Close



Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 93 of 93
  1. #76
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    12,907

    Default

    1979-93 lower front control arms are all the same in regards to overall length and design. The only difference over the years is bushings and ball joints. Obviously the SVO lower front control arms are unique to the SVO.

    SN95 lower front control arms break down into 94-98 and 99-04. Same overall length. The 99-04 offer more tire clearance lock to lock due to change in shape of the control arm.

    If you swap all the brake line, proportioning valve, MC, etc. from the donor car there's no need for adapters. The brake bias might be off a bit, but probably work just fine. You could always gut the Prop valve and install an adjustable in the rear line if there was an issue.
    ​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 Ongoing RestoModification
    1984 SVO Awaiting Restoration
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Underway
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  2. #77
    FEP Power Member qikgts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Rockledge, FL
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    There are also these two 11" kits from Baer for the front. The first is a street/autocross style kit and second is marketed as being "drag" specific.

    Their descriptions are a little vague regarding mounting and as to what modifications are done to the spindle for each kit. I believe the first link may come with the "old" re-welded style spindle (hence the big price, and I saw an article which showed that style set up which was written by Evan Smith back in I think 2016) and the drag kit requires drilling and tapping the dust shield holes and installing specific brackets. I can only guess the drag set up is "weaker" though they don't say it can't/shouldn't be driven on the street. The brackets that come with the "drag" kit look plenty beefy to me...

    I wonder if there could be some creative mixing/matching/machining brackets/custom rotor rings to come up with a 12 inch version using these as a base.

    https://baer.com/11-Front-SS4-Brake-...g-4261385.html

    https://baer.com/11-Front-SS4-Deep-S...g-4261416.html
    '85 GT

  3. #78

    Default

    Don’t they use the holes where the dust shields mount and cut off the normal ears to go to the bigger brakes?

    The SVO dust shields are different than the 87-93 V8 spindles

  4. #79

    Default

    I was looking at my daughters 2002 Cougar. 4 lug. Rotors are remarkably similar to SN95 rear brakes. That got me thinking — I wonder if these rotors will work with SN95 brackets and hardware combined with stock 4 lug axles.

    Soon I will be in the process of filling an 86 8.8 housing with fresh parts and 3.90 gears. Might be a good time to mock it up.
    Last edited by erratic50; 01-06-2020 at 03:16 AM.

  5. #80

    Default

    I am getting parts for my 79 brake upgrade. I am staying 4 lug and will be using 87-93 spindles with 60mm calipers and the MM upgrade kit. I want to get as close to the track width of the 87 cars. While doing research, I came across a couple of threads on other sites that list the 87-88 Tbird arms at a length of 13.75 compared to Mustangs at 13.00. Combined with the 79's narrower track, using the TB's arms should net a .25" wider track per side or .5" total over the 87-93 Mustang setup. This should provide some (mimimal?) advantage in gaining negative camber and possibly a better travel arch?? I am not a suspension expert and hoping those with better knowledge will weigh in. I don't have first hand experience with the 87-88 Tbird arms so not sure if the spring perch is the same 'depth' as Mustang and what balljoints they use.

    References:

    https://www.stangnet.com/mustang-for...ension.422272/

    79-'88 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 22.75"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.75"
    Mustang SVO K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.00"


    '79-'88 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 30.125"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 31.125"
    Mustang SVO K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 29.5"

    '79-'93 K-member angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 16.5 deg.
    Mustang SVO angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 14.5deg.

    '79-'88 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 51.37"
    '89-'93 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 52.37"
    SVO K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 53.36"

    Stock Mustang A-arms '79-'93 - 13.00" long
    Mustang SVO A-arms - 14.00" long
    1987-1988 Thunderbird A-arms - 13.75" long.

    http://www.svoca.com/forum/showthrea...r-control-arms - SVO Lower Control Arms


    I believe the Turbo Coupe or SN-95 (i.e.- 1994-2004) can work in a pinch. There is a slight difference in over all length from our stock units, but it is at least minimal compared to a regular Fox a-arm. The stock arms are 14" in length between the bushings and ball joint for reference. The TC/94-99/99-04 arms are all 13.75" in length. The 94-99 arms are a step up from the TC arms due to a low-friction ball joint. The late 99-04 are deemed 'best' due to the combination of a low friction ball joint and revised geometry for better turn radius. All versions of Mustang use the same basic a-arm, so you have a large supply in bone yards if that is your choice. One issue with all of these arms is the spring cup isn't as deep as the SVO arm, so if you put stock springs back in you will need to cut them otherwise your nose will be up in the air.
    Last edited by saleen428; 01-06-2020 at 04:02 PM.

