Fays2 installed what next?

[BMR Fabrication]

Oh- and for you handling guys, and drag racers, our new UTCA033 is the bees knees.

[Kevin Patten]

????

 

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

Kelly, Sorry - been busy with stuff but I've found out that on the Drake UCM while the first hole will work with the 2005-2010 UCAs (OEM and BMR non-adjustable/adjustable units) for use on a 2005-2010 S197 the length the second hole is off for use with the 2011+ OEM arm (besides the hole diameter being for a 14mm vs 18mm). The BMR adjustable UCAs (poly and heim) for the 2005-2010 will work with the Drake UCM for those using a one piece driveshaft and needing to reset driveline angles. Currently I'm resetting the second hole position on the Drake UCM to be in the correct location to use with a 2011+ OEM UCA and making a delrin reduction sleeve to drop the hole size of the 2011+ OEM UCA from the 18mm down to 14mm along with cutting down the nubs on the sides of the OEM sleeve and putting in .030" delrin side washer shims to make the UCA. Bottom line is - set up to have a 2011+ OEM UCA fit into the Drake UCM while not having to tighten down the cross bolt @ ride height (floating not fixed - no twisting on OEM rubber bushing during suspension travel) on a 2005-2010 S197.

 

Oh- and for you handling guys, and drag racers, our new UTCA033 is the bees knees.

Looks great ! I have a question - have you guys ever considered doing a spherical end bushing for replacing the bushing on top of the differential ( like the Steeda 555-4104) ? The reason that I ask is because I like that you make the LCAs with the poly bushing up front and the spherical end @ the axle (free articulation on the 2 lower points of the axle at the axle point) but you have only a poly bushing available @ the 3rd link point (above on the axle) while using a spherical at the pivot point of the UCA for completing the 3 points needed for a true "free articulating axle". I like having the free articulation @ the axle to link locations while having the poly at the frame to link pivot locations. JMO

[Robert M]

????

 

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

 

 

^^^^Me too!!

 

 

 

R

[OCD]

Oh- and for you handling guys, and drag racers, our new UTCA033 is the bees knees.

 

 

I am hoping these beauties knock a few 10th's off!!

 

 

 

Also ordered up some Viking dbl adj rear shocks from BMR on Thursday...

[Kevin Patten]

 

 

^^^^Me too!!

 

 

 

R

Unit assembled and in a 2010 GT for road test. Will have pics and results soon.

[Kevin Patten]

Kelly @ BMR Fabrication - can you tell me if the O.D. diameter of the sleeve on the bushing of your UTCA030 is the same as the O.D. of the sleeve on part # UTCA017. I know there is a difference between the 2 on the I.D. because early cars use a 14mm bolt verses the 2011-14 uses a 18mm bolt. Also - are the lengths of the sleeves the same ?

[Kevin Patten]

OK, so now I'm going to try to explain some of the finding on UCAs for primarly the 2005-2010 S197 chassis ( Sorry about turning this thread into one about UCAs primarily but it does address the original question of what's next ) Some of the issues of the UCA from the OEM unit are the hole sizes , the length of the shoulder on the bolts , and having a voided rubber bushing.

This first picture shows how much difference there is between the hole size in the UCM and the diameter of the bolt. It also shows how short the shoulder length is before it steps down in size.

The second picture shows the side view so you can see the voids in the bushing which allow for forward and aft movement under loads and aid in isolating NVH from the rear axle assembly.

The bottom picture shows Steeda part # 555-4110 which are step washers that take up the gap between the 2 different diameters but ,doesn't address the short stepped shoulder of the OEM bolt. This is a cure for those with a clunk noise @ the UCA/rear end of the car.

 

Note: When you lower your car and/or make suspension height changes you will need to loosen this bolt to free up any twist in the OEM bushing and then re-torque it while the vehicle is sitting on the ground / drive on rack. It is a bonded bushing as well as a voided one - the center stays put in place while the outer portion of the bushing rotates with the movement of the UCA. This affects the distortion which occurs during acceleration /deceleration and suspension/axle movement.

 

It's taken me an hour to set this up so I'm taking a break and will return with more pics and descriptions.

