Vorshlag 2011 Mustang 5.0 GT - track/autocross/street Project

[Fair]

Project Update for February 21, 2013: I've been dreading this update for more than two months, but I have to write it one last time here and then we can move on. I'm only putting this in the thread to explain why we are leaving SCCA competition for 2013, since that has been a part of this build since 2010 (and has been a part of my life since 1987). Once this is posted I am not going to "re-argue" this whole mess again - since I have already done that in other threads/forums. Please don't crap up the thread with more questions about why we are leaving the SCCA, or suggestions how we can get around the new, borked rule re-write that has now banned 80% of the Watts Links on the market for SCCA use. You can send me PMs or emails, but I won't likely get into it further. We've already been over this dozens of times with other folks inside and outside of the SCCA, and have wasted enough time trying to find a work-around. It doesn't exist - there is simply no way for us to race any of our S197s in SCCA Solo for 2013. Their ruling is final and nothing is going to change the SCCA's ways, other than continued membership attrition.

That first half of my thread update is pretty negative, but there's no way to dress it up nicely. Luckily the second half of this thread update is a bit more positive - we cover the current and future status of our 2013 Mustang GT, touch on a new letter we have written to the SEB about moving the S197 to STU class for Street Touring use, introduce some potentially big news for Mustangs and hopefully Vorshlag for 2014, and briefly discuss the next few mods we have in store for our 2011 GT in the coming weeks.

Let's get this first half over with. If you already know this story, feel free to skip to the second half.


SCCA SPAC/SEB Bans Alternate Differential Covers (and most Watts Link Kits) in Solo

As many of you reading this know, Vorshlag was one of Whiteline's first testers for their S197 Watts Link kit. We talked about their products in this build thread, installed and tested their Watts Link in August 2012, and then used it at the 2012 Solo Nationals and all competition events and street driving since. We have had excellent results with this kit and have been selling many of them since it went into production. Rock solid unit. One of the only units on the market that doesn't have metal rod ends, which gives this the Whiteline Watts kit a silent, street friendly function - but it still works extremely well in autocross and track competition with big 315mm R compounds and aero.

So after the 2012 Solo Nationals, someone with some pull in the SCCA piped up online and said "that Watts Link is illegal because it changes the differential cover!". Ludicrous, I said. The mounting is unrestricted and the most common mounting for any Watts Link propeller is to the differential cover. This is the way most factory units are installed and the vast majority of aftermarket units as well. It is the most logical way to mount the point on the axle that attaches to the lateral links and chassis for the Watts Link.


We didn't hear a single ESP competitor complain about any potential Watts Link illegalities at the 2012 Solo Nationals.

To clear this up before we spent upwards of $50K building our 2013 GT for ESP class and getting a silly protest at a National event in 2013, we asked the Solo Events Board (SEB) for a clarification. Big, big mistake. You see I felt like this was just a formality, because this style of Watts Link mounting is by far the most prevalent and has been in use for decades in SCCA Street Prepared. Logic would prevail, the clarification would be simple, and the obvious answer would remove any doubt about the legality of the Whiteline Watts link and the other seven brands for the S197 (Cortex, Griggs, etc) that also relied on an alternate differential cover for their kits. These units had many years of precedent in ESP class without issue.

But this is the SCCA, and logic often has nothing to do with their decisions.

This is the same group that argued about removing 0.5 ounce badges from cars, for two years. So I should probably not have been surprised when a 8+ week discussion took place within the Street Prepared Advisory Committee (SPAC) and then the SEB. And they finally ruled, "you know, we don't think the original rule writers meant that..." and they changed the rule, banned our preferred Watts Link kits (plus many other brands), and our next S197 ESP project was doomed.

To get a clear sense of the history of this rule and how this re-write went down, let's look at the original Street Prepared "solid axle" extra rule set that we felt clearly showed this and many other a Watts Link kits were legal:

Originally Posted by 2013 SCCA Solo Rules 15.I Solid axle suspension allowances: 1. Addition or replacement of suspension stabilizers (linkage connecting the axle housing or De Dion to the chassis, which controls lateral suspension location) is permitted. 2. Traction bars or torque arms may be added or replaced. 3. A panhard rod may be added or replaced. 4. The upper arm(s) may be removed, replaced, or modified and the upper pickup points on the rear axle housing may be relocated. 5. The lower arms may not be altered, except as permitted under Section 15.8.C, or relocated. Methods of attachment and attachment points are unrestricted, but may serve no other purpose (e.g., chassis stiffening). This does not authorize removal of a welded-on part of a subframe or bodywork to accommodate the installation.

That bit there about unrestricted mounting for lateral locating devices, to me and many others we have spoken with, meant unrestricted. You can weld, fabricate, unbolt and do pretty much anything necessary to make the Watts Link fit a solid axle car. UNRESTRICTED is a pretty damned forgiving term, and that wording has been in place for many years. Since the rule, as written, called out that you couldn't remove welded on part of the subframe or bodywork, then a bolt-on differential cover seemed like fair game. Remember - we had unrestricted mounting boundaries. And we had spoken with several competitors in ESP class at Nationals that themselves had alternate diff covers, simply because this rule so clearly allowed it. This has been the working interpretation by competitors for this class for ages. It wasn't like we were trying to sneak a Corvette in under this solid axle allowance, just use the most common sense, most prevalent mounting method for aftermarket Watts Link kits. Nobody actually running in ESP class has ever said a thing to me about our Watts Link mounting. It has, as far as we can find, NEVER been an issue of protest in this class at any level. And of course, it offers no competitive advantage over other methods of attachment.

