Close



Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default Front suspension upgrade help

    So one of my winter projects on the fox is to start upgrading and replacing old worn out parts on my front end.

    I've already upgraded the rear with new shocks, ford performance lowering B springs, new isolators, MM adjustable lower control arms and MM upper OEM arms all with new bushings. Now it's time for the front end.
    I've already put new struts on and have the ford b spring to put on.

    Was going to buy the ford performance m-3075-a lower control arms, would this be a good choice? What about inmer and outer tie rods etc? What brand would you recommend me going with? Caster camber plates? Anything I'm forgetting? Car will just be a weekend cruiser so I don't have to go too extreme. Lol

    In a perfect world I would just buy the whole MM front suspension kit but that is way out of my price range. Lol
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  2. #2

    Default

    CC plates is super easy, MM or nothing.

    Fwiw, my hate for B springs is very well documentation.
    Regardless, people still use them.

    You should have a bump steer kit. I did a comparison a zillion years ago on the Corral. I think I posted only 3 kits, but I bought 5.
    Again, MM was far superior to the stuff out there. Imho, most of them were pure cr*p, that don't even belong on a toy RC car.

    Inner & outer tie rods - Moog.


    Even putting the B springs in my 86 sucked. (I tried 4-5 different spring setups, until I decided that I liked the setup that I now have).
    I strongly suggest getting the OTC/Ford 7045B tool.
    http://www.veryuseful.com/mustang/te...C-spring-tool/

    Fwiw, my setup.
    http://www.veryuseful.com/mustang/te...Mach1_springs/

    I no longer drive the Mustang at all during the winter (not even on nice days). So, I no longer have to worry about my Blizzaks being a snail breath away from the fender.
    Fwiw, tire sizes are like dress sizes. So, I don't give a flying ******** if someone says they have xyz sized tires. You need to know the make, model, and Year of the tires.

    Note: As soon as anyone does anything outside of stock, things may or may not fit (without changes) . Regardless if every interweb person says that 455/45/26 tires fit 100% fine on the front of their Fox Mustang.

    The tolerances aren't very tight on Fox Mustangs, especially for stuff like the width and placement of the top of the strut hole.
    Iirc, the opening in the top of my my driver's strut tower limited the amount of camber much more than driver side (and they should be close/the-same). Hence, that effects front tire clearances in many areas.


    Good Luck!
    Last edited by stangPlus2Birds; 10-04-2021 at 07:10 PM.

  3. #3
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Thanks for the info. Guess I will just have to feel for myself how the b springs are. Did lots of reading and they seemed to have good reviews. I also have the MM spring instillation tool so that should help getting them in.
    What about the lower control arms? Are the ford performance ones decent? Got good reviews.
    As for the bump steer kit which MM one should I go with? 79-93 bolt through style?

    As for the CC plates I don't need to have coil overs to use them?
    I agree with the quality of MM products and will be going with them for whatever I can.
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  4. #4

    Default

    CC plates don't require coil overs, MM all the way.

    IMO--Can't go wrong with Ford parts.
    Jeremiah

    1986 Mustang GT 5spd, 3.27's
    PimpXS ECU/Android Single DIN Touchscreen
    SN95 Cobra Brakes/SN95 Front LCA's/Axles/S197 Wheels
    1998 Explorer Engine/Stock HO Cam 281rwhp/326rwtq

  5. #5

    Default

    Realize that the M-5300-B springs are stock springs. They are just the shortest spring that Ford used in a Fox Mustang. So if your car is a notch, with manual crank windows, it already has exactly the same spring in it. If you have a heavier version of the car, this spring will be shorter than what you already have in the car, and it will result in a lower ride height. The fronts can be cut. The rears should not be cut.

    Unless you are going to get a bumpsteer gauge, measure the bumpsteer and correct it, I would not install a bumpsteer kit. You can read more about this at the link below.

    https://www.maximummotorsports.com/G...r-Problem.aspx

    The current M-3075-A FCAs don't have low friction ball joints in them, despite what the advertising says. If you want better performance, rebuild your original FCAs with Ford SN95 ball joints.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  6. #6
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    Realize that the M-5300-B springs are stock springs. They are just the shortest spring that Ford used in a Fox Mustang. So if your car is a notch, with manual crank windows, it already has exactly the same spring in it. If you have a heavier version of the car, this spring will be shorter than what you already have in the car, and it will result in a lower ride height. The fronts can be cut. The rears should not be cut.

