think?

[GlennCMC70]

I'm allowed an opinion. Sorry if that offends you.
SN-95's are Fox's too, or so says the Ford camp.
The cars are even w/ the way the cars sit now - weight, area under the curve, blah, blah, blah. My opinion.
You have yours.
If your right, the Director vote on the issue you submit for change will result in a change.



Everyone needs to take a few minutes one day and write down how much open track/racing seat time they have and compare that to how much the folks that beat them have. Odds are that the top finishers will show to have much more seat time than the "Lesser Speedy" guys. In this hobby, seat time is king. There is no rewards weight for ability.
Good luck guys - this one has jumped the shark.

[David Love AI27]

I don't care what is "allowed" any more... beef up supports, add non factory TAs... the rules changes basically elimated the TPI motor... so I don't care what happens now...



Everyone needs to take a few minutes one day and write down how much open track/racing seat time they have and compare that to how much the folks that beat them have. Odds are that the top finishers will show to have much more seat time than the "Lesser Speedy" guys. In this hobby, seat time is king.

AND prep time... Fox bodies dominated with Todd and Adam because of experience and then there was ShuVarner (he was just a natural)... Then came 3rd Gens with the Jeff's... Seat time AND prep time... The Jeffs had the best prepared cars in those years... Michael had Lemons races to add to his experience, James drove dirt cars and Dan has been getting time with The Driver's Edge... I spotted Jeremiah running Karts at TWS and he cross trains by running and biking AND his car prep is better than most...

FYI.. after the 3 hour enduro I have started working out.. I'm down to 160lbs and working on cardio... as soon as the paychecks start getting deposited, work starts on the 3 car... and I'll be at as many TDE events as I can fit in... Glenn is right... "seat time"... but physical prep and car prep are equally important...

[GlennCMC70]

I don't care what is "allowed" any more... beef up supports, add non factory TAs... the rules changes basically elimated the TPI motor... so I don't care what happens now...

Not sure why you say that. There is a parts list for the upgrade. No different that the Fox/SN-95 upgrades. It is a far better option than just quitting. If I had a 3rd gen, I would run a carb 350 or an LT1.

[michaelmosty]

Bob Denton's carb 305 has always been a beast.
BTW, David congrats on the new fitness plan!!! Keep up the good work!!

[ShadowBolt]

I think a Camaro with a torque arm WITHOUT coilovers has an advantage-look at the dominance that has been done with the 3rd Gen chassis.

Are you looking for a way to fix the chassis problems of the PM3L or do you want to talk platform parity? Do you want to allow the Fox a torque arm only and not the SN95 or do you think the SN95 is at a disadvantage too? What would it prove if you put a torque arm on a mustang and it ran 1 second quicker? Then it would get weight to bring it back in line don't you think?

BL,
No doubt Mustang drivers will need a fix for this as time goes on. The $200.00 I spent for two upper arms is crazy. The box came from Maximum Motorsports but the parts said Ford Racing on them. I assume even this source will dry up at dome point since Ford stopped producing them. I caused this issue on my car and I will figure it out. At some point we will have to find another way.

As far as platform parity is concerned, yes I want to know how close the cars really are. We do NOT know at this point. Maybe the Mustang is the best and all Mustang drivers suck and don't spend any time with car prep. For sure a great driver can win in any of the three or four chassis but that does not mean they are equal! I bet I can out bowl all of you with a $50.00 ball while letting you use a $200.00 high performance ball. The high dollar ball is certainly better but my experence will let me win with less. Same with a car. We thought we were going to get some info in this area had Glenn raced Boudy's car this year but this did not work out. Glenn, you are taking this all wrong. I'm not pissed off or anything. I'm not offended. Why would I be? I'm fixing my car and will be at ECR in Oct. I can't help but wonder (and I'm not alone) if the Mustang is giving something up to the cars with a torque arm. Like I said maybe I'm already driving the best platform........but I don't know. Are you going to tell me that if the Mustang had a torque arm and coil-overs and the Camaro did not that you would not wonder if you were giving up something? Be honest. I certainly can go purchase a Camaro and find out for myself but it would cost way more than its worth to me.

