Fays2 installed what next?

[Robert M]

Another view with the three flipped over for comparison purposes.............

 

 

Again, my goal was to gain the geometry length of the longer arm while "also" gaining more robust hardware. The Roush adds a nice smaller bushing with the small through bolt, but no length, a thicker steel bracket and a rear seat bolt upgrade...........(if you use the 2011-up Roush UCM).

 

I feel like I am UCA/UCM poor with the cost of buying and comparing all of these!

 

 

R

[Robert M]

And yes if you want to install the 2011-up oem in an earlier car it will work, but you have to notch the UCM as shown below for fuel tank lip clearance.

 

Below is an unmodded 2011-up oem UCM in the fore ground and my modified 2011-up oem UCM behind to show the "notched area" required for the install in an earlier car.

 

 

Since the 2011-up still retains a large rubber bushing that is very flexible, I chose to go with the BMR, however, I did have a modded version of the oem 2011-up in my car for about two weeks, it was the first 2011-up to be test fitted in my car, it fit into the floor hole without issue, and once I knew that the 2011-up oem would fit, I spent the $$$ on the 2011-up BMR. <<The BMR required no mods at all to fit in my 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

Thanks for the info on the Roush unit length .

Sounds like the simplist form of this mod would be to use an OEM 2011 UCA with a Scott Drake UCM on a 2005-2010 S197 chassis.

The performance version would be to have an adjustable BMR UCA and BMR UCM (if fitment allows) or use a Scott Drake UCM on a 2005 - 2010 S197 chassis.

And those who want to have the beef without the adjustability can go with the BMR non-adjustable UCA.

 

So Robert , since you had the modded version in your car for "about two weeks" what did you find in differences between the stock OEM and your modded unit?

 

Does this mod do anything - stop just wheel hop - or is there more ?

[Robert M]

Thanks for the info on the Roush unit length .

Sounds like the simplist form of this mod would be to use an OEM 2011 UCA with a Scott Drake UCM on a 2005-2010 S197 chassis.

The performance version would be to have an adjustable BMR UCA and BMR UCM (if fitment allows) or use a Scott Drake UCM on a 2005 - 2010 S197 chassis.

And those who want to have the beef without the adjustability can go with the BMR non-adjustable UCA.

 

So Robert , since you had the modded version in your car for "about two weeks" what did you find in differences between the stock OEM and your modded unit?

 

Does this mod do anything - stop just wheel hop - or is there more ?

 

I have never had wheel hop issues with my Super Snake, and I sent the car to Shelby without ever driving it as a non-Super Snake, but as a Super Snake spin yes, hop no. I have not had the oem 2005-2010 in my car for about 3 years, I changed to the BMR 2005-2010. I also have a full 3" exhaust so I can't comment on the NVH because the car is louder more than quieter. When I bought my 2008 BMR UCA/UCM the 2011 version had just come out, but I was not able to identify the differences. Since that time I have researched the UCA and UCM differences and found that they are many, between the older and newer and that got me wondering why????? So then I first did the oem 2011-up upgrade (least expensive), as usual no wheel hop, the car sprinted from a low speed pull shifting briskly through the gears, I did not do any hole-shots, speed shifting or dumping the clutch, I don't drive my car that way so I guess you could say that I did not "fully stretch" these parts while they were in my car. The suspension seemed quite nice, it worked fine. The only question I had with the 2011-up oem UCA/UCM in the earlier car is how much deflection is part of the big rubber marshmellow bushing? With the long arm in the earlier car the space between the fuel tank lip and the front end of the arm is only about 1/2" (many people don't know that the 2011-up fuel tank is different in this area). So once I found the 2011-oem to fit and work, with a little modification to the oem UCM as shown in the previous picture, I knew the 2011-up BMR would fit. Since the BMR has a poly bushing there is minimal deflection, I had Kelly from BMR examine the long UCA to fuel tank lip clearance and he said that it looked fine, "if" there were to be any deflection, it would be rearward and not forward toward the fuel tank.

 

^^^All of this being said, I noticed no difference in NVH between the 2011-up oem and the 2011-up BMR in my 2008 I believe that the larger 2011-up poly bushing "may" help to eliminate the NVH that some experience with the smaller/earlier BMR poly UCA bushing. The rear axle did seem to be a little more solid in place with the BMR and the car feels great and goes straight.

