Tighten control arms without weight on them. Loosened, still 4x4..

[Jack Hidley]

Take a look at the photo below:

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/co...MRLCA-1_LG.jpg

Draw a line from the front bushing pivot axis to the rear bushing pivot axis. Measure from this line to the top of the spring perch on the control arm, at right angles. It is the length of this second line that determines what affect the control arm has on the ride height of the car, assuming the bushings don't compress, thus changing the length of this line. Note that we have machined the control arm tube so that the spring perch is sunk down into the control arm tube. This was done to make sure that the control arm does not change the ride height of the car compared to a stock control with good bushings.

The control arm has a spherical bearing in one end. This does require a fair amount of torque to rotate when new. It will easily rotate under the torque supplied by the weight of the car. The other end has a three piece polyurethane bushing. This rotates fairly easily by hand.

For the MM control arm to raise the car 2" in the rear, the spring perch would need to be 1.33" higher than the stock perch. You can lay your stock control arm down and see that the MM control arm is clearly not 1.33" different.

If your ride height measurements differences are based on the same model of springs on a different Mustang, you have introduced many variables into this that are going to affect the results.

I would also double check that the lower end of each rear spring is pointing in the direction shown in step 22 of the installation instructions.

[UFoMoCo]

Your original control arms had degraded bushings, they deflected and 'lowered' the car due to the worn out bushings.

I guarantee you that if you use any other control arm with new bushings/bearings, you will have the same results.

How about posting some pictures of the car? Better still, how about posting pictures of the original control arm bushings.

I'll do that. Tonight after work ill take some photos of the original rear control arm bushings. I'll have to dig them out.

[UFoMoCo]

Take a look at the photo below:

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/co...MRLCA-1_LG.jpg

Draw a line from the front bushing pivot axis to the rear bushing pivot axis. Measure from this line to the top of the spring perch on the control arm, at right angles. It is the length of this second line that determines what affect the control arm has on the ride height of the car, assuming the bushings don't compress, thus changing the length of this line. Note that we have machined the control arm tube so that the spring perch is sunk down into the control arm tube. This was done to make sure that the control arm does not change the ride height of the car compared to a stock control with good bushings.

The control arm has a spherical bearing in one end. This does require a fair amount of torque to rotate when new. It will easily rotate under the torque supplied by the weight of the car. The other end has a three piece polyurethane bushing. This rotates fairly easily by hand.

For the MM control arm to raise the car 2" in the rear, the spring perch would need to be 1.33" higher than the stock perch. You can lay your stock control arm down and see that the MM control arm is clearly not 1.33" different.

If your ride height measurements differences are based on the same model of springs on a different Mustang, you have introduced many variables into this that are going to affect the results.

I would also double check that the lower end of each rear spring is pointing in the direction shown in step 22 of the installation instructions.

I will take some photos tonight so you guys can get an idea of what I'm seeing in person. Thanks for replying!

[UFoMoCo]

I looked around in my garage and could not find the old control arms. Ill have to check the shop tomorrow. I know I have them as I don't throw away anything. Here is a photo of the rear gap.

[poetnprophet]

Egads! You could hold a 40oz beer with all those fingers! I sure hope you figure it out, that's definitely not right.

(I think I have those same rotors, btw)

edit: a pic of where the springs meet the LCA's (the pigtail) would be useful. There is always debate about which way they should point.

[MAD MIKE]

Have you tried rolling the car at all?

What springs are you using?
What shocks are you using?
What was the year and model of 'other car' that these springs were in?

Was the installation of the lower control arms and springs the ONLY change?
Or are the wheels and brakes new as well?

The only time I've seen a 79-93 Mustang with that much wheel gap was when a member here installed Fairmont wagon rear springs on their notch.

As poetnprophet said, more pics, better if you can take a few shots of the car sitting on the ground, maybe a few from the rear to see what the shocks are doing as well.

[UFoMoCo]

Have you tried rolling the car at all?

What springs are you using?
What shocks are you using?
What was the year and model of 'other car' that these springs were in?

Was the installation of the lower control arms and springs the ONLY change?
Or are the wheels and brakes new as well?

The only time I've seen a 79-93 Mustang with that much wheel gap was when a member here installed Fairmont wagon rear springs on their notch.

As poetnprophet said, more pics, better if you can take a few shots of the car sitting on the ground, maybe a few from the rear to see what the shocks are doing as well.

The only thing that i changed that has made a difference is the upper and lower rear control arms. The springs, shocks, wheels, brakes, etc have all been on the car. It sat lower, much lower than this. They are FRPP B springs with the stock OEM isolators. I have a similar car with basically the identical setup and it is slammed. As this car currently sits. I believe it is higher than it was when it was 100% stock. Lol.

Something is wrong with these rear upper and lower control arms. Bolts are all loose. There still must be some sort of binding. I'm going to reinstall the stock OEM arms within the next week.

[cb84capri]

wow! that's quite the gap.

cale

[Jack Hidley]

Something is really wrong here.

If you can post a photo showing the side of the RLCA with the spring in the photo, I think that would help.

If you do swap the control arms out, do the lowers or uppers first and see what the ride height change is, before doing both.

[MAD MIKE]

Something is wrong with these rear upper and lower control arms. Bolts are all loose. There still must be some sort of binding. I'm going to reinstall the stock OEM arms within the next week.

It would be more helpful if you could post pictures of the lower control arms as installed.

Is the spring perch closer to the axle or to the body?
Where did you purchase the MM arms from?

EDIT: AH! Get out of my head Jack!

[FM2NOTCH]

thro some weight in it drive it ,let it sit a couple of days, then tighten the bolts, remove weight. if all fails, cut the springs

[MAD MIKE]

cut the springs

If they are B springs he should not have anywhere near this kind of gap with weight on the car.

