Close



Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1

    Default SN95 Drop Spindles

    I was watching a car show the other day and they were putting drop spindles on front of the 55 Chevy they were working on. It occurred to me that we see lots of MustangII frontends in the hotrod world with drop spindles. It got me thinking - will SN95 drop spindles work on a fox.....

    Shouldnt impact steering geometry like X2 balljoints, etc do.

    Of course go with stock GT springs with 2" drop spindles and X2 and caster/camber plates. Should be around a 3 1/2" drop without fooling around with front suspension travel via drop springs, etc
    Last edited by erratic50; 09-01-2017 at 07:29 AM.

  2. #2
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    11,429

    Default

    Years ago I believe Racecraft offered a 2" dropped spindle and even designed it for Road Racing, but I don't believe it held up durability wise. Everything I have seen as of late that are drop spindles specifically state they are NOT for street or Road Racing.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Awaiting Restoration
    1984 SVO Restoration in Progress
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1982 Capri Roller
    1984 Capri Returned to Bubble Back Glory
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts
    1982 Capri RS 5.0 4spd T-tops

  3. #3

    Default

    They must be for looking cool then? Lol.

    If they can't hang on street or road course, about the only thing left is drag strip. I don't envision them holding up as the frontend shoots up then slams down either.

  4. #4
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    11,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    They must be for looking cool then? Lol.

    If they can't hang on street or road course, about the only thing left is drag strip. I don't envision them holding up as the frontend shoots up then slams down either.
    I have the same opinion. Same reason why I won't buy a front K member that is listed as Ok for drag racing, but not road racing. Not going to leave my life up to a part like that.

    From what I remember a member on Corner-Carvers was testing the Racecraft spindles on a RR car and they were doing well. There was report of a failure, but apparently the "failed" part was never given to Racecraft nor any evidence of said failure.

    Haven't gone thru the thread recently, but apparently my memory isn't too bad.

    http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums...+drop+spindles
    Last edited by wraithracing; 09-01-2017 at 12:01 PM. Reason: Incorrect INFO
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Awaiting Restoration
    1984 SVO Restoration in Progress
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1982 Capri Roller
    1984 Capri Returned to Bubble Back Glory
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts
    1982 Capri RS 5.0 4spd T-tops

  5. #5
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO
    Posts
    11,429

    Default

    Here is a link to their drop spindles.

    http://www.racecraft.com/index.php?m...bb423439a6d53d

    Looks like I was incorrect in that they do offer the drop spindles for the 94-04 cars in a street/road race version. Appears none of the 79-93 spindles are street or RR worthy.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Awaiting Restoration
    1984 SVO Restoration in Progress
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1982 Capri Roller
    1984 Capri Returned to Bubble Back Glory
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts
    1982 Capri RS 5.0 4spd T-tops

  6. #6
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tipp City Oh
    Posts
    4,204

    Default

    I have a set of the RaceCraft SN95 2" drop spindles under a FOX right now. They are a quality piece (mine, as well as ANY of them they sell now, are the post-redesign and are meant for street/strip/race if specified). They allow the use of Cobra brakes as well, and fit just like any other SN spindle would on a FOX. I use '94+ ball joints anyway, so the issues with SN spindles on a FOX car don't exist for me........
    " If you're not living life on the edge, that means you're taking up too much room."
    1979 Mustang Indy Pace 2.3T/4spd (sold on 1/10/16)
    1983 GLX vert 3.8/auto (triple black, sold on 10/8/13)
    1984 (early) Turbo GT (parts SLOWLY coming together)
    1985 Coupe 4.6L DOHC/IRS swapped (sold 9/10/17)
    1986 GT TTop 5spd (sold as of 10/8/13)
    1988 Thunderbird TurboCoupe (Cobra IRS/Brakes/big turbo project)

  7. #7

    Default

    Those spindles with X2 balljoints and caster/camber plates would really drop a front-end. Somewhere around 3.5" and the suspension would still have full range of motion. My bet is on the tires hitting stuff.