[Kevin Patten]

So the next issue is the voided bushing at the top of the differential where the UCA connects to the axle assembly. The OEM bushing is voided on the top and bottom to allow some articulation ( side to side rotation ) of the axle. Since so many owners address the excessive forward/aft axle rotation by replacing the LCAs first a choice has to be made on what type of bushings are the most desired. Some LCAs come with polyurethane bushings on both ends ( some increase in NVH from OEM) , some come with polyurethane bushings on one end and spherical ends on the other end ( more NVH but freer axle articulation - they come either way on this - some with the poly up front some with the poly in the rear ) , and some come with spherical ends on both ends ( highest level of NVH compared to OEM ). After choosing the type of LCA then one is faced with the location or angle of the LCA ( once the desired ride height has been achieved ) and whether or not wheel hop or rear tire bite is where it needs to be. This is where the relocation brackets come into the picture. Most will start off with wanting to get the rear LCAs level (parallel to the ground) but may need to drop the rear of the LCA @ the axle to get more bite on launch with 3-5 degree max) however this changes other geometric properties ( rear suspension geometry is drawn up as a relationship of the placement and length of where the LCAs are within their arc and the placement and length of where the UCA is within its arc ). In other words you make big changes when you either shorten/lengthen or raise/lower either end of the LCAs . The same goes true for the UCA as well. I've found the best compromise for a performance street/track car is to go with LCAs which have the polyurethane bushings up front @ the frame to LCA pivot and having a spherical end at the axle end of the LCA and having the LCAs as level to the ground as possible then doing the final tuning with the UCA ( both in length and in slope angle ). I like to have a similar arrangement on the UCA as I do on my LCAs - poly bushings @ the front pivot / spherical ends @ the axle - therefore I have replaced the OEM bushing with a Steeda # 555-4104. The UCA/UCM combinations really effects NVH a lot more than LCAs. Here is a picture of the Steeda upper third link unit installed.

 

Robert M , Tob , Kelly - I'm getting there - I know that your probably bored !

[Kevin Patten]

So here is where I catch up with Robert's discussion on UCAs and putting a longer 2011-14 UCA into a 205-2010 S197 chassis. I'm using a 2010 GT as the test mule for the exchange of parts. The vehicle has an adjustable BMR UCA for 2005-2010 on it along with a set of BMR LCAs and the Steeda spherical differential bushing. The vehicle is also lowered ( Steeda sport springs ), has 19x9.5 wheels w/285/35-19 tires, Fay2 watts linkage and other mods. The NVH was enough that he had to line the body with dynamat under the rear seat area. The vehicle still has the stock 2 piece drive shaft in it. First we took out the BMR adjustable UCA , set it next to an OEM 2005-2010 UCA and then took a 2011-14 UCA and checked out the differences. Then took apart the 2011+ UCA from it's bracket and took the Drake 2005-2010 UCM and did a comparison on the lengths. I found that the forward hole of the Drake UCM is in the wrong location for the overall length to be correct (plus being a smaller hole diameter for the one in the OEM 2011+ UCA). The simplest approach I felt was to just make a sleeve to down size the hole in the OEM bushing sleeve and fill ,weld up and redrill the forward hole in the Drake UCM to fit the smaller 14mm size through bolt into. I remember that Robert had mentioned about clearance issues (none here with the low profile Drake UCM) and the Drake UCM doesn't have much as far as surface area. The Drake UCM is made for the 2005-2010 so it fits onto the car no problem ( hole size under seat / gas tank seam , etc. ). The OEM UCA bushing has tabs on the sides of it so it will bite into the UCM to lock it into place making it so you have to tighten it at ride height ( which is a pain even with the smaller size bolt ) so I ground off the tabs and made it so I could put in some side shims to enable the bushing/UCA to rotate as needed. Now I can put the UCA and the UCM together and torque down the bolt while it was out of the vehicle.

[Kevin Patten]

Here's some more pics of the set up ( 2011+ OEM UCA with modified Drake UCM in 2010 )

 

 

After the initial testing (San Jose Calif. to Las Vegas for the 50th and then to Los Angeles and then back to SJ) then we will get some feedback on the set up with the OEM UCA on the track. After which I'll switch out the OEM UCA for a fixed BMR UCA with the polyurethane bushing to note any differences.

[Robert M]

Here's some more pics of the set up ( 2011+ OEM UCA with modified Drake UCM in 2010 )

 

P1050716.jpgP1050723.jpgP1050724.jpgP1050725.jpg

 

After the initial testing (San Jose Calif. to Las Vegas for the 50th and then to Los Angeles and then back to SJ) then we will get some feedback on the set up with the OEM UCA on the track. After which I'll switch out the OEM UCA for a fixed BMR UCA with the polyurethane bushing to note any differences.