Until a certain someone, who sells a competing Watts Link brand and therefore has a business reason to block the Whiteline unit, made a public prolongation that "that brand isn't legal!". And this someone is on an SCCA Solo rules advisory committee.

So here was the long awaited, much debated re-write of the rule (linked here.)

Originally Posted by SCCA FasTrack, Feb, 2013 #9767 Watts Link Clarification There is no allowance to replace the differential cover. Modifications to the original differential cover are permitted, but replacing the entire differential cover would be outside the scope of the current allowance, which is intended to permit any method of attachment, not wholesale replacement of parts to which the attachment is made.

Wow, that is some tortured logic. They just redefined what unrestricted means. Somebody call Merriam Webster and tell them their definition is all wrong.

But then, immediately after making this ruling, the SEB/SPAC proposed a "fix", an all new rule proposal to allow these alternate differential covers and then make these common Watts Link mounting styles legal once again. This was printed in the very same FasTrack publication:

Originally Posted by Feb 2013 FasTrack, Change Proposals #9961 Differential Allowance The SPAC and SEB would like member feedback as regards allowing alternate differential covers, either (1) for all cars via adding a new 15.10.CC: “Differential covers and attaching hardware may be replaced.” or (2) only for solid axle cars via adding a new 15.8.I.6: “Differential covers and attaching hardware may be replaced.”

That's great, and I agree heartily with this change... but due to the obtuse and excruciatingly slow way the SCCA works most times, this new rule will take A MINIMUM OF ONE YEAR to undo the damage their clarification has done. That is what I have a big problem with: they chose to do this the SLOW way. These committees could have fixed this in one single technical bulletin clarification, with no year long sentence of "illegality" for eight brands of Watts Links.

continued below

[Fair]

continued from above


Left: The now-illegal differential cover. Right: The complete Whiteline S197 Watts Link kit.

There were many reasons to be disappointed by the SEB ruling on the Watts Link allowances. Some are selfish - as Vorshlag recommends and sells the Whiteline Watts Link that is directly affected by this ruling (which should be once again legal by 2014). Others are a general disappointment that our friends in the SCCA rules making hierarchy can re-interpret the rules the way they did. It makes us feel that either logic has failed, or there are other, commercial considerations that have swayed their decision. This move just makes no sense. This is a problem they created 100% in committee, by using tortured logic and nit-picky interpretations of previously "unrestricted" boundaries.



After this ruling was made, an argument was put forth by SEB members on public forums that the alternate cover was banned because it provided "unintended advantages", such as longer bearing life, additional oil capacity or increased differential cooling ability. We argued then that this simply wasn't the case.



What they ignored, of course, is that for the S197 chassis in question, there are multiple factory equipped differential covers that we can legally use from update/backdate allowances, including the cast aluminum covers shown above, and even one with a factory equipped differential cooling system. Which would, logically, allow for even cooler rear differential fluid than the Whiteline cover theoretically/supposedly could. Not that any of this amounts to any performance advantage when driving around in a parking lot for 60 seconds, though.

An internal argument was supposedly made during the early stages of the lengthy SPAC/SEB deliberations on this issue that allowing differential cover swaps would provide "unintended consequences" to other IRS cars in Street Prepared. It appears the committees were debating the issue before even familiarizing themselves with the rules, and apparently whoever made this argument was not aware that stick-axle cars in Street Prepared had a set of additional allowances over the IRS cars with regard to the rear suspension and lateral locating devices.

And just for a similar example, when similar clarifications in the past were brought up for the Miata chassis, they ruled to allow the broadest possible reading of the given allowances. Specifically the reading of the Stock Class swaybar allowance, which uses wording that is not as open as the SP wording, allowing competitors with Miatas to cut off welded chassis brackets in order to install alternate swaybars. In a Stock class. But we cannot unbolt a part in SP? That seems backwards.

In the case of the SP solid axle lateral locating devices, the SEB used the tightest possible reading of the rule to disallow multiple brands of Watts Link kits that require alternate differential covers, but in the same instance used the widest possible reading of the rule to allow the alternate style that uses a giant girder bolted across the rear frame member - which is a violation of a Street Prepared wording that forbids "chassis stiffening" from these lateral locating parts. They over-analyzed this rule, glossed over the actual specifics, ignored the common aftermarket solutions, inflated the "What ifs?" to ludicrous proportions, and kicked out the most logical methods of attachment for Watts Link kits.

This is particularly galling because even a casual read of the section of the rulebook that gives additional allowances to stick-axle cars in Street Prepared leads the reader to believe that the original rules makers who came up with them (a completely different set of volunteers than those serving now) thought the stick-axle cars were at such huge deficit compared to other suspension types in Street Prepared that they gave these cars many extra allowances for rear suspension correction devices, and wrote them as to be unrestrained by minute restrictions.