  8. #8

    Default

    There are these. http://www.teamzmotorsports.net/prod...id-spindle.htm

    Not SN-95 but 87-93 v8 style.
    Black 1985 GT; 408w, in the 6's in the 1/8 mile
    Grabber Yellow 1973 Mustang Mach 1: 351c, toploader
    Black 2012 5.0 GT, 6-speed, Brembo brakes, 3.73's
    Wimbledon White 1966 F-100 Shortbed Styleside, 390, Tremec 3550, FiTech EFI

  9. #9
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tipp City Oh
    Posts
    4,204

    Default

    Mine didn't drop as far as a V8 car would, as I have V8 springs up front but a Turbo4 powerplant. It still dropped the front close to 2.5" though, and I am running a 245/45-17 tire. It is tight to say the least! Thank God for C/C plates.
    " If you're not living life on the edge, that means you're taking up too much room."
    1979 Mustang Indy Pace 2.3T/4spd (sold on 1/10/16)
    1983 GLX vert 3.8/auto (triple black, sold on 10/8/13)
    1984 (early) Turbo GT (parts SLOWLY coming together)
    1985 Coupe 4.6L DOHC/IRS swapped (sold 9/10/17)
    1986 GT TTop 5spd (sold as of 10/8/13)
    1988 Thunderbird TurboCoupe (Cobra IRS/Brakes/big turbo project)

  10. #10

    Default

    I'd bet a turbo 4 and a v-8 installed are within 50lbs of each other.

    Lots of cougarbirds guys swap to heavy duty turbo coupe suspension and it actually raises the car.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  11. #11
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tipp City Oh
    Posts
    4,204

    Default

    That may be, but I didn't get any more than a 2.5" drop (like 2.5" isn't a heck of a drop!).
    I also have an '88 TCoupe, and it is getting V6 SN95 front springs to lower it (along with a LOT of other things going into it) and the TCoupe springs are going into an '88 V8 Tbird (as the TCoupe springs will lower the V8 an inch right off the bat. Tcoupes sat an inch lower than all other 'Birds).
    " If you're not living life on the edge, that means you're taking up too much room."
    1979 Mustang Indy Pace 2.3T/4spd (sold on 1/10/16)
    1983 GLX vert 3.8/auto (triple black, sold on 10/8/13)
    1984 (early) Turbo GT (parts SLOWLY coming together)
    1985 Coupe 4.6L DOHC/IRS swapped (sold 9/10/17)
    1986 GT TTop 5spd (sold as of 10/8/13)
    1988 Thunderbird TurboCoupe (Cobra IRS/Brakes/big turbo project)

  12. #12

    Default

    Interesting discussion.

    When I did my SN95 spindle and brake conversion on my 1986GT I put in take-out 1993GT springs someone had laying around still from putting in lowering springs on their 93 right after they bought the car new.

    SN95 spindles with X2 balljoints and stock upper strut hardware dropped it 3/4" vs stock measurements just as the X2 book said it would. X2 actually come with a spacer for the spring if stock height is desired.

    When I put in my "new" caster/camber plates I've had on the shelf for 18 years -- now old school HPMotorspirts MegaBite Caster/camber plates -- I installed them with the spacers set to give me the most droop possible. If I had maxed out bump it would be lower yet. In the "tallest" configuration it dropped 3/4".

    Not sure what others see, but I'm seeing a 3/4" drop from plates.

    1.5" drop with stock springs and full range of motion on the suspension.... not too shabby.

    A drop spindle and a bumpsteer kit would have advantages over an X2 and stock 95 spindle based setup as both help with center of gravity but an X2 is not made in low friction. The best you can do is Teflon infused grease.

    Dont get me wrong -- anything is better than the stock 79-90 balljoints. I've heard and read that 91-93 had low friction Teflon balljoints but any and all fox replacement balljoints are not the low friction type.

    I am putting new Dorman stamped steel control arms in my Saleen for the new bushings. Pressing out the pos fox balljoints and adding SN95 balljoints.