[FM2NOTCH]

If they are B springs he should not have anywhere near this kind of gap with weight on the car.

that me be true, but what are the options? put worn out control arms back on it?

might try removing the shock bolts, see how it sits then, I know my 92 sat higher after jacking it up to remove the wheels while painting it, I'm still not sure it came back down to its original height and this is weeks after the wheels were reinstalled

[UFoMoCo]

that me be true, but what are the options? put worn out control arms back on it?

might try removing the shock bolts, see how it sits then, I know my 92 sat higher after jacking it up to remove the wheels while painting it, I'm still not sure it came back down to its original height and this is weeks after the wheels were reinstalled

The control arms aren't worn out. Or at least they shouldn't be. The car only has 50 thousand miles on it. I replaced them because I thought the MM lowers and FRPP were an upgrade. Little did I know that they would "up"grade the car.

I've learned sometimes you just can't beat stock OEM parts.

[OldManRiver]

If it's not too much trouble,take the wheels off and snap some pics.You seem to be the only one here that believes that the control arms being manufactured incorrectly is the issue,seeing that those items are the ONLY parts that have changed,who can fault you.....

But we need to see some pics.

We have no idea if things are installed correctly,this is important to help you troubleshoot the issues you are having.

Help us to help you.

OMR

[UFoMoCo]

If it's not too much trouble,take the wheels off and snap some pics.You seem to be the only one here that believes that the control arms being manufactured incorrectly is the issue,seeing that those items are the ONLY parts that have changed,who can fault you.....

But we need to see some pics.

We have no idea if things are installed correctly,this is important to help you troubleshoot the issues you are having.

Help us to help you.

OMR

I think you may have misunderstood. I'm not saying that the control arms have a design flaw. I'm simply saying that I must have some sort of binding. That what I think the problem is. The reason I'm going back to the stock control arms is because everything worked nicely with the stock stuff. It is simpler than installing aftermarket stuff and dealing with issues such as these.

[UFoMoCo]

Here are 2 photos with the passenger side wheel off. I plan to install the stock stuff this week.

[burntorange84]

IS the front of the car on the tires with full weight (engine & trans, etc)?

-j

[UFoMoCo]

IS the front of the car on the tires with full weight (engine & trans, etc)?

-j

Yes. The front wheels are sitting up on blocks of wood to level the car with the rear. The only things missing from the car are the shifter and the gas tank. Now before you go crazy and say the gas tank weighs a lot. It was originally on the car and it was this high. I've removed it to install a 255lph pump and a hurst shifter. I also sat in the hatch(188lbs) and that did nothing.

[OldManRiver]

I understand for sure,things can get frustrating.

The first thing I notice is the springs themselves.The wire diameter seems large to me(going off memory),not to mention the pigtail seems off to me also,should fit more snug around the perch.While this may be meaningless to you since before the swap everthing was to your satisfaction,but.....

What type of springs are those,factory? aftermarket lowering?

I know you want to put the old arms back in,but now I'm curious as to what the problem might be.

I still don't think the lower control arms are the issue

OMR

[OldManRiver]

Yes. The front wheels are sitting up on blocks of wood to level the car with the rear. The only things missing from the car are the shifter and the gas tank. Now before you go crazy and say the gas tank weighs a lot. It was originally on the car and it was this high. I've removed it to install a 255lph pump and a hurst shifter. I also sat in the hatch(188lbs) and that did nothing.

While it won't make as much of a difference as your car sits,depending on how full my gas tank is I get almost a 1/2'' difference in the rear ride height.

I have the adjustable perches set so the ride height is even front to back with the tank 3/4 full.With a topped off tank the rear sits 1/8'' lower than the front.

OMR

[UFoMoCo]

I understand for sure,things can get frustrating.

The first thing I notice is the springs themselves.The wire diameter seems large to me,not to mention the pigtail seems off to me also,should fit snug around the perch.While this may be meaningless to you since before the swap everthing was to your satisfaction,but.....

What type of springs are those,factory? aftermarket lowering?

I know you want to put the old arms back in,but now I'm curious as to what the problem might be.

I still don't think the lower control arms are the issue

OMR

The springs are FRPP B springs. I purchased them brand new. When I installed them I looked at MM's web page and installed them how they suggested. The end of the pigtail should point at the drivers side. I do see that it points a slight bit forward of that but if anything that would lower the car more and not raise it.

[UFoMoCo]

While it won't make as much of a difference as your car sits,depending on how full my gas tank is I get almost a 1/2'' difference in the rear ride height.

I have the adjustable perches set so the ride height is even front to back with the tank 3/4 full.With a topped off tank the rear sits 1/8'' lower than the front.

OMR

Like I posted earlier. Initially, the tank was still on the car with a half tank of fuel. The ride height did not change when I removed the tank. I also say in the hatch with the gas tank on the car and it did not "settle".

Something is wrong here. Design flaw, binding.. Something.

[Red82RS]

I feel your frustration. I have little to add other than:

1. I'm very interested to hear what the culprit(s) is/are ultimately.
2. First try removing the shocks and note the ride height. Will most likely not affect it, but who knows. Will be worthwhile to eliminate that as a variable.
3. Then replace either the uppers or lowers only and note the change in ride height.
4. When cycling the rear suspension up and down, do you notice any odd noises?
5. I agree that the springs do not appear to fit the lower arms well at all.

You'll get it figured out.

[poetnprophet]

Re: the pigtails.....I have read that they either go:

1. Both toward drivers side, as you have now, or,
2. Both pointing toward the REAR. That's how I have mine. Could depend on manufacturer, (mine are Eibach), but that's definitely an easy thing to swing if you wanted to try it.