ERA 289 FIA Rear Suspension Options

tkb289 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-24-2009, 09:47 PM

Looking for feedback on the two different Rear Suspension options from ERA for their 289 FIA car.

According to the ERA FIA Index ... in brief:

- The standard rear suspension is based on the Jaguar IRS setup, with inboard brakes and from what I understand, recommended for street use.

- The optional ERA rear suspension has outboard brakes and is more adjustable and suitable for racing use, over the standard unit.

So for those of you out there with an ERA FIA ... any comments ...

- Which setup do you have?
- Is the car primarily used for Street driving or Racing?
- What do you like about it?
- What do you dislike about it?
- How often do you service the rear brakes?
- Would you make the same choice again?
- How is the handling and ride?

Thanks!

- Tim

*13* · #2 (**permalink**) 10-24-2009, 10:12 PM

I went with the ERA outboard rear for a few reasons. Most important Resale, serviceability. Tough to compare the two since I haven't driven a car with the STD rear. I'm sure Bob could further enlighten us.

RICK LAKE · #3 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 06:18 AM

tkb289 Tim I don't know the pricing differents between the 2, but outboards are on my list for down the road. I 98% roadrace and autocross and 2% drive on the street.
If you are going to autocross, the brakes not get hot enough to have any problems.
Roadracing is a whole other issue. High speeds, hard braking, boiling brake fluid all can happen. Brake pedal gets spongie. Alot of heat get builtup with inner brakes and differential. Running duct work has helped but running hoses and fans work better to remove the hot air. Don D. had the best setup with a snorkel to cool the rearend and brakes on the car.
I am still running the first set of brake pads on both first and rear of the car. I do have the 12" rotor kit from ERA and it works great. What tires and wheels are you looking to run? 15" or 17" ? I started with 15" and now run 17" pilots. They work very well for being 5 years old. I do use VHT to keep them soft. Maintainance is a big thing to getting long life out of any parts on the car.
As far as the handling issue, Tim that's a whole different issue and would take another thread to talk about. ERA setups the cars to drive and handle for all around usage. If you are serious about racing, you will need new springs,shocks, 5 point roll cage, remove the windshield to not crack it at high speeds, accusump 3 quart tank to help with oil pressure on high "G" turns.
I am happy with all the improvements that ERA has helped me with and improved the handling of the car. The more important thing you might want to look at is-------------------------------------power steering. I know it's not manditory but it's real nice have. Easier to drive when racing or on the street. Rick L.

cobrajeff · #4 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 06:35 AM

I went with the standard rear end - there was no "optional rear end" available when I ordered my car (had it been available, I probably would have ordered it, because I was planning to track it).
I am quite pleased with the ride and handling of the car with the standard rear end. I am amazed at the ride quality of this car - it has a VERY comfortable ride on the street - not nearly as bone-jarring as my Koni-equipped GT350's of days past.
When I built my car, I had visions of running it regularly at open track events. After just a few events, I realized that my driving skilles were not what they used to be, and that I had way too much time and money invested in this car to completely enjoy sliding it through corners at the track.
At 7,000 miles, I've never had to service the rear brakes (blowing up the tranny three years in a row the first three years shortened those three summers considerably - finally switched to a different tranny builder).

regards,

Jeff

patrickt · #5 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tkb289

So for those of you out there with an ERA FIA ... any comments ...

Tim, no FIA here, but I will offer some basic truths on the two rears: Unless you track your car really hard, you are likely to never have to change your inboard brake pads in your lifetime... and if you do, it'll probably be only once. To appreciate the performance difference of the ERA rear over the standard rear you're going to have to take the car close to its limits; most of us never do that. Outboard brakes are cooler looking and more original, but the ERA rear costs more. In making your decision you must balance the additional cost against the almost imperceptible peformance gain coupled with the increase coolness factor of the outboard brakes, along with the ease of pad maintenance, which is balanced against the fact that you probably will never have to replace them anyway.

FWIW, I went with the ERA rear.

1985 CCX · #6 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 07:47 AM

I have not had an ERA

but I have had inboard jag set up on a CCX. Servicing was easy as the calipers I used were the type with the pin at the top that held in the pads. Remove the wheel and a brake pad change was minutes, however changing discs took about an hour per side. That said, choose the right caliper and inboard are fine for these cars.

If $ is no object, go for the outboard. Why? Well why not......

patrickt · #7 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1985 CCX

Servicing was easy as the calipers I used were the type with the pin at the top that held in the pads.......

Tim, that might be a smart alternative. Rick Lake described changing the pads on his standard rear through the little trap door that ERA gives you and it sounded pretty rough. He has an older car though, so maybe it has improved. A pin at the top of the caliper sounds like a really smart idea if you opt for the inboard rear.

