Mustang guys running the poor mans 3-link

[michaelmosty]

Check your heim joint regularly!!
I noticed mine is destroyed and I am researching to see if there is a beefier option in joint. The bearing completely seperated from the shell.
I'm not sure if the bearing let go b/c of pressure or if it was my error with the nut backing off. I always nut and bolt the car after each event and after Cresson I did a "visual" on this part which clearly was a bad idea.

[Rob Liebbe]

Which nut backed off? Was it the through bolt or the bearing retainer nut? I checked mine last night and the through bolt is ok, but I did not disassemble the arm to check further. I'll check it out, thanks for the heads up.

I for one would like to see a rules allowance for a beefier arm for durability and safety.

[ShadowBolt]

Which nut backed off? Was it the through bolt or the bearing retainer nut? I checked mine last night and the through bolt is ok, but I did not disassemble the arm to check further. I'll check it out, thanks for the heads up.

I for one would like to see a rules allowance for a beefier arm for durability and safety.

I agree even if it had to be welded so it could not be adjusted at the track.

Like this.

http://www.americanmuscle.com/steeda...arms-7904.html

JJ

[GlennCMC70]

I read this rule:

7.33.3 The OEM stock rear lower control arms only may be replaced with "replacement type" aftermarket
control arms. Any aftermarket control arms used must be of fixed OEM length, or adjusted to OEM length
and have jam nuts tack welded or otherwise fixed to maintain the exact suspension geometry of the OEM
control arms they replace. Any spring perch must be of fixed height. The control arms must bolt on using
the OEM factory holes and no cutting, welding or other modifications may be made to the structure of the
car or rear end housing to install these control arms.

And I understand it states lower control arms only. I would ping the powers that be (all Directors) and see if this is an oversite and that the upper was targeted to be excluded from this rule or is this the result of the wording used that created the upper to be excluded.

[GlennCMC70]

I would love to see a pic of this arm you guys are using.

[Rob Liebbe]

I would love to see a pic of this arm you guys are using.

Here you go. It's a stamped steel (thin) arm from Ford Parts or from a stock Mustang 79 - 04.

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts...tKeyField=1034

The axle end bushing is here. Pt# MUS 207S Possible upper arms are also noted on the same page. Pt# MUS 201

http://www.trzmotorsports.com/fox.html#rear

[AI#97]

I would love to see a pic of this arm you guys are using.

Here you go. It's a stamped steel (thin) arm from Ford Parts or from a stock Mustang 79 - 04.

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts...tKeyField=1034

The axle end bushing is here. Pt# MUS 207S Possible upper arms are also noted on the same page. Pt# MUS 201

http://www.trzmotorsports.com/fox.html#rear

those upper arms look pretty weak....consider the fact all that axle wind up is now going through one arm...also would be concerned about the teflon lining holding up in the heims....the granetellis will make noise but would hold up longer to abuse.

I had good luck with these... http://www.granatellimotorsports.com...ay.php?gid=125

Summit has them for $129/pair.... You could also weld more gussetts to them...

[Rob Liebbe]

Weak is the problem. We could modify the stockers or allow an upgrade to the uppers like the rulles allow for the lowers. I wold like to run aftermarket uppers.

[jeremiahkellam]

Slippery slope...I run the stock upper 4 link set up with no problems...

Want a 3 link rear??...get a S197...

[michaelmosty]