I assumed that if we added the torque arm and the coil overs and got track width as close as possible that then the cars would be as close to equal as possible. Then Gary said the aftermarket torque arms were way better than a stock GM arm. So maybe this is not possible.

JJ

[mitchntx]

I'm waiting for a big print job to finish so ...

Jerry,

Take the blinders off and look at the situation from a different persoective.
Remove the camaro from the equation altogether.
Are you running the same lap times as all other Mustangs?

Data from My Laps:

January 2012 at MSR-H

Mosty best time - 1:46.5
Gunter best time - 1:50.1
Jordan best time - 1:49.5
Wade best time - 1:55.1


March 2012 at MSR-C

Mosty best time - 1:46:5
Jordan best time - 1:49.5
Gunter best time - 1:50.1
Wade best time - 1:55.1


April 2012 at TWS

Wade best time - 2:01.9
Jordan best time - 2:01.2


June 2012 at Hallett

Mosty best time - 1:28.4
Rueth best time - 1:31.0
Wade best time - 1:33.0

Race 1 only, best laptimes are shown and the order of the drivers is the finishing order and by class and platform from three or four of the drivers I know
So and as many variables have been removed as possible for this slice of the pie.

Do you see a pattern?

There has to be parity amongst the same platform, right?
So why is there such a difference in laptimes?
Has to be the experience level of the driver.

You know as well as any one, DEs and AX in no way prepares you for the racing experience.
It was eye opening for me and you have expressed the same sentiment.
Its all about seat time.

Mosty has more seat time than any one else simply because of his relationship at MSR-C and the 7 years of experience he has under his belt.
He didn't get fast over night.

And you, Jerry, split your seat time with Jay.
I think that's fantastic and would have lover that opportunity with my dad.
But you do get 1/2 the experience per weekend than any one else.

Wade, you have come so far, dude. The last time you and I raced I could keep up, but only a slight bobble on your part allowed me to get around.
Don't be discouraged.


So to answer your question, Jerry


Maybe the Mustang is the best and all Mustang drivers suck

If going simply by laptimes, there isn't even parity amongst the Mustangs when assuming all drivers are the same.

I know it crawls all over you to pay $200 for a part that will fail ... it will fail.
But the Mustang doesn't have the market cornered there.

Ask any 4th gen guy about the front hubs.

[ShadowBolt]

I'm waiting for a big print job to finish so ...

Jerry,

Take the blinders off and look at the situation from a different persoective.
Remove the camaro from the equation altogether.
Are you running the same lap times as all other Mustangs?

Data from My Laps:

January 2012 at MSR-H

Mosty best time - 1:46.5
Gunter best time - 1:50.1
Jordan best time - 1:49.5
Wade best time - 1:55.1


March 2012 at MSR-C

Mosty best time - 1:46:5
Jordan best time - 1:49.5
Gunter best time - 1:50.1
Wade best time - 1:55.1


April 2012 at TWS

Wade best time - 2:01.9
Jordan best time - 2:01.2


June 2012 at Hallett

Mosty best time - 1:28.4
Rueth best time - 1:31.0
Wade best time - 1:33.0

Race 1 only, best laptimes are shown and the order of the drivers is the finishing order and by class and platform from three or four of the drivers I know
So and as many variables have been removed as possible for this slice of the pie.

Do you see a pattern?

There has to be parity amongst the same platform, right?
So why is there such a difference in laptimes?
Has to be the experience level of the driver.

You know as well as any one, DEs and AX in no way prepares you for the racing experience.
It was eye opening for me and you have expressed the same sentiment.
Its all about seat time.

Mosty has more seat time than any one else simply because of his relationship at MSR-C and the 7 years of experience he has under his belt.
He didn't get fast over night.

And you, Jerry, split your seat time with Jay.
I think that's fantastic and would have lover that opportunity with my dad.
But you do get 1/2 the experience per weekend than any one else.

Wade, you have come so far, dude. The last time you and I raced I could keep up, but only a slight bobble on your part allowed me to get around.
Don't be discouraged.


So to answer your question, Jerry



If going simply by laptimes, there isn't even parity amongst the Mustangs when assuming all drivers are the same.

