Kevin Patten Posted January 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 It's there , just not under Spec Mustang ( because it's not legal for the class ) If you need additional info call Filip @ 415 - 489 - 0866 or e-mail him @ Filip@CorteXracing.com . Part # is CTA-40-1000 and retails for $950 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyperStangs Posted January 26, 2013 Report Share Posted January 26, 2013 I would love more info on that Cortex torque arm as it's not listed on their site for the S197. Is it available? I'll have one of the Cortex versions in our race shop shortly... I'll snap some shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordFan1 Posted January 27, 2013 Report Share Posted January 27, 2013 Also , if you live in Washington state , you owe it to yourself to check out The Fox Shoppe and meet Brad . Yes the NW has a few good choices Washington State Brads Custom Auto - owner Brad http://bradscustomauto.com/ Oregon The Fox Shoppe - owner Jimmy https://www.facebook.com/thefoxshoppe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyperStangs Posted February 7, 2013 Report Share Posted February 7, 2013 Not mine, but here is the Cortex on a BOSS which apparently has 315's on ALL FOUR CORNERS. I found that a bit interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 8, 2013 Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 Not mine, but here is the Cortex on a BOSS which apparently has 315's on ALL FOUR CORNERS. I found that a bit interesting. If you get a chance to take some pictures of this set up while the car is on a lift, I'd appreciate it. The Watts Link looks intriguing also, could you get some of that also. Does the car have a rear anti-roll bar? I don't see one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Patten Posted February 8, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2013 As far as this particular car in the photo - saw it last Saturday when I attended a Data Acquisition seminar @ Sonoma Raceway . Filip T from CorteX was also in attendance and if this is the car I think it is it does have 315's all the way around mounted on Jongbloed 18x10.5" wheels and NO there is NOT a rear sway bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyperStangs Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 As far as this particular car in the photo - saw it last Saturday when I attended a Data Acquisition seminar @ Sonoma Raceway . Filip T from CorteX was also in attendance and if this is the car I think it is it does have 315's all the way around mounted on Jongbloed 18x10.5" wheels and NO there is NOT a rear sway bar. Well, that explains the 315's up front..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 As far as this particular car in the photo - saw it last Saturday when I attended a Data Acquisition seminar @ Sonoma Raceway . Filip T from CorteX was also in attendance and if this is the car I think it is it does have 315's all the way around mounted on Jongbloed 18x10.5" wheels and NO there is NOT a rear sway bar. Thanks Albino I talked with PAS about the Cortex TA, it is shorter than the Griggs and mounts to the driveshaft tunnel at the point of the mid-bearing for the driveshaft. It actually uses the mid-bearing mounting points to be a direct bolt in set up without any interference with the stock exhaust H-pipe. PAS installed one recently on a GT with ARH LT headers with an off-road X-pipe without doing any modifications to the exhaust system in the car. Did you notice if there was an engineer from Kenny Brown Performance out there working with a car? Kenny Brown was supposed to have their engineer doing extensive data acquisition and stress analysis of the K-Member and front Lower Control Arms on a car this weekend in CA, but I don't know if it was supposed to be at this event or not. I was curious, after reading your post.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Patten Posted February 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Haney, I did not meet or hear about it if it was happening . The seminar was in the drivers lounge and went from 8:00 - 4:00 and was taught by Roger Cadell ( Andrew's dad ) that works for AIM . The seminar was on the 2nd of February and afterwards I went up to CorteX's facility with Filip and picked up some goodies for the SCCA SPEC Mustang that I'm building . I will be using an AIM Pista data acquisition system on the car. Hoping to get everything done for this inaugural season of this class . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Haney, I did not meet or hear about it if it was happening . The seminar was in the drivers lounge and went from 8:00 - 4:00 and was taught by Roger Cadell ( Andrew's dad ) that works for AIM . The seminar was on the 2nd of February and afterwards I went up to CorteX's facility with Filip and picked up some goodies for the SCCA SPEC Mustang that I'm building . I will be using an AIM Pista data acquisition system on the car. Hoping to get everything done for this inaugural season of this class. Thank you for the answer to my KB question. I didn't realize that the class you were attending was for instruction on how to use the data acquisition system. KB is having some problems with the K-member flexing under braking and I was told that they were track testing with a data acquisition system in CA this past weekend with their engineer to see what was going on. I was hoping you could give me some insight to the testing results, if you were there by chance. Good luck with your Spec Mustang. I've talked to Filip a couple of times and he seems very knowledgeable and willing to help anyone out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I talked with PAS about the Cortex TA, it is shorter than the Griggs and mounts to the driveshaft tunnel at the point of the mid-bearing for the driveshaft. It actually uses the mid-bearing mounting points to be a direct bolt in set up without any interference with the stock exhaust H-pipe. It sounds like that (the mounting point being the center bearing carrier mount) eliminates the ability to use a 1-pc driveshaft, no? The angle from the trans. flange to the pinion flange is substantially less than the angle from the center carrier to the pinion flange and it sounds like a 1-pc would hit the torque arm mount, unless it is REAL deep. Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 It sounds like that (the mounting point being the center bearing carrier mount) eliminates the ability to use a 1-pc driveshaft, no? The angle from the trans. flange to the pinion flange is substantially less than the angle from the center carrier to the pinion flange and it sounds like a 1-pc would hit the torque arm mount, unless it is REAL deep. Phill If it can't be used with a 1 piece DS, then that means it can't be used with the '13 GT500. Do the bosses have a 1 or 2 piece DS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 If it can't be used with a 1 piece DS, then that means it can't be used with the '13 GT500. Do the bosses have a 1 or 2 piece DS? I'm thinking I heard the new ones have a 1-pc CF, like the GT500 has. There's a thread on retrofitting the new DS to a Gen 1 GT500 on SVTP and I remember something about them sharing the same trans flange and I can't think of any reason they would, other than having the same type of DS (or at least the junction/CV joint). Bottom line, I'm not sure... Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 I was just wondering because someone mentioned they saw one of these on a Boss. But at least the 12's have the 2 piece, so that doesn't really tell us anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 It sounds like that (the mounting point being the center bearing carrier mount) eliminates the ability to use a 1-pc driveshaft, no? The angle from the trans. flange to the pinion flange is substantially less than the angle from the center carrier to the pinion flange and it sounds like a 1-pc would hit the torque arm mount, unless it is REAL deep. Phill With the tunnel being as tall as it is, the drive shaft doesn't hit the Cortex TA mount from what I've been told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Patten Posted February 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Hint : the longer the torque arm the better. :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Hint : the longer the torque arm the better. :huh: I can understand the fact that the longer the TA the more leverage it can exert to plant the rear tires, but in my mind it would also cause problems with the LCA and the arch they want to follow. True or False? I was surprised you didn't comment on the other comment I made first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Patten Posted February 18, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 I can understand the fact that the longer the TA the more leverage it can exert to plant the rear tires, but in my mind it would also cause problems with the LCA and the arch they want to follow. True or False? I was surprised you didn't comment on the other comment I made first False . (your UCA is not the same length as your LCA and nether will be the torque arm) you are taking 2 different arches and creating a suitable arch for the pinion angle to follow (amongst other issues) through the travel range. Equal lengths and parallel will cause big problems - like pushing /pulling the drive shaft (BOOM!!) What was the first comment ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HyperStangs Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 False . (your UCA is not the same length as your LCA and nether will be the torque arm) you are taking 2 different arches and creating a suitable arch for the pinion angle to follow (amongst other issues) through the travel range. Equal lengths and parallel will cause big problems - like pushing /pulling the drive shaft (BOOM!!) What was the first comment ? I'm not going to agree with you on this entirely. While I agree the longer the lever the better in terms of (force x distance), I think maintaining the proper pinion angle would be equally as important. For me it "appears" that the CorteX version matches the pinion angle better than the longer Griggs when you figure in the LCA's, which appears to be approximately 4-6 inches longer. Now, don't get me wrong. Bruce Griggs is a god in my eyes, and I want