• Welcome to the Contour Enthusiasts Group, the best resource for the Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique.

    You can register to join the community.

#49's new powerplant has arrived, let the build begin

mean streets a good place, i had tham do a cage for me years ago. did you check into TNT also?
 
newb said:
mean streets a good place, i had tham do a cage for me years ago. did you check into TNT also?
Click to expand...

No because Mean Street is just down the street from my house and I've seen enough references to not screw around with anyone else.
 
Stopped into Mean Street today and I am now on their schedule for a cage and fuel cell. I was there for about an hour BS'ing with the owner Richard and some other guys there. Turns out he make headers and a bunch of other things as well. He had a new(er) Mustang GT in there that was getting a cage. The wouldn't let him take the dash out or any other parts so he had the windshield removed and drilled holes in the dash. Man I would have a helluva time drilling holes in a dash on a car that new. In any case my car should be a breeze for him with having access to everything. Only thing I'll need to do between now and the third week of April is install the headliner, carpet, racing seats, and rear window carpet. Well that and build install the powertrain, minus fuel system parts.
 
You have to be very confident in what you are doing to drill holes in the dash of someone elses newer car.

And since its close to your house, you gonna roll the car over there?
 
mike, so whats the gameplan with the car prior to the cage? (I'd imagine that is going to consume much of the available funding)
 
bensenvill said:
mike, so whats the gameplan with the car prior to the cage? (I'd imagine that is going to consume much of the available funding)
Click to expand...

Actually I was surprised. The full cage, which is going to be all custom to fit my car was quoted to be around $1100-1600 depending on required tube size. Then the custom fuel cell to fit in the OEM tank size is going to be $300-400. I was expecting it would be a lot more. However at least I have some time to save up for it as he's not going to be able to fit me in until the end of April beginning of May.

Well I need to get the RSTB's welded up and built from the GB. However after that I plan to work on the traction bar design that I've been neglecting. It's proven to be a little more challenging because of how far my wheels turn into the wells with the control arms being so short. Makes it a little difficult to connection the bars to the control arms and still retain proper suspension geometry.
 
Last edited:
CSVT#49 said:
Actually I was surprised. The full cage, which is going to be all custom to fit my car was quoted to be around $1100-1600 depending on required tube size. Then the custom fuel cell to fit in the OEM tank size is going to be $300-400. I was expecting it would be a lot more. However at least I have some time to save up for it as he's not going to be able to fit me in until the end of April beginning of May.

Well I need to get the RSTB's welded up and built from the GB. However after that I plan to work on the traction bar design that I've been neglecting. It's proven to be a little more challenging because of how far my wheels turn into the wells with the control arms being so short. Makes it a little difficult to connection the bars to the control arms and still retain proper suspension geometry.
Click to expand...


I cant remember, are you starting with available tubular LCA's or fabing the whole design as a set?

as much as I'd like to see a part made that would work on the rest of our cars, a custom front subframe woulnt be too far out from everything else you've done...
 
Since a custom front subframe is something that is easy to do and has everything to do with traction bars?

Since I know your sticking with the 4 bolt control arms, I am curious to see how your design comes together and if it will be compatible with the 2 bolt or stangkiller arms.
 
It should be compatible as long as the width/length dimensions are similar. As the mounting points to the sub-frame are located in the same area. There will be adjustment in the traction bars themselves with at least one threaded end, the mounting point is the critical factor to maintain the correct suspension geometry.
 
think of it this way, if you could build a one off subframe that would accept slightly modified aftermarket lca's from a vehicle of similar structure that already had a traction bar available on the after market, you'd have a lot less geometry to worry about, wouldnt you? I mean a subframe/cradle has no moving parts right? and all that would need changing is the ball joints to fit our knuckles, and then adapt the traction bar mounting beam to fix to the chassis?

or have I made this sound way to simple, I was just thowing an out side the box idea out there, thought it might freshen up the creativity engine. I mean you did eventually wind up going with a fuel cell didnt you?
 
KAOS_3.0 said:
think of it this way, if you could build a one off subframe that would accept slightly modified aftermarket lca's from a vehicle of similar structure that already had a traction bar available on the after market, you'd have a lot less geometry to worry about, wouldnt you? I mean a subframe/cradle has no moving parts right? and all that would need changing is the ball joints to fit our knuckles, and then adapt the traction bar mounting beam to fix to the chassis?...
Click to expand...

Wrong.

There is more to suspension geometry than just LCA placement. You can modify the control arms shape as much as you want as long as the length from center line pivot point of endlink to balljoint stay the same (they only see a straight line). As soon as you start lengthening or shortening, raising or lowering any chassis component without taking all things into consideration is when you have a mess. Even something as simple as moving where the steering rack mounts up or down in height can be detrimental. ;)
 
CrazyTalkSVT said:
Wrong.

There is more to suspension geometry than just LCA placement. You can modify the control arms shape as much as you want as long as the length from center line pivot point of endlink to balljoint stay the same (they only see a straight line). As soon as you start lengthening or shortening, raising or lowering any chassis component without taking all things into consideration is when you have a mess. Even something as simple as moving where the steering rack mounts up or down in height can be detrimental. ;)
Click to expand...

so custom lca's designed to take traction bars would be the best way to go then?
 
KAOS_3.0 said:
so custom lca's designed to take traction bars would be the best way to go then?
Click to expand...

I think so. In this case, with the Mondeo race heritage these cars have I think it's better to enhance what has already been tested and given to us rather than cut and gut. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I am saying that there is no way any of us have even the slightest bit of access to equipment such as what Ford used to design/test the suspension back then...let alone do it in a reasonable amount of time. We are left with research and development coupled with trial and error and all of that takes a ton of time.