 

 

 

 

R

[BMR Fabrication]

I love this type of stuff. If I had more time, I would go a little more in-depth - but I will keep it short.

 

Ford went to the Longer UCA / Revised Mount on the 2011+ cars due to a few reasons. Increased power, leads to increased wheel spin, which leads to increased wheel-hop.

 

The newer 11+ UCA is longer, which enables better axle stability under every circumstance. The hardware is larger because, well....300 base HP.....up to 662 HP (2011+ Mustangs)

 

Wheel hop is always worsened with a shorter UCA. It's more violent, and it will break parts.

 

Longer UCA also allows for better axle control on a road course. It also "calms" down the rear axle movement under just about every driving condition, whether its streep, strip, or course.

 

Slightly more UCA angle, also leads to less wheel hop and more traction. The 2011+ UCA System actually adds a slight amount of anti-squat (so does the Roush UCA System) - which will help with traction.

 

That all said, I think the Drake UCM is a pretty decent idea. MY thoughts though...if you have to drill anything out, why not modify the chassis forward bolt (that the one user said was too small for the 11+ Mount) - use the BMR 11+ UCM, and benefit from having the IC/AS adjustment? If the Drake mount was plug and play, no drilling required, I'd say it would be a no brainer. But if you must drill anything, may as well drill and have adjustable Instant Center.

 

Anyhow, keep up the great work fellas! And for those who back our components, we thank you very much!!!!

 

Kelly

[Robert M]

I love this type of stuff. If I had more time, I would go a little more in-depth - but I will keep it short.

 

Ford went to the Longer UCA / Revised Mount on the 2011+ cars due to a few reasons. Increased power, leads to increased wheel spin, which leads to increased wheel-hop.

 

The newer 11+ UCA is longer, which enables better axle stability under every circumstance. The hardware is larger because, well....300 base HP.....up to 662 HP (2011+ Mustangs)

 

Wheel hop is always worsened with a shorter UCA. It's more violent, and it will break parts.

 

Longer UCA also allows for better axle control on a road course. It also "calms" down the rear axle movement under just about every driving condition, whether its streep, strip, or course.

 

Slightly more UCA angle, also leads to less wheel hop and more traction. The 2011+ UCA System actually adds a slight amount of anti-squat (so does the Roush UCA System) - which will help with traction.

 

That all said, I think the Drake UCM is a pretty decent idea. MY thoughts though...if you have to drill anything out, why not modify the chassis forward bolt (that the one user said was too small for the 11+ Mount) - use the BMR 11+ UCM, and benefit from having the IC/AS adjustment? If the Drake mount was plug and play, no drilling required, I'd say it would be a no brainer. But if you must drill anything, may as well drill and have adjustable Instant Center.

 

Anyhow, keep up the great work fellas! And for those who back our components, we thank you very much!!!!

 

Kelly

 

 

^^^^I agree Kelly, but I just added that Drake option for those who would say "Robert M's upgrade didn't work!!". This is an alternative for the people who happen to run into an issue and do not want to drill the car. Not many people would have all of this UCA/UCM stuff laying around in the first place for side-by-side comparisons.

 

If I add something to a forum that is "not standard" and it does not work for someone else, I hate to leave them cursing me after spending the $$$ and hours of fighting with something and it not working for them.

 

I am very happy that the complete BMR 2011-up UCA/UCM fit in my car without issue. I don't even remember when/why I bought the Drake UCM, but it has been laying around for a couple of years and I remembered it when Hunters1 ran into his issue.

 

And yes, the Drake will require the forward through bolt holes to be enlarged on the bracket itself as mentioned earlier in this thread, so it is not a plug and play for the 2011-up UCA.

 

 

R

[ViperNC]

Anyhow, keep up the great work fellas! And for those who back our components, we thank you very much!!!!

 

Kelly

Welcome Kelly and thank you for your recent help and conversation around my front end suspension project. Can't wait to get the k member, a arms, a arm support brace, radiator support and chassis brace!

[Kevin Patten]

I love this type of stuff. If I had more time, I would go a little more in-depth - but I will keep it short.

 

Ford went to the Longer UCA / Revised Mount on the 2011+ cars due to a few reasons. Increased power, leads to increased wheel spin, which leads to increased wheel-hop.

 

The newer 11+ UCA is longer, which enables better axle stability under every circumstance. The hardware is larger because, well....300 base HP.....up to 662 HP (2011+ Mustangs)

 

Wheel hop is always worsened with a shorter UCA. It's more violent, and it will break parts.

