Well, I'm with you..... Stock shocks aren't meant to last forever, and they do a lot of hard work. Think about it, why would the OEM put a super-duper last a long time shock on the car? They aren't covered on the extended powertrain warranties. They have no reason to put shocks on that last forever, and doing so would cost them money. And in truth NO shock will last forever anyway, let alone ones built to a price. Ride quality degrading over the quick hits is a classic sign of weak dampers. The thing is control arms don't do that, and if they were bad it's pretty easy to tell (see if the bushings are trashed).

 

Hey Sam congrats on another championship. My 05' is my daily driver that I use for business through out the tri-state all year round. I think Ford did a great job on their suspension choice even though it is a compromise, as is a lot of decisions made for mass produced cars. But as a daily driver, that is driven hard, it works well for me. I even get 60K out of the stock Pirelli's, & that is with burn outs & sliding through my favorite on & off ramps.

I've been a racer for many years, SCCA & circle track, (running a dirt sprint car now ) & the only time I fell the car is nervous or floaty is at top speed. Otherwise I find the car to be very compliant on all roads & weather conditions plus it gives plenty of warning of a loose or tight condition & responds quickly to any input changes.

I plan on buying a 12' 5.0, so that will take care of any worn shocks. LOL!

 

Again, to each his own... I changed the shocks on my '07 around 3k miles and put my stockers on my girlfriend's V-6 with the other GT Couple OEM parts. She was always pissed because my car rode so much better.... YMMV.

You guys clearly don't agree. Ok, but I just as much don't agree that the stock stuff is "fine". And I'm not speaking from an autocross or track only point of view, I'm talking about general control. I mean if you get 60k from stock Pirelli's that tells me you aren't super picky about details. I didn't hate them when new--but by 25k mine were almost into the wear bars and completely heat-cycled out. I never did anything but street drive on them, and they were way to skatey for me--and I have no issue with a car that moves around--not like I'm not used to it.

I'm not telling you to buy shocks just to buy them. I am saying that having not been on anything better, what you perceive as ok would be hugely improved. You need not take my word for it..... ask anyone who'd changed dampers.

We all have our opinions. Mine is based of of the following cars: 2007 GT, 2007 V-6, 2007 Shelby GT, 2011 GT w/Brembo. All have been run on stock dampers, all have had other dampers installed. And these aren't customer's cars, these are cars I either personally owned and both street drove and competed in.

I've had Ford Engineers call me, we've compared notes. I know how the 2011 GT Brembo shocks were developed. I also know that they consider those a compromise and the "lesser" suspension cars even more so--but gotta keep the masses happy--and the best way to do that is not annoy anyone. Mediocrity is the rule on ride/control. Funny since BMW sells a ton of cars--all with much better damping control. But for instance Mercedes doesn't feel the same way, they make their cars softer, and they have a market to cater too as well.

I hate the pattering of the rear axle, and the impact harshness of stock dampers. To me it's the biggest failing of the car in stock trim. I've had customers ride in my car when it only had shocks on it and the look on their faces was priceless when I hit bumps that tossed their cars or that didn't hit nearly as hard in mine. And all the while the car being much more locked down. To each his own--those are my reasons for hating the stock dampers.

Know the story about putting a frog in hot water? If you toss him in Boiling water, he knows it. Put him in cold water and turn up the heat slowly--he cooks to death because the change isn't immediate. We all get used to things. And shocks get weaker slowly. Slowly enough that often folks just don't see it--until they think about how the ride has maybe gotten worse, or the stability is iffy. If you have none of things, really and truly after driving the car and paying attention then by all means stay on what you have.

 

That's why you always have my attention. And your own experience which is surely way beyond where I'd ever push a corner with a cliff on one side. LOL

 

Sam, I think the problem is that everything you describe about the stock shocks is exactly what I've felt with the Konis. And, ironically enough, with the stock Bullitts I've driven (even 15K mile used ones from Carmax) I've felt exactly the opposite...a much smoother ride with no such impact harshness, unless we're talking about a major pothole or problem in the road. But I don't necessarily have a problem with that, because I expect to feel certain major problems in the road.

Where I have a problem is where you're driving on an otherwise smooth road with a few minor areas of slightly uneven pavement, and the car bounces up and down when it drives over it. To be honest, I've driven BMW's, a Volkswagen Jetta, and even my wife's Mercury Milan over the same patches with no such similar reaction. My best friend's Bullitt equally handles these areas. When I get on the 10 freeway, it's a similar story, but surprisingly, the Konis (on the absolute worst of the "bombed out goat trail") at least keep the car from going out of control.

Now, I know that you have much more experience with these things than I can ever hope to have (unless I win the lottery, quit my day job, and get into SCCA racing myself). So, I've been trying to figure out if there's anything else going on (e.g lower control arm problems, bent wheel rims, etc.) that I haven't considered. As I said, I'm getting new tires put on this Saturday, so we'll see if there's anything wrong with my wheels.

To answer your earlier question, I have been at full soft at both front and rears, and I've tried every 1/4 turn setting on both front and rear between 1/4 turn and 2 turns from full soft. The only things I have not done yet are the following:

1) Experimented with the rears being stiffer than the fronts.

2) Stiffened either the fronts or rears higher than 2 turns from full soft

3) Experimented with a difference greater than 1/2 turn between the respective front and rear settings. For example, if the fronts are set at 1 turn, I would set the rears at 3/4 or 1/2 but not at 1/4 or full soft.

If this is wrong, or you have any suggested settings for what I'd like to see happen, please let me know.

 

Comparing to all cars that are tuned for ride above all. If you don't like the Koni's, take them off. I'm just saying your feelings are certainly a minority opinion and based on one particular HORRIBLE road.

No part will be ideal for everyone in every situation, not even Koni's.

That said, look at your list--you've left a lot of stones unturned. Again, you seem to be complaining of a front to rear frequency issue. If you just slide both the front and rear up the same direction and haven't varied the split by more than 1/2 turn how do you expect the front to rear split to be that different????

How about full soft (1/4 turn being some 10% stiffer than that?). How about say 1/2 turn on each end (as an example)? I run my shocks more than 1/2 turn different front vs. rear on my Mustang.

Let me add this... if you are a customer of mine, then call me. Details are better discussed by phone than e-mail, PM or forum. I'm sorry that I can't help dial things in for you if you are NOT a Strano Performance Parts customer, that's up to technical support of the company you bought from and as much as I have tried to help in the past I've been burned many, many times doing it. Again, if you are my customer, just call me!!!!! Happy to help!

 

"I mean if you get 60k from stock Pirelli's that tells me you aren't super picky about details."

I guess you didn't get the jest of my comment. This is a business car that is driven 30-40K a year that performs well with stock suspension. Because I get 60K from tires doesn't tell you ANYTHING about my attitude or "pickyness" to detail, performance or preparation. I've been ASE certified, do all my own service, and when I tell people I have 160K on my car they can't believe it.

I use to import formula cars, data acquisition systems & shocks from OZ. I was responsible for all the R&D for the North American market which included lots of track time (and off road for rally) for shock testing.

I can see how people are not happy with the mods they make on their vehicles for street use. In short they are opening a can of worms with components that aren't matched, poor quality, improperly installed, poor alignments, etc.

I would suggest you be more cautious on your assumptions in the future, as I would never make any assumptions why you haven't stepped up your game to do some real racing?

 

Now that's a great way to get personal and nasty real quick. Not to mention a bunch of TMS'ers mad at you real quick. Don't think anyone here would disagree with Sam that if you got 60k miles out of the OEM stock tires, you're not driving THAT car like you might have driven your others in the past.

And while Sam may not be Jack Roush, Jr, everyone here is very appreciative of his insight and giving out free advice on a forum board he has no particular responsibility to other than looking for new customers.

So let me be the first to say watch your mouth

 

You need to back off. Saying that to him is taking a shot at a lot of people here.

 

I congratulate Sam on another national title, knowing how much time, effort & $$$ is involved & he put the fender to me not knowing my skill level or experience, but knowing I'm a racer should have given him some insight. As far as 60K on the tires it's easy with it being mostly highway, proper alignments, tire pressure & rotation.

Hey, it's all good.

 

This reminds me of a Ford engineer that used to post here briefly and another one on another forum. (I think Ford pulled them cause they both went away at the same time.) They often talked how components were engineered as a "system". Like the drive shaft for example. And how many variables and consumer experiences were taken into consideration when they chose/designed a part a certain way.

Perhaps that's why Sam first asks one's personal goals or complaints they want to change, almost always says start with shocks first, and go from there one component at a time. Because to just throw a bunch of parts on the UPS truck and throw them on the car is often opening a can of worms like you said, with results less than desirable.

 

Amen brother.

Suspension tuning is one of the most misunderstood areas of the vehicle.

Everything from getting the car set to it's optimum or driver prefered settings such as caster (I like a lot of +) camber & toe, then you have bump steer, spring rate Vs wheel weight, anti roll bars, track widths, etc, etc. On the mustang the rear roll center is critical for a good handling car. I see most of the fellows like the watts link. Funny, that was invented some where back in the 1700's. Then of course the shocks which can have different designs & infinite adjustments.

 

Hey someone pass me the popcorn.

Everything is a tradeoff. But of course, Great engineering can diminish the amount of tradeoff from ride and performance.
Ford OEM shocks are designed to last for +100k miles along with tight tolerances. After years of modifying my car, I've come to the conclusion that OEM can without a doubt be better than aftermarket in reliability. Lots of aftermarket parts arent designed with failure tolerances or drivability in mind.

Now, speaking of suspension, the statement that bullits are worse than GT (in theory) seems wrong. I cant understand why the bullit would have worse ride than the GT.