I know it crawls all over you to pay $200 for a part that will fail ... it will fail.
But the Mustang doesn't have the market cornered there.

Ask any 4th gen guy about the front hubs.

Thanks for the info Mitch but you are totally missing my point. I know where I am speed wise in the Texas CMC Mustang world (and the whole Texas CMC world). This is not about the 55 should be in the front. I know who in a Mustang is better than I am but I don't know about the Camaros. Obviously several are faster than I am but is the Mustang platform holding me back some.......any? Is it holding Michael and Wade back? If Michael drove your car for a season would he be winning every race or would it be about the same? Al was going to trade cars with Boudy (did not work out but it could have been an eye opener).

This is not aboout the 55 or who can beat me or who I can outrun. I know my limitations and what it would take to get to the front and I am not willing to spend the time it takes to get there. This is a question of parity. I guess I'm stupid but I don't fully understand why the Mustang would be a better car than the Camaro if it was running the same parts as the Camaro runs? This has been the question all along. This is not end of the world stuff just stuff I wonder about sometimes.


JJ

[ShadowBolt]

Even in this pile of $hit Mustang I'm going to kick the 24's ass in Oct. See, I set my goals low.

JJ

[mitchntx]

Thanks for the info Mitch but you are totally missing my point. I know where I am speed wise in the Texas CMC Mustang world (and the whole Texas CMC world). This is not about the 55 should be in the front. I know who in a Mustang is better than I am but I don't know about the Camaros. Obviously several are faster than I am but is the Mustang platform holding me back some.......any? Is it holding Michael and Wade back? If Michael drove your car for a season would he be winning every race or would it be about the same? Al was going to trade cars with Boudy (did not work out but it could have been an eye opener).

This is not aboout the 55 or who can beat me or who I can outrun. I know my limitations and what it would take to get to the front and I am not willing to spend the time it takes to get there. This is a question of parity. I guess I'm stupid but I don't fully understand why the Mustang would be a better car than the Camaro if it was running the same parts as the Camaro runs? This has been the question all along. This is not end of the world stuff just stuff I wonder about sometimes.


JJ

Jerry, I really do think I understand ... you want to know what the change would be with a torque arm in a Mustang. Slower? Faster? the same?
You are right ... we don't know. But a maxim MS TA kit is hardly a like for like comparison to a factory GM unit. Therefore, it's an unaswereable question.

And the original point was about what can be done to stop the self destruction of the race car.
In the GM world, the similar self-destruction is along the trans mount. Its ripping all the spot welds out.
Self-destruction is part of the cost of going racing, from where I sit. You guys suffer from it and so do I.
Only solution is to go back and repair it.

And then the tangent about parity found its way into this convo. And it all centers on lap times.
The question hidden in all of this is parity discussion is with whom?
Parity with your car and Proctor's?
Mine and Michael's?
Wade's and Allford's?

The data above shows a WIDE variance in the same platform. I could post similar numbers on the Camaro side.
Rules relaxation in the name of parity HAS to remove the driver from the equation. Why? That's the biggest variable.

So that leads us full circle again to a question that just isn't answerable.

Is it fair to me as a mid-pack slacker for a potential advantage in lap times to Michael?
Is it fair to give you an advantage in order to keep up with Proctor?
What would that do to Michael's lap times?
The problem is, no one knows if there is an advantage or not.

You would be just as pissed off if the TA kit was allowed today, an advantage seen and the kit deemed illegal.
Remember how pissed folks were who had a stack of 888s?

Bottom line ... If a racer wants to 1) race, 2) be competitive and 3) not tear anything up.
Pick two and be call it good.

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry, I really do think I understand ... you want to know what the change would be with a torque arm in a Mustang. Slower? Faster? the same?
You are right ... we don't know. But a maxim MS TA kit is hardly a like for like comparison to a factory GM unit. Therefore, it's an unaswereable question.

And the original point was about what can be done to stop the self destruction of the race car.
In the GM world, the similar self-destruction is along the trans mount. Its ripping all the spot welds out.
Self-destruction is part of the cost of going racing, from where I sit. You guys suffer from it and so do I.
Only solution is to go back and repair it.