Someone from the SEB even suggested on a forum after the ruling came out that there was an "easy fix" we could do and make this system legal. If we would just fabricate a huge plate steel structure to bolt on around the factory differential cover, to take the place of the compact cast diff cover that Whiteline spent a good deal of engineering time and money producing, then the rest of the Whiteline Watts Link kit could be used. Never mind the fact that bolting on a giant plate steel welded structure would likely end up inside the trunk, as the space between the rear axle and the spare tire well was very tight. There are also many hundreds of pounds of suspension loads passing through this diff cover, and it is beefed up to handle those loads. Could a bolt-on ding-dong work as well, without having to gain a lot of weight or space? No. There were even spit-balled CAD prints posted and everything. Was an enormous contraption that Rube Goldberg himself would be proud of. I dubbed this monstrosity the "SCCA Clusterf**k Cover 9000", which made even the SEB member who posted it laugh.

In the end, we would have to chuck the entire Whiteline kit and start from scratch, burn dozens of hours fabricating, machining, measuring, and testing an all new system - or buy one of the two competing brands that was now the only legal option. This isn't uncommon - the SCCA often completely ignores common, bolt-on, aftermarket solutions available for most cars and just expects autocrossers to have to make custom-fabricated-anything to work around the tortured rulings (and clarifications) that they come up with. This is a fundamental problem with the rule making process within this club - they are either ignorant of or willfully ignore "what is out there" for their members to buy and use for autocrossing.

The SCCA Solo's often stated motto of "Make it Easy, Make it Fun" was trashed by reading this rule in the tightest possible way, then turning around in the same breath and suggesting the rule was too restrictive and then offered up additional allowances should be written into the rulebook to correct this issue for next year. But this could have all been fixed in one fell swoop - the SEB has shown in the past that it has the ability and the will to correct minor issues like this by issuing a "Technical Bulletin" when the rules have some leeway, like the rules did here. This allows the SEB to either tighten up the allowances, or relax the restrictions because the rules don't say exactly what they thought they should say. But they failed to do this, threw out eight brands of off the shelf Watts Link options for the 2013 race season, and lost at least two competitors and a regular SCCA sponsor in the process (and a new manufacturer).

If reading this text above makes me seem bitter and angry, then it isn't half as angry and let down as I feel. But it goes back for decades - it is just one more botched SCCA ruling among hundreds of such mishaps over the past 25 years that I have witnessed. Jason M here at Vorshlag is just as disappointed about this, and has also been let down as often as me over the same time period of his racing in SCCA Solo. This "banned year" for a product and company we had worked hard with in 2012 was just the last straw, for us. We are done for 2013.

continued below

[Fair]

continued from above

Vorshlag Leaving SCCA Solo for 2013

More bad news, but then it gets better below, I promise. Since we've got no place to race our S197 Mustangs in SCCA Solo for 2013, we're going to run our 2011 GT elsewhere and scuttle the 2013 GT project entirely. Yep, as in "sell the 2013". I will post a link to the ad for it in this thread soon (with the 18x10" wheels/tires, AST 4200RRs, and 2500 miles). While this seems drastic - "Why not just sit and wait for a year?" some have asked - we don't have time to wait for the painfully slow process, the glacial-like pace that SCCA rules changes always seem to take. It took them eight years to limit class jumping in ST, so of course it takes one year to properly clarify a single word within an existing rule. A solid year long wait to use the parts we have already used in Solo, openly and without protest, and that we feel have always been legal.

But as a manufacturer of suspension products, we have many other chassis that we need to work with, and "waiting a year" to work on an outgoing chassis that has seen many years in production already (2005-2014), that is about to be replaced with a new version, just doesn't make business sense for us.


SCCA class decals coming off 2013 Mustang GT - which we bought solely to prepare and race in ESP class.

Leaving the SCCA for 2013 sucks and we're NOT happy about it, but it is a decision we've been discussing since this rule re-write was dumped on us from these committees. Now that the only "legal" Watts Link options we have are to use only a Fays2 or Steeda Watts Link, neither of which I sell (or care to), I opted for Option 2 - leave the class, and leave the sport. By the time this mess is undone, we will have an all new chassis to play with in mid-2014 (see my last section in this post).



Remember, I'm losing a lot in this ruling and decision to leave the sport for 2013: in late 2012 I bought a brand new car just to build for SCCA ESP class. Onto this new 2013 GT we have already dumped many thousands of dollars in parts and labor. We have installed high end monotube double adjustable coilovers with remotes (AST 4200RR), an adjustable front sway bar, our camber plates, built custom remote reservoir brackets, cut the trunk for reservoir routing, yanked the rear seats (in preparation for 2012 Leguna Seca seat delete), and already started testing. There was still a LOT of work left to do: we were about to cut and flare the fenders to fit the monstrously large wheels and tires we were going to run (335F/345R), yank the radio and A/C, swap in a Boss302 motor, build the custom exhaust, test several intake manifolds and throttle bodies, and make this into a real, dedicated, no-holds-barred ESP autocross Mustang. But now... there's just no point to all of this extensive, expensive work we have left - especially considering what is coming in mid-2014.

