Suspension geometry: SN95 vs S197?

[Photonfanatic]

Is the suspension geometry actually any better on the S-197, than it was on the SN-95? Just curious I guess. I mean if we take say, a 95 GT, and put it against a 2013 GT. I was talking to some people on another forum who say that the suspension geometry on an SN-95 is just poop. Are the newer cares even any better?

 

[Stanimal]

their rear 3 link setup is better in theory. fronts are basically the same setup from what i understand. i have both in the driveway so maybe i should go check em out LOL

 

[RichV]

No contest.

Here is a real life example ...

2011 NASA CMC series, we had the S197 as a CMC option platform. Same rules as other platforms, 260 rwhp, 275 width TOYO RA1 tire, 3200 ish weight limits. That year, not many regions had S197s so there was very little data. When the NASA Nationals came up in September, IIRC 2 S197 platforms showed up to a number of 4th gens, and Foxes (SNs included). The S197s just murdered the other CMC cars. Now I'm sure some was driver, but the Nationals don't just have weak drivers. Most that make that race are seasoned drivers at the top of their regions.

2012, everyone jumped the S197 platform and it got some stiff penalties for weight and tire width was limited to 235. 3400lbs is minimum weight. Mind you all other platforms are allowed 3100-3200 minimum. So the Nationals came up and a S197 won AGAIN, not the same driver, with a 3600lb pig. And, to add insult to injury, he drove the car there, won, and drove home!! The ***** was street legal!!

So 2013,the S197s are limited to 225hp/275tq. They are allowed a 275 tire from what I see in the rules. But an new class called Spec AI has been developed almost to get the S197 out of the CMC series. What's gonna happen this year at Nationals? We'll see, it's only a few weeks away.

 

[1997GT4.6]

^^^ Damn that's crazy! Put me in racing mode too haha. I wish I had an S197 so much better in every way minus weight and size. Not to mention women love S197s lol.

A friend of mine with a 96 mystic cobra says he's autocrossed an s197 and it was night and day difference between his old poopy fox 4 sn95 chassis.

 

[Photonfanatic]

Ok but I guess I was talking more about stock vs stock. A stock 95 GT, (with low mileage of course) vs a stock 2013 GT. Not a modded out racecar, that you would find in the Nationals.

 

[Musturd]

Stock vs stock the s197 does circles around sn95's

 

[castine917]

The s197 is a apple to orange comparison. Chassis, brakes, drive train, and aerodynamic all vary from sn95 so much. Better comparison is what would they do if straight flip flopped the suspension? Then you would see how that variable reacted to all the other variables.

 

[ProKiller]

for the rear: 3-link is a better solution for a rear suspension. not to mention they have a panhard bar. we have 4 link that has to use a quad shock just to try and keep the rear planted.
for the front: true macpherson strut setup for the s197. we have a modified macpherson which puts the spring too far inward.

so yes, the s197 is tons better.

 

[white95]

their rear 3 link setup is better in theory. fronts are basically the same setup from what i understand. i have both in the driveway so maybe i should go check em out LOL

The 79-04 Mustang chassis [with its four-link suspension] has compromised geometry from jump. As the rear end twists, you get a bind in the upper control arms that the factory tries to band aid with HUGE, sloppy rubber bushings in the lower control arms. If you put some boxed/tubular lower arms you can reign things in a bit by keeping the rear end in check BUT if you swap in the boxed/tubular uppers it doesnt allow the rear end to articulate near as much which in turn hurts handling. Wise mustangers will tell you to beef up the lowers and keep the stock uppers. This is about the 'best case scenario' with just running a four-link setup. Now, by adding a panhard bar you can really get things where you want them. It will keep the rear end from moving laterally and will vastly improve traction. However, a panhard bar by nature will move in an arc because it has one end fixed to the chassis and one end attatched to the rear end. Does your head hurt yet? There's more... To further improve things, you can add a torque arm which allows you to remove the upper control arms altogether. You have to use softer rate [T/A specific rate] rear springs to compensate for the T/A's accelerated roll rate but this will increae brake dive somewhat.

In lieu of a panhard bar, you can install a watts link. [This would be my preferred method if I was keeping my SRA.] A watts link has a center pivot point that has a two bars bar attatched on either axle tube. As the rear end moves up and down it will remain centered, period.

The s197 with its three link has little bind from the factory as well as a panhard bar to keep things from moving laterally. When you lower these cars, you have to install an adjustable panhard bar because it will kick the rear end out to one side further than the other. All the same tricks apply to the S197 chassis as above. The 2011 and up cars have stability control which has allowed things to reach new levels never before seen from "just a Mustang".

In closing, the reason the S197 has superior rear geometry is because its a much better starting point as well as a stiffer chassis for the factory. I love my wife's '05 GT but my '95 GT offers a viceral experience thats second to none. Our s197 is a conditioned relay racer whereas my sn95 is a cornfed, linebacker ready to rip your face off.

 

[MadStang]

my sn95 has an offset 3-link and a Watts Link. but I'm a ****ing badass though...

 

[white95]

Thanks for posting the pic, Brett


mmmm Fays2

 

[MadStang]

Thanks for posting the pic, Brett


mmmm Fays2

no probs. won't find a better set up rear suspension than that in an sn95. roll center, pinion angle, and instant center are all perfect.

 

[MustangChris]

my sn95 has an offset 3-link and a Watts Link. but I'm a ****ing badass though...

 

[white95]

That's a Fays2 watts link Chris.

http://www.fays2.net/

 

[MustangChris]

okay.

whats that do?

 

[white95]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt's_linkage

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Watts_linkage.gif

 

[RichV]

And just for the record to the OP, a CMC suspension is stock. Not stock in the form of springs/shocks, but stock in the form of stock pick-up points and stock-like components. So we may run higher spring rates and Koni DA shocks, but the springs have to be in a stock perch with the shock mounting to OEM holes.

So my race car is not much different than every other Mustang on here.

 

[MustangChris]

[MENTION=17007]RichV[/MENTION]

how would your "modded, but stock" mustang compare to a 100% oem 94/95

 

[cobraracer46]

One huge advantage that the S197 Chassis has over the SN95 version is stiffness. The S197 platform is so solid that it need no additional aftermarket chassis reinforcement. To get my 2001 Cobra convertible to world class levels of stiffness, I had to cut the hell out of the floor pan and throw in a roll bar. If I had a S197 convertible, all of this work would not have been needed.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[MustangChris]

we had a real bad-ass member doing his own through-floor set up... really clean build... then he just disappeared about a year after i joined.... *sigh*