 

 

Cool!!

 

Isn't there a poly bushing for the top of the diff. housing offered through BMR? <<< I think?

 

Keep the info. and pictures flowing as you get more time to test.

 

This is good stuff.

 

 

Thanks, Robert

[Kevin Patten]

Yes , BMR does offer a polyurethane bushing for on top of the differential .

[Kevin Patten]

Well the car is back from it's road trip and all seems to be good.. Since I've pretty much remove all of the binding issues at all of the suspension points we are getting really good results and ride quality. There is virtually no noise being heard from the rearend/suspension from inside the car with the OEM rubber bushing on the 2011-14 UCA. The only issue to report is that the vehicle "bottomed out " at a bridge abutment on the freeway @ 140 MPH. Next is to take it to an "Open Track" event and see how it handles on a road course. We may want to change out the springs ( currently has Steeda Sport Springs ) but don't want to really have it any stiffer - maybe just sit a little higher to gain some suspension travel (especially in the rear where travel is always an issue on these cars ).

[msb64]

Prothane makes the poly bushing as well, part # 6-315-BL for the 2005 - 2012 Mustang, around $26 or so.

You need to reuse an oem steel shell though, as it does not come with the bushing.

Just trying to decide whether it might be too much for a car that is primarily driven on the street.

I've already replaced my LCA and UCA bushings with poly ones.

[Robert M]

Well the car is back from it's road trip and all seems to be good.. Since I've pretty much remove all of the binding issues at all of the suspension points we are getting really good results and ride quality. There is virtually no noise being heard from the rearend/suspension from inside the car with the OEM rubber bushing on the 2011-14 UCA. The only issue to report is that the vehicle "bottomed out " at a bridge abutment on the freeway @ 140 MPH. Next is to take it to an "Open Track" event and see how it handles on a road course. We may want to change out the springs ( currently has Steeda Sport Springs ) but don't want to really have it any stiffer - maybe just sit a little higher to gain some suspension travel (especially in the rear where travel is always an issue on these cars ).

 

^^^^This is good to hear. So you have the longer/more robust 2011-up oem UCA with the Scott Drake UCM installed on a 2007-2010 GT500?

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

 

^^^^This is good to hear. So you have the longer/more robust 2011-up oem UCA with the Scott Drake UCM installed on a 2007-2010 GT500?

 

 

R

Actually Robert it's installed on a 2010 GT (4.6 liter)and it does have the Steeda (555-4104) spherical piece on top of the differential to go with the 2011- up OEM UCA and Drake UCM (which was modified to get the proper length of the assembly). There was a major drop in NVH by going from the BMR adjustable (poly bushing) UCA to the 2011-up OEM UCA due to getting back to being a rubber bushing. This probably is a good place to point out some things. First is to point out that people with big horsepower and are looking to get good bite for launch (straight line use) can benefit by dropping the rear LCAs down (so the LCA is lower in the back at the axle point than at the front of the LCA where it mounts to the frame) to gain in anti-wheel hop. But for those looking for handling and bite off of the corners you need to keep the LCAs LEVEL . The reason for this statement is if you look at what happens to the LCAs in the rear of these cars when going around a corner you will need to understand that if they have a slop that the one side will bring the axle forward while the other side will extend the axle back causing rear steer. * If the LCAs are LEVEL and you go into a corner as the body begins to roll the outside of the car compresses the suspension thus bringing the back of the LCA up and into an arc and moving that side of the axle location forward while the other side (inside of vehicle while turning) of the suspension drops down thus bringing that side into its arc and bringing the axle forward also. If the LCAs are level to begin with then you will have equal amounts of change occurring on both sides and thus - NO REAR STEER ! The same goes for a straight line vehicle that on launch if the vehicle has the LCAs sloped but doesn't have something like an air bag and/or a big rear sway bar (to limit rear body roll) it will most likely pull the car to one side. This is where working with the UCA comes into play and what Robert has brought to the table gets my interest. Using changes with the UCA can change things like rear bite , anti-squat , pinion angle change , etc... without causing issues with rear steer!

