|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
SHO Sway Bars / SuspensionIn theory, the SHO has a much better handling suspension than the SLO, derived from the Police version and with its own springs, struts, and sway bars. In practice, Ford stayed true to the original idea only up through GenI, and by the end of the GenII handling had become a complete crapshoot. In any case, Ford's best work was only a start; simple suspension modifications can drastically affect how the car drives. The following information was derived from a long thread on TechSHO May 22-25 2002 originally titled "more sway bar debate", and also from a few postings on the SHOForum. I have attempted to distill it here for clarity, but since I understand the subject only poorly, questions should be to the lists. However, please send any corrections. Where I have explicitly quoted someone else, or nearly verbatim-copied their words, {credit is given like this}. Updated 4 Jun 02: testimonials, cleanups. Updated 19 June 02: sway bar deflection rates, endlink bushings Updated 20 June 02: spring rates Updated 21 June 02: Cargo coil details. Updated 30 April 04: trivial changes. Glossary and Quick Suspension Overview
Sway Bars
|
Vehicle |
Front |
Rear |
SLO |
? |
? |
SHO |
20.6, 24 |
19, 21, 23, 26 |
Police (93-95?) |
? |
25 |
Wagon |
22 |
inapplicable |
Common Stock Stabilizer Bar Diameters |
||
Model |
Front |
Rear |
'89, '90, '91 |
24mm |
26mm |
'92, '93 5-speed |
24mm |
23mm |
'93 auto |
23mm |
23mm |
At least one '93 ATX |
20.6mm |
19mm |
Most '94-'95 5-speed |
?? |
23mm |
At least one early '94 auto |
23mm |
19mm |
Most '94-'95 SHO auto, some '94-'95 SHO 5-speeds |
20.6mm |
21mm |
At least two 1995 MTX |
20.6mm |
19mm |
Front Bar (Relative) Strength |
100% |
130% |
184% |
|||
Front Bar Diameter |
20.6 |
22 |
24 |
|||
Rear Bar (Relative) Strength |
100% |
149% |
215% |
300% |
351% |
472% |
Rear Bar Diameter |
19 |
21 |
23 |
25 |
26 |
28 |
"Okay, I did a little more digging on the subject and according to what I found to get the "best balance" in the SHO you want to have the K factor of the FSB to be about half that of the RSB (at least for the ridge unit Gen III or a Gen II with SFC's and STB's). So using the graph and equation off the V8SHO site, thanks to Sheriff Buford T. Justice, and some quick measurements of my FSB while still on my car (not 100% sure they are absolutely accurate), here's what I came up with." (I've made two additions to the table by interpolation.)
Front Size/ Rear Size |
Ratio |
Comments |
20.6mm/19mm |
1.55 |
(author's 95 MTX as OEM) |
24mm/23mm |
1.34 |
you have got to be kidding |
19mm/19mm |
1.13 |
|
20.6mm/21mm |
1.04 |
|
22mm/23mm |
0.94 |
|
26mm/28mm |
0.84 |
safe predictable understeer |
24mm/26mm |
0.82 |
|
19mm/21mm |
0.75 |
|
20.6mm/23mm |
0.72 | (author's present pairing) |
24mm/28mm |
0.61 |
good overall balance |
22mm/26mm |
0.58 |
|
19mm/23mm |
0.52 |
Gen III optimal |
20.6mm/25mm |
0.52 |
|
20.6mm/26mm |
0.44 |
on the tail happy side |
22mm/28mm |
0.42 |
|
20.6mm/28mm |
0.33 |
sick oversteer |
19mm/26mm |
0.32 |
|
19mm/28mm |
0.24 |
yeah, right |
"Sway bar bushings material, sring rates, strut type, settings and mounts, degree of unibody stiffing, sub frame bushing material and differential type all have an effect on the above. I think it's time for Dexter to get out of the laboratory and get on with some field and/or track testing. Deedee, don't touch my sway bar bushings!" {John Hrinsin}
"The 20.6mm/26mm combo with the full TPR or poly bushing treatment on a open diff MTX, even with SFC and STB's, tends to be on the oversteer side of things, fun for autocross, maybe a handful on a road course. Several people have reported that the 22mm FSB (from a SLO wagon) with the 26mm RSB combo is very neutral setup. The same maybe said for the 24mm/28mm combo, but that just seems way too stiff IMHO." {John Hrinsin}
"A SHO with 24/26 bars and either stock or Eibach springs is going to be a devoted, confirmed understeerer and, in open-diff form, will have trouble getting power to the ground in any corner more than medium-tight. ... Stiff front anti-roll bars and open-diff FWD do not mix. The bar tends to lift the inside wheel, reducing grip and producing one-wheel peel." {John Miller}
"Without a Quaife the 22/26 combo gets power down much better and is more neutral. With a Quaife the 24/26 combination works okay, it's still got plenty of reassuring understeer but one-wheel peel won't kill all your speed any more. The 20mm front bar ends up too tail-happy for anything but autocross, especially with a Quaife - a big dose of lift-throttle oversteer in Turn 9 at Laguna can make life interesting in a hurry." {John Miller}Also, "The nose heavy ATX's need a heavier FSB." {John Hrinsin}
"Now, pesky inside wheel spin on corner exit . . . is why I think a non-Quaiffe MTX car should use the 20.6/26 combo. Tighten up on the front bar and you get load transfer to the outside wheel, letting the inside spin . . and spin, and spin." {John Holowczak}
Rubber (OEM) |
Compress easily, wear out, crumble. Lead to a
very soft feel when cornering. |
Delrin |
Early aftermarket upgrade. Very hard material,
but wears quickly. No longer available.. |
Aluminum |
Solid bushing material |
Polyurethene |
Harder than rubber, less so than Delrin.
