Close



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36
  1. #1

    Default Major Suspension work

    It's been awhile since I posted but got a lot done in the meantime. Got started on some suspension mods that I've been putting off for a long time. Put in a AJE K-Member with coil spring perches, and AJE A-Arms. Put in some new coil spring isolators at the same time. Was thinking of going coilover, but installed the Eibach Pro-Dampers front. Also have the rear Pro-Dampers as well that I will install soon. The Pro-Dampers are tuned to go along with the Eibach Pro-Kit Springs I've had in for awhile. Installed were some braided steel brakes hoses, and had time to paint my sway bar blue. Dont' know why blue, just wanted to see how it looks. LMR Bumpsteer kit was installed at the same time. For the bumpsteer kit I had to cut some additional threads on the steering rack tie rods to fit them. The steering column was the right length after the K-Member was put in. I had read that some have had issues with that. While the K-Member was being installed, I pulled the oil pan, replaced the oil pan gasket and painted it black to go along with my engine color. Installed an '86 SVO T-5 along with new stage 3 clutch, new clutch fork, pivot bolt, new flywheel, pilot bearing, rear end seal, new speedo gear and Hurst Billet T5 shifter. Transmission tunnel hole had to be nibbled slightly to accommodate the T5. Stiffler transmission cross-member, and new transmission mount were installed.

    Plan now is to install new Ford racing aluminum driveshaft, 3.73 gears in the rear end, TA differential cover, Maximum Motorsports Panhard bar, Eibach Pro-Damper rear shocks and rear brake disc conversion kit. The rear disc conversion kit has a new master cylinder, and proportioning valve. I have all these parts on-hand and will get these installed in the next few weeks. I was torn between 4.10 gears and the 3.73 gears but decided 3.73 in the end was a happy medium. I ordered a 2gal water/meth tank that will get here in the next few days. I'll pair that up with the Snow Performance meth kit that I've had in the garage for over ten years. My Pace Car is a carb turbo so I will need the meth kit installed since I want to run 15-17 lbs boost. Some pics of the initial work below:

    Attachment 134795

    Attachment 134796

    Attachment 134797

    Attachment 134798

    Attachment 134799
    Last edited by radartek; 01-02-2021 at 11:18 PM.

  2. #2
    FEP Senior Member Patrick Olsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Where the Navy sends me...
    Posts
    680

    Default

    Looks good! Should be a nice refresh of the ride and handling.
    '89 GT convertible - not a four-eye
    '82 Zephyr Z7 - future track car

  3. #3
    FEP User 83 4SPD GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2020
    Location
    Hilton Head Island SC
    Posts
    61

    Default

    That is a real nice suspension combo with the light weight turbo-4, along with the 3.73's and the T5, Nice!
    1983 Mustang GT 5.0L, TRX Pkg, T-Tops, 4 Spd, Polar White, Medium Red Interior, Built 11/22/82, 15,400 original miles, with the original 38 yr old Michelins still on it. Added LMR 17" mesh wheels w/Nitto NT555’s.

  4. #4

    Default

    Continued on last week with installation of the disc brake conversion, Maximum Motorsports panhard bard, brake line modifications, and Eibach rear Pro-Dampers. Rear end gears are already 3.73 so didn'tn have to tackle that. I had pulled the Trac-Loc rear end end from an '86 TurboCoupe about 18 years ago. It was an automatic and had 3.73 gears already but no disc brakes. I had forgotten it was an auto and thought it had 3.55 manual transmission rear end gears. Still will re-bearing and change out the axle seals before capping it off with a T/A differential cover. I didn't refurb the Trac-Loc because it has very low mileage since the last rebuild. The rear disc calipers are 93-94 Cobra calipers. I got the 4-lug disc brake conversion kit from LMR but noticed it's not offered any more. No instructions with it so referred to some other conversion kit that LMR offered. Bunch of loose ends to tie up still. Calipers need to be mounted in place after rotors and placed. Panhard bar can not be final adjusted until the car is sitting on the suspension. Alignments etc for the front end. Drive shaft needs installation, then exhaust work to clear new larger diameter drive shaft and the panhard bar. Getting there, but will still take some time.
    Last edited by radartek; 05-16-2021 at 01:37 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    Still working on the rear end. Had to take the carrier with ring gear out. Turned out the ring gear was 3.25 original ring gear. Never swapped the ring gear long ago. Put in the 3.75 ring gear and the cross pin shaft hit the thicker ring gear. Had to remove ring gear and grind the edge of a couple of teeth to allow the cross pin shaft to clear. Turns out its a common problem with Ford rear ends depending on what ring gear was stock. Since mine was 3.25 the thicker 3.75 gear needed slight grinding. I checked with some rear end shops and they verified that this is common. There's plenty videos on Youtube on how to grind the gear safely.

  6. #6

    Default

    You are a madman! Upgrades should make a big difference across the board.
    Current FEP:
    1980 M81 McLaren Carb Turbo 2.3T #003P ... IT'S ALIVE after a 22 year slumber thread!