 

Longer UCA also allows for better axle control on a road course. It also "calms" down the rear axle movement under just about every driving condition, whether its streep, strip, or course.

 

Slightly more UCA angle, also leads to less wheel hop and more traction. The 2011+ UCA System actually adds a slight amount of anti-squat (so does the Roush UCA System) - which will help with traction.

 

That all said, I think the Drake UCM is a pretty decent idea. MY thoughts though...if you have to drill anything out, why not modify the chassis forward bolt (that the one user said was too small for the 11+ Mount) - use the BMR 11+ UCM, and benefit from having the IC/AS adjustment? If the Drake mount was plug and play, no drilling required, I'd say it would be a no brainer. But if you must drill anything, may as well drill and have adjustable Instant Center.

 

Anyhow, keep up the great work fellas! And for those who back our components, we thank you very much!!!!

 

Kelly

Kelly ,

Thanks for the additional input.

If you have the time to explain about Instant Center and Anti-Squat for the folks here on the forum that would be nice and would help to explain to people in why they would want to invest in this type of mod. Also if there is a different concern ( in IC/AS) between road racing vs drag racing vs autocross vs performance street usage. It might also help explain why some manufacturers have UCMs that have the holes up/down verses forward/back and what a person should look for and wants for their particular application.Or do we ALL just want a longer UCA AND a steeper UCA angle?

 

Robert,

nice research , write up with the pics, and nice collection of UCAs and UCMs.

Some of us are bound by class category rules in racing that allow for ONLY OEM parts to be used but we are allowed to use OEM parts from different model years on our cars.

That being said , I hope you understand why I direct my inquiries in the manner that I do so. I like seeing stuff like this come up on the forum.

[Kevin Patten]

Kelly,

If I understand correctly, the position of I/C affects the anti-squat and roll axis and the best position is based upon the wheelbase along with the height of the center of gravity. The steeper the angle, the closer the I/C is to the rear and generates more lifting force under acceleration. While drag racers like/want more anti-squat than road racers it brings up on whether one wants a UCM with the holes up/down for drag racing to go along with LCAs which have multiple holes up/down (like BMR LCAs). The angles affect Roll Axis and a flat Roll Axis is good for cornering but not very important to drag racers. Isn't this where we need to ask which is a better set up for the different types of use we are planning to use our cars for. I understand that BMR is developing not only a Torque Arm but also a Watts Linkage set up in order to address the needs of those going road racing verses the current product which has been designed more for the drag racer. I believe that Roberts suggestions on the UCA and mount will get us some gain but not much unless we are running very high horsepower ( which he is with a KB loaded Super Snake). I'm limited to 315 RWHP and always looking for grip/bite coming off of a corner.

[Robert M]

Kelly,

If I understand correctly, the position of I/C affects the anti-squat and roll axis and the best position is based upon the wheelbase along with the height of the center of gravity. The steeper the angle, the closer the I/C is to the rear and generates more lifting force under acceleration. While drag racers like/want more anti-squat than road racers it brings up on whether one wants a UCM with the holes up/down for drag racing to go along with LCAs which have multiple holes up/down (like BMR LCAs). The angles affect Roll Axis and a flat Roll Axis is good for cornering but not very important to drag racers. Isn't this where we need to ask which is a better set up for the different types of use we are planning to use our cars for. I understand that BMR is developing not only a Torque Arm but also a Watts Linkage set up in order to address the needs of those going road racing verses the current product which has been designed more for the drag racer. I believe that Roberts suggestions on the UCA and mount will get us some gain but not much unless we are running very high horsepower ( which he is with a KB loaded Super Snake). I'm limited to 315 RWHP and always looking for grip/bite coming off of a corner.

 

 

Another thing to think about is the production BOSS 302 LS, we know it has the newer/longer UCA because it is 2011-up, but it also has LCA relocation brackets, not the amount of adjustment like the BMR relo's, but they do come with them from Ford, for lowering the LCA's at the axle end.

 

 

 

 

R

[Robert M]

 

 

Robert,

nice research , write up with the pics, and nice collection of UCAs and UCMs.

Some of us are bound by class category rules in racing that allow for ONLY OEM parts to be used but we are allowed to use OEM parts from different model years on our cars.

That being said , I hope you understand why I direct my inquiries in the manner that I do so. I like seeing stuff like this come up on the forum.