[Robert M]

Actually Robert it's installed on a 2010 GT (4.6 liter)and it does have the Steeda (555-4104) spherical piece on top of the differential to go with the 2011- up OEM UCA and Drake UCM (which was modified to get the proper length of the assembly). There was a major drop in NVH by going from the BMR adjustable (poly bushing) UCA to the 2011-up OEM UCA due to getting back to being a rubber bushing. This probably is a good place to point out some things. First is to point out that people with big horsepower and are looking to get good bite for launch (straight line use) can benefit by dropping the rear LCAs down (so the LCA is lower in the back at the axle point than at the front of the LCA where it mounts to the frame) to gain in anti-wheel hop. But for those looking for handling and bite off of the corners you need to keep the LCAs LEVEL . The reason for this statement is if you look at what happens to the LCAs in the rear of these cars when going around a corner you will need to understand that if they have a slop that the one side will bring the axle forward while the other side will extend the axle back causing rear steer. * If the LCAs are LEVEL and you go into a corner as the body begins to roll the outside of the car compresses the suspension thus bringing the back of the LCA up and into an arc and moving that side of the axle location forward while the other side (inside of vehicle while turning) of the suspension drops down thus bringing that side into its arc and bringing the axle forward also. If the LCAs are level to begin with then you will have equal amounts of change occurring on both sides and thus - NO REAR STEER ! The same goes for a straight line vehicle that on launch if the vehicle has the LCAs sloped but doesn't have something like an air bag and/or a big rear sway bar (to limit rear body roll) it will most likely pull the car to one side. This is where working with the UCA comes into play and what Robert has brought to the table gets my interest. Using changes with the UCA can change things like rear bite , anti-squat , pinion angle change , etc... without causing issues with rear steer!

 

 

Ok, that's cool, a 2010 GT for the install. The key is that it can be made to work with minimal modification and you have taken an extended road trip and put this set-up though some track use.

 

I agree also with the LCA angle adjustment, that is why I stayed closer to level (slightly dropped in the rear) with my LCA relocation bracket adjustment choice. LCA's being high in the rear (low in the front) which would be very common on a lowered car seemed to be a loosing situation to start with if you are trying to correct traction issues.

 

I believe that the larger diameter poly bushing on the 2011-up BMR UCA will also keep the NVH down in comparison to a smaller diameter poly bushing.........

 

 

Thanks for this updated info!!

 

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

 

 

Ok, that's cool, a 2010 GT for the install. The key is that it can be made to work with minimal modification and you have taken an extended road trip and put this set-up though some track use.

 

I agree also with the LCA angle adjustment, that is why I stayed closer to level (slightly dropped in the rear) with my LCA relocation bracket adjustment choice. LCA's being high in the rear (low in the front) which would be very common on a lowered car seemed to be a loosing situation to start with if you are trying to correct traction issues.

 

I believe that the larger diameter poly bushing on the 2011-up BMR UCA will also keep the NVH down in comparison to a smaller diameter poly bushing.........

 

 

Thanks for this updated info!!

 

 

 

R

Yes Robert - it seems that no one makes a UCM that will allow you to just "bolt in" a 2011 + UCA into a 2005-2010 S197. The OEM set up of yours is the simplest way - cut back the UCM and drill out the hole size in the body for those with the OEM two piece drive shaft wanting to not worry about an increase in NVH.

 

For those with a one piece drive shaft - they will need to go to an adjustable UCA and/or adjustable LCAs ( the benefit being able to shorten the LCAs and/or lengthening the UCA ) to establish the proper pinion/drive line angles. If they are able to get the angles correct with just the LCAs then they may be able to avoid going with an adjustable UCA with a polyurethane bushing which increases NVH (regardless of it's diameter - size doesn't seem to matter here @ the UCA only material type).

 

Yes it is better to have your LCAs slightly dropped in the rear than it is to be high in the rear (at the axle) if you can not establish a level LCA ( some have found that the Whiteline LCA relocate brackets are more in line with getting the LCAs level with certain lowering springs verses the BMR ones - but I still like the BMRs better for other reasons and use adjustable coil overs to establish what ride height I need to get the LCAs level using the BMR relocate brackets ) JMO

 

Being able to get more traction without creating new problems like an increase in NVH , rear steer , and high speed instability along with cutting up the body and/or welding to it is the objective here and can be addressed with the mods to the UCA after addressing the LCAs first. If welding is not a problem for people then a torque arm set up is by far the best way to go to limit pinion angle change during rear suspension travel and traction control thus eliminating the UCA assembly all together. This goes for low and high horsepower S197s.