However, they bind, wear out, and squeek/squeal horribly unless
frequently lubricated. |
Thermoplastic Rubber (TPR) |
Harder than polyurethene, but aren't supposed to
wear, bind, or need grease. SHONut supplies RSB bushings & endlinks, and front strut rod bushings http://www.shonutperformance.com/tpr.htm |
Polygraphite |
Harder than TPR, embdded with graphite
to supposedly self-lubricate. Generic FSB bushings available from http://www.p-s-t.com |
"As far as Aluminum goes, Aluminum subframe bushings are available to replace the factory rubber ones that wear out and cause the subframe to shift while turning the steering wheel. With the Al bushings, the turn in is much more precise." {Ian Fisher}There seems to be a wide variety of opinion about whether these solid bushings increase NVH. Generally, the people who want them most don't care about such things.
{David ?} on corrosion: "The aluminum will not rust. It will corrode slightly in salty areas, but this should not pose a problem for these thick bushings. On some cars, there will be rust where the lower bushing half pushes through and seats against the subframe. A little bit of rubbing with some sand paper, steel wool, or a dremel pass will clean it right up and the bushing will slip right in."
"In 94, Ford updated their front sway bar endlinks with composite/plastic ones (the white ones). These are preferable over the older style metal ones that broke due to lack of flex (more specifically, I believe that the bushings and ball socket joints wore out quickly)." "If you have a 94-95, you should already have the newer FSB endlinks. If you don't have the original FSB endlinks, you could have anything on any year SHO. The newer ones are white and feel like a hard plastic. The older style are made of metal."{Ian Fisher}
Rear sway bar endlinks have four bushings: an upper/lower pair at the top of the endlink to the strut tower, and an upper/lower pair at the bottom of the endlink to the sway bar. "Rear endlinks on the Taurus/Sable are very puny and tend to flex and sometimes break. Some of us have upgraded using NAPA Mastercraft endlinks or the Addco (p/n#007). These are basically hardened bolts with a metal sleeve around the bolt and polyurethane bushings..." {Ian Fisher}
See my big writeup on Rear Sway Bar End Links. Includes what, where, and how much.
Springs Type |
Stiffness lbs./in Front/Rear |
Comments |
SLO |
155/100 |
Was used on some later GenII SHOs (author's 1995) |
SLO HD |
200/130 |
SLO Heavy Duty. May have been SHO springs? |
SHO |
200/160 |
SHOTimes figures. |
Wagon |
SLO fronts but different rear suspension (uses
shocks), progressive 270-481 or 330-564 |
|
SHOShop Linears |
210/170 |
Special SHOShop linears, no longer sold.
Lowering? |
Intrax | Progressive. "20-25% stiffer than stock". Lower
1.5"/1", or 1"/0.75", depending who you ask. |
|
Eibach |
150-260/ 150-194 |
Most common lowering spring; progressive. Lower
1"/0.75", or 0.75"/0.25", depending who you ask. |
Moog Cargo-Coil |
159-??/ 145-?? |
Very stiff nonlinear rear spring; first bit of
travel is soft, then quickly becomes very stiff. Designed to maintain
original ride height even when car is heavily loaded down. Made by Federal-Mogul, sold by NAPA (but not on their website), not certified for SHO. Spring rates given for first inch only, progessive maximum unknown but probably large. Front (CC858): Free height: 17.56; Install height: 13.00; 128 lbs/in.; 561 lbs. Rear (CC859): Free height: 14.63; Install height: 12; 137 lbs/in.; 374 lbs. |
Strut Type |
Stiffness |
Comments |
SLO |
? |
weak |
KYB GR2 |
? |
replacement for SLO |
SHO |
100% |
stiffer than SLO, now discontinued. |
Sachs |
100%? |
Reportedly OEM SHO struts, available at http://www.shox.com |
Tokiko |
115-125% (different figures!) |
Very stiff, performance strut. Very
commonly used with Eibachs. Expensive. Supposedly not suitable for
stock springs, although reportedly some have found it handled fine. |
Koni |
115-155% |
Strictly speaking, an insert for the OEM strut,
though sometimes sold as a single unit. Knob-adjustable. Also commonly
used with Eibachs. Expensive. No longer available? |
"Make sure your ball joints are in good shape. If not, replace them with the Moog greasable units (I just did mine today).When you replace the springs make sure to get new insulators for the front struts....this is often overlooked. Replace all the pinch bolts and make sure you have washers on hand for the strut assembly....I took mine off the old ones but it would be a cake walk if I didn't have to compress the old struts and take the hardware off them to transfer. ... FWIW, my car was way out of alingement after I did my full suspension. I had to drill out the 8 (four on each side) spot welds to get it back into spec. You might want to do the same." {MeShoHorney on SHOForum}
"Someone on the MR2 list once pointed out that people's perception of a well balanced, decent handling car may vary. There are usually two types of people.