To some folks, our "I'm going elsewhere" statement sounds petty or petulant, but in the end it is just business. We've been running SCCA Solo for more than 25 years, but for the past 7+ years it was no longer "just for fun" or just for "competition reasons", but to test and showcase parts we make and/or sell. Since I can no longer race in a class where the rules makers choose to completely ignore the common aftermarket solutions and have decided to ban some brands of parts that had previously been legal for decades, but allow others which have no real functional differences, we need to step away.


Other Sports Beckon!

We have too many other motorsports series out there for us to test our cars and parts in - from NASA to Optima and GTA to Goodguys. We don't need to race in SCCA Solo to showcase or sell plenty of Whiteline Watts Links... the S197 Mustang owners just don't seem to care what the SCCA autocross rule makers say or do. Because, well, SCCA Solo is such a tiny draw to the typical S197 chassis owner right now (but it could be - more on that below).

So we're out of ESP class for 2013 and I won't give any more money to the SCCA National office (no more entry fees, no more sponsorship), but we will still support SCCA racers, our local SCCA Region (Texas Region), and will even compete in a few of our regional SCCA events in 2013 - just not in either of our Mustangs (I don't even think our 2011 GT is legal for Street Modified anymore). We are hosting the Annual Tech day at Vorshlag this Saturday (Feb 23, 2013 - see the FB invite) for our SCCA region and have even agreed to once again sponsor the welcome party at the Texas ProSolo in 2013. So we're not cutting all ties to this club, its members, or the regions. We just don't agree with some decisions made at the top levels within the SCCA of late, and have decided to step away for a bit to see if or how we can return to this sport at the National level.


Click above to learn about the Texas Region SCCA Solo School, March 9th, 2013.

Amy and I will also be instructing at the March 9th "beginners autocross school" hosted by the Texas Region SCCA, like we do every year. Come out to drive and learn with experienced autocrossers in the right seat with you all day. This isn't a sport or skill set you can teach yourself, you need both seat time and first-hand instruction to get better. Entry into the Solo School gets you a free entry into the autocross on March 10th. You can read more about it and register here. We may or may not have something to race in Solo by the March 10th event, depends on some outside factors, but we will be there March 9th.

continued below

[Fair]

continued from above

My Open Letter to the SEB: Move the S197 to STU + Tire Size Bump?

Even as displeased as I am personally with the SCCA rules makers right now, I still regularly send in letters to ask for new parts, rules and classing changes that I see that are ineffective or potentially chasing away competitors to the sport. I can't say much good ever comes of it, but I still send in my suggestions or reply when they ask for "member comment" on a suggested rules change. I've talked about our trials and tribulations in STX class with our 2011 Mustang in this very thread, if you go back to the 2010-2011 posts. We were even racing in STX class in this big boat as late as April 2012. I suspect we probably had the most serious, most tested, most documented STX entry with a 2011-2013 Mustang GT to date?

Read Our SEB Letter Here: http://www.vorshlag.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8215

This 5.0L Mustang was a total mess in STX class, frankly, and I feel it was mostly down to the maximum 9" wide wheel and 265mm tire that this class requires for 2WD cars (4WD cars are limited to an 8" wheel and 245mm tire). The main problem we noted in this class was that the "maximum tire width" doesn't "scale up" in any ST* class with increasing chassis weight. I feel that the "curb weight per mm of tire width" is a key factor in handling performance, especially on street tires. And especially when you can make well over 400 whp in STX legal trim, like we did. Until January 1st 2012, we had the option to run this car in either STX or STU, and we did run in STU a bit and the car was MUCH better on wider wheels and tires. But to prevent the Civics from class jumping the lightest ST* car into "faster classes" like STX and STU (which they handily won, quite often), they locked down all eligible cars into a single ST* class.

This was one of the few things I agreed with when it comes to SEB changes lately. It was about four years too late, but it needed to happen. The unforeseen problem we noted was that this now locked the heavy, powerful Mustang into STX class but most other heavy V8 RWD cars (above 5.0L) went into STU class, which has unlimited wheel width and a 285mm max tire for 2WD cars. As we saw first hand, this car was much better suited with STU width wheels and tires (if not much more competitive in class), and that maybe it could even do better with a +10 to +30 mm bump over the max STU tire width, due to the much higher curb weight of these and similar RWD solid axle cars already classed in STU.

Anyway - read my "S197 to STU" proposal in this forum post. If you agree with it and are an SCCA member, please take a moment and write a letter to the SEB/STAC at this link and ask for these changes. My single voice doesn't carry far at all with this group, but if more people join in the conversation, we can make positive changes to the various SCCA classes and finally find a home in Street Touring for heavier, RWD cars like the S197 Mustang. Thanks.


Possible Return to SCCA for 2014?

The good news is Vorshlag plans on coming back to SCCA Solo competition in 2014, if everything gets unscrewed and they don't botch any other major rules. If so, it could be in a car that looks like this and hopefully classed in ESP...