    Past FEP:
    1986 Capri GS 5.0- very missed but in goods hands
    1985 LTD SSP- quick little fox 5.0

  7. #7

    Default

    We must be reading each others minds.... I did the aje k member in my 79 pc also, and have a stifles trans cross memeber, the only thing is mine no longer has a 4 cylinder in it, I blew up the carb turbo engine when I was 16, converted to svo drivetrain and that was fun for a while, but now I'm going 4.6 2v with tr3650 5 speed and sn95 cobra brakes and rear axle.

    I'm curious to see how you like the k member, I'm still a few months out from driving mine, still installing bmr torque box kits and installing hydroboost from an sn95... my car has been on the back burner for 10 years... my son was a year old when my car ran last, he is now 12....
    1979 Ford Mustang Pace Car
    4.6 2V conversion underway!!

  8. #8

    Default

    Did you go with a rubber or poly trans mount ? I did solid motor mount when I svo swapped and a poly trans mount.... the block broke on the left hand lower side, was a clean break so welding back on was easy enough, but the the k member engine mounts I'm not sure what trans mount to go with.
    1979 Ford Mustang Pace Car
    4.6 2V conversion underway!!

  9. #9

    Default

    Did you have to do any cutting to get the k member to fit? I had to trim mine a little to get it to fit, but aje sent me plates to sandwhich the rear mounts.
    1979 Ford Mustang Pace Car
    4.6 2V conversion underway!!

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shauncb View Post
    Did you go with a rubber or poly trans mount ? I did solid motor mount when I svo swapped and a poly trans mount.... the block broke on the left hand lower side, was a clean break so welding back on was easy enough, but the the k member engine mounts I'm not sure what trans mount to go with.
    I went with the rubber transmission mount with the Stifflers crossmember and the SVO T-5.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shauncb View Post
    Did you have to do any cutting to get the k member to fit? I had to trim mine a little to get it to fit, but aje sent me plates to sandwhich the rear mounts.
    Didn't have to cut the K-Member but some modification of one of the mounting holes was needed for proper fitment. Essentially one of the holes was elongated slightly. Not very much though. Fit great after that.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by radartek View Post
    Didn't have to cut the K-Member but some modification of one of the mounting holes was needed for proper fitment. Essentially one of the holes was elongated slightly. Not very much though. Fit great after that.
    Mine wouldnt sit flat I had to trim about 1/2 inch off the rear to get mine to sit flat other than widening the holes on one side mine fit well also, I went with the aje due to keeping factory springs, from what I've rear which I'm not sure it's TRUE but the early foxes had thinner sheet metal than the later ones and with coil overs up front the strut towers will crack, bmr makes a really nice looking piece that still uses factory coil springs.

    Hopefully you wont run into the broken block issue like I did with the transmission not being as solidly mounted as the engine, maybe was due to quite a bit more power also, I'll never really know.
    1979 Ford Mustang Pace Car
    4.6 2V conversion underway!!

  13. #13

    Default

    Got the driveshaft and the T/A differential cover on. Disc brakes are on and rear end is put together for the most part. Still lacking is to load and center the rear end using the panhard rod on the panhard bar. Then front end alignment is next. After that a bumpsteer adjustment and then another final front end alignment. Haven't driven the car for four months now. It will be great to get it back on the road again with all the suspension mods that have been done.

    Ordered a Stifflers FIT system chassis kit and received it this week. Thinking of going for the whole enchilada and getting the Stifflers Lower Chassis Mount, and Spider Brace.
    Last edited by radartek; 02-27-2021 at 10:25 AM.

  14. #14

    Default

    Great work
    79 Zephyr, 4.6L 4v/4r70w swap, with team z front and rear suspension, 8.8 and upgraded brakes and coil overs. Running Holley Terminator X Max.

  15. #15

    Default

    If the car has fixed length UCAs on it, you can not use the Panhard bar to move the axle housing from side to side. Put jackstands under the rear axle, so that the rear suspension is at ride height, loosen the locknuts and the ends of the Panhard rod, then spin the rod both directions until you find the spot where it is very easy to turn. Stop. Tighten the locknuts.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    If the car has fixed length UCAs on it, you can not use the Panhard bar to move the axle housing from side to side. Put jackstands under the rear axle, so that the rear suspension is at ride height, loosen the locknuts and the ends of the Panhard rod, then spin the rod both directions until you find the spot where it is very easy to turn. Stop. Tighten the locknuts.
    Great point ^^^
    This is why a Watts link has less bind than a panhard bar.
    79 Zephyr, 4.6L 4v/4r70w swap, with team z front and rear suspension, 8.8 and upgraded brakes and coil overs. Running Holley Terminator X Max.

  17. #17
    FEP Super Member gr79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    5,141

    Default

    "Ordered a Stifflers FIT system chassis kit and received it this week. Thinking of going for the whole enchilada and getting the Stifflers Lower Chassis Mount, and Spider Brace."