1. People who think that a car that corners flat and grips well in a curve is a car that handles well.
2. People who think that a car that does the above yet handles sudden transitions (usually side to side) without loss of control (ie evasive maneuvers or slaloming without having the car break loose)is a car that handles well.
I am not asking a question here, but thinking out loud..I think that what works well on an auto-x course may not work best on an open road course. Auto-x is normally filled with sudden transitions that allow for the back to get a little happy, but not too happy. Open track at higher speeds (from what I have seen) does not really allow for the back to break out much if at all. I would thinking that street driving is somewhere in between." {Ian Fisher}
"Some people associate turn in crispness with "better handling", e.g. put a 24 mm sway bar on the front of their car and they will naturally say it handles better, even though its lost ultimate traction on say a 200 foot skidpad. Tranistional handling is certanly important, but that is much more the job of the shocks, and sometimes chassis stiffness.
Going up from 155 to 200 lb/inch front springs, however, just took alot of lean out of the car, such that to me the car "handles better" even though max. grip on those 40 foot radius runway turbarounds is about the same. Slalomming just feels more contollable at the limt, probably through better road feel as well as less rapid body lean." {John Holowczak, in reply}
Name |
Front |
Rear |
Trans |
Springs/Struts |
Bushings/ Endlinks |
Not-Exactly Quoted Comments (freely edited
for brevity) |
Ian Fisher |
24mm |
26mm |
MTX |
Poly rear Rubber front |
As it is now, my car plows hard when I go into a
turn (understeers). Once it gets on track, the back snaps out hard. So,
I really don't feel confident with this setup. |
|
Ian Fisher |
20.6 |
26 |
ATX |
a lot more predictable/tossable |
||
R McCoy |
24 |
26 |
ATX |
prefer |
||
R McCoy |
22 |
26 |
MTX |
|||
Dave P |
24 |
28 |
MTX |
Poly rear Rubber front HD rear |
The bigger rear bar really helped tighten up
that dragging ass my car had through long turns, and I can really say
that I probably picked up a good 10mph thru some long sweeping highway
onramps here at school. |
|
Joseph van Oss |
24 |
26 |
MTX |
definitely plows (Gen1) |
||
Joseph van Oss |
20.6 |
26 |
MTX |
very neutral and predictable (Gen1) |
||
Steve VanderSloot |
24 |
19 |
ATX |
[24] made a world of difference in cornering
[over 20.6] |
||
John Holowczak |
20.6 |
26 |
MTX? |
GSR 200/130 |
prefer ... for the NESHOC high speed autocrosses
(25 mph runway turnarounds through 70 mph sweepers/high speed slaloms) [Am] using the deeper front spring perches of the 90 to 93 SHO. |
|
John Holowczak |
22 |
26 |
MTX? |
linear 155/100 |
[22] sharpened turn in, at the expense of ride
quality. My car would 4 wheel drift at around 60 mph, but would still understeer at lower speeds. |
|
John Vitamvas |
20.6 |
26 |
MTX |
TPR rear, rubber front |
pretty benign with the SO-3 tires at 35psi all
the way around. It doesn't even feel loose anymore. |
|
Don McKinnon |
20.6 |
26 |
MTX |
SS Linears 205/155 |
Rubber front poly rear |
Handling is very neutral and predictable with
even air pressures front & rear. Quaife. |
James F. Ryan |
24 |
26 |
MTX |
SS Linear, Konis |
poly all |
I agree with Joe - my stock setup is good but
not great, it definitely pushes at the limit. (Gen1)
f&r strut tower braces |
Alan Fanning |
22 |
26 |
MTX |
OEM, Tokicos |
Rubber front poly or TPR rear |
very happy with it's handling on twisty back
roads ES bushings on custom stainless rear endlinks, rear ES strut rod bushings, Moog strut rod control arm bushings and OEM red strut rod bushings in the front |
Robert Bade |
24 |
26 |
MTX |
Eibach, Koni |
poly front TPR all rear |
personally like this set-up. naturally, have
much less push then the OEM 24/24 setup. rides like a brick over choppy
surfaces, NVH increased dramatically with the rear work, pretty much as
expected. the rear is about as tight as I can get it FPS rear c-arms, H-brace rear torque box, full length SFC's, [30psi fr/36psi rear]. |