You made a very wise choice Dave

 

My concern with lowering the plenum cover is that you are moving a stud that secures the rear of the fuel rails. I do not want 40 psi of fuel pressure to pop that rail loose. Instead of the stud securely mounted to the fuel rail flange, it now uses the rubber bushing/plastic feet of the plenum cover. When the temperature changes, the rubber bushing/plastic feet will contract/expand, changing the clamping force of that stud.

In addition, I'm also concerned about the clearance between the intake manifold and the plenum cover once it is lowered. I wouldn't want the cover rubbing a hole through the nylon manifold.

 

This thread kinda went all over the place. Even after 2 or 3 said it clears - 1 oe 2 kept everyone worrying. BMR, Steeda, GMS - etc. they all seem to be mili-inches of the same over all height.

Merry Christmas

 

Rocky: If you install the GMS single STB, let me know how it goes. Assuming the unapproved method of lowering the plenum cover completely clears the intake manifold, I'm concerned that using the studs on top of the soft rubber mounts and plastic feet of the plenum cover would interfere with proper retention of the fuel rails. I would not want the fuel rails to leak and cause an engine fire.

 

Charlie..I think I'm going to hold out, until we get some definitive answers on the fuel rail issues, you brought up.

For I'm also very concerned, with any possible retention issues, that could lead to fuel rail leakage. resulting from securing the fuel rail studs, over the plastic feet of the plenum cover..In the meantime, I'm not using a STB anyhow. As my Stang. is currently in hibernation for the winter lol.

 

and they fit and work also.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by m05fastbackGT

Charlie...I think I'm going to hold out, until we get some definitive answers on the fuel rail issues, you brought up.

Just to avoid confusion. Your rails do not see all the fuel pressure. The pressure is in the center of the injector and blows into the manifold. That is not to say it pushes up on the rails with any force. While I don’t make a habit of driving with no screws in the rails – I have driven my Mustang with no fasteners in the rail and had no issues. The tension from the O-rings holds the parts in place

 

That is not good advice....while you may have not had a problem there is still 40 or so psi of fuel pressure ON the Injector and O-rings themselves...that fuel pressure stays in the rail until the injector is told to fire by the computer.....this pressure could cause the rail to lift and cause a fuel leak which is quite obviously a serious fire hazzard. Implying to people that it is OK to operate the vehicle without the rails secure only opens you up to liability if something bad happens for having given that advice.

 

fair enough - I am not telling people they should drive around with no fasteners in their raises but this threar has turned the corner where some think that lowering the decorative cover 3/8" will so how hinder the little screws abilty to hold down the rail and cuase a fuel leak. How about I say this - There should be no issue with removing the fasteners that hold down the plenum cover. Lowering the cover down per the instructions attached http://67.199.19.45/pdf/manuals/manual74.pdf will not alter the amount of pressure that holds the rails down.

 

That works....in today's day and age you have to be VERY clear.....this is why McDonald's had to print "HOT" on their cups of coffee....of Course nobody wants a cold cup of coffee but "someone" failed to understand the concept at some point.

Just trying to avoid you having to deal with someone calling you next week saying "You told me I could do it"...

 

BMR's instructions state to lower the plenum cover as well, but on the bottom it states:

In the event the plenum cover feet crack under stress (keep in mind they were never intended to be held under compression by a stud - the 07 GTs that came with them simply slipped over the stud), the fuel rail can become loose at the rear.

 

not to get back to the one of the original topics or anything, but you shouldn't just replace either the shocks/struts or the springs, you should do both at the same time. The dampers and springs components are a dynamic system that need to be matched to eachother for the best performance. If you provide an input to the system (like hitting a bump) you get a response thats determined by how the system is set up. stiffer springs will make the suspension respond faster but if the shocks/struts don't provide enough damping to slow down the peak motion then you get an underdamped system that's prone to ringing (the car will be bouncy and unstable). If they provide too much damping then it will take too long to reach equilibrium and you'll have an overdamped system (the suspension won't react fast enough and will be sluggish or soupy). If you have the right set of dampers for the springs, you'll have a critcally damped system which provides the best balance of fast response stability. Here's an example below:


I'm not saying that your car is going to flip over or anything if you don't get the right dampers at the same time as the springs, but you're going to have trouble hitting corners on bumpy roads and laying down power if you're not set up right. Better handling comes from more grip, which can be achieved by keeping the tires planted or by getting better tires. If your car doesn't settle back down then it's not keeping the tires firmly on asphault, in extereme cases your handling could get significantly worse.

And on the subject of STB's...you're money is better put into more tangible results. The springs/dampers, panhard rod and lateral support, anti-sway bars (they make a big difference, are easy to install and are typically $150-200) and most of all, TIRES. I'm told that lightweight wheels also make a big difference but they're &#$*ing expensive.

 

Or just ask Michelin/BF Goodrich, they are appealing a 23.4 or 32.4 million (cant get the numbers straight) lawsuit were it was decided they had not been clear to the dealer/installer on where to put two new tires on a car.