And then the tangent about parity found its way into this convo. And it all centers on lap times.
The question hidden in all of this is parity discussion is with whom?
Parity with your car and Proctor's?
Mine and Michael's?
Wade's and Allford's?

The data above shows a WIDE variance in the same platform. I could post similar numbers on the Camaro side.
Rules relaxation in the name of parity HAS to remove the driver from the equation. Why? That's the biggest variable.

So that leads us full circle again to a question that just isn't answerable.

Is it fair to me as a mid-pack slacker for a potential advantage in lap times to Michael?
Is it fair to give you an advantage in order to keep up with Proctor?
What would that do to Michael's lap times?
The problem is, no one knows if there is an advantage or not.

You would be just as pissed off if the TA kit was allowed today, an advantage seen and the kit deemed illegal.
Remember how pissed folks were who had a stack of 888s?

Bottom line ... If a racer wants to 1) race, 2) be competitive and 3) not tear anything up.
Pick two and be call it good.

"So that leads us full circle again to a question that just isn't answerable."

I love ya Mitch but I do not agree with this part. It think it's possible to find out. I understand (now) about the differences in t/a's on the two platforms. I think we would know by now if Glenn had driven Boudy's car or if Al had traded for it. I don't blame Glenn for not doing it since he had nothing to gain and everything to lose. If at the end of the year he was not running up front or at least close to his old lap times..........or if he was as fast or faster than in previous years we would have learned a bunch. My real guess is the Mustang would be no faster adding a torque arm and I would still be a midpack slacker! Sorry I kept this one going so long. At least there was something to read on here for a few days.

I finished with this thread now since we will not figure it out here. IMHO the S197 is going to screw up CMC way past this issue. I thought we kept it civil. I'm going to miss you at the track Mitch!

When can we go racing?

JJ

[michaelmosty]

"So that leads us full circle again to a question that just isn't answerable."

I thought we kept it civil. I'm going to miss you at the track Mitch!

When can we go racing?

JJ

Agreed Jerry!!!
There was never a single time I was pissed, offended, or upset with the discussion. I think it is great to be able to hear everyone's opinions and understand the reasoning behind the individual views. It just means better education and understanding for all.

On a side note, the Jerry / Leinart smack talk is freakin great!!! :^)

[GlennCMC70]

Mitch - Golf clap....... Nice POV.
Parity...... Something we all want. How close is it between platforms? It is closer between platforms of top drivers in the series than it is between top drivers in the series of a single platform. Of the number of 4th gens, how many are top performers percentage wise? Same for 3rd gens? Fox's? SN-95's?


S-197's...... Man I wish this car would just go away.

[BlueFirePony]

S-197's...... Man I wish this car would just go away.
Consider it done. Kyri and I will run DE and maybe TT when we return in October.

[GlennCMC70]

Consider it done. Kyri and I will run DE and maybe TT when we return in October.

Not sure why you didn't take this w/ regards to CMC, but do what you must. Were you considering moving down from AI?

[rpoz27]

Mitch - Golf clap....... Nice POV.
Parity...... Something we all want. How close is it between platforms? It is closer between platforms of top drivers in the series than it is between top drivers in the series of a single platform. Of the number of 4th gens, how many are top performers percentage wise? Same for 3rd gens? Fox's? SN-95's?


S-197's...... Man I wish this car would just go away.

you guys are funny.....you should try owning BOTH a Camaro and a Mustang. You start to have these type of conversations with yourself.

[marshall_mosty]

you guys are funny.....you should try owning BOTH a Camaro and a Mustang. You start to have these type of conversations with yourself.

Okay, now I did get a chuckle out of that... :)

[Rsmith350]

We should pick a charity and do a fun run with all mustangs for 20 and all camaros for twenty. Would be fun to watch

[Rsmith350]

2. INTENT
The intent of the Camaro Mustang Challenge (CMC) racing series is to provide National Auto Sport Association (NASA) members a racing series featuring production American pony cars. Modifications will be limited to those necessary to promote safety, close competition, and flexibility to enable drivers to learn and experiment with the principles of race car setup within boundaries intended to limit expenses, thereby providing the drivers with fun, exciting, and challenging yet approachable racing.