  13. #13

    Default

    A 1986 GT and SVO both with a T5 have a front axle weight which is 70lbs different. The SVO has 1" larger brakes (delta 2.7lbs each), larger calipers, slightly lighter front swaybar (delta 4lbs?) and much heavier FCAs than the GT (delta 4.5lbs each). This puts the weight difference due to the engine around 83lbs. The SVO also has larger diameter wheels, which almost always result in a more overall weight for a given tire size, but I can't quantify the difference accurately is this case.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  14. #14

    Default

    There is also room for conversation about unsprung vs sprung weight differences as far as that goes.

  15. #15

    Default

    I have the 13" cobra brakes on the front of my 85. Those rotors weigh a TON compared to the regular 11" SN rotors. I did not perceive any difference in braking on the street. Makes me wonder if it was worth the expense.
    Black 1985 GT; 408w, in the 6's in the 1/8 mile
    Grabber Yellow 1973 Mustang Mach 1: 351c, toploader
    Black 2012 5.0 GT, 6-speed, Brembo brakes, 3.73's
    Wimbledon White 1966 F-100 Shortbed Styleside, 390, Tremec 3550, FiTech EFI

  16. #16

    Default

    Worth it about the 2nd or 3rd time you slam on them

  17. #17

    Default

    Maybe not so worth at street, but at higher speeds and some track action will let you see the effort.

    I'm building 12.6" rotors front and rear and I hope I don't need to test those at street.

  18. #18

    Default

    A friend of mine has a former regional SCCA class champion 86GT. His runs the Cobra brakes with high end pads, etc, and 255/40/17 tires.

    My 1986GT runs a 99GT dual piston setup with high end pads and Baer drilled and slotted rotors and 245/45/17's.

    Both cars have braided lines, fox booster, M1858 master cyl, etc.

    I'm running a mix of new parts and many of his old parts on my car. All the misc stuff that he took off in the name of adjustable upgrades since he held class champ.

    Having driven both cars they brake (with the very same shocks/struts under each one) and only minor variations in tires and rear springs..... to my estimation - within a margin of error on the first hit. Probably even on the first few hard hits.

    There are differences in the way the cars carry themselves due to differences like use of fox balljoints on his and X2's on mine. Brake differences from different adjustable proportioning valves and settings, etc. In my estimation the primary difference is not brake force, but rather fade rate.

    With the right combination of parts it is pretty silly how fast a four eyed fox can stop. The envy a few "high performance" cars out there for sure.

  19. #19
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tipp City Oh
    Posts
    4,204

    Default

    The advantage of the Cobra rotor is their weight over the GT units. Why is this an advantage? You have more metal to dissipate the heat generated by the friction of pad-to-rotor. Thermal shed is one advantage of a larger diameter rotor. The second is the total swept area. The larger the surface area, the more clamping force can be applied with the same amount of heat transfer.

    Believe me, the Cobra 13" rotor weight may seem counter-productive, but make a few stops from 100+ mph and you will see WHY it is an advantage.
    " If you're not living life on the edge, that means you're taking up too much room."
    1979 Mustang Indy Pace 2.3T/4spd (sold on 1/10/16)
    1983 GLX vert 3.8/auto (triple black, sold on 10/8/13)
    1984 (early) Turbo GT (parts SLOWLY coming together)
    1985 Coupe 4.6L DOHC/IRS swapped (sold 9/10/17)
    1986 GT TTop 5spd (sold as of 10/8/13)
    1988 Thunderbird TurboCoupe (Cobra IRS/Brakes/big turbo project)

  20. #20

    Default

    Larger brakes will heat up more, but they will also cool slower. The idea is that a larger heat sink will dissipate more heat quickly. There is a YouTube channel called engineering explained. Dude swaps light weight rotors on a s2000. The light weight rotors got much hotter, but actually cooled faster. With less weight to obsorbe the heat, they were actually much more efficient, even though the were stock size.

