baker.doug

I dont think so...the company has made all the testing and then the car comes out....so why should we tamper ..

LQQK

IMO, the BOSS has an ugly stance, the gap between the rear tire and lip is too much.

I hope someone finds a modification that does not screw up the BOSS handling and performance, I'm not a fan of RAKE and definitely like the look when level.

So, I'm on-board with fuhrius, the car not only COULD benefit, but WOULD benefit cosmetically from a little drop.

Keep in mind, not everyone purchasing a BOSS will be tracking it, instead they will enjoy it as a DD. Like a favorite shirt, you feel better when you think your looking good.

crescent_wrench

Got a good look at a white Boss on display at Phoenix International Raceway over the weekend. Sits like a 4x4 in the back. I just don't get this. The ugly Camaro next door sat perfect. Go figure.

CO_VaporGT_09

Don't know if this is the case with the BOSS, but the official Ford position on the ridiculous 4x4 stance on the regular GTs is that it's done to allow snow chains.

cloud9

Really? That's hilarious. I know in the owner's supplement to the GT500 it specifically states that you should NOT put chains on the rear tires. I kind of thought that would be obvious, but then again..... Oh and the gap on the rear wheels for the GT500 is worse IMO than the GT.

manOwar

I have a set of Steeda Comp Series I ran on my GT500 for a few years. When I put them on, they didn't make a GT500 Specific spring. Though they where not designed for the additional weight of the car, they worked well and improved the nose dive and body roll. I'll be looking to see what others are doing but Steeda has well devloped and tested products.

http://www.steeda.com/store/steeda-c...d-mustang.html

The first photo is the Steeda's, next is with QA1's/14-200 on the front and the Steeda's rear, stock of coarse and last is the Steeda's.

LQQK

300AGT

I when through this same thing when i was waiting for my 2011 GT (brembo) . The brembo GT sit higher than the base gt in part to no spare tire in the trunk. I read through a ton of threads on a bunch of forums and what i came up with is this. The number one rule for track mustang is not to lower the back of the car more than a 1". The car need travel in the back to let the rear end work wright . I when with a combo Sam Strano said work good on mustang, Steed sport spring and koni shock & struts . The change was nite to day on my brembo GT . The boss already has a good shock & strut on it so you guy may only need springs to get the car at the ride high that you want . The mustang is a 4x4 in stock form. I wish you all the best of luck with your new cars . I'am looking forward to seeing some lower Boss 302 mustang we need Pic please .

CO_VaporGT_09

That ain't real, is it??

LQQK

http://www.motorauthority.com/blog/1...30-inch-wheels

LQQK

5 DOT 0

Is that the new ZL1?

CO_VaporGT_09

That dude was a riot, trying to get people to go to his website. Seat reclined like he's asleep (probably is).

MustangFanatic

That is hysterical!

smbstyle

Are the Boss springs off-the-shelf FRPP springs? If so, I'm sure you could swap out to different FRPP springs that drop the stance a bit.

I'd be careful about dropping it too much because the stock shocks/struts will have a shorter lifespan if they are compressed too much by "lowering springs".

iDrive

How will they have a "shorter lifespan"?

Dave

CO_VaporGT_09

And i think there's still some ambiguity as to who makes the adjustable BOSS shocks, or am I wrong there? I heard there was a label seen on them but people weren't sure if it was entirely accurate...
Most of the aftermarket shocks are designed for lowering springs, as opposed to the stock GT or GT500 POS units. IF they're decent quality, they should handle a bit lowered stance fine. Would be interesting to see some parts numbers on the suspension pieces, as they should be usable on all other S197 Stangs.

CO_VaporGT_09

The stock shocks on the GT and GT500 are really crappy, and their ideal functional length isn't that of a lowered car, so they wear out even quicker than usual when asked to do that.

smbstyle

this. beat me to it! same thing happened on my 03 Mach 1 stock shocks/struts when I ran H&R springs...

LQQK

I noticed that the bottom of the C stripe behind the rear wheel is slanted upward. IMO this causes an illusion that the rear end is even higher than it really is "cosmetically"

I'm thinking about removing that section of the stripe because it kinda looks corny not being in a true level line with the front section. I know they did this because of the side light.

sam strano

Just to make you guys aware. I have all the information on how the springs and bars such differ on the Boss and Boss Laguna vs. normal GT's.

I also have a lot of experience with making S197's handle, and I gotta say that it's not my ideal, and I do feel we can improve it greatly. I think it's way too stiff in the rear relative to the front, it's got not enough front spring or bar, and too much rear bar. The dampers will be workable, but not ideal. They are just glorified Tokico Illumina's which are lower tech and older design than the D-spec which aren't too bad--but not Koni Sports either.

The deal here is pretty simple. The car was setup on a nice smooth track, one that is not the norm. That allowed them to get away with a lot stiffer rear setup vs. the front than what will really work well less nice surfaces. Also, there is a matter of how the cars are driven, and while they drive them quickly they aren't pushing to the very limit--which again allows the rear to be stiffer than I can put up with. Hell the stock GT is too ***-happy, and one of the first mods I made upon changing classes was to put a 22mm adjustable rear bar on the car vs. the stock 24.

Camber.... Boss cars come with more static negative camber, LS's have more than a normal car, which have more than a GT. -2 is great for track use, too much for a street car that's daily driven.