As many of you know, there is a new Mustang coming in the 2015 model year (or 2014.5). This car is being "designed for a world market" and will be lighter and might have a proper Independent Rear Suspension (IRS), maybe from the Australian Ford Falcon chassis. Engine lineup is rumored to include a turbo 4 cylinder, an ecoboost V6 and the 5.0L V8, maybe with direct injection. In order to be a better European export, it is supposed to be "200-300 pounds lighter", which will be a welcome improvement. Very soon we will start seeing more and more renderings and spy shots that look closer to the actual production cars. These could arrive as early as a "2014-1/2" model, to mark the 50th anniversary for the Mustang, so this is going to be interesting.

Read here to learn more about the 2015 Mustang: http://jalopnik.com/5949026/the-2014...ything-we-know


More 2015 Mustang renderings - no idea how accurate these are.

This upcoming new Mustang is why Vorshlag isn't going to "sit and wait a year" for the SCCA to get their rules fixed for ESP class or the outgoing S197 model, because by this time next year we will have likely sold our 2011 Mustang GT and will have a new chassis 2015 Mustang on order. Or maybe a 2015 Camaro. Or a 2015 Baracuda. You see, all three of the Domestic Automakers have brand new Pony Cars coming in 2014-15, and all of them are rumored to be "smaller, lighter, and IRS". Something might go wrong with one or two of these new designs - delays, extra weight, poor powertrain choices - who knows? But at least one of these won't suck, and will be all new and lighter - maybe even the already best-of-the-three Mustang? We will get our hands on the "best new pony car" as quickly as we can, then start developing suspension products both in-house with Vorshlag products as well as with our manufacturing partners.


What's Next on our 2011 GT?

We aren't scuttling both of our S197 cars, as our red 2011 GT will continue to be raced and developed until the next round of Pony Cars arrives, so for at least another year. We have a gaggle of new parts here, ready to install and test before our March 16-17th NASA Time Trial event at MSR-Cresson. Whiteline sent us updated parts for the rear sway bar, the prototype transmission mount bushings showed up today, and we're working on more endlink options from them.



We made about a dozen of the black T-shirts above, showing a Mustang on the bottom and a Vorshlag logo up top. We can make these to order, next day turn-around, in a variety of sizes. You can find these shirts for sale on our merchandise page located here. We also picked up two Torsen T-2 differentials for 31-spline Ford 8.8" axles, including a T-2R (4:1 ratio) for the 2011 Mustang, shown above. I can't wait to get that in the car before the next track event! And the winnings from the January NASA TT event arrived - one brand new set of 315/30/18 Hoosier A6 tires. Finally - my first ever track event on a fresh set of A6s! No more old tire excuses for a NASA event (the last two NASA events were run on a sets of tires with over 13 months of autocross and track abuse - excuses, I has 'em!).



There are also several shifter bushings/housings we have accumulated and have now durometer tested (including the squishy soft stock rubber unit) and we will be putting one or more in the 2011 GT before the next track event. And if the Maximum 4-point roll bar arrives in time it will go in as well. There is also a new set of S197 monotubes/springs/Vorshlag plates we've been torture testing on a local guy's 2012 GT for a couple of months that will finally be going on our website to sell, along with several new monotube coilover brands that we will soon be selling.

Let's Wrap This Up

I'm sorry that I had to write such a nasty diatribe about this situation and the SCCA rules making committees, but I feel strongly that they got this clarification wrong, and it directly affects me both as a business owner and as a competitor. And it is one of hundreds in a long line of similar rulings, showing how out of touch some of the rules makers are, in my opinion. Waiting a year for the "rules fix" to trickle down isn't an option for us, as we have other chassis that we need to work with each year and by 2014-ish we will likely be in the new Mustang chassis (or Camaro or Barracuda). Stepping away from SCCA Solo for a year will probably do me a lot of good - by 2014 I will have forgotten how screwed up most of it is.

But it wasn't all venom and poison in this post, as we've put forth a good faith proposal to ask that the S197 be moved from STX to STU, after our two years of dismal results showed it was badly outclassed on the skinny STX tire and wheel widths. We even asked for a bit of extra tire for the big Pony Cars in that class, too. And we are still working with our SCCA region in many ways, including sponsoring the welcome dinner at a ProSolo in our backyard. And while we are selling our 2013 GT and killing the planned ESP project it was purchased for, we still have some tricks in store for our 2011 GT and at least another full year of racing it in NASA TT and with other groups.

Thanks for reading,

[Fair]

Project Update for March 18, 2013: I started writing this post two weeks ago but we have been so busy at Vorshlag it took several attempts to finish it (finally posted on April 2nd!). In the end it got pretty big and turned into a four part post. This is because we've done several repairs, updates and testing of new parts and tires on the 2011 Mustang GT since the last thread update. We also ran the red Mustang at another NASA Texas weekend March 16-17th, with another win and a new track record in TT3. As always, any picture in this thread post can be clicked for an "Extra large" high resolution version, so if you see something you like, click it. Let's start with some new Whiteline parts to test.