  6. #81

    Default

    UPDATE: Did even more research and found a thread that the 78-88 FCA are the same length of 94-95. So you can ignore the prior post.

    https://forums.corral.net/threads/ju...-86-lx.781854/


    Quote Originally Posted by saleen428 View Post
    I am getting parts for my 79 brake upgrade. I am staying 4 lug and will be using 87-93 spindles with 60mm calipers and the MM upgrade kit. I want to get as close to the track width of the 87 cars. While doing research, I came across a couple of threads on other sites that list the 87-88 Tbird arms at a length of 13.75 compared to Mustangs at 13.00. Combined with the 79's narrower track, using the TB's arms should net a .25" wider track per side or .5" total over the 87-93 Mustang setup. This should provide some (mimimal?) advantage in gaining negative camber and possibly a better travel arch?? I am not a suspension expert and hoping those with better knowledge will weigh in. I don't have first hand experience with the 87-88 Tbird arms so not sure if the spring perch is the same 'depth' as Mustang and what balljoints they use.

    References:

    https://www.stangnet.com/mustang-for...ension.422272/

    79-'88 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 22.75"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.75"
    Mustang SVO K-member front A-arm bolt center to center - 23.00"


    '79-'88 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 30.125"
    '89-'93 Mustang K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 31.125"
    Mustang SVO K-member rear A-arm bolt center to center - 29.5"

    '79-'93 K-member angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 16.5 deg.
    Mustang SVO angle of A-arm off centerline of car - 14.5deg.

    '79-'88 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 51.37"
    '89-'93 K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 52.37"
    SVO K-member overall width from ball joint to ball joint - 53.36"

    Stock Mustang A-arms '79-'93 - 13.00" long
    Mustang SVO A-arms - 14.00" long
    1987-1988 Thunderbird A-arms - 13.75" long.

    http://www.svoca.com/forum/showthrea...r-control-arms - SVO Lower Control Arms


    I believe the Turbo Coupe or SN-95 (i.e.- 1994-2004) can work in a pinch. There is a slight difference in over all length from our stock units, but it is at least minimal compared to a regular Fox a-arm. The stock arms are 14" in length between the bushings and ball joint for reference. The TC/94-99/99-04 arms are all 13.75" in length. The 94-99 arms are a step up from the TC arms due to a low-friction ball joint. The late 99-04 are deemed 'best' due to the combination of a low friction ball joint and revised geometry for better turn radius. All versions of Mustang use the same basic a-arm, so you have a large supply in bone yards if that is your choice. One issue with all of these arms is the spring cup isn't as deep as the SVO arm, so if you put stock springs back in you will need to cut them otherwise your nose will be up in the air.

  7. #82
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    12,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saleen428 View Post
    UPDATE: Did even more research and found a thread that the 78-88 FCA are the same length of 94-95. So you can ignore the prior post.

    https://forums.corral.net/threads/ju...-86-lx.781854/
    Which 78-88 FCA are you saying are the same as the 94/95? Sorry, but I am not following and just want to make sure that others don't get confused also.
    ​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 Ongoing RestoModification
    1984 SVO Awaiting Restoration
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Underway
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  8. #83

    Default

    Lots of incorrect information in both the Stangnet and Corral threads.

    When Mathis wrote the Mustang Performance Handbook 2, he gave up all editorial rights. So after he handed off the manuscript he was given virtually no chance to edit what they turned into the book. The result of this is that they are a number of errors in the dimensions and information in it.

    Truth follows.

    SVO, SN95 and 1987-88 Thunderbird TC all have FCAs with the same width (14").

    They are NOT the same FCAs as each other. They just have the same pivot to ball joint geometry.

    Fox FCAs (except SVO) have a width of 12.79".

    Thunderbird k-members and FCAs fall into two general geometry groups. Some have the 14" FCAs with a narrower k-member and others have a 12.75" FCA with a wider k-member. Each of these groups uses different front swaybars as the endlink holes are in different locations, so the swaybars are different widths. With the exception of the 1987-88 TC model, I don't have a good breakdown of which cars had which FCAs/k-member.

    With respect to Fox Mustang k-members, there are 6 different models used from 1979-93. All of them have the FCA holes in different locations. In terms of track width, they fall into two general groups.

    1987-93 V8 are 0.9" wider total.

    All 1979-86 and 1987-93 2.3l are narrower.

    All of the above information is from a combination of Ford drawings and/or actual measurements of parts with a CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine).

    Below is a quote from William Mathis himself on writing the Mustang Performance Handbooks. The moral is to be very careful about what you read in a book. The author frequently has very little control over the results.