 

As was previously stated - the angle of the UCA is as critical as the angle is at the LCAs and maybe even more! A lot of things change when you lower a vehicle that most don't even take into consideration. A longer UCA will have less of an angle than a shorter one but the UCM must also be taken into consideration by where the UCM and UCA are mounted together ( some have a "high and a low" hole ).

 

I still have more test and measuring to do before I change the bushing over to a polyurethane one and I'll be testing both units on a high horsepower S197 as well.

[Robert M]

Yes Robert - it seems that no one makes a UCM that will allow you to just "bolt in" a 2011 + UCA into a 2005-2010 S197. The OEM set up of yours is the simplest way - cut back the UCM and drill out the hole size in the body for those with the OEM two piece drive shaft wanting to not worry about an increase in NVH.

 

 

Yes, I would like to hear more feedback about NVH. The 2011-up BMR bolted directly into my 2008 without any enlargement to the hole in the floor, and the BMR UCM was shaped in a way that it required no mods to fit. Like I mentioned previously, I think the NVH is minimized with the larger diameter poly bushing on the 2011-up BMR UCA. << I think this is the case, but I have a full 3" exhaust which has some additional noise all of its own.

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

I'd like to know if any one else besides hunters1 tried to fit the BMR 2011+ UCA and mount into their 2005-2010 S197. Did they also have to bend the seam of the gas tank and/or drill out the hole in the floor or did it fit like Robert M ? Just asking ...

[Robert M]

I'd like to know if any one else besides hunters1 tried to fit the BMR 2011+ UCA and mount into their 2005-2010 S197. Did they also have to bend the seam of the gas tank and/or drill out the hole in the floor or did it fit like Robert M ? Just asking ...

 

The fuel tank seam bending is also something I did not have to do. I had Kelly at BMR look at my set-up (installed) and he there was sufficient room/clearance for the 2011-up poly bushing UCA since there is so little movement. I would guess that there could be more movement fore and aft with the rubber, but how much? I don't know........To be on the safe side, it would probably be best to bend the lip as was done with the oem 2011-up fuel tank in this area if the rubber bushing UCA is installed as a permanent piece, especially if you are racing the car.

 

 

I would also like to know who, if anyone, has taken on this 2011 UCA/UCM upgrade in their 2010 and earlier car, and fitment issues?

 

 

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

Robert,

 

Just picked up an Energy Suspension #4-3167G kit for the OEM 2005-2010 UCA . The kit has a three piece polyurethane bushing set up ( plus steel sleeve ) to replace the OEM rubber bushings at both the top of the differential and the same on the UCA itself. I believe that the UCA polyurethane bushing will fit in the 2011+ OEM UCA and allow for the use of a 14mm bolt instead of the larger one. It will be interesting to find out if the multi-piece poly bushing will be quieter than the BMR unit that we started with before going to the OEM rubber piece . I think that I've caught up with you on the size of my UCA parts assortment/collection - not that it was my intention.

[Robert M]

Robert,

 

Just picked up an Energy Suspension #4-3167G kit for the OEM 2005-2010 UCA . The kit has a three piece polyurethane bushing set up ( plus steel sleeve ) to replace the OEM rubber bushings at both the top of the differential and the same on the UCA itself. I believe that the UCA polyurethane bushing will fit in the 2011+ OEM UCA and allow for the use of a 14mm bolt instead of the larger one. It will be interesting to find out if the multi-piece poly bushing will be quieter than the BMR unit that we started with before going to the OEM rubber piece . I think that I've caught up with you on the size of my UCA parts assortment/collection - not that it was my intention.

 

 

"I think that I've caught up with you on the size of my UCA parts assortment/collection - not that it was my intention. :drop:"

 

 

 

^^^^^Bless you my son.............. .................and I will let you take the ball from here!!

 

I believe, but am not positive that my 2011-up BMR UCA has an "early" 3-pc. poly bushing set. Kelley mentioned it and said if I have problems with it, they have an updated poly busing for that 2011-up UCA that he will send me if I need it. <<This leads me to believe that the 3-pc. poly bushing for the UCA may be an issue under some conditions? or at least the one that was used in the BMR? << Just an FYI.

 

 

But you are probably talking about the 3 pieces being for the UCA and the top of the differential..........not just the UCA.....