Whiteline Updates + New Trans Bushing Insert

We finally had time to add the Whiteline transmission bushing insert to the stock Mustang trans mount. The factory rubber trans mount bushing has massive voids that don't help the stiffness of this bushing one bit (see the picture, below left). Air is a terrible bushing material. Why does this matter? Well the Getrag MT-82 has a remote body mounted shifter, and the drivetrain is mounted on its own bushings. So when the transmission is loaded up (either with lateral g forces or under torque load) it moves relative to the body, and the shifter doesn't always then line up properly when you are trying to shift loaded up. This has been plaguing us for a while, and the "just add an aftermarket shifter" option doesn't fix the fact that the transmission is moving relative to the remote mounted shifter. At the NASA @ MSR-Houston event in January both Amy and I figured out quickly that we needed to shift earlier or later than we wanted to avoid shifting while in a high speed corner - because we would miss the shift every time. BONK! Frustrating.



Whiteline sent us the first prototype for this brand new KDT928 part, which is similar to other bushing "void inserts" they make for other cars. They were waiting for our feedback before they went to production - we gave them a big "yes, please!". This is an elastomer bushing insert that just pops into place and fills the air gap in the factory rubber bushing. We don't have official pricing yet but I was told the price "should be about the same as similar inserts we make", (so about $35). I have an open order for more, because this thing just flat-out works. Super easy to install (no tools, no effort!) and it firms up the transmission mounting nicely. Now installing this will add a little extra NVH (noise-vibration-harshness), just in case you are wondering.

Amy picked up the Mustang after we installed the insert and immediately came back after leaving the parking lot and said "Hey, something is different here...?" It isn't bad at all, just a little more NVH, and nothing like going to a full poly trans mount bushing would be. It just removes some of the air gap and firms the mount up a good bit. We should have these in stock before too long and I will post up in this thread when they are ready.



And while I teased the multiple shifter bushings/housings that we acquired and durometer tested last time, we didn't get time to install these before this NASA event. We will have it in this before this coming weekend's Five Star Ford / ECR track event (April 6th). The Whiteline transmission bushing insert alone already made big improvements by itself, but when you squeeze the factory mush bushing in this shifter mount location it just begs for an upgrade.



The other new Whiteline part we tested was a revised set of mounting brackets for their rear swaybars. We had one of the earliest production Whiteline rear swaybars, and as you know if you have been following our build for this S197 Mustang, it mounts very differently than the OEM rear swaybar. Instead of mounting the bar to the body and the endlinks to the axle they swapped it around - the bar mounts to the axle and the endlinks mount to the chassis. Some folks poo-poo this mounting method on the WL bar, but it is in fact a very common method for mounting of factory rear swaybars on solid axle RWD cars. The side benefit on the S197 is that it opens up a lot of inboard wheel room for wider rear wheels... this is part of how we are able to fit 12" wide wheels under the rear fenders (for a race set-up only - this is not a streetable size, due to some clearance issues in extreme droop situations with a wheel this far inboard).

Anyway they have now revised the height of the mounting brackets to space it away from the axle slightly, to free up room elsewhere. We installed these new parts and it works great.



Last but not least we inspected the elastomer bushings in the Whiteline Watts Link propeller, which looks flawless after 8 months of hard use. Some new grease and back in it goes. Why did we have the Watts Link off? Read below to see...


Axle Housing Reinforcement + LCA Bracket Welding

So the 8.8" Ford rear axle housing came from the factory in bare steel, and that quickly rusts - even here in Texas. This always bugged me and I wanted to paint the bare metal earlier, but we never had time to yank the whole rearend and do it right. Now, though, we had an excuse... we were doing a differential change (Torsen T-2R), welding the axle tubes and welding the LCA relocation brackets. This made it the perfect time to yank the entire rearend housing, pull out all of the guts, and clean up the surface rust before the welding started.


Left: This picture shows the rusty axle in the first week of ownership, less than 50 miles on the car! Right: Visibly worse last week

The proposed welding of the axle tubes caused a bit of controversy when I "teased" these pictures early on Corner-Carvers. Do the axle tubes even need to be welded to the center section?, some asked. And if so, what procedure do we use to weld them without causing any added stress? Should there be fixtures, could we "warp" the housing welding these ends? There were force diagrams and equations bantered about... but I just don't think it is all that complicated. It did not warp and we have raced the car since and nothing exploded from added stresses. This welding procedure is common prep on thousands of drag race cars, autocross cars, and even road race/track cars, and I think it is just a small bit of insurance against axle tube movement.



We've been paint-marking the tubes for a while, as they are only held in by a press fit + two small rosette welds on each tube. You look at almost any race-prepped or fabricated housing and the tubes are always welded in place. I'm fairly confident we haven't added some uber-stress riser that will likely crack and make the axle fall apart. It made it through a NASA race weekend, another ECR track day (March 23), and weeks of street driving already without any cracks or issues, but we will keep an eye on the weld, just in case. If the axle somehow explodes from the stresses added by this weld I guess I will have to eat crow. Do all of you need to do this to your S197? Of course not. But with the added lateral loads from 315 mm A6 Hoosiers, the ballasted up 3800+ pounds we race with in TT3, and the lap times we are running now, we felt it was worth the effort.

continued below

[Fair]

continued from above


Left: This is the rosette weld that holds the axle tubes in place. Right: Lots of time with the angle grinder/wire wheel cleaned it all up

So our guys cleaned the rust off, which it took more time than I care to admit. With power tools it goes pretty quickly, but it makes a huge mess and you probably shouldn't breathe the "rust dust".



