---Jay Mitchell <jemitchell@compuserve.com> wrote:
> Any 'Stangers care to comment here?
Okalee dokalee... :-)
> I can't say from personal experience, but it is my impression
> that the Mustang's biggest problems in FS came from the front
> end, not the rear, ergo the IRS won't be all that helpful.
Jay, you're right that the front end needs help on a Mustang...it's
far from perfect. But, the SN-95 chassis has better geometry than the
older Fox bodies up front so it's not as bad as it used to be.
Keep in mind just how bad the stock four link is on a Mustang, though.
It does a very poor job of keeping the axle laterally located and
it's prone to wheel hop. Remove the quad shocks and see what I'm
talking about. :-o Without a torque arm or similar traction device,
it can be very difficult to plant the power in a Mustang. I'm dealing
with that right now with the CP car....and it's still got a stock
motor and 13" slicks! Right hand corners turn into a one wheel peel
from hell unless the diff's really tight.
The IRS will reduce the unsprung weight of the rear end, allowing for
better launches (and other obvious benefits). It'll have a decent
camber curve allowing for more grip in the corners. Toe in/out will
now be adjustable. Assuming the IRS doesn't weigh a ton, it could
substantially help a Mustang's handling.
I tell you this, though. If this car goes into F-Stock, then someone
at the SCCA should lose their job! If the Camaro SS is thrown into
Super Stock, so should the Cobra. Of course, the Camaro shouldn't be
anywhere NEAR Super Stock, but that's another issue. Why is that car
not in F-Stock anyway?
Anyway, I'll go back to lurking now... :-)
Later,
Tommy
Ex-1996 Cobra FS, then ESP
==
Tommy Regan
'87 Mustang CP #16
Austin, Texas
|