 

Interesting post, and yeah light weight components are hella spensive, check out Dymag wheels (carbon fiber barrel & magnesium center) and two piece or composite rotors, but reducing unsprung weight helps with both handling and acceleration, I've always been curious though if a hefty reduction in unsprung mass would screw up the dynamics on a damper/spring set? Common sense says yes, I know with the FRPP kit, they dont reccomend any wheel/tires fitments beyond what is used by the factory. I suspesct it might be more than a fitment issue and could have alot to do with the upsrung mass. I always get a giggle when I see a set of relatively cheap aftermarket wheels (lower strength alloy cast wheels that are chrome plated being the worst) in larger rim sizes on a car, for cheap good looks (relative perceptions being what they are) the owner has screwed handling, accleration, and braking, then there are the guys that take it to the extreme - you know the ones, cars fitted with wheel sizes that are way larger than the overall diameter of the OE wheel/tire combo

 

Cha-ching!

 

very, I think a set of Dymags easily cost in the 12k realm, maybe not as expensive as your diamond encrusted ostrich skinned 30" wheel for an H2, but pricey none the less. Then again, Michelin doesn't make a 255/45R18 in the PS2, gotta move to an 19 or 20 to get into a properly sized PS2 for the Mustang. Funny how trying to keep the unsprung weight down with big rims and big brakes makes you consider looking into a 20k rim/tire/brake package.

 

FR500 cars have fully welded seams, verses the spot welded chassis of our GTs. That and they don't have the under the hood room with the bigger intakes.

I have a Strange Engineering strut tower bar in tubular brushed aluminum, aluminum billitt ends that use the two inner strut-top studs for mounting. Best thing about this bar is it weighs in at less than 2 pounds. The packaging with the box it was shipped in weighed more than the bar itself.

I did not notice any general on the road improvements in cornering but I have noticed that the car feels more solid when hitting diagonal railroad tracks and raised-curb driveway entrances (like when you are not entering a driveway perfectly perpendicular to the road).

 

mot250: Do you have an A-Arm brace/K-member brace?

I am curious how much of an improvement the Strange STB was compared to not having an A-Arm brace and/or how much it improved stability over just having the A-Arm brace.

 

Sorry, I must have missed this post. Yes, metroplex, I also have the Steeda G-Trac bar. The Strange Strut Tower bar was added about two months before the G-trac bar. I have not driven the car with only the G-trac bar. I noticed futher improvement in the chassis stiffening when I added the G-Trac brace as well. Though I now see the CHE lower brace also has a provision for Torque Braces to limit engine/trans twisting but I doubt I'll pony uo the cost to switch at this time-maybe later...

Anyway, I was looking for an old Strut Tower Brace thread to add more input on the benefits of the strut tower brace. There are plenty of nay-sayers out there who argue that this brace is not necessary for S197 cars and I had my physical evidence tonight that the stock towers are, in fact, flexible. The evidence that follows goes beyond any seat-of -the-pants evidence that some, including myself, have claimed to have felt after the addition of such a bar.

I just completed the installation of Steeda Competition springs, Steeda Upper Strut Mount (adjustable street version) and Tokico adjustable struts. I have had a Strange Strut tower brace and Steeda G-Trac bar installed since early/mid 2006. The strut tower bar needed to be removed as part of the spring/strut swap.

When I went to reinstall the strut tower bar (car was now on its wheels), I was initally amazed that the bar did not slip right back on as easy as my initial install almost two years ago and as easy as it came off before I started my suspension project. Then I realized that the Steeda upper strut mount includes top mount studs that are a larger diameter and longer than the stock FORD strut mounts, thus the tops of these studs are just a tad further inboard than the stockers. I was miffed. I tried a few times trying to install it one end at a time from both sides of the car, even trying to drop it straight down on both sides at the same time with no luck.

Finally, I placed the driver side end over the driver side upper strut mounts then I set the passenger side on top of the passenger side strut mount studs, resting on the top edge of the studs. I reached down to the bar with my left hand and pushed down while simultaneously pulling outward on the passenger side fender with my right (note I had tried the same thing earlier without pulling on the fender to no avail). While pulling on the fender and pushing down on the bar, the strut tower flexed outward enough to allow the bar to drop down over the studs so that I can now secure it with the supplied nuts.

If it will flex this much (fractions of a millimeter was all it took) after only two years and with running the bar for over a year and a half, I'd hate to see how far out of whack the strut towers could get after 5 to 10 years of abuse without the bar.

And that's all I have to say about that...

 

On the other side of the spectrum, my 1981 T-bird has never had any suspension/chassis bracing installed. It was one of the early Fox Fords without subframe connectors of any kind (convertibles would flex going over rail road tracks). 26+ years later, it is holding up fine.


The Strange STB and other STB look like great ideas but they are all rather expensive.