With all of the steel bracketry cleaned of any rust and grease, our fabricator Ryan then welded the Whiteline LCA relocation brackets to the housing. This is common to do, even when the designs are made to be a "bolt-on". There are a lot of forces going through these brackets and welding them on is another piece of "insurance". This was purely steel-to-steel plate welding, and TIG'd with ER-70 rod, so nothing too controversial.



Once all the welding was done, Olof cleaned the housing again with degreaser and got to painting. He used a semi-flat black engine paint in spray enamel, which is holding up well after two track weekends and loading onto trailers with axle straps. Once the paint was dry (overnight) it went back into the car.


Torsen T-2R Differential Upgrade

With the rearend housing back in the car (no, it wasn't weighed - we forgot, by damn!) it was re-attached to the various control arms and the swaybar was reinstalled with the new Whiteline brackets. Now it was time to install the new Torsen T-2R differential with the original 3.31:1 gearset, as the rebuilt TractionLok LSD wasn't lasting 2-3 track days with the current power level and high grip tires, even with the carbon clutch disc upgrade.



The Torsen LSD design doesn't use any internal clutches. Therefore it doesn't have some of the negative handling interactions that a clutch-style differential has from somewhat locking the inside and outside wheels together under all circumstances (push on corner entry, loose on corner exit), but it doesn't work if one of the driven tires becomes airborne. How it works is more complicated - it involves worm gears, thrust forces and... some form of black magic. Read the links below to learn more:

• Torsen FAQ : http://www.torsen.com/general/general_faq.htm
• And some on the T-2R: http://www.torsen.com/products/T-2R.htm

One thing to note was that the Torsen units (both the T-2 and T-2R we purchased for this and another project) weigh a solid 5 pounds more than the OEM diff. If you see them side by side (middle pic above) you can see why, as the Torsen is full of worm gears and not an "S-spring" and a bunch of air in the middle. Our guys set-up the gears, backlash and installed new bearings on the Torsen and the old 3.31 gearset. It went in and works very quietly, with only some normal "Torsen noise" in a tight parking lot turn.


Damned Upper Control Arm Set-up, Test 4

So we've put 4 or 5 iterations of Rear Upper Control Arms (UCA) in this car and have been happy with none of them. No matter what brand or style we try it always eventually comes loose, then clanks and bangs around on any bump. Very frustrating. The various designs have also taken their toll on the axle-side UCA bushing, that is press-fit into the axle. Our techs noticed that this rubber OEM bushing was cracked and completely shot, so while the axle was being refurb'd they pressed it out and in went a fresh new one. Why not poly, you ask? Well this is one of those "terrible places for a poly bushing"... as it needs to both rotate and twist in 2 axis. Polyurethane rarely has the material properties for this task - it should be rubber or a spherical bushing.



After a quick glance we couldn't find a spherical set-up for the axle-side bushing (yet) so we just went back with the OEM rubber to replace the cracked and failed unit, for now. If you have an aftermarket UCA, especially if it is a poly bushing on the chassis side, check out the OEM rubber bushing in the axle at the top to see if it has cracked and failed. Click the high rez versions of the above two pics to see what to look for.

With that axle-side bushing replaced I wanted to look at the UCA itself. The Whiteline unit was fine but the adjustment method was a bit unusual and it wasn't exactly silent in use. Everything else they make for this car has been perfect, but I dunno.... I really wanted to keep the bushings able to rotate freely on the UCA, as both of these joints need to pivot smoothly when the car is loaded in corners. At first I wanted to attempt to go back to the "Del-sphere" bushed, adjustable length UCA we tried earlier from Spohn. That thing had some of the worst clanking and banging of any UCA we had tried but it did have the right style bushing at the foreward UCA mount... a Delrin-encased metal spehercial end, called "Del-Sphere". This is the right type of joint, I just didn't agree with the execution of the entire arm and mount.



We thought the problem was with the over-sized bushings that came in the Spohn UCA kit. The kit is made to work with the factory UCA bolt, which is a 14mm OD bolt. The ID of the Del-Spehre end is much larger, as were the holes in the UPR fabricated upper mount. It was as if these companies made something without checking the factory bolt diameter. What the...? So we upped the size of the UCA bolt to a 5/8" and made bushings to fit snug around the OD of the bolt and inside the ID of the Del-Sphere bushing. It took a little time on the lathe, some careful drilling, and some drilling of the UCA mount, but it all goes in and out smoothly now. No more slop to the bolt and hopefully no more banging around.



continued below

[Fair]

continued from above

Well, of course I cannot find a picture of this newly configured UCA and joint set-up actually installed. Oh well, will shoot it next time the car is in the air (this Friday). And driving it... well, it is a little quieter now but is far from "noise-free". We checked it after the NASA event and it was all still tight, so at least this isn't getting loose and slipping every time it is inspected. We will keep trying to come up with a proper UCA solution using aftermarket parts or we will have to make something on our own. We purchased a complete Boss 302-S UCA set-up last week and will try that next, in either the 2011 GT or the 2013 GT.


