goldhillstang

I have the Shelby kit in my 2008. Everything fit fine. The only difference between the kit for the GT and the GT500 is the rear sway is 24mm on the GT500 and 22mm on the GT. Both kits have a 35mm front sway.

WaltM

Thanks guys...

So I should be ok with the $200.00 kit ?

ricksGT/CS

just got mine today in under 6 mailing days from Shelby ,I got the Eibach Supersnake option,everything looks good .kit has all the hardware needed for the front and rear swap.

WaltM

Let us know how it works!

CO_VaporGT_09

I picked up these Shelby adjustable end links a while back, thought they were a good savings over the Steeda units, which are about $50 more. The Shelby units didn't have the bushings that are pictured for the Steeda ones (which aren't on the Steeda site that I can find anymore):



http://www.stranoparts.com/partdetai...D=80&ModelID=5

I have the Steeda front bar, which has a somewhat elliptical mounting hole for the end links, and these Shelby end links don't seem to match up well. I think missing the sleeve/bushing is the problem. I torqued them down real well (had a problem with the OEM loosening all the time, especially at road courses) and they don't seem to have loosened. The problem I have (which I had before with the stock ones, too) is a constant clunking from the driver side front wheel, which I believe now is due to the Shelby end links loosening up, as they have a bit of slop at one end when I grab the unit and tug. One inspector I talked to noticed the rubber dust boots don't seem to snug much on the heads of these units.

So, let me know how you guys all do with these, if any clunking problems like I've had.

ricksGT/CS

Here are the install papers that came with the Eibach sway bar kit

WaltM

Thanks for the great post !

rony1976

Are the Eibach specs for the supersnake different than a regular GT? I know that for the springs, you shouldn't put a GT500 rated spring in a regular GT, so I'm wondering if the sway bars are the same... I'm asking out of ignorance.

goldhillstang

^^Read post #21 above.

rony1976

I can't imagine 2mm will make a huge difference in street driving. Don't know about road racing though.

frank s

Aren't we all?

The GT500 springs are the same length as GT springs (at least that's what I understand from another forumist who is expected to know these things) and if installed in a GT will raise the body half an inch, because they are stiffer and the GT won't mash them down to regular level.

Anti-sway bars (stabilizers in the manual) resist twisting moments in the body, so they are not much of an influence in a straight line, but keep the car from leaning as much in the corners. The SS bars reduce the amount of lean as compared to the GT bars. A 2mm rear-bar difference is easily noticeable in ordinary driving; the 24mm rear bar makes the turn-in seem quicker, the steering lighter, and it probably is. I ran mine for a week without changing the front bar. I like a little less understeer, and that is what it gives.

The "SS/Eibach/Shelby" front bar is the same diameter as the GT bar, but the tubing wall is seven-hundredths of a millimeter thicker (0.58 v. 0.51mm, if I recall correctly), with the same kind of difference. It reestablished the pronounced understeer, when mounted with the links in the middle hole.

Just out of curiosity (and ignorance), which hole should the link be moved to, to reduce the front bar's influence? The one nearest the end of the bar, or the one nearest the bar's pivots?

CO_VaporGT_09

Simple physics would imply the further hole would provide greater torque, therefore more influence to counteracting torques (moments) as well.

Also, look at the end link install page above, specifically states the closest to the bar is softest (reduces understeer the most), furthest is stiffest.

Saw a discussion on a WRX forum where they were experimenting with asymmetric setups, like close hole on one side, further on the other, as theoretically it shouldn't matter one side to the other as it's just a moment arm. However, someone there (must have lots of free time) actually tested it and measured more asymmetric G loads going one way or the other (all cars have this stock due to weight distribution, except maybe the McLaren F1??).
Also noticed a subtle difference in feel.

FYI, the Steeda end link bars are discontinued, so the Shelby (nee Scott Drake) are the only 'street' ones out there. I might switch back to the (revised) OEM pieces as at least one rod end on my drivers side is so loose the clunking is unbearable. Hopefully that's not a common problem (passenger's side is fine).

frank s

Aye, there's the rub.

The Eibach "tuning" instructions call the hole that reduces over-steer "Full Forward / Firmest Setting". Do I have my bar in backward? It pivots on the front cross-member brackets and reaches back to link to the suspension. "Full Forward" in that case is the hole with the shortest lever arm. Does decreasing (less torque by your simple physics) the influence of the front sway bar reduce over-steer?

In the instructions' language "Full Rear / Softest Setting" applied to my car would make the longest arm softest, and in that case should indeed reduce under-steer, as they say.

Is the fact that the links are not only operating on the pivots at the cross-member but also on the opposite end of the bar confusing the issue?

Has the instruction sheet got one or the other or both wrong, or is it just my plaque-encrusted brain cells that are making it hard for me to understand this? I would go along with them if they said Firmest = Full Rear ( Longest Arm) = Increase Under-steer, but they don't.

They say
Firmest = Full Forward (Shortest Arm) = Reduces Over-steer, and
Softest = Full Rear ( Longest Arm) = Reduces Under-steer.

Which seems to me to indicate the instructions are using some esoteric definitions of "Forward" and "Rear".

I think the instructions are specifically obscure.

CO_VaporGT_09

Well now you've managed to confuse me, too. Darn you

I was reading "full rear" as closest to the bar, you're obviously reading it as towards the rear of the car, which would make perfect sense from that perspective.

Looking at it from "how hard do I have to push/pull that end of the sway bar to bend" aspect, the further from the pivot point (the urethane bushings attached to the car) I go the more my force is multipled, ie torque = force x distance, so then you have to apply less force for the same deflection or twist. Therefore softest setting. The closer to the bar, the more you have to push to get the same deflection/twist, so more difficult to twist, firmest setting.

Found that asymmetric hole discussion, it was by Whiteline, they have some pieces for the Mustang now, too.
They say: "In this case, using a 3 hole adjustable configuration, the hole settings are “soft” for the hole closest to the end of the arm and “hard” for the furtherest." They're saying furthest from the end of the bar.

Even if 'furtherest' isn't a word, I still think this is correct.

http://www.whiteline.com.au/articles...metric_adj.pdf

http://www.iwsti.com/forums/gr-suspe...questions.html

It shouldn't matter where or how the bar is mounted on the car (holes forward, or bar forward as on the Mustang), the physics are the same, closest hole (to the bar) = firm or hard, further (from the bar, closer to the end of the bar) = softer.

You can figure out for me, now, what Eibach is saying in their instructions. But, making the front end softer (roll wise, thereby allowing more roll) always decreases oversteer as it increases front end grip. Stiffer rear does the same, increases oversteer. Stiffer front end increases understeer, think of the inside front tire lifting up off the ground, no more grip from it, overloading the outside front. A softer rear allows both tires there to grip better, increasing rear-end grip, meaning more understeer.

frank s

Well, then, that begins to make sense, what with being shaken and not stirred with "front" and "rear".

Physics for the win!

Long arm, least influence, less transfer of weight to the outside tire, least reduction of cornering power.
Short arm, most influence, more transfer of weight to the outside tire, most reduction of cornering power.

Have I got it right, now?

Thank you for your efforts.

ricksGT/CS

here are a few pictures so far,still working at it,







looks more than 2mm bigger to me,bigger is better

ricksGT/CS

I got the rear all done ,sway bar that is,,I will post some more pictures the weekend,thanks for looking in,

ricksGT/CS

here are a few more pictures as promised ,the Rear is done,I will post some pictures of the front when I " gettter done "

ricksGT/CS

a few more

ricksGT/CS

Ford Racing X-pipe.