ERA Chas · #8 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 08:21 AM

I have the same as Rick has and the Girling caliper with the pin at the top is cake. Removing the seats is the only PIA and a minor one at that. I've installed thread certs on the access panel with machine screws and that is cake too. I have changed pads 4 times and serviced the e-brake through there.

patrickt · #9 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 08:53 AM

What is the cost differential nowadays between the standard and the outboard braked rear?

Rickd · #10 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 08:54 AM

I have an FIA car with the ERA custom rear..just really liked the idea of having outboard brakes for the service aspect - and the rear end assembly - with the aluminum mounting fram - is a work of art. Plus I wanted the oversized brakes. Necessary - not really - just a preferance. As far as ride quality, I don't believe there would be any appreciable difference between the two as it is the same Jag rear end - same shocks. The ERA car is a very comfortable cobra, and also has some very comfortable seats (the 427 street seat option). For pure street driving and an a light duty track event every now and then there is nothing wrong with the standard brake package and the inboard brake / jag rear setup. You could drive the car for the limited miles most cobra owners actually put on their cars, for 10 years without changing pads. But I do like to put mine up on ramps and clean and admire the custom rear assembly!!!

strictlypersonl · #11 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patrickt

What is the cost differential nowadays between the standard and the outboard braked rear?

About $800 including the anti-sway bar difference.

patrickt · #12 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strictlypersonl

About $800 including the anti-sway bar difference.

That's equivalent to a few tanks of gas.

There is no reason not to go with outboard braked rear -- the standard rear is almost approaching the "penny wise, pound foolish" idiom.

Dangerous Doug · #13 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 10:27 AM

Tim, spend the extra $800 on the ERA rear. If nothing more, it's a thing of beauty. You've seen, in and out of my car if I recall correctly, my ERA rear. I can't tell you the difference because all I've known is the ERA rear. I don't think you're a burnout guy, but I've heard of wheel hop issues with the standard jag set up. I dunno, $800 doesn't sound like that much when you're spending as much for the car as you are.

DD

fastd · #14 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 10:28 AM

I agree with Patrickt; for the $800 you really should go with the outboard brakes; in addition to the arguments above, I think that if you were thinking about resale, the ERA rear would bring at least $800 of additional value to your sale. I know that when I was shopping for my ERA FIA, I would have paid up for the ERA rear (but I couldn't find one that had it and everything else I wanted).

strictlypersonl · #15 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 10:30 AM

The only caveat is that an under-car exhaust will not fit unless the pipe exits in front of the rear wheel. Not enough room to snake the pipe above or through the suspension, and running it underneath makes the pipes hang too low.

kgs365 · #16 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 12:05 PM

Strictlypersonl

how far into the build process and you change this?...i've spec'd out with the standard rear...but i dont have a chassis build # yet?

tkb289 · #17 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 01:38 PM

Thanks one and all for the input!

To answer some questions ...

- The car is intended for street driving, not racing ... so even in the stock configuration, the car will be faster than the driver

. Now, if I did this 20 years ago ... probably a different story

, I would be interested in auto cross and racing.

- I will be running the 15" wheels, I like the look of the 60 series tire. The 17" wheels do allow for a much better choice of more modern rubber, which is important for high performance driving.

- For exhaust, I'll go with the modified street exhaust that exits in front of the rear wheel, so the choice of rear suspension is not a factor. Want something a little bit quieter than the standard FIA exhaust, but louder than the full street exhaust system.

I have had a ride in Larry D's car with the standard rear suspension and in Doug's (DD) with the 'optional' rear suspension and from my recollection, both were comfortable. While they seemed about the same, the only way to get a better feel for the ride quality aspect, would be a back to back comparison. I did see the optional rear suspension assembly both in and out of Doug's car, and it is a work of art.

Seems like for my application, the standard setup would be more than adequate. The cost difference of $800 while not insignificant, relative to the whole project, is not a deal breaker. So, either way looks like I have (2) good options ... let's see if we get any more input.

- Tim

Gunner · #18 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strictlypersonl

...running it underneath makes the pipes hang too low.

You can go to flats that are only a half inch or so high for that part of the run. If you do it with four-inch pipe and your exhaust wrangler can get smooth transitions to and from 2.5 or 3 inch pipe, the losses are negligible.

*13* · #19 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 01:52 PM

You try to put a floor jack under the rear of your car yet?

patrickt · #20 (**permalink**) 10-25-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgs365

Strictlypersonl ... how far into the build process and you change this?...i've spec'd out with the standard rear...but i dont have a chassis build # yet?

Let me play Karnak the Manificent and predict Bob's answer... I see, I see, I see the answer, and it is.... "You'll have to check with Peter on that, but if we haven't actually begun the installation of the standard rear yet than I don't see any problem in you upgrading to the outboard braked rear. We'll just have to build it for you, but that's what we're here for."