67 Mustang

Bobble head, that made me laugh. I think he just needs to get used to my driving. Or maybe I'll have to get him a neck support.fficeffice" />

I really like the wedge kit. It increases negative camber when the suspension is compressed. I have -2 degrees set in static. However it was fitted before I took the car to the track, the camber curve as standard is terrible. The front springs came with the car and just have a coil cut off. I have no idea what rate they are but I’m going with “If it aint broke don’t fix it”. I put more faith in big roll bars as it makes me feel more confident driving. I don’t like body roll.
The mods where I noticed the difference are brake ducting (really helped), a ram air box (it seems to pull a lot harder in the top of third and fourth) and tyres I have Yoko A032R fronts and Toyo R888 on the rear. Both are good but I’m going with the Toyo R888 all round, I really rate them.
I’ve said it before but I’m a big fan of your car Matt. Its good watching your videos, I seem to struggle past other cars you go past like there standing still.

Part of the reason I asked about the camber curve is that without this change I've heard the cars respond to making the front stiffer to minimize wheel travel and avoid the camber curve (flex the chassis instead of compressing the spring). Of course, this is a crude solution to a basic geometry problem, but it is the kind of thing that results in the misconcieved notion that high front spring rates alone can improve handling - sort of like treating symptom rather than disease.

Cutting the front coil increases the spring rate by whatever percentage of the overall spring length it decreases - so maybe you have 10-15% stiffer front springs now.

The best thing that can be done for handling is lowering the CG, so cutting the springs probably helped in two ways, especially since you have the rear AR bar to balance the additional roll stiffness.

Another way to get rear roll stiffness with a leaf spring car is to add leafs.

Your static cambe makes a lot of sense also, especially with modern tires like you use. However, it could handicap breaking - do you find front tire lockup to be a problem?

I have heard the folklore that Ford designed the horible camber curve to ensure the cars push in order to avoid litigation related to consumers losing control with a spin. Presumeably it is easier for lawyers to claim driver error if the car hits something nose first.

Thanks for the compliments on the Merc, but keep in mind that it is no street car, has 55% rear weight distribution, 70" track width (max. for SCCA rules), about 3" of ground clearance. 12.5" wide front and 14.5" wide rear tires and very little camber curve, but in the right direction. It also has a torque-to-weight ratio of about 0.21 with driver and 32 gallons of fuel.

Keep the posts coming.

My car is a good 4 inches lower than standard, I have 5 leaf reverse eye springs on the rear with a ½” lowering block and I run 50 series tyres.
At the moment I have no problem with front tyre lockup, but the front brakes aren’t a strong point. There good but not great.
I have a lot of plans, the track days have shown up some of weak points. I want to work towards better front brakes and some weight reduction.



Gives a good impression of ride height. If I put an angle gauge on the sill it reads level.
Matt if you can would you mind telling me hp and torque figures for your engine and at what rpms they occur. Also on the video what revs are you working between. I've been straining my eyes to see but can't make that out. I can understand if the engine specs are top secret but I’m watching the video and wondering about these things. It looks to be an exciting ride. Is a G Force trans a version of the T5 what ratio 5^th does it have.

I think I just worked one out do you really have 777 lbs of torque. All I can say is wow thats impressive.

Going back to the camber curve, I read a nice coment on a forum it went something like
Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car
Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the rear of the car
Horse power is fast you hit the wall
Torque is far you take the wall with you

It brought a smile to my face

Your arithmetic is good. That amount of torque is not unusual for a well built Big Block Ford with displacement over 550 c.i, a good set of heads (like well ported C-460s), correct combo of other bits, etc.

The operating range on the track is just under 5k to just over 7k rpm. The tach. has a graduated scale 0-5k is in the first quadrant, then the 6k, 7k, 8k, 9k; 7k is at 1 o'clock.

The G-force box is an evolution of the Doug Nash five speed. We have made some further modifications to enhance longevity. Fifth is 1:1. In 2007 we used a 4.10 ring and pinion at Laguna Seca and Infineon and 3.70 at Thunderhill. Rear tire diameter is 28.5".

I need a bigger engine that is amazing power. It must be a great buzz to drive. Thanks for the info it makes watching the video a lot more interesting. I didn’t think any type of T5 would live with that. A Doug Nash makes more sense from what I’ve read although I have no experience. They remind me of a top loader to look at but with an extra gear.
After I’ve worked through the rest of my car I’d thought about putting a 347 together and have peak power at around 6500. Although I keep hearing that stroker motors won’t live at continued high revs. Due to more weight on the rotating assembly and the fact that it is further out from the centre, increased piston speed and side loads. Your engine seems to put an end to that rumour. Any advice you could spare.

Sent PM