 

 

Thanks.

 

I do understand, and maybe with some of the oem side-by-side pictures that will give you some options for your specific use/application.

 

 

 

 

R

[BMR Fabrication]

Oh boy, you guys are asking some pretty serious stuff. I am going to try and locate some info I have written on various forums, to make it easier.

 

IC/AS is very complex - if it is approached properly, based on the goal of the car you are setting/plotting it up on.

 

While I am out roaming around looking for info I have posted, I will share a few "basics"

 

While the steeper angle / increase AS% is good for drag racers...it is also benefical for many road coursers. The difference would be based on each persons combo, driving style, and suspension tuning knowledge. At the end of the day, a slight increase in AS% can do wonders on a course car, as it will often help apply power/load to the vehicle at an earlier point on corner exit. I have been there, we've all been there - you are kicking the snot out of that Lancer, WRX, Porsche, GTR, etc.....then when it comes time to take a corner, they're 5+ cars out front before you can even blink, coming out of the corner. They are simply able to come out of the corner more effectively, applying more power/force to the tires.

 

If you go too steep, you can run into a much more erratic axle under certain conditions, including heavy braking. This, you will see people describe as "brake hop". This occurence is actually more present on paper, than in the real world. I rarely have customers experience "bad" brake-hop.

 

That erratic axle movement is due to the leverage length on the LCA mount - being extended. In a perfect world, you want the pivot point as close to the axle as possible - for axle stability.

 

There is also a very drastic difference in the characteristics of the suspension, when adjusting IC/AS via UCA.....and adjusting it via LCA... Of course, the best way to do it, is to change the angle of both the UCA and LCA to achieve a better balance. Often times, the AS% adjustment is more bias above, or below the neautral line.....which has very different characteristics.

 

The companies that offer multiple mounting holes on their mount, but none "up and down"; rather, front to back, those are for the 05-10 length arm, and the 11+ length arm.

 

There may have been a few companies who offered that "further" position before the 11+ was released. I think "maybe" Steeda did, but not positive. That would have been simply to lengthen the UCA to provide better axle stability.

 

Albino, to answer you, it depends. Yes, EVERYONE will benefit from a longer UCA. Drag, Road Course, Street Driving, everyone.

 

Not everyone will benefit from a steeper UCA angle. A good example is, I often have customers who I have a hard time "dialing" in their suspension for them. Come to find out, they are typically lowered.....and either have a Roush UCA System, or BMR w/ the UCA in the lower of the 2 positions. These customers are lowered, so of course, they also have LCA Relos. Well, when you lower the car....you are already lowering the UCA / Steepening the angle. So, when you have a 1.5" drop....then drop the UCA down 3/4" or so....then use Relo Brackets, you are basically setting the car up with a MASSIVE amount of anti-squat. You'd have to have the best double adjustable dampers on the planet, to control the AS% effectively.....but there are none that will do it properly. This is why: A: our 11+ UCA upper mounting hole is actually higher than the OEM hole, it is for lowered cars. B: I typically recommend against people running the Roush UCA system, on a lowered vehicle. So many people call me with traction issues from having too much AS.....it's just crazy.

 

Anyhow, I have to see if I can find some stuff to copy and paste. My finger tips hurt.

[ViperNC]

Albino, to answer you, it depends. Yes, EVERYONE will benefit from a longer UCA. Drag, Road Course, Street Driving, everyone.

 

Not everyone will benefit from a steeper UCA angle. A good example is, I often have customers who I have a hard time "dialing" in their suspension for them. Come to find out, they are typically lowered.....and either have a Roush UCA System, or BMR w/ the UCA in the lower of the 2 positions. These customers are lowered, so of course, they also have LCA Relos. Well, when you lower the car....you are already lowering the UCA / Steepening the angle. So, when you have a 1.5" drop....then drop the UCA down 3/4" or so....then use Relo Brackets, you are basically setting the car up with a MASSIVE amount of anti-squat. You'd have to have the best double adjustable dampers on the planet, to control the AS% effectively.....but there are none that will do it properly.

OK Kelly... now that you tied my brain into a pretzel I have a question based upon this comment as it relates to my current set up in the rear:

 

From our conversation the other day I explained why I am interested in staying away from an aftermarket UCA if I can get away with it mainly due to the excessive noise. I'm not running the LCA relocation brackets and rest of my rear setup is below. I feel as if I have found a sweet spot for excellent cornering ability with the watts link and also launching ability off the line/ability to get on the throttle pretty hard out of an apex confidently. My wheel hop is gone and the car feel planted in almost every scenario thus far, yet it is not excessively stiff in the rear and is fairly comfortable for street driving.