 

 

R

[Kevin Patten]

The Energy Suspension bushing kit that I have is #4-3167G and has 8 pieces plus lube packs. The UCA bushings are one center and 2 outer pieces and then a steel sleeve (times 2 - one set up for the arm bushing and one set up for the differential mount bushing).

 

Careful !!! The instructions say to press out the old bushing (shell and all ) in the UCA - as I found out today - WRONG - you must leave the outer metal shell in place (2.557" dia. poly bushing in a hole of 2.750" = no worky ) So now I have to get a 2" long , 3/16" thick pipe with a 2.750" OD to put in the OEM UCA to make the polyurethane bushing work.

 

Just shoot me NOW !

[Kevin Patten]

Latest update is that I have a machinist making me a steel sleeve for the polyurethane bushing to fit into the OEM UCA so I can move forward on the testing using the poly bushing instead of the factory rubber . By going to the 2011+ UCA we have establish/confirmed getting more forward bite over various 2005-2010 UCAs in the 2010 test mule.

[BMR Fabrication]

Awesome thread. So many things I want to say - very little time.

 

-The LCA angle discussion is a great one. However, it is much more complicated than what most think. The steeper the LCA, the more steer - that is certain. But that amount of steer is dependant upon several variables, including roll stiffness. The stiffer the set-up, the less steer you will get from the angle of the LCA. I DO prefer a a "close" to parallel LCA - and AS/IC to be adjusted via UCA, on a handling specific combo. That method leads to more consistency. If you take a look at a Boss 302R - you will notice an OEM UCA Mounting point, with an LCA angle that is just barely sloping down towards the back of the car. I do know, that there was quite a bit of testing with various UCA and LCA set-ups/angle on that project.

 

-The 11+ BMR UCA system has been installed on, If I had to guess, about 5 people's cars now (05-10). Still, the one issue I saw here, is the only issue I have been made aware of, in terms of the 11+ UCA System not fitting the 05-10. Not really sure why there is an inconsistency there. That said, if all that needs to be done - is to grind a little on the chassis forward mounting location, and possibly bend a lip.....it is well worth it. Definitely easier than the work Albin has put in (for those considering 11+ UCA Swap)

 

-The energy 3-Piece bushing design. Well, been there, done that. That is the bushing system that we engineered our 2011+ UCA system around. As a matter of fact, I BELIEVE the UCA on Robert M's car - the one he has pictured, may very well have that same bushing design, Albino. Robert M....if you get some time, can you rip that thing apart and share what you find?

 

 

We tested this bushing design out for almost a year - with no issues. When it came time to release the part, we built a batch of 50. Out of the 50 sold, I would bet 45 of them split within a few months of use. We had to go back to the drawing board - ASAP. That is when we redesigned the bushing, and just went with a two piece design, that is tried and proven. Again, I have a hunch - that Robert M may have this 3-piece design inside his UCA, but I could be wrong. He purchased it around the time we released the 11+ Specific UCA.

 

Here is our product Release on this from early 2011:

 

http://www.s197.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56888

 

I think a good idea would be our 11+ UCA, with some holes drilled into the bushings. If articulation is the goal. That said, I will always favor the articulation point at the axle, on both the LCA and the UCA. I like a diff bearing, poly combo.

 

-Whiteline VS BMR Relocation Brackets. This is a topic that bothers me slightly, simply because the WL design is a direct replication of ours. UPR also just replicated it, as well. It happens, right? SMH

With that said, the WL brackets - if I had to guess, position the LCA in "around" the same spot as our middle position on our Relocation Brackets.

 

There is no way that you can achieve a closer to parallel LCA with theirs, compared to ours. We have (3) positions at 2", 3" and 4" lower than the OEM Mounting location. Theirs is (1) position, and it is likely to be within the 2.75" - 3" range, lower than OEM.

 

Also for those reading, I spend A LOT of time on the phone, and at tracks. Not only that, but, I know S197 Suspension Geometry as well as anyone. I highly advise against a set of LCA Brackets, OR UCA Mount....that only has (1) position. There is simply no such thing, as a "one-size fits all" Instant Center or AS adjustment. In order to dial in the performance of your car, you need adjustability.