    "I have watched these forums for years without participation. Even when topics were discussed that affected me, I have remained silent. However, I would like to clarify a few things. When I wrote the Mustang Performance Handbooks, I foolishly thought that what I wrote would actually make it to print. Ten years ago, when I wrote those books, I was unaware that HPBooks had a publishing restriction on the size of the book that could be published. At that time, Price, Stern and Sloan (then publishers of HPBooks) required that all their “how-to” books could not be physically thicker than would permit 3 books to fit in a standard bookrack with ease of insertion and removal. Most bookracks then and now are typically limited to approximately 1.5 inches in depth. You may have noticed this in places like Lowes where the do-it-yourself books are displayed. In my case, what this meant was that my manuscripts were hacked to meet this criteria. Unfortunately, this resulted in publications that barely resembled what I had written. Some of the sections, particularly in the second book (this was actually published as the first book on powertrains), were so modified that the sections were confusing at best, and blatantly wrong at worst. Most of the chassis drawings, including the double-wishbone suspension and tubular crossmembers, were not even included in the book. Actually, I am still puzzled why they chose the drawings they included. I submitted all my drawings in AutoCAD format only to be told they were “too complex” for the eight-grade reader they assumed their market was. To make matters worst, the publisher did not have the ability to read AutoCAD drawings into their print system; so each drawing was run through some sort of graphic program for conversion. The results were drawings that had strange tolerances and looks. This was most evident in the weight and balance drawing in the back of the chassis book where the formulas were improperly converted leaving half the variables out. When I received the published copies, I was livid and demanded the books be withdrawn and corrected. However, I was informed that the contract I had signed gave them final editorial control and basically I should F.O. For those of you that have relied on some of this misinformation I apologize to you and thank for purchasing the books in spite of it.

    William R. Mathis
    Graduate Mechanical Engineer"
    Last edited by Jack Hidley; 01-07-2020 at 05:53 PM. Reason: Missing TC and mispleed Thunderbird
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  9. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wraithracing View Post
    Which 78-88 FCA are you saying are the same as the 94/95? Sorry, but I am not following and just want to make sure that others don't get confused also.
    Sorry, it should have read 87-88 Tbird TC FCA's are the same length as 94-95 Mustangs. I literally was exhausted reviewing and comparing posts across different sites for 4 hours today.
    Last edited by saleen428; 01-06-2020 at 11:44 PM.

  10. #85
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    12,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saleen428 View Post
    Sorry, it should have read 87-88 Tbird TC FCA's are the same length as 94-95 Mustangs. I literally was exhausted reviewing and comparing posts across different sites for 4 hours today.

    I completely understand. Been there myself at times, thanks for the clarification. Although I would add that if the 87-88 T Bird FCA are the same as the 94/95 Mustangs then they are the same as all 94-04 Mustang control arms since the overall length of the SN95 control arms didn't change during the production years. The only change was to the shape for additional tire clearance with the 99-04 models.

    Edit: There were actually changes to bushing design and type, but in regards to interchangeability in regards to overall length, the 94-04 SN95 front control arms are the same.
    Last edited by wraithracing; 01-07-2020 at 09:28 AM. Reason: Additional Comment
    ​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 Ongoing RestoModification
    1984 SVO Awaiting Restoration
    1986 GT Wrecked by PO, but still want to save!

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Underway
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  11. #86

    Default

    Thanks Jack always appreciate your input on the forums.

    With my narrow 79 k-member I am leaning toward using the 94+ LCAs. The 99+ sound like a better design in general but how does that translate to my 79 application? Other than the wider track, will the stock sway bar mount up, any issues with the travel arc that will need correcting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    Lots of incorrect information in both the Stangnet and Corral threads.

    When Mathis wrote the Mustang Performance Handbook 2, he gave up all editorial rights. So after he handed off the manuscript he was given virtually no chance to edit what they turned into the book. The result of this is that they are a number of errors in the dimensions and information in it.

    Truth follows.

    SVO, SN95 and 1987-88 Thundferbirds all have FCAs with the same width (14").

    They are NOT the same FCAs as each other. They just have the same pivot to ball joint geometry.

    Fox FCAs (except SVO) have a width of 12.79".

    Thunderbird k-members and FCAs fall into two general geometry groups. Some have the 14" FCAs with a narrower k-member and others have a 12.75" FCA with a wider k-member. Each of these groups uses different front swaybars as the endlink holes are in different locations, so the swaybars are different widths. With the exception of the 1987-88 TC model, I don't have a good breakdown of which cars had which FCAs/k-member.

    With respect to Fox Mustang k-members, there are 6 different models used from 1979-93. All of them have the FCA holes in different locations. In terms of track width, they fall into two general groups.

    1987-93 V8 are 0.9" wider total.

    All 1979-86 and 1987-93 2.3l are narrower.

    All of the above information is from a combination of Ford drawings and/or actual measurements of parts with a CMM (Coordinate Measuring Machine).

    Below is a quote from William Mathis himself on writing the Mustang Performance Handbooks. The moral is to be very careful about what you read in a book. The author frequently has very little control over the results.