 

Question: Is there any reason/advantage why I should consider the UCA to replace the stock piece at this point if I am pleased with how it is currently performing and noting it will see track days, but not a race car? Or am I good to go? I keep wondering if I should get over the noise factor by installing "the tuning fork".

[Kevin Patten]

Viper - sounds like you could use the Roush UCA on your car ! I'll probably have one for sale if I take Robert advise and go to the 2011+ OEM UCA to stay within the rules

[Robert M]

Viper - sounds like you could use the Roush UCA on your car ! I'll probably have one for sale if I take Robert advise and go to the 2011+ OEM UCA to stay within the rules

 

What UCM would you use with the 2011-up oem UCA?

 

 

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

 

What UCM would you use with the 2011-up oem UCA?

 

 

 

 

R

I think that I'd go with the Drake unit and try to hide it (did I just say that - oh no it would be OEM all the way chief inspector) It's stout but low enough in profile to clear the earlier tank I believe . Maybe you could make a mock up of a 2011+ UCA with the Drake UCM next to the OEM 2005-2010 UCA/UCM next to the modified 2011+ UCM that you have in your collection Robert ( my collection of UCAs and UCMs is not as large of a collection as yours )and post pics. I have an early OEM set up , a BMR adjustable setup, a early Roush set up, and a Griggs Torque Arm set up but haven't gotten into the 2011+ models as of yet. I'm stuck with having to use the Cortex LCA brackets on the race car( which only have 2 holes - not like the BMRs with 3 holes ) Cortex recommends that the rear LCAs be @ a 3-5 degree angle ( which I find interesting ) up in front. I think based upon your earlier posted pics that I may be able to use the Drake UCM without having to cut it like you did with the OEM 2011+ UCM which I'd like to see side by side. I realize that I'll have to drill out the hole for the larger bolt but I'm OK with that and I'd put a Grade 8 bolt which has a shoulder length that covers at least 70% of the surface area of the front bushing. JMO

[Robert M]

I think that I'd go with the Drake unit and try to hide it (did I just say that - oh no it would be OEM all the way chief inspector) It's stout but low enough in profile to clear the earlier tank I believe . Maybe you could make a mock up of a 2011+ UCA with the Drake UCM next to the OEM 2005-2010 UCA/UCM next to the modified 2011+ UCM that you have in your collection Robert ( my collection of UCAs and UCMs is not as large of a collection as yours )and post pics. I have an early OEM set up , a BMR adjustable setup, a early Roush set up, and a Griggs Torque Arm set up but haven't gotten into the 2011+ models as of yet. I'm stuck with having to use the Cortex LCA brackets on the race car( which only have 2 holes - not like the BMRs with 3 holes ) Cortex recommends that the rear LCAs be @ a 3-5 degree angle ( which I find interesting ) up in front. I think based upon your earlier posted pics that I may be able to use the Drake UCM without having to cut it like you did with the OEM 2011+ UCM which I'd like to see side by side. I realize that I'll have to drill out the hole for the larger bolt but I'm OK with that and I'd put a Grade 8 bolt which has a shoulder length that covers at least 70% of the surface area of the front bushing. JMO

 

 

I don't think the Drake will need to be cut either, it is made to fit the earlier car with the earlier fuel tank lip. Once you get the Drake in place, with the longer 2011-up UCA installed, you will see the close fuel tank lip clearance I was talking about. The oem 2011-up fuel tank has the lip curved downward for more UCA clearance, the 2005-2010 fuel tank lip is straight in this area. Under some circumstances the 2011-up rubber bushing UCA "may" contact the fuel tank lip on the earlier cars? if the rubber bushing deflection is so much that it allows the arm to move forward and contact the fuel tank, and then again it may not. It will be something that you will have to look at, and decide.

 

Shown below is the 2005-2010 fuel tank, note the lip area ahead of the LCA............

 

 

This is the 2011-up fuel tank, note the rolled downward lip for additional UCA clearance..........

 

 

 

^^^^This is just something to think about with the longer UCA with the rubber bushing, and possible forward movement. It may not be an issue, but it something to consider.