I don't see anything about making ANY platforms equal. Isn't that called spec piñata?

[David Love AI27]

Not sure why you say that. There is a parts list for the upgrade. No different that the Fox/SN-95 upgrades. It is a far better option than just quitting. If I had a 3rd gen, I would run a carb 350 or an LT1.

You just proved my point that the rules change elimiated a stock TPI... Every OPTION you mention is going to cost me money that I don't have...

[scopx]

Have waded through this Torque Arm discussion to see if repairs were made on OP vehicle. Pardon me if I missed it somewhere.
Concerning the 110 welder-they do not have enough "beans" (amperage).
The base metal is more than likely an alloy that is coated (dipped) with rust preventative (most likely a proprietary galvanised solution) and then painted.
I would not recommend heating with torch as it possibly could weaken metal beyond affected areas.
It is necessary to grind through the coating to get to good metal for welding.
In looking at the pics, it did not appear that the welder had any sort of protective gas around the heat affected zone (HAZ) to protect metal while cooling. He could have been using fluxed wire which is nasty to work with, leaving lots of splatter.
Having said all that, it is necessary to use 220 Mig with either 75(argon)/25 (CO2) or 100% Argon shielding gas.
Welder might to experiment with different filler wires to determine correct for alloy. But any good body shop should know correct number.
Recommend welder (and owner of vehicle) consider a little "gusseting" on replacement parts, if it will pass tech.
Sorry if preaching to choir here.
Tom

[GlennCMC70]

Have waded through this Torque Arm discussion to see if repairs were made on OP vehicle. Pardon me if I missed it somewhere.
Concerning the 110 welder-they do not have enough "beans" (amperage).
The base metal is more than likely an alloy that is coated (dipped) with rust preventative (most likely a proprietary galvanised solution) and then painted.
I would not recommend heating with torch as it possibly could weaken metal beyond affected areas.
It is necessary to grind through the coating to get to good metal for welding.
In looking at the pics, it did not appear that the welder had any sort of protective gas around the heat affected zone (HAZ) to protect metal while cooling. He could have been using fluxed wire which is nasty to work with, leaving lots of splatter.
Having said all that, it is necessary to use 220 Mig with either 75(argon)/25 (CO2) or 100% Argon shielding gas.
Welder might to experiment with different filler wires to determine correct for alloy. But any good body shop should know correct number.
Recommend welder (and owner of vehicle) consider a little "gusseting" on replacement parts, if it will pass tech.
Sorry if preaching to choir here.
Tom

I'll disagree w/ a couple things here and move on.
A 110 welder is plenty when dealing w/ body sheetmetal and floorpans. My 135amp is rated to 1/8" (.125"). I haven't come across any unibody cars using material that thick yet.
Heating the metal to burn off the coating is OK as long as you don't heat the metal too much. The goal is to burn off the coating and not make the metal glow red. Grinding is OK but the dust from doing so still contains the "stuff" your trying to remove and this will still cause welding issues. It is easy to remove too much material as well when grinding. Once you see yellow sparks, you have gone deep enough. Acessing the area could be an issue as well w/ a grinder. Welding on the face of clean metal that is still coated w/ the coating on the backside will cause the "outgassing" that will affect the weld. It is less likely, but still possible.

[BryanL]

Jerry-why don't you be the guinea pig for this and see what happens? http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=514_2_78&products_id=506&zenid=564cabe04ec28f470309b840b690017c

[ShadowBolt]

Jerry-why don't you be the guinea pig for this and see what happens? http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=514_2_78&products_id=506&zenid=564cabe04ec28f470309b840b690017c

I would rather try this.

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=514_21_89&products_id=231&zenid=564cabe04ec28f470309b840b690017c

Who knows how much if any these things would help the handling of my car?


JJ

[BryanL]

I would rather try this.

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=514_21_89&products_id=231&zenid=564cabe04ec28f470309b840b690017c

Who knows how much if any these things would help the handling of my car?