    Been lookin to add some of that too. Frame rocker jacking rails. More chassis metal can't hurt.
    Have Ford MS sfcs, tower brace, chassis stiffening kit, BMR rlca box reinforcement kit.
    Desire to keep 42 year old unit body chassis twist to a minimum and add to chassis/floor pan strength.
    Help areas that rust and age weakens. Also for less worry when car is put on a post lift or floor jack.

    'Whole enchilada' is good.
    What is a 'whole ball of wax', whole 9 yards, or 'it's the cats' meow'? The 'real deal' is another.

  18. #18

    Default

    Massacre,

    No.

    It doesn't matter what type of link is used to statically move the axle housing sideways under the car chassis (Panhard bar, Watts link, A-arm, etc.). If the lateral position of the housing, under the chassis, has been set by the triangulated position of a pair of upper control arms, anything that tries to force the housing to one side or the other is going to cause binding, because both upper control arms will be forced to change length.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    Massacre,

    No.

    It doesn't matter what type of link is used to statically move the axle housing sideways under the car chassis (Panhard bar, Watts link, A-arm, etc.). If the lateral position of the housing, under the chassis, has been set by the triangulated position of a pair of upper control arms, anything that tries to force the housing to one side or the other is going to cause binding, because both upper control arms will be forced to change length.
    Ok, thanks for that. Makes sense that some binding would occur if using the panhard rod to move the axle housing. So what's needed then is a torque arm? If a torque arm was installed then that's a 3-link system correct (both UCA's removed of course)? Could the panhard rod then be used to center the axle housing? Also currently I have both UCA's still installed. Without a torque arm, do I have to remove one UCA to create a poor man's 3-link, or it ok to leave both UCA's installed with a panhard bar? I've read some info on this, and clarification would be much appreciated.
    Last edited by radartek; 02-23-2021 at 12:52 AM.

  20. #20

    Default

    Yes, yes, yes and yes.

    With both UCAs installed and a Panhard bar, there is some fighting going on because the four control arms define one roll center and the Panhard bar is defining another roll center. In the end, there is only one roll center. As a result of this fighting, something has to give. This is why it is critical to only use rubber bushings in both ends of the UCAs when a Panhard bar or any other suspension link which will define the roll center location in the rear suspension. The rubber bushings allow the UCAs to change length as needed.

    You can read a lot more about this at the link below.

    http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...98&postcount=5
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  21. #21

    Default

    I get that.
    Let me rephrase-

    On a non triangulated 4-link suspension, a watts can be more precise over a panhard bar, since a panhard bar swings in an arc, and a Watts does not.
    I have a double adjustable panhard bar in my S197 but that rear suspension is a 3-link, with zero binding.
    With spherical bearings in the control arms, I bet binding can be kept to a minimum.
    79 Zephyr, 4.6L 4v/4r70w swap, with team z front and rear suspension, 8.8 and upgraded brakes and coil overs. Running Holley Terminator X Max.

  22. #22

    Default

    Virtually ALL 4-link rear suspensions are overconstrained and bind. Triangulated 4-links tend to bind worse, but even a parallel 4-link with the same length links will probably bind. This is because the device that is used for lateral location (Panhard bar, Watts link, trailing a-arm, etc.), probably won't put the roll center at the same height that the 4-link puts the roll center at.

    It is true that a Watts link does a better job at lateral axle control than a Panhard bar because there is zero theoretical axle movement. However, the difference in movement between the two, when well designed, is very small, especially when compared to other things that allow later movement in the car. The much, much larger issue is where each of the devices positions the roll center vertically. That affects handling vastly more than anything else.

    A 3-link plus lateral locating device is a great suspension because there is zero binding, virtually any geometry can be setup and it allows complete cancellation of the driveshaft torque reaction for equal rear tire loads.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  23. #23

    Default

    Agreed. The difference between panhard and watts is not huge. But there is a small difference.
    Once my fox gets out of storage, I’ll have to set everything up and hopefully my roll center will be correct.
    The triangulated 4-link is a compromise for sure.

    Thanks for the info BTW, you are very knowledgeable and well respected. Much appreciated.

    Do you have any insight into rear sway bars? Does that influence the suspension at all, as far as binding? Just curious. Thanks
    79 Zephyr, 4.6L 4v/4r70w swap, with team z front and rear suspension, 8.8 and upgraded brakes and coil overs. Running Holley Terminator X Max.

  24. #24

    Default

    The stock style Fox/SN95 rear swaybars that bolt to the RLCAs do cause some problems. They are complicated to analyze because they act on the chassis through the front RLCA bushings. The bars are loaded in a combination of torsion, bending and tension. This causes them to behave nonlinearly.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    The stock style Fox/SN95 rear swaybars that bolt to the RLCAs do cause some problems. They are complicated to analyze because they act on the chassis through the front RLCA bushings. The bars are loaded in a combination of torsion, bending and tension. This causes them to behave nonlinearly.
    Thanks for the helpful response!
    The fox rear sway bar is unique to me. It doesn’t attach to the housing, nor does it attach to the frame.
    79 Zephyr, 4.6L 4v/4r70w swap, with team z front and rear suspension, 8.8 and upgraded brakes and coil overs. Running Holley Terminator X Max.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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