 

Where do you get that the OEM parts are designed to last for 100k miles? Ford doesn't say that. The Ford warranty only covers my now blown shocks up to 36k miles. I'm at 41k miles and need new shocks. Are you picking up the tab or just another faceless typist on the internet?

 

I agree, Ford will price them as low as possible from Tokico or whoever and that company will make sure they meet the minimum specs, which is generally the length of the warranty. Not saying they won't last longer than that (obviously some have gotten away w/ 100k plus), but they're not engineered to last that long.

 

I recently purchased a 2008 Mustang GT (my dream car). 2 days after purchase noticed rearend making roaring noise. Took it into dealer of course still being under factory warranty they took care of it no problem. Well two weeks ago after making a few longer distance trips noticed my car constantly bounces. Yes its a sports car but why does mine ride like the beginning of a rollercoaster? I had put Michelin A/S Plus on it because of course bfgoodrichs from factory were shot. Dealership told me they couldn't find a problem so I went and had michelins taken off thinking because Its such a hard tire and put bfgoodrichs back on there.......still same problem. Dealer had there tech who has been doing this "35yrs" say he couldn't find a problem...after the service manager did a ride along and admitted he heard the noise and felt it.
So someone tell me you might have an answer..my friends mustangs don't ride like this.

 

Sam: Funny thing, other than the very clunky 5-speed drive train, this rear end suspension kick is the only other concern we really have with driving our mostly stock CalStang out on the back roads!

When driving on curvy two lane back roads and you go over a ridge bump on the road in a corner, the rear jumps like you just ran over a small log and it also kicks the rearend out a bit with a thump sound too! Would love to change that problem to something a little more smooth, like everything else we drive over these bumps! Ideas to fix this one? Progressive springs, shocks? Thanks. "RC"

 

No worries, this happens a lot when road-racers get a chip on their shoulders about us lowly autocrossers.

It's ok. Here are the things I have to say about slidejob's statements and we will leave it at that.

Just because someone is a racer doesn't mean anything to me. Not every racer is knowledgeable. Slidejob might very well be, I don't know him, but being a "racer" does not mean anyone gets a free pass in my book.

Why I haven't I "stepped up" to "real racing? Time, money, the fact that for pure suspension tuning autox is much more indicative of the work to be done. I'm not in a position where I can walk away from a car that gets balled up. And I personally know two guys that had to do that this year (and neither was their fault, both were hit by others). Also, being self-employed I don't have the time to prep a road-race car as that is more work. Finally, and here is the real thing with me.... Power makes a lot of pretty poor handling cars go fast on a track. A friend (another lowly autocrosser) just blew up his engine in his Civic. Put a stock one in, and promptly lost 8 seconds a lap on his local track. Does the car handle worse? Nope, just that on a road course you tend to spend a fair bit of time full throttle and that dilutes the lap-times as an indicator of speed. That's not so much the case with autocross.

On to the next... There are plenty of top-flight road-racers that have been or still are autocrossers. And in fact there are even some teams run by autocrossers. If you know you road-racing facts then you should know names like Randy Pobst, Jason Saini, Jeff Altenburg, Greg Fordahl, Peter Cunningham... Each an SCCA Solo National champion--just like me. If you don't know them, then look them up. I could toss around a lot of other things to try and impress you--but it's not worth the time. I will say that there is a service fix for 5.0 Mustangs that was found by data logging my car, at an autocross. Something track testing had not ever revealed, and actually became known @ Ford as the "Sam Strano problem". I applaud Ford for not taking the attitude that I don't matter because I'm *only and autocrosser*.

I'm also certified, I grew up in a garage. I have done testing for major corporations too. No need to get into a pissing match over it. Folks can decide for themselves who they think is right. Overall I think you are in a minority of one with regards to shocks being good @ 100k miles. And those who have changed them, on these cars, will likely attest to the fact they prefer the non-stock dampers. If they are ok for you that's fine. But you also haven't tried a change to give a fair and direct comparison.

As for the tire thing. Anyone else get 60k out of stock Pirelli's? I imagine it could happen, but again good is relative. Having tread is one thing, having grip is quite another and mine were done both in wear (to the bars) and had no real grip left (heat cycled out and just hard) in the dry. Downright scary in the wet. And here's what is funny... I didn't completely hate those tires when new! So it's not a matter of being a snob and thinking they just always sucked. What can I tell you? If you get 200k out of brakes, does that mean the brakes are that good, or you use them that little?

 

If the car won't settle down, that's a weak or busted shock. Dampers do just that, they damp energy. If you have poor shocks you find two big things. One the ride goes to hell and bumps hurt. And the second is that the car just feels like a boat moving on top of water, instead of being secure and locked down it's floaty and always moving (of course the worse the road the more this happens).

 

Shocks, that's a classic one. Also a Watts link is a help too, but start with shocks. And if you like the ride height and all, do NOT put lowering springs on the car--shorter and stiffer springs won't help the issue you have.