    Unless you are going to get a bumpsteer gauge, measure the bumpsteer and correct it, I would not install a bumpsteer kit. You can read more about this at the link below.

    https://www.maximummotorsports.com/G...r-Problem.aspx

    The current M-3075-A FCAs don't have low friction ball joints in them, despite what the advertising says. If you want better performance, rebuild your original FCAs with Ford SN95 ball joints.
    Thanks Jack, never knew that about the b springs. My car is a hatch so it should be lowered a bit which is what I wanted. As for the ford front control arms. On summit it doesn't mention low friction ball joints. Just says better ball joints and improved bushings. Not sure if that's what you meant?
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  7. #7

    Default

    The FRPP FCAs used to come with the newer low fiction ball joints.
    That's what I have (from the 90s).
    It seems like that's no longer the case.

    As for B springs, I live in New England.
    We don't have the Southern Calf concrete perfect roads. Or, Florida, where the highest natural land point is ~20feet above sea level.
    :-)

    Other places have similar topology.

    For a v8 and a hatch, B Springs have a big issue where they are shorter and have a lower rate.
    Therefore, it's too easy to bottom out with them.

    With my car, B springs had my car sit far too low, and the tires rubbed.
    Note, that I have the M2300K brake kit, sn95 spindles, 5-lug, and 245/45/17 tires.

    Yes, I could've opened up the hole in the top of the strut tower, to get more camber, to get more room.
    And, I could've moved/adjusted the front fender, to get more room.
    But, for my car, I drew the customization line at those points (unless 100% required).

    Imho, also the B springs are too soft for a V8 and a hatch.
    Imho, you want the total force for full jounce (spring compression) to be be the same/similar/higher, when changing springs.
    Imho, this is required for roads where pot holes are the norm.

    New England typology is typically hilly, and rarely level/flat.
    Fwiw, in New England, like some other places, our roads have the worse possible winter weather conditions. Typically, New England temps go above freezing during the day, and below freezing at night. So, cracks happen and keep expanding. Therefore, forget about having good roads.
    Further north, the temps stay below freezing, during the winter. Further South, the temps rarely to, or much below, freezing temperatures.


    Good Luck.

  8. #8
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stangPlus2Birds View Post
    The FRPP FCAs used to come with the newer low fiction ball joints.
    That's what I have (from the 90s).
    It seems like that's no longer the case.

    As for B springs, I live in New England.
    We don't have the Southern Calf concrete perfect roads. Or, Florida, where the highest natural land point is ~20feet above sea level.
    :-)

    Other places have similar topology.

    For a v8 and a hatch, B Springs have a big issue where they are shorter and have a lower rate.
    Therefore, it's too easy to bottom out with them.

    With my car, B springs had my car sit far too low, and the tires rubbed.
    Note, that I have the M2300K brake kit, sn95 spindles, 5-lug, and 245/45/17 tires.

    Yes, I could've opened up the hole in the top of the strut tower, to get more camber, to get more room.
    And, I could've moved/adjusted the front fender, to get more room.
    But, for my car, I drew the customization line at those points (unless 100% required).

    Imho, also the B springs are too soft for a V8 and a hatch.
    Imho, you want the total force for full jounce (spring compression) to be be the same/similar/higher, when changing springs.
    Imho, this is required for roads where pot holes are the norm.

    New England typology is typically hilly, and rarely level/flat.
    Fwiw, in New England, like some other places, our roads have the worse possible winter weather conditions. Typically, New England temps go above freezing during the day, and below freezing at night. So, cracks happen and keep expanding. Therefore, forget about having good roads.
    Further north, the temps stay below freezing, during the winter. Further South, the temps rarely to, or much below, freezing temperatures.


    Good Luck.
    Hmm well that sucks, wish I would have read that before spending my money on b springs. Oh well guess I will see. I live in the prairies of Canada and we have some of the worst winter weather there is so I'm very familiar with ****ty roads. Lol
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  9. #9

    Default

    Fwiw, new poly isolators will raise the care ~~~1/4". They don't compress like the rubber isolators.

    Also, I bought the Steeda X2 Ball Joints, just so that I could get the 1/4" spacer.
    That 1/4" spacer raises the front end by ~~0.45". (I did not use Steeda the ball joints, just the spacer.)
    https://www.steeda.com/steeda-x2-mus...-555-8101.html






    I wanted better handling.
    Hence, I wanted the higher rate springs.
    I also have a set of the 93 Cobra R (750-850) front springs (higher spring rate). But, the Mach1 springs(600) give a stiff enough, and jolting enough ride on New England roads. :-)

    My '86 is my summer/good-weather daily driver. Well, back when I drove to work every day.

    With the mountains around here, the M2300K brakes have been useful/required.
    In mid-NH (Warner), there's a nice 1-2 hours hiking trail to the top of a mountain/what-ever. There's a steep road to/from that trail-head.
    That road is fun coming down in the Mustang!

    Imho, it sucks coming down that road in anything with stock brakes (like my other cars). I have to go slow, keep the tranny in first, never use the gas, and there's still brake fade.