    "I have watched these forums for years without participation. Even when topics were discussed that affected me, I have remained silent. However, I would like to clarify a few things. When I wrote the Mustang Performance Handbooks, I foolishly thought that what I wrote would actually make it to print. Ten years ago, when I wrote those books, I was unaware that HPBooks had a publishing restriction on the size of the book that could be published. At that time, Price, Stern and Sloan (then publishers of HPBooks) required that all their “how-to” books could not be physically thicker than would permit 3 books to fit in a standard bookrack with ease of insertion and removal. Most bookracks then and now are typically limited to approximately 1.5 inches in depth. You may have noticed this in places like Lowes where the do-it-yourself books are displayed. In my case, what this meant was that my manuscripts were hacked to meet this criteria. Unfortunately, this resulted in publications that barely resembled what I had written. Some of the sections, particularly in the second book (this was actually published as the first book on powertrains), were so modified that the sections were confusing at best, and blatantly wrong at worst. Most of the chassis drawings, including the double-wishbone suspension and tubular crossmembers, were not even included in the book. Actually, I am still puzzled why they chose the drawings they included. I submitted all my drawings in AutoCAD format only to be told they were “too complex” for the eight-grade reader they assumed their market was. To make matters worst, the publisher did not have the ability to read AutoCAD drawings into their print system; so each drawing was run through some sort of graphic program for conversion. The results were drawings that had strange tolerances and looks. This was most evident in the weight and balance drawing in the back of the chassis book where the formulas were improperly converted leaving half the variables out. When I received the published copies, I was livid and demanded the books be withdrawn and corrected. However, I was informed that the contract I had signed gave them final editorial control and basically I should F.O. For those of you that have relied on some of this misinformation I apologize to you and thank for purchasing the books in spite of it.

    William R. Mathis
    Graduate Mechanical Engineer"

  12. #87

    Default

    ALL 1994-2004 (SN95) FCAs have the EXACT same suspension geometry. The 1999-2004 FCAs have a different shape on the backside to allow a tighter turning radius without the tires rubbing on them.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, the swaybar endlinks will not line up. You will have to drill new holes in the FCAs to install the endlinks. These holes will be moved inboard on the FCA about 1".

    Your tie rods will probably not be long enough. You can install Ford SN95 inner and outer tie rods onto your existing steering rack. Or you could install an MMTR-7 bumpsteer kit.

    To adjust camber and get added caster, you will need to install c/c plates on the car.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, you will not be able to install much wider tires and wheels on the car. From that standpoint, this modification is a dead end. If you plan on installing 9" wheels and 255/275 tires in the future, you must keep Fox length FCAs or plan on doing lots of fender work.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  13. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    ALL 1994-2004 (SN95) FCAs have the EXACT same suspension geometry. The 1999-2004 FCAs have a different shape on the backside to allow a tighter turning radius without the tires rubbing on them.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, the swaybar endlinks will not line up. You will have to drill new holes in the FCAs to install the endlinks. These holes will be moved inboard on the FCA about 1".

    Your tie rods will probably not be long enough. You can install Ford SN95 inner and outer tie rods onto your existing steering rack. Or you could install an MMTR-7 bumpsteer kit.

    To adjust camber and get added caster, you will need to install c/c plates on the car.

    If you install SN95 FCAs, you will not be able to install much wider tires and wheels on the car. From that standpoint, this modification is a dead end. If you plan on installing 9" wheels and 255/275 tires in the future, you must keep Fox length FCAs or plan on doing lots of fender work.
    I am sticking with my 8” wheels with 245/40’s. Thanks again for the additional detail. I now have my shopping list complete

  14. #89

    Default

    perhaps we should move the detailed discussion on the car to another thread.

    maybe make an actual K member guide, a control arm guide, etc.

    And of course reference the other discussion

    just trying to keep this thread focused on 4 lug brakes

    thoughts?

  15. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    perhaps we should move the detailed discussion on the car to another thread.

    maybe make an actual K member guide, a control arm guide, etc.

    And of course reference the other discussion

    just trying to keep this thread focused on 4 lug brakes

    thoughts?
    Wait, are you saying that the 87-93 spindles cannot be mounted on 94-04 FCA's? I am staying 4 lug, so not sure why you feel this needs to be moved. It is early in the AM so maybe I am confused.

  16. #91

    Default

    SN95 ball joints will work in 1987-93 V8 spindles. Because the boss on the 1987-93 V8 spindle is taller for the balljoint, when you install the nut on the ball joint stud, you will not be able to install a cotter pin. The SN95 ball joints are not even drilled for cotter pins. If it makes you feel better, you can install the nut with a small amount of blue Loctite.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  17. #92

  18. #93

    Default The Ultimate Four Eyed 4 Lug Brake Upgrade Thread

    Duplicate

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

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