    Now going to larger rotors also increases the lever effect, meaning less effort is needed for the same amount of braking. Therefore less heat, in theory. If you want the best braking system you can get for street use, I'd get the heaviest rotors I could with the largest diameter.

    Now for track use where you are constantly on and off the brakes, a lighter rotor holds less heat, but also dissipates that heat quickly. So you want a large (for heat sink effect) light rotor so it will cool down quick while still giving you the mechanical leverage.

    That being said, I live in a rural area with 80 mph speed limits, mountain passes of 6% grades or more and also do a ton of city driving. A week or two ago I drove through L.A. traffic with stock 10" brakes. It took me almost 2 hours to go 20 miles with constant flooring and braking. I had no issues or stopping problems. The brakes didn't over heat.

    I have done a few 80+mph stops down mountain freeways where traffic was totally stopped around a blind curve. If I had to do two or three of those in a row, the stock brakes might be a problem. But for the occasional panic stop, I see no reason to upgrade
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  21. #21

    Default

    The amount of heat generated during a braking event is a function of the cars weight and the initial and final velocities. The brakes have nothing to do with it.

    During braking the rotors store this heat energy. This causes their temperature to increase. The specific heat capacity of cast iron is 0.11Btu/(lbs*degree F). For a given braking event, a heavier rotor increases in temperature less than a lighter rotor. With brake systems, you need to avoid a brake fluid, caliper or friction material temperature which are too high to avoid brake failure. This is why heavier rotors are used, to limit the maximum temperature of the brake system parts.

    Anytime the brake rotor has a higher temperature than the air, it will be dissipating heat energy into the air. The rate at which it does this (Btu/sec) is a function of the thermal resistance between the rotor and the air. The thermal resistance is not easy to calculate. If you take two cubes, one with a 1 unit dimension and the second with a 2 unit dimension, the second cube will have 8 times the volume of the first cube, but only 4 times the surface area. The total surface area has the most affect on the thermal resistance to the air.

    If both cubes started at the same temperature, then the larger cube would decrease in temperature at about 1/2 the rate of the smaller cube, because it has 1/2 the surface area. This means that the larger cube will have a higher average temperature over time.

    From this it might seem that one should conclude therefore that larger brake rotors cool slower, therefore they will operate at a higher average temperature. This is false. With a larger rotor, it is automatically going to be at a lower temperature at the end of a braking event, because for the same heat input it has more mass and therefore must end up at a lower temperature. Once you consider the cooling side of things, since the rotor starts out at a lower temperature after a given braking event, even though it cools more slowly due to greater thermal resistance, it ends up at about the same temperature as the smaller rotor. This means that the larger rotor operates at a lower average temperature for a given series of braking events.

    When comparing the smaller and larger rotors to each other, I've assumed that they have the exact same geometry, but just different overall dimensions. In the real world this usually isn't true. The larger rotor is usually designed for more extreme braking events, so it has a higher vane count, pillar vanes, or a wider air gap in between the friction surfaces. All of these changes will contribute to even lower thermal resistance.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  22. #22
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tipp City Oh
    Posts
    4,204

    Default

    Thanks for explaining it better than I could, jack!

    And it seems this thread has taken a turn into something other than just the drop spindles (which is good as other info can be presented). Since the drop spindles allow for Cobra brakes, I can see some relevance to the subject.
    Last edited by 86GT2go; 03-16-2018 at 02:46 PM.
    " If you're not living life on the edge, that means you're taking up too much room."
    1979 Mustang Indy Pace 2.3T/4spd (sold on 1/10/16)
    1983 GLX vert 3.8/auto (triple black, sold on 10/8/13)
    1984 (early) Turbo GT (parts SLOWLY coming together)
    1985 Coupe 4.6L DOHC/IRS swapped (sold 9/10/17)
    1986 GT TTop 5spd (sold as of 10/8/13)
    1988 Thunderbird TurboCoupe (Cobra IRS/Brakes/big turbo project)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •