Foxbody suspension upgrade

just buy a corvette you gay nigger

This does nothing to address front suspension geometry.

It's struts. you can't do much with bolt on parts.

That's where you're wrong. There's a host of products from MM etc that correct the steering Ackerman, alter the roll center, so on and so forth, ranging from K members to different control arms, etc.

Yeah a different k member would change things. What do people say is wrong with the foxbody to start with?

>needing to redesign the entire front suspension
I'd rather just buy an F-body and have a better handling car to start with, put in a stronger rear diff and an LS swap and be done with it.

You're 100% correct, just saying what the options were.
For one thing it has fucking negative Ackerman, for another to get the front suspension to agree with the cobra IRS geometry you'd need absurd rear squat. One of the things a new k member does is raise the control arm mounting points to preserve the good parts of the steering. Then control arms move the wheel hubs forward to assist with the Ackerman. There's more details but that's the gist.

which fabrication shop could throw one of these out at you for sub 8k?
oh wait. this is a solid axle.

The good parts of the steering? And couldn't the new k member just mount the rack farther back?

How to make a Fox not handle like shit.
Step 1
> sell it
Step 2
> buy an F-body
Step 3
> ?????
Step 4
>PROFIT!

step 1
> read a lot of shit on conefag forums
step 2
> shitpost

Show me a fox anywhere that, unmodified, handles as well as an F-body.
You can't

Every foxbody
because "handling" is subjective and not a fucking 1/10 scale like on forza, nigger

>muh subjective
laptimes aren't subjective faggot. EVERY single comparison I can find has turd gens outhandling foxes.

The whole disagreement is autistic to start with.
OP most likely has a foxbody to start with. Telling him to get a different car ads nothing to the conversation.

you're going to need to reconstruct the rear end at least, but most of the cornering will be done at the front so you'd need a IFS or a really good macpherson setup, idk what the front is setup like on them but most of your cornering will be done up front and the rear chases it.

>OP most likely has a foxbody to start with.
I like how they look, but that is all mustangs have going for them to be honest.

>8.8 vs. 10bolt kek
>5.0 vs 305 kek
>mustang t5 vs. Gm t5 kek
>350 auto only kek

Your argument is weak

As in what dimensions it got right, like avoiding bumpsteer and so on.

all of which is easily changeable.
But a Fox will always handle like a fox, no matter how many band-aids you use.

Both of you are being stupid about this. Stop bickering. Changing an f body drivetrain or fox suspension geometry is doable with a fat wallet. It's about working with what you have. If OP doesn't have one or isn't too attached to it, an f body is a better starting point, but if he wants to spend under, say, 2 grand, then he should stick with what he has and put some parts on it.

>an f body is a better starting point
That is my entire point, but the fox-fags are triggered snowflakes.

I don't hate the Fox body. It's just not as good as an F-body.

I own one, that user is just being specially retarded.

THANK YOU!
The drivetrain is replaceable.
The chassis is not. Modifying a Fox body for handling is like asking Homer Simpson to fix a leaking nuclear reactor. He'll put a band-aid on it and be done with it.
I mean look at what they have to work with!

Attached: 1485039888284.jpg (960x638, 64K)

But now you're being a bit special as well. With a fat enough wallet and enough of a hardon for the car, shit can indeed be fixed. That body flex? Gone with weld-in subframe connectors. Now the suspension can do its job more effectively and, well, it doesn't flex. If the car has plenty of sentimental value, you can change out as many parts as you want to hit your desired level of handling. A panhard bar like a camaro has, a 3 link conversion for the rear control arms, changing out front suspension geometry, etc, it's all there.

Attached: IMG_6997.jpg (512x342, 67K)

right. But 99% of people asking this question don't have the money to throw at a project like that.
Potential of the engine is NOT the only thing to consider
The F-body has a better chassis. The Fox has a better drivetrain. Fixing the drivetrain is cheaper, in general, than fixing the chassis.

Which is why I asked OP if he had one or not. It's not about financial sense (although it's not THAT bad to piecemeal and DIY if you have the space), just about what his exact goal is and if he has one to start with or not.

IMO, I think OP just likes how Fox's look and wants to do some research to fix the biggest issue with it.

If that is the case, OP, forget the Fox, get one of the F-twins. If handling matters that much to you, the starting chassis makes a much bigger world of difference.

Attached: GEDC0435-1.jpg (800x600, 146K)

The F-Body’s fit more tire but being realistic?

Nothing in this thread handles as well as a S2000/Corvette/M3.

I've seen S2000s outhandled by FWD Pontiac Grand Prix's.

OP here. Have had my fox for almost 10 years now. Started autocrossing it last year. Currently have MM coilovers on koni HDs, billet caster camber plates, tubular kmember and control arms, shitty subframe connectors that the prior owner installed, TC 8.8 rear with 373, tubular rca, eibach sway bars, all energy suspension bushings and end links throughout, that's about it motor is basically stock smog and whatnot removed.

From what I gathered all I have left is to replace the sfc with nice full length, either torque arm and pan hard bar, or STEEDA 5 link, 96-04 spindles, a cage and some nice seats, maybe a solid steering shaft. The car handles night and day difference since I bought it stock and upgraded slowly, it's at the point where it actually does handle fairly well if you're not retarded and actually know how to drive and steer with the throttle. Aldo recently acquired a well paying career so I've had a little extra cash to throw at it and I'm mechanically inclined to do and have done all the work myself.

Fbodys are cool but I grew up around foxes and I like my fox so it's my car of choice, have been trying to convince my buddy to bug a grand national that's for sale locally. The fox is just fun to drive and actually takes skill and knowledge of steering and positioning the car with the throttle and finding those straight lines through the apex, plus tossing the keys to miata drivers is hilarious because they can't go one turn without looping out and have to actually drive the car.

You already have a good suspension setup. I would look into getting a Cobra IRS

OP again, also this thread isn't about what car handles best it's about making a foxbody perform, so your autistic s2000/muh fbody comments are useless

i dont know much about suspension, but the 5 link you mentioned is probably a good direction. maybe fab up your own shock hoops and a arms up front to tailor your geometry? maybe throw some fiberglass on there? seems like you already have a firm grasp and would gain more by taking this to a topic/foxbody specific forum.

Attached: rsz-28.jpg (600x450, 42K)

All I'm going to say is everyone ultimately ends up in a Corvette at some point after dumping thousands on fully building their Mustang/Camaro to corner.

Or they just put Corvette suspension in their car.

Attached: 1405915097325.jpg (600x449, 235K)

c4 suspension is some of the worst shit on earth.

the c4 rear end is god tier for custom builds you mong

yeah because it's cheap and compact. not because it's any good

girlies. quit bitching. C4 IRS isn't the only game in town anymore for F-bodies.
3rd gen: heidts.com/part/irc-301-1982-1992-camaro-f-body-irs/
4th gen: heidts.com/part/irc-401-k-1993-2002-camaro-firebird-irs

So what specific handling flaws does it still have? You're the only one in this thread to have driven the car therefore the only one worth talking to.

I actually came here for the random autistic information aspect. That's actually how I learned about the STEEDA 5 link last time I asked around here and other than that I haven't seen ANYONE use that setup opposed to torque arm/panhard but it looks pretty legit.

Right now I'd day the car still suffers from understeer believe it or not, and it still has that unpredictable aspect. I honestly don't know exactly what it needs at the moment, I did lots of upgrades over the winter, major ones being the tc rear and heavier springs up front, which took care of most of my problems.

What tires do you have?

The torque arm/panhard rod or Watts Link/5 Link helps a lot with snap oversteer. A squared tire setup with as wide tire as possible helps with understeer.

This is the worst bait I have ever seen in my life. Were you even trying to make people think you’re serious? Or are you just being retarded for the sake of being retarded? This is a thread about making a car designed in the 70s handle better, and you posted a modern pseudo race car, if you legitimately thought that anyone would take your bait seriously, you probably have a disability. The worst part about it is that I can’t tell if tard posts like this are serious or not anymore

I currently only have stock ponies with 245 50 r888s in front and throwaways in the rear. Soon I'll be running 17x10s with as fat of a tire I can fit on it.

I would say that's your issue. Get as big and of tires you can fit on her, maybe even roll your fenders a bit. It ought to help quite a bit

I have never owned or driven one, but I have heard that fox body mustangs handle pretty good "out of the box". Is this wrong?

>and it still has that unpredictable aspect
Supposedly that's from the rear suspension linkage binding as the car rolls. It may sound silly, but something you could try that's easy and free is to disconnect one of the two upper control links and see if that changes things much. Ford went to a 3 link design after the fox, and I imagine there was a reason for that.

>has understeer problems
>puts stiffer front springs in
>keeps stock easy-bind rear suspension
>wonders why car is unpredictable

You've got the timeline mixed up, memeboy

this is also what i thought. but i too have never driven one

I had a stock '91 for a while.
It understeered 99% of the time but if you tried really hard and loaded the outside rear tire a lot it would oversteer and get crazy. Wasn't terrible, but not that great for a car that's supposed to be sporty.