JJ

Great-then I want to be able to have a similar setup and should be allowed this.
http://www.unbalancedengineering.com/Camaro/TA/

[marshall_mosty]

Great-then I want to be able to have a similar setup and should be allowed this.
http://www.unbalancedengineering.com/Camaro/TA/

Coil over struts versus a decoupled torque arm... Kinda like taking a knife to a gun fight... :)

[Wade]

I happen to have a weekend "street car" that has the MM coilovers on the front, and the rear, and it has the MM panhard bar, oh and the MM torque arm. No cage, but it does have subframe connectors. PBR cobra brakes, and old school CMC (230hp) engine. Sounds like I need to swap the street tires for toyos and run my street car and race car back to back. Both are fox coupes....

[rleng1]

Bring it Jr., and congrats on the wedding. Do you get to drive the Camaro yet? Keep dreaming.

[BryanL]

Coil over struts versus a decoupled torque arm... Kinda like taking a knife to a gun fight... :)

Pay closer attention and you will see that my response is to the MM torque arm and not coilovers--mustangineers.

[marshall_mosty]

Pay closer attention and you will see that my response is to the MM torque arm and not coilovers--mustangineers.

BL... Check your link... It's to MM coil overs... geez!

[HoustonNW]

Since I missed Hallett I got some practice in at Grandsport Speedway today. I put the (now hated) Big Brake Kit on the car to hopefully stop the axle hop that I've been fighting.

Didn't work.

I'll take the Big Brake Kit off and give the Mustangs any torque arm they want if I can have a decoupled torque arm for the Camaro. Please, can I haz decoupled torque arm?

[GlennCMC70]

Waht is a "BBK"?

[michaelmosty]

big brake kit?

[HoustonNW]

Changed BBK to Big Brake Kit.

[GlennCMC70]

Could your driving style is the issue w/ brake hop? If that is the case, a BBK will not fix it. I'll make a point to look the car over real well at ECR if you would like.

[rpoz27]

Since I missed Hallett I got some practice in at Grandsport Speedway today. I put the (now hated) Big Brake Kit on the car to hopefully stop the axle hop that I've been fighting.

Didn't work.

I'll take the Big Brake Kit off and give the Mustangs any torque arm they want if I can have a decoupled torque arm for the Camaro. Please, can I haz decoupled torque arm?

dial out rear brake and get rear shocks with better rebound dampening.

[Wade]

Wayne, Aren't you still running all of your lines through the factory routing and factory (disabled) ABS module? Does anyone have any experience on whether or not that system should be replumbed to help alleviate the issue? My understanding at TWS was that you had all of the rear brake dialed out that you could.

[HoustonNW]

dial out rear brake and get rear shocks with better rebound dampening.

Before the new brakes I already had the bias all the way to the front with Autozone street pads on the back.

I do have DA Koni's but haven't added rear rebound because the car was almost undriveably loose on entry as it was. (Even Proctor said that he wouldn't want to drive it in traffic.) Higher tire pressure has helped that a lot, although I can't figure out why exactly.

Glenn asked about driving style. I know that I need to use the brakes harder, maybe I'm now applying them too fast? I seem to have the axle hop when I try to brake harder but I haven't reached any lockup yet.

[rleng1]

Make sure torque arm bolts are tight, and that shocks are functioning correctly. I had loose torque arm bolts and busted right rear shock......too many take-offs and landings.

[AllZWay]

Make sure torque arm bolts are tight, and that shocks are functioning correctly. I had loose torque arm bolts and busted right rear shock......too many take-offs and landings.

I have had the same problem. I guess the torque arm worked loose and then broke the shock from moving around so much. It will cause more brake hop for sure.

[GlennCMC70]

Before the new brakes I already had the bias all the way to the front with Autozone street pads on the back.

I like to refere to the bias a different way. The valve has a "<-----less more----->" on top. So it should be less rear brake or more rear brake. So be sure that when your turning it in the "less" direction, your wanting less rear brake and if your turning it in the "more" direction your wanting more rear brake. The valve should be plumbed into the forward brake line port on the master. Be sure the arrow is pointing towards the rear calipers.

W/ you seemingly complaining of this much more that other folks, it seems your car is the issue. There has to be something simple that is being overlooked causing your car to be worst that others.
Rear shocks are important, but the fronts could also be contributing to it. A lack of compresion in the front will allow too much weight transfer.

Dont get the increase in rear pressures helping a loose condition.