 

A good example is our UCA Mount for the 11+. We are the only company, to my knowledge, that engineers a position on our UCA mount specifically for a lowered car, and a stock height car. The Upper Most position on our UCA Mount is actually higher than the OEM position. And of course, the lower position is actually lower than OEM. A company who makes a single mounting position in the OEM location, is simply making a product to sell a product. We make a product to help the end user gain performance, and it sells itself. That is why we are, where we are within this industry in both the GM and the Ford Suspension markets.

 

Well, it was good talking - 4:30 is coming QUICK!

 

And remember, if you want to talk suspension - I am all about it. Give me a call.

 

Happy Modding!

[BMR Fabrication]

One more thing - this thread is about a Watts Link. Ours will be available soon, along with our new line of handling springs...and unique to the market Sway Bars. Keep an eye out this year, 2014 is going to be a GREAT year for those who have been wanting us to dive deeper into the handling side of things.

[Kevin Patten]

Actually it was a question on what to do after putting on a watts linkage on a S197. Hey, it's good to hear that BMR is coming out with one on the market along with other products which will compliment the existing BMR products and that you're focused on diving deeper into the handling aspects.

 

Kelly - Do you feel that some of the issues with splitting on the poly 3 piece bushing was due to side movement (sourced from panhard bar radius during travel) or just simple axle articulation ?

[Kevin Patten]

If there was enough interest in this mod (using a 2011+ UCA on a 2005-2010 S197) maybe we could get BMR to do up some UCM002 pieces with the welded on bung from the UCM001 on them so a 2005-2010 S197 owner could buy them (if opening up the hole in the floor is a problem) and use it with either the UTCA030,032,or 033 UCAs to gain the benefits of a longer UCA on their vehicles. Of course they probably will stay with moving forward on making a torque arm set up which makes for an even greater benefit. JMO

My situation is unique in what I'm trying to accomplish for my particular application so I'm continuing to move forward with 3 different set ups here using an OEM UCA with different bushings being mated to a modified 2005-2010 Drake UCM . One UCA having an OEM rubber bushing , one with a 3 piece polyurethane bushing , and one with a 2 piece polyurethane bushing. I'm also going through with measuring UCA and LCA angles to set my interesting lines to where I think I need to be at the ride height that I'm at on my car to determine where to re-drill the Drake UCM.

 

My answer to hunters original question (Fays2 installed what's next?) is the same as it was back at the beginning of this topic.

 

Thank you Robert M for bringing up the UCA subject portion and for Kelly's shared information from his/BMRs perspective.

 

I will stay busy here in my mad scientist lab creating things that will or will not be used to answer the "What if questions" (feel free to send donations $ or parts) as long as the wife doesn't catch on and puts a stop on it !

[Triumph]

I'd like to know if any one else besides hunters1 tried to fit the BMR 2011+ UCA and mount into their 2005-2010 S197. Did they also have to bend the seam of the gas tank and/or drill out the hole in the floor or did it fit like Robert M ? Just asking ...

 

The fuel tank seam bending is also something I did not have to do. I had Kelly at BMR look at my set-up (installed) and he there was sufficient room/clearance for the 2011-up poly bushing UCA since there is so little movement. I would guess that there could be more movement fore and aft with the rubber, but how much? I don't know........To be on the safe side, it would probably be best to bend the lip as was done with the oem 2011-up fuel tank in this area if the rubber bushing UCA is installed as a permanent piece, especially if you are racing the car.

 

 

I would also like to know who, if anyone, has taken on this 2011 UCA/UCM upgrade in their 2010 and earlier car, and fitment issues?

 

 

 

 

R

Wow I just read through this entire thread. I installed a Shelby (Fays) watts link this afternoon, so this thread was very timely. I have the BMR 11+ UCM and BMR LCM on order, and they should be here Monday. I will definitely write back and let you guys know if I have any fitment issues. I also have a different variation on the upper control arms that I will be trying too. I have a complete '11+ Hotchkis suspension on my '07.... springs, swaybars, lower control arms and until today the adjustable panhard bar.(Also the Shelby caster/camber plates). I didn't know 6 months ago when I ordered the kit the differences in the upper control arm mounts and arms until it came time to install the adjustable upper control arm and found it was 18mm instead of the 05-10 14mm bolt. So.... the UCA has been sitting on my toolbox. I picked up the watts link and a one piece drive shaft this week. Because I want to make sure the pinion angle is correct I know I will probably have to adjust it and wanted to be able to use the 11+ Hotchkis UCA. I'll post pictures and let you guys know how the install goes.