I hate that traction bars have the name they have. They should have named them Anti-Hop Bars, Stiffy Bars, or something more linear to their function. Sure there is "some" traction gained by minimizing wheel hop, but seriously...it's minimal on a higher hp FWD car. Spin, spin, spin 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and I can't wait to stick my finger in Mike's face and say nah nah, told ya so! :lol:
I can't remember completely, but I think FWD cars set the toe slightly outward because under torque load the tires want to toe in towards the center of the car...could be off a bit there, but the purpose of the traction bar on FWD is the attempt to minimize bushing flex, suspension slop, and unwanted control arm movement front and back by linking the A-arms to the frame. It's alot like a glorified sway bar only the bars directional path is front to back rather than up and down and the A-arms are not really "linked" together. By joining them to the frame in this manner the unwanted "flex" and/or toe in and out is stabalized, minimizing hop.

There really isn't a whole lot of "geometry" involved in building these so I don't know what Mike is talking about there, but there is the clearing of tires, axles, tie rods (in our case we luck out...rear tie rods), brakes, and other good stuff that could be in the way like he said. They just have to clear everything throughout suspension travel. Which is easier said than done.
 
CrazyTalkSVT said:
I hate that traction bars have the name they have. They should have named them Anti-Hop Bars, Stiffy Bars, or something more linear to their function. Sure there is "some" traction gained by minimizing wheel hop, but seriously...it's minimal on a higher hp FWD car. Spin, spin, spin 1st, 2nd, and 3rd and I can't wait to stick my finger in Mike's face and say nah nah, told ya so! :lol:
I can't remember completely, but I think FWD cars set the toe slightly outward because under torque load the tires want to toe in towards the center of the car...could be off a bit there, but the purpose of the traction bar on FWD is the attempt to minimize bushing flex, suspension slop, and unwanted control arm movement front and back by linking the A-arms to the frame. It's alot like a glorified sway bar only the bars directional path is front to back rather than up and down and the A-arms are not really "linked" together. By joining them to the frame in this manner the unwanted "flex" and/or toe in and out is stabalized, minimizing hop.

There really isn't a whole lot of "geometry" involved in building these so I don't know what Mike is talking about there, but there is the clearing of tires, axles, tie rods (in our case we luck out...rear tie rods), brakes, and other good stuff that could be in the way like he said. They just have to clear everything throughout suspension travel. Which is easier said than done.
Click to expand...

Yea I agree about the naming convention B. You can try to point your finger all you want... but your going to be wiping that grin right off your face as my catches and grabs... ripping you a new one. It's about managing the power and not trying to throw it all to the ground at once.

As for the geometry I was referring to the fact that you have to make sure you keep the mounting point of the bars in-line with the pivot point of the LCA as if you don't it will bind the suspension and cause large amounts of grief as in doing so you would basically need a variable length bar to compensate for the differences in length needed. As long as you mount it in such a fashion such that the pivot point is shared then the bar will essentially move as one with the LCA. This is easier said then done since there is all kinds of business going on between the available mounting point and the LCA. Couple that with the close proximity of the wheel/tire along with the transmission and subframe and it makes for some fun... But I like a good challenge. I just need to commit myself to it for a long enough time to resolve all the problems.
 
first, where are you planning to mount them? second, couldnt they go towards the back rather than the front? I get how they work, a bar in the back would do the same job, just the stress on it would be in the opposite direction. a good mounting point would be on top of some subframe connectors... for that matter, in the back of the LCA you could almost hook up a stiff piece of cable couldnt you?
 
CSVT#49 said:
...As for the geometry I was referring to the fact that you have to make sure you keep the mounting point of the bars in-line with the pivot point of the LCA as if you don't it will bind the suspension and cause large amounts of grief as in doing so you would basically need a variable length bar to compensate for the differences in length needed. As long as you mount it in such a fashion such that the pivot point is shared then the bar will essentially move as one with the LCA. This is easier said then done since there is all kinds of business going on between the available mounting point and the LCA. Couple that with the close proximity of the wheel/tire along with the transmission and subframe and it makes for some fun... But I like a good challenge. I just need to commit myself to it for a long enough time to resolve all the problems.
Click to expand...

This is why the setups you see run heims so that through the suspension arch there is no binding. ;) I'm guessing you want the bars as close to parallel with the LCA as possible unless they factor in some kind of goofy FWD instant center, but seriously have my doubts on that. They all seem like the, "I'm putting it here because it clears" types of setups. I never really thought about anti squat characteristics of FWD. If it is similar to RWD, higher instant center would have more anti squat and lower instant center would have less. If you go too high with the instant center though the vehicle wants to raise as you accelerate....At least that's how I remember it for RWD stuff. Who knows, I'm rusty with all that stuff because I haven't had to think about it in a while...you on the other hand...you're screwed! :laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
The whole point of traction bars in a FWD layout is to reduce the flex of the bushings of the control arms in order to reduce wheel hop, correct?

That being said, you are going to have tubular control arms with heim joints. Heim joints that have basically zero deflection...

I would think your engineering time may be better spent creating solid subframe mounts to eliminate all rubber bushings from your front suspension. This would leave you with rigid mounts for the entire front end. I know that you will be doing poly filled RR's but you could also look at doing something in the way of a solid front and rear RR along with poly upper and lower engine mounts.
 
But hes not going to have tubular control arms, unless I missed something lately he is running the stock 4 bolt arms.

Also, I like the idea of solid subframe mounts, PRT has them and will make them.
 
FastFord said:
But hes not going to have tubular control arms, unless I missed something lately he is running the stock 4 bolt arms.

Also, I like the idea of solid subframe mounts, PRT has them and will make them.
Click to expand...

I totally forgot about that, thanks for reminding me, I retract part of my previous statement. I still think solid subframe mounts would be a great addition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top