 

 

I took some pictures of the 2011-up oem UCA with modified 2011-up UCM installed in my 2008.............I will add them this evening

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

Thanks Robert,

 

Question on your gas tank photos - I thought that the 2011+ gas tanks did not have the tab with the hole ( on the welded seam by the vent tube on the passenger side corner ) where as earlier tanks did. I do see where you are talking about the fold in the middle on the seam ( not a problem - have body hammer - will bend ). Is it possible Ford changed tanks more than once during the S197 years ?

[Robert M]

Thanks Robert,

 

Question on your gas tank photos - I thought that the 2011+ gas tanks did not have the tab with the hole ( on the welded seam by the vent tube on the passenger side corner ) where as earlier tanks did. I do see where you are talking about the fold in the middle on the seam ( not a problem - have body hammer - will bend ). Is it possible Ford changed tanks more than once during the S197 years ?

 

 

I'm not sure about that hole in the lip? This tank was being sold as a 2011 GT500 fuel tank.

 

Yes, the body hammer will make whatever clearance is needed.

 

Here are the pictures of the 2011-up oem UCA/UCM in place on my 2008..............

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not the best angles for fuel tank lip clearance, but I didn't take many pictures except to provide proof that yes, this oem 2011-up UCA/UCM could in fact be installed in an earlier car. Once I knew it fit, it was full speed ahead for the 2011-up BMR parts!!

 

 

 

 

R

[Robert M]

^^^^After this oem install, it was the test fitting of the 2011-up BMR UCM.............

 

 

and then the BMR 2011-up UCA and a much clearer view of the clearance with the earlier fuel tank lip............

 

 

 

 

 

R

[ViperNC]

Robert M - please comment on increase in NVH when you changed to the BMR UCA.

[Robert M]

Robert M - please comment on increase in NVH when you changed to the BMR UCA.

 

 

This is a copy and paste from post #34 above.............

 

"^^^All of this being said, I noticed no difference in NVH between the 2011-up oem and the 2011-up BMR in my 2008 I believe that the larger 2011-up poly bushing "may" help to eliminate the NVH that some experience with the smaller/earlier BMR poly UCA bushing. The rear axle did seem to be a little more solid in place with the BMR and the car feels great and goes straight."

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

 

 

So in my quote from post #34 I said that I noticed no difference between the two, and I didn't, BUT I also have a full 3" mandrel exhaust system which is louder than oem, so if there was additional noise, it may be covered up by the louder exhaust, I don't know.

 

I do feel that there is a great possibility that the larger BMR poly bushing on the 2011-up UCA "may" insulate NHV better than the smaller one for the B4 2011 UCA. As shown in one of the pictures with the earlier BMR and the later BMR UCA's on top of each other in a picture, there is a big difference in these poly bushings and I believe that the bigger bushing insulates better than the smaller? <<Just my thoughts......

 

As for vibration specifically, I have a full poly rear suspension, LCA's UCA, sway bars etc. the springs are more firm and the car is lowered, so I'm sure there is a little more vibration transmitted to the passenger compartment than the rubber bushings would allow, but nothing that I feel is not acceptable. I do not have the poly bushing in the mount above the differential, it is still the rubber mount at the rear end of the UCA, so that may help to limit the noise and vibration transmitted from the axle assy. through the UCA to the body of the car.

 

The mount shown below is what I am talking about and it is still the oem rubber.............

 

 

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

^^^^After this oem install, it was the test fitting of the 2011-up BMR UCM.............

 

 

and then the BMR 2011-up UCA and a much clearer view of the clearance with the earlier fuel tank lip............

 

 

 

 

 

R

Nice pics Robert - almost looks like on the BMR UCM that the bridge of the bracket goes along the same line as the edge of the tank . I wonder of the Drake UCM does the same . That would help in limiting any movement of the bushing past and up against the tank. I noted that on the OEM UCA bushing that the relief cuts in the bushing is for the allowance of front / rear movement while the bushing on the differential (pressed on top) has relief cuts for up/down to allow some articulation of the axle assembly. I have gone with a Steeda spherical bushing on the top of the diff before to free up the articulation of the axle ( and used the BMR LCA with poly/spherical ends) on several S197s and it has worked great. It will be interesting to see what the fitment and measurements of the Drake UCM and 2011+ UCA will have (ordered both the other day).

