Sapph handling question..What to do?
16-03-2009, 09:23 PM
#43
PassionFord Post Troll
16-03-2009, 10:00 PM
#44
PassionFord Post Troll
the rear beams on a cossie are badly designed from the start as when the suspension is moving up and down the angle of the tyre contact patch is always changing because the swing arms are not on a straight and horizontal pivot line.
hence when you see saphs,escos' ect. lauching hard the wheels tuck in on top.
from looking at them it seems the adj. rear beams help you make the pivot line a lot straighter helping the contact patch stay the same on full suspension travel.
could anyone correct me/add to that?
hence when you see saphs,escos' ect. lauching hard the wheels tuck in on top.
from looking at them it seems the adj. rear beams help you make the pivot line a lot straighter helping the contact patch stay the same on full suspension travel.
could anyone correct me/add to that?
so i would have problems with a new beam
17-03-2009, 07:21 AM
#47
20K+ Super Poster.
On rear, the arms are different due to the location of the arb, the 3 door arb is not worth having, so use/keep sapphy arms with sapphy arb of whatever size you want ie 16/18/22.
tabetha
17-03-2009, 08:07 AM
#48
PassionFord Post Troll
If you're seeking to get back to the 3-door settings, these are some of the changes from 3-door to Sapphire 2wd made by Ford.
Obviously the 4-dr shell was stiffer which has to be taken into account.
Spring rates went up from 106 to 118lb/in at the front and 263 to 286 lb/in at the back.
Damper rates were made softer in bump and stiffer in rebound.
ARB was increased to 16mm on back
Castor increased by over one degree ( as Tabs mentions above )
Camber made fractionally more negative
Kingpin inclination made slightly greater.
Front knuckles re-designed to lower the front roll centre from 144mm to 70mm
Work was also done to rid the tendency of the 3-door to "pitch" front to rear.
This was done to create a less "nervous/fast reacting" car and for it to have better straight line stability
Obviously the 4-dr shell was stiffer which has to be taken into account.
Spring rates went up from 106 to 118lb/in at the front and 263 to 286 lb/in at the back.
Damper rates were made softer in bump and stiffer in rebound.
ARB was increased to 16mm on back
Castor increased by over one degree ( as Tabs mentions above )
Camber made fractionally more negative
Kingpin inclination made slightly greater.
Front knuckles re-designed to lower the front roll centre from 144mm to 70mm
Work was also done to rid the tendency of the 3-door to "pitch" front to rear.
This was done to create a less "nervous/fast reacting" car and for it to have better straight line stability
17-03-2009, 09:39 AM
#50
PassionFord Post Troll
17-03-2009, 06:15 PM
#52
PassionFord Post Troll
.
19-03-2009, 11:52 AM
#61
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can really throw my Sapph around on track now having made changes over the winter. No understeer and very neutral handling all round. It's still not perfect but a combination of the following seems to work well:
Stiff springs matched to good shocks (I use coilovers)
Polybushes on everything
Stiff rear diff mount
3 door front hubs
Standard ride height
R888 tyres
front strut brace
None of these things made a massive difference but the combination works very well. I can't change the rear beam btw.
Charlie
Stiff springs matched to good shocks (I use coilovers)
Polybushes on everything
Stiff rear diff mount
3 door front hubs
Standard ride height
R888 tyres
front strut brace
None of these things made a massive difference but the combination works very well. I can't change the rear beam btw.
Charlie
19-03-2009, 04:49 PM
#64
I've found that life I needed.. It's HERE!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: ireland
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't the E30 M3 use a 15 degree trailing arm though - they suffer the same toe-out/camber change behaviour on the rear wheels in extremis. Less snappy because they don't have the peakier nature of the turbo's torque arrival/disappearance with throttle change. Ford didn't do too bad a job in making them equally fast road cars with the same basic layout - just less forgiving on the limit
e30s and m3 e30s have a much better front setup than sierras though IMO
20-03-2009, 10:53 AM
#65
PassionFord Post Troll
Originally Posted by Mike1
Doesn't the E30 M3 use a 15 degree trailing arm though - they suffer the same toe-out/camber change behaviour on the rear wheels in extremis. Less snappy because they don't have the peakier nature of the turbo's torque arrival/disappearance with throttle change. Ford didn't do too bad a job in making them equally fast road cars with the same basic layout - just less forgiving on the limit
e30s and m3 e30s have a much better front setup than sierras though IMO
They still tout the E30 M3 as one of the best handling saloons ever. Ive driven two examples and whilst they were fun I wouldnt have said the Sapphire was a lot worse.
The steering is quicker on the Sierra, it seemed to soak up the bumps better and the brakes are better imo. There seems to be a lot more suspension mods for the E30 M3 as well in the aftermarket although not heard of many geo changes to the rear trailing arms for road cars, as in the extent of changing the arm angle to reduce toe/camber change?.
The Merc 190 2.5-16 had a more sophisticated rear suspension set-up than the standard E30 M3/Sapphire but despite having similar power, rwd layout, similar weight and similar size tyres it wasnt any faster than the BM/Ford
Interestingly, your remark about the E30 being more snappy at the back than the Sierra was picked up by two comparison tests of the M3/Sapphire at the time maybe down to tyres perhaps.
21-03-2009, 02:51 PM
#68
PassionFord Post Troll
What springs is it on?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
wowk
General Car Related Discussion.
4
30-03-2021 07:49 PM
DavidK
Ford Sierra/Sapphire/RS500 Cosworth
1
27-09-2015 02:55 PM