Other Mods - Ballast Bracket and Lower Mesh Grill Guard

I asked Ryan to make another stainless steel mesh "grill guard" to cover the big opening at the bottom of the CS lower fascia (the optional lower grill insert that works with the Leguna Seca splitter on the 2011). Hits from various grasshoppers and tire klag have done a number on the A/C condenser hanging out in front of the radiator. I hoped that another mesh covering could minimize future fin damage. The grills he made for the fog light openings have saved the bits behind them from tire marbles and bug and hits.



The lower mesh grill came out nicely, and once it was painted black and fit snugly in the opening, it looked factory. Next up was a rushed attempt at making a "ballast box". This was a bolted-in bracket made to hold Olympic style weights to use as ballast. At the January NASA event at MSR-H we had to hastily load ballast into the trunk and it was "less than idea". This way it would be properly bolted down and hold the weights securely.



It isn't the prettiest fabrication but it was done at the last minute, right before the car was loaded onto the trailer to go to MSR-C. You can pick the back of the car up by pulling up on the weights, and it bolts in place with many bolts. We over-shot the weight a bit, as the car weighed 3812 with me in it and 3/4 tank of fuel at the NASA event. This way we would be safe with Amy driving and even with a lower fuel load. Before the next NASA event it will be welded up a bit tidier and then cleaned and painted.


Tire Test - 295/40/18 Hoosier R6 on 18x10" Wheel?

The last thing we had in store for the NASA MSR-C event was to test out a new tire. See they were running the Time Trial group on the unfamiliar (to me and Amy) 3.1 mile course, which she had never driven and I had only a handful of laps on in 2011. So we wanted to save the sticker set of 315mm A6s for the later sessions and run something more "cost effective" in the first sessions on Saturday. We were also hoping to find a cheaper, longer lasting tire to use at HPDE and other "fun track days", where eeeking out the last tenth wasn't important.



Many of you already know about this 295/40/18 Hoosier that was on close-out at ridiculously low prices (look it up). They had a lot of R6 and A6 compounds in this unusual size that were about 1.5 years old, and Hoosier blows out slow movers or excessive inventory after a certain amount of time. We picked up a set to test on our 18x10 ET43 wheels on our red Mustang. We figured, hey, if they fit... they are so cheap, how bad could they be? If I liked the way it looked I could by several sets for a fraction of the price of new R6 or A6 tires. It wasn't an ideal size, but how bad could it be?



The fat 295 mounted well on the 18x10" wheel. It might have been a tick better with an 18x10.5" but it was by no means squeezed on the ten. So that was encouraging. Then we bolted them to the car...



Here's where is gets tricky. See, this 295/40/18 has a big sidewall, which makes for a lot of section width. Hoosier calls it an 11.5" section width, which is a lot for this 18x10" wheel with an ET43 offset on the rear. And it... well.... kind of pokes out a bit past the rear fenders. It fit fine up front with the Moton 2-Way coilovers, however, and we didn't need a spacer or anything. Would it rub the fender on the rear? Only a proper track test could show us this.




The heights of the 315/30 and 295/40 couldn't have been more different. These side-by-side (craptastic) iPhone pictures above show a lot (it helps if you click on the higher rez versions). The heights of the two tires are DRASTICALLY different, which changes both ride height, CG height, and steering feel from the vastly different sidewall styles. The 295/40/18 tire is a solid 1.7" taller than the 315/30/18, which raises the CG by .85" and adds that same amount in sidewall height. The shorter tire makes the car harder to load onto a trailer, but I suspected turn-in would feel better (and boy, was it ever!). I couldn't open the door and clear the fender on the borrowed flat bed trailer shown on the 315s, for instance, but could easily load the car on the 295s. And no, this isn't the normal Vorshlag 36' enclosed gooseneck trailer, which sits patiently awaiting the arrival of my custom ordered F-350, that is now very late. Big thanks to SCCA racer Matt Lucas for loaning me not only his truck but his trailer as well.

On track the front ended up fitting fine, but the rear tire rubbed slightly on the outer fender lip in heavy cornering. Enough to make me uncomfortable, but others might have no problem with that. And no, there isn't any "fender rolling" that will help, as the OEM rear fenders are pinched completely flat on the lip sections there. Unless you physically moved the fender lip outward a solid 1/2" or so. This is just... a fat-assed tire for a 10" wide wheel with a +43 offset in back. With a bit more backspacing it would work fine, but then you couldn't rotate the wheel front to back, which is the whole point of our 18x10 ET43 wheels (both the D-Force and Forgestar) - ease of rotation front to back.

Again, I wish I had better pictures to show of these mounted onto the car, which would make this all make sense, but in our rush to load the car on Friday the only pictures we have of the 295/40s mounted were two I took at the shop and some iPhone pics. These tires have since been dismounted and will be sold, cheaply.

So with the 295s mounted and the ballast brace welds still cooling, the car was hastily loaded on Friday March 15th and Amy and I blasted outta Vorshlag on the way to MSR-Cresson. We stopped and looked at a car on the way - a thoroughly hail-damaged 740iL which was a complete waste of time - and made it to MSR-Cresson by 7:45 pm, as the light was quickly fading...

continued below