[Robert M]

Nice pics Robert - almost looks like on the BMR UCM that the bridge of the bracket goes along the same line as the edge of the tank . I wonder of the Drake UCM does the same . That would help in limiting any movement of the bushing past and up against the tank. I noted that on the OEM UCA bushing that the relief cuts in the bushing is for the allowance of front / rear movement while the bushing on the differential (pressed on top) has relief cuts for up/down to allow some articulation of the axle assembly. I have gone with a Steeda spherical bushing on the top of the diff before to free up the articulation of the axle ( and used the BMR LCA with poly/spherical ends) on several S197s and it has worked great. It will be interesting to see what the fitment and measurements of the Drake UCM and 2011+ UCA will have (ordered both the other day).

 

 

^^^Thanks.

 

 

 

When I looked at the Drake during my picture taking last weekend, I believe that the bridge area in the bracket is very close to the same and the 2011-up BMR.

 

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

Robert,

 

I got the 2011+ UCA assembly today and the Drake UCM should show up tomorrow (per UPS) so I'll start playing with them once I have my hands on both. I have some thoughts on making mods to the set up that you might be intrigued with.

[Robert M]

Robert,

 

I got the 2011+ UCA assembly today and the Drake UCM should show up tomorrow (per UPS) so I'll start playing with them once I have my hands on both. I have some thoughts on making mods to the set up that you might be intrigued with.

 

 

 

^^^Yes, I am always interested.

 

I want to see pictures of this assembled before the install..........please?

 

 

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

I've got the parts now and a few more - just need to get the time to lay some things out and take pics (which I don't do - JJ does) . I think that my collection is now comparable to yours Robert . Will post up sometime after we get back from the track this weekend .

[SVTSnake]

I'm so confused.....

 

Make it simple for me. '09 GT500, Sportlines, Shelby LCA (BMR I think), Koni's, CHE Relo, Eibach Sway Bars...stock UCA.

 

If I decided to do an upper which would you go with? Spirited Street Driver, may see a road track in the future...maybe.

 

I gather I should go with an '11+ BMR UCM and use the upper hole since I would probably already have a lot of AS. Do I go with Adj or Non Adj Arm?

Or should I just stay with stock setup I have now? Would I benefit from the extra length of the '11+?

 

A lot of good info in this thread, just a lot to process. Thank you guys for doing the work and letting the rest of us benefit from your trial and error.

I like to do things right the first time, hopefully I haven't already screwed it up. If I have, maybe I can still fix it without too much added cost.

 

Thanks for your input!!

[Robert M]

I'm so confused.....

 

Make it simple for me. '09 GT500, Sportlines, Shelby LCA (BMR I think), Koni's, CHE Relo, Eibach Sway Bars...stock UCA.

 

If I decided to do an upper which would you go with? Spirited Street Driver, may see a road track in the future...maybe.

 

I gather I should go with an '11+ BMR UCM and use the upper hole since I would probably already have a lot of AS. Do I go with Adj or Non Adj Arm?

Or should I just stay with stock setup I have now? Would I benefit from the extra length of the '11+?

 

A lot of good info in this thread, just a lot to process. Thank you guys for doing the work and letting the rest of us benefit from your trial and error.

I like to do things right the first time, hopefully I haven't already screwed it up. If I have, maybe I can still fix it without too much added cost.

 

Thanks for your input!!

 

Maybe the link below may add some additional info. if you have not read it already.

 

With your current set-up it will depend upon if your pinion angle is within the acceptable specs. If it is, and you don't plan on lowering or altering your suspension in a way that will affect pinion angle, then the non-adj. UCA will work fine.

 

Since you have an earlier car (B4 2011), I have added a link below. One person who attempted to install the 2011-up UCA in a 2007 had an issue where the UCA front mounting point would not fit through the hole in the floor. Page 2 of the link below has a possible "work around" for that without having to remove the fuel tank and enlarge the hole in the floor panel. I have not done this, but it seems that it would make this mod a plug and play for those who have issue with the hole being too small.

 

http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php/topic/83679-has-anyone-else-installed-the-2011-up-uca-on-their-2007-2010/

 

 

 

 

R

[BMR Fabrication]

I've got the parts now and a few more - just need to get the time to lay some things out and take pics (which I don't do - JJ does) . I think that my collection is now comparable to yours Robert . Will post up sometime after we get back from the track this weekend .

????

 

Been wanting to see what you have, what you are going with, thoughts, etc?