    I've never driving anything but my Mustang to the Presidential Mountains (Mount Washington, etc). As people might expect, there are some very long and steep roads in that area also.


    People have different desires/uses for their cars.
    Last edited by stangPlus2Birds; 10-04-2021 at 11:54 PM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Many years ago, the M-3075-A FCAs had better ball joints. This has not been the case for a long time, despite what the advertising says. They now come with a standard metal on metal, geaseable ball joint.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  11. #11

    Default

    I use C-Kits for the front of my cars, usually. Sometimes a spacer is required for height adjustment.

    I agree with the statement that the B-Kits suck.
    83 TC "Clone"
    85 Marquis LTS
    86 LTD Wagon

  12. #12
    FEP Member 86MustangGtRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mississauga Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    432

    Default

    I replaced my control arms on my 85GT with 2003 cobra control arms. I rebuilt the arms with low friction ball joints that I got from the Ford dealer. The arms and the ball joints made a big difference in turn in and comfort.

  13. #13
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    Many years ago, the M-3075-A FCAs had better ball joints. This has not been the case for a long time, despite what the advertising says. They now come with a standard metal on metal, geaseable ball joint.
    Ok thanks Jack. So if I was to instead look at a front coil over setup that would work with what I have already in the rear what would you recommend? Is there a budget option that MM has? It's only going to be a street car and will only be driven on weekends if it's nice. Feel free to PM me if you want
    Last edited by Sask84gt; 10-05-2021 at 06:31 PM.
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  14. #14
    FEP Member 0F0 CBR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    122

    Default

    I have the B springs in my V8 car along with the M-3075-A front control arms. I like them, rides nice and ride height is perfect.
    Nothing rubs or bottoms out, 220 55 390 TRX's.

  15. #15
    FEP Super Member gr79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    5,141

    Default

    79 hatch 2.3T. normal use driven defensively on decent paved surfaces whenever possible.

    Control arms:
    installed 3075a arms in 2001 when they were 150/pr. Upper rears are 5500a's.
    Supposed to have 'lifetime' ball joints, no grease fittings. What how long is lifetime?
    Shop said they are worn. Prob will go with Moog or other name brand if of north american mfd.
    They do have extra metal 'patches' reinforcement welded in on the sides
    The old arms are worth saving can be rebuilt just as good.

    Car here has stock TRX suspension package, now with 215/60/15 fstone tires on turbine rims. Data says springs are f-r 425/175.
    Monroe sensatrac struts and rear shocks kept the stock firm handling feel.
    Front tires rub wheel well and arm on certain full lock slow parking turns.
    Also have subframe reinforcements and chassis stiffening items installed.

    Inner/Outer tie rod ends. Have used Moog, TRW, McQuay-Norris from NPD. Sometimes remember to keep one spare pair on the shelf.
    Have replaced outers regularly. Antisieze on threads makes job faster. Mark/index tie rod turns to help keep front alignment.
    Air hammer, with correct width fork installed, is the fast way on the spindle end.
    If inner tie rods need replacing, consider going all the way and replace with new rack, matching pump, hoses, if up to it.

  16. #16

    Default

    What brand and model shocks are on the car?

    I assume that it still has stock struts in the front. If you still have 10" front brakes, then the spindles on the car will severely limit the strut replacement options that are available to you. The only thing we have available for struts, that will work with the 10" front brake spindles are from Eibach. Those are a set of struts and shocks.

    As your car has an early model narrow k-member, you can install SN95 FCAs on it. These will move each front wheel 1.18" outwards. That will move each front wheel outwards only 0.68" farther than a 1987-93 V8 model car, which has a wider k-member. With c/c plates installed, there will be no problem getting the car aligned. You will have to install longer outer tie rods. The easy solution there would be to install inner and outer tie rods from any year SN95 Mustang. These must be used as a set. If you find a set of good used SN95 FCAs, they have better bushings than any Fox FCA and already have the best possible ball joints in them.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  17. #17
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    What brand and model shocks are on the car?

    I assume that it still has stock struts in the front. If you still have 10" front brakes, then the spindles on the car will severely limit the strut replacement options that are available to you. The only thing we have available for struts, that will work with the 10" front brake spindles are from Eibach. Those are a set of struts and shocks.

    As your car has an early model narrow k-member, you can install SN95 FCAs on it. These will move each front wheel 1.18" outwards. That will move each front wheel outwards only 0.68" farther than a 1987-93 V8 model car, which has a wider k-member. With c/c plates installed, there will be no problem getting the car aligned. You will have to install longer outer tie rods. The easy solution there would be to install inner and outer tie rods from any year SN95 Mustang. These must be used as a set. If you find a set of good used SN95 FCAs, they have better bushings than any Fox FCA and already have the best possible ball joints in them.
    I'm pretty sure I have just a standard set of kyb shocks and struts. Originally I just was adding new shocks,struts and springs but as I'm learning more about these cars I want to do a bit more, at least on the front suspension. I already have a nice set of MM LCA and uppers in the rear.