very much to consider his approach more thoroughly before I decide definitively on which version I personally will take. But, having spent some time with Filip on the phone and looking at more photos it appears to be a very well thought-out and solid setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Patten Posted February 19, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 With the tunnel being as tall as it is, the drive shaft doesn't hit the Cortex TA mount from what I've been told. It does not hit. The pic of the CorteX setup on the Boss is on a White 2013 Boss ( if you must know ). When using a torque arm one may use washers ( if needed ) to shim the diff ( 2 front bolts ) in order to set only initial working angles of the drive shaft . Most times guys don't check this and no washers are used. To what degree/ level are you willing to go to optimize the parts you put on your car . It's all about the bite - how much and when .You can always do like I do and take chalk and draw pictures/measurements on the floor and then do the math then compare it to the grip capabilities of your tires . Check your LCA relocate brackets because they are part of the equation . BOTH will / can work well - which one is better in minimizing the amount of pinion to drive shaft angle change during rear suspension travel depends on which parts you are using in conjunction with the T/A you choose . In closing - JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 False . (your UCA is not the same length as your LCA and nether will be the torque arm) you are taking 2 different arches and creating a suitable arch for the pinion angle to follow (amongst other issues) through the travel range. Equal lengths and parallel will cause big problems - like pushing /pulling the drive shaft (BOOM!!) What was the first comment ? This was the comment that I thought you'd comment on KB is having some problems with the K-member flexing under braking I didn't mean to start a conflict with my TA question. The biggest thing I remember when playing with suspensions 30+ years ago was the instant center needed to be correct to plant the tires, while at the same time eliminating squat. I had a 1969 Chevy Chevelle this car has a nonparallel 4 link suspension. It squatted and wheel hopped badly in stock form. Back than ladder bars were a very popular way to solve this, but it didn't seem to give anymore traction and actually made the car ride very stiff, because of the differences in each pieces arch of travel. The suspension was binding up on the different arches of travel of these pieces. After trying ladder bars I removed them and went with a modification that changed the instant center of the control arms, while eliminating squat. This actually planted the tires harder while utilizing the stock length control arms. The car had a nice ride, but could launch hard enough on street tires to pull the left front tire 6" off of the ground, Unfortunately for me I keep looking at a TA as nothing more than an over-sized ladder bar. I do realize that the UCA is removed when a TA is installed to allow freer movement of the suspension, but does the instant center change with a TA to plant the tires? Or is Cortex and Griggs using it as a lever to try to plant the tires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Patten Posted February 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 No conflict here and IC change yes , lever yes , Cortex or Griggs intention in use - don't know ( you will have to ask them ). TA not the same as ladder bars and I do remember those relocate brackets for the UCAs on the 4 link setups - in fact I think that there are still some companies offering them . That is one of the nice things about TA cars is that you can run a softer rate rear spring and still get bite - no hop ! As far as the KB issue it may have some flexing under braking issues due to the change in anti-dive design that they incorporated into the setup . ( guess I'll have to wait for their call -ha-ha ) word for today is " momentary bind " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 No conflict here and IC change yes , lever yes , Cortex or Griggs intention in use - don't know ( you will have to ask them ). TA not the same as ladder bars and I do remember those relocate brackets for the UCAs on the 4 link setups - in fact I think that there are still some companies offering them . That is one of the nice things about TA cars is that you can run a softer rate rear spring and still get bite - no hop ! As far as the KB issue it may have some flexing under braking issues due to the change in anti-dive design that they incorporated into the setup . ( guess I'll have to wait for their call -ha-ha ) word for today is " momentary bind " Do you still run the UCA/Third Link with a Torque Arm? If yes, I'm wondering why. The TA should eliminate pinion climb. I can see why you'd want the lower control/Trailing arms but the upper? I can't remember what cars it was on (definately a GM product though) but they had a big aluminum stamped torque arm that ran from the rear axle/third member all the way up to the transmission and bolted onto the trans case. It was a big "channel iron" shaped piece and a major PITA to get off the car on a drive on rack. It was either on my boss's mid '80's Vette or a Camaro. I'm thinking the vette had IRS so no need for a TA but not sure if the earlier ones had IRS. Point being, the front "pivot" point of the torque arm was the front motor mounts. That's a LONG arm. And still wondering about the third link.... Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 As far as the KB issue it may have some flexing under braking issues due to the change in anti-dive design that they incorporated into the setup . ( guess I'll have to wait for their call -ha-ha ) word for today is " momentary bind " Don't stand by the phone, you'll die of boredom waiting........I just spent 45 minutes on the phone with the man himself. He says that there is no problem, but they are going to build a brace to go between the 2 rear most bushing mounting locations on the K member and he will send me one as soon as they're available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 Do you still run the UCA/Third Link with a Torque Arm? If yes, I'm wondering why. The TA should eliminate pinion climb. I can see why you'd want the lower control/Trailing arms but the upper? I can't remember what cars it was on (definately a GM product though) but they had a big aluminum stamped torque arm that ran from the rear axle/third member all the way up to the transmission and bolted onto the trans case. It was a big "channel iron" shaped piece and a major PITA to get off the car on a drive on rack. It was either on my boss's mid '80's Vette or a Camaro. I'm thinking the vette had IRS so no need for a TA but not sure if the earlier ones had IRS. Point being, the front "pivot" point of the torque arm was the front motor mounts. That's a LONG arm. And still wondering about the third link.... Phill 82 to 92 Camaros used a TA that went from the rear to the side of the transmission. It was a long arm and did absolute nothing for traction or helping to plant the rear tires harder into the pavement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2010KonaBlueGT Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 82 to 92 Camaros used a TA that went from the rear to the side of the transmission. It was a long arm and did absolute nothing for traction or helping to plant the rear tires harder into the pavement. Yes, the one I remember went to the side of the transmission. Right side if I remember right. I remember it being a REAL pain in the ass to work with because it was loaded (car on a drive-on ramp). I did a clutch in it. If it wasn't for traction/handling, then why/what? Phill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 Yes, the one I remember went to the side of the transmission. Right side if I remember right. I remember it being a REAL pain in the ass to work with because it was loaded (car on a drive-on ramp). I did a clutch in it. If it wasn't for traction/handling, then why/what? Phill I had an 85 Camaro IROC with a TA. Those cars weren't that strong in Hp and traction wasn't there strong suit either off the line. The TA didn't increase traction in my opinion in this application. I think it was only there to control the axle twist and wasn't designed for weight transfer. The car handled well for its day, but I think the why, was to increase cabin space for the rear seat passengers. No UCA or links to interfere with the floorpan in the rear seating area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Patten Posted February 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Don't stand by the phone, you'll die of boredom waiting........I just spent 45 minutes on the phone with the man himself. He says that there is no problem, but they are going to build a brace to go between the 2 rear most bushing mounting locations on the K member and he will send me one as soon as they're available. I wonder if they will come up with plates like SPP does to put under the back "legs" of the K member or just go with the brace . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Haney Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 I wonder if they will come up with plates like SPP does to put under the back "legs" of the K member or just go with the brace . At this time they are only going to manufacture a brace to go between the rear bushing mounting bracket welded to the K member. I'm not happy with the solution and feel that they should go from square 1.5" x 1.5 " to rectangular 1.5" x 2" along with the brace, to combat the forces the control arms are exerting on the K member during braking. They are using 13 gauge wall thickness (0.95") square tubing. Ford is using thinner gauge flat rolled steel for the stamps to be welded together, but the K member is much bigger than the 1.5 X 1.5 dimension with a flange for more strength Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordFan1 Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 I like my Griggs so much has got me going back for some more I let my Griggs do the talking on the track While its there got me some safety upgrades going on for the upcoming season- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.