    If I was to look at MM tubular FCA's and a coil over kit what would you recommend?
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  18. #18

    Default

    If you use MM FCAs, there will be a little less NVH from the SN95 ball joints that we use in them, but more NVH from the smaller polyurethane bushings in them. From the description of your paving, I would be tempted to keep using FCAs with rubber bushings in them.

    The MMCO-2 front coilover kit might fit your KYB struts. The struts need to have an OD of 2.20" or smaller. You will need to measure their OD with calipers along their length to check this. You will probably need to grind down the OD of the bump plate on the top of them to be able to slide the coilover sleeve over the strut housing. With the M-5300-B springs in the rear, I would use HYP15014250UHT springs. You may need to use MMWS-1 wheel spacers in the front for these springs to clear the wheels.
    Jack Hidley
    Maximum Motorsports Tech Support

  19. #19
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
    If you use MM FCAs, there will be a little less NVH from the SN95 ball joints that we use in them, but more NVH from the smaller polyurethane bushings in them. From the description of your paving, I would be tempted to keep using FCAs with rubber bushings in them.

    The MMCO-2 front coilover kit might fit your KYB struts. The struts need to have an OD of 2.20" or smaller. You will need to measure their OD with calipers along their length to check this. You will probably need to grind down the OD of the bump plate on the top of them to be able to slide the coilover sleeve over the strut housing. With the M-5300-B springs in the rear, I would use HYP15014250UHT springs. You may need to use MMWS-1 wheel spacers in the front for these springs to clear the wheels.
    Thanks for the info. I think I'm just going to install the b springs into my stock FCA's and see how it goes before I start changing stuff out. Have not even driven the car more than a block since i got it 4 years ago so I want to drive it and see for myself how it performs then go from there.
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  20. #20

    Default

    following

  21. #21
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    So I ended getting a decent set of 87-93 gt front spindles from a fellow member here( at_the_junkyard). So now I can run 11" brakes which should be a bit better than the 10". Seeing as I put new rotors,calipers,pads on my stock brakes I think I'm going to just run them for the time being and slowly buy all my new stuff for the 11". I'm also thinking I might as well save and get all the parts and do coilovers on the front with some MM FCA and caster camber plates. Can you run just front coilovers or do you have to change back out also? What's the benefits of going front coilovers vs new stock setup?
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  22. #22
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    Yes, you can just run coil overs on the front. The simple advantages to coil overs is the ability to adjust ride height easier, and for the same wheel rate, the coil over suspension will generally ride better. So you can improve the handling without sacrificing ride quality. There are other advantages, but those are the big ones in my mind. Make sure you choose the correct FCA depending on your setup since there are 3 options for Fox length arms, Reverse offset, Forward offset, No Offset.
    ​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 Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

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

  23. #23
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wraithracing View Post
    Yes, you can just run coil overs on the front. The simple advantages to coil overs is the ability to adjust ride height easier, and for the same wheel rate, the coil over suspension will generally ride better. So you can improve the handling without sacrificing ride quality. There are other advantages, but those are the big ones in my mind. Make sure you choose the correct FCA depending on your setup since there are 3 options for Fox length arms, Reverse offset, Forward offset, No Offset.
    Thanks Trey, I was just looking at getting the standard offset but I'm not really sure which way I should go. I would just be running stock ford k member so I could go non offset or forward offset. Not sure which to go with
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

  24. #24
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sask84gt View Post
    Thanks Trey, I was just looking at getting the standard offset but I'm not really sure which way I should go. I would just be running stock ford k member so I could go non offset or forward offset. Not sure which to go with
    Generally with the stock K member you would run the non offset as that will keep the wheels @ in the same location of the wheel well. The MM K member is set up for moving the control arms forward 3/4" with the K member geometry. That is reason for the reverse offset control arms to move the wheels back to the stock position if you don't want to have to modify the front fender openings, air dams, etc.
    ​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 Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

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

  25. #25
    FEP Senior Member Sask84gt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    814

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wraithracing View Post
    Generally with the stock K member you would run the non offset as that will keep the wheels @ in the same location of the wheel well. The MM K member is set up for moving the control arms forward 3/4" with the K member geometry. That is reason for the reverse offset control arms to move the wheels back to the stock position if you don't want to have to modify the front fender openings, air dams, etc.
    Gotcha, thanks again for your help Trey.
    Mustangs
    84.5 Gt T-top
    85 Gt

Posting Permissions

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