Close



Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 417
  1. #26
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Roseburg Oregon
    Posts
    2,966

    Default

    Sn-95 lowers are longer from the spring perch out to the ball joint ,
    They will work on pre 87 K members , when using the Sn-95 spindles.
    This will benifit the camber .
    Also gives you the low friction ball joint , and won't need to use shims under the castle nut .
    clowns to the left of me , Jokers to the right

  2. #27
    FEP Power Member grtskydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Carolina Beach, NC
    Posts
    1,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travis T View Post
    They are the same length as I stated above, they are just the 90-93 stock arms. The gusset is to resist flex in the arm.
    Hmmmm. When I put '87 spindles on my 85 I installed new FRPP arms and my camber went WAY negative. If the FRPP arms are the same length, then what pushed my wheels out that far? Different mounting point? Spindles?

    I know this is a 5-lug thread, but maybe a lot of guys will benefit who are thinking of getting the FRPP arms too.
    Last edited by grtskydog; 02-04-2007 at 10:32 AM. Reason: incorrect camber description
    Ed

    "The Dude abides."

  3. #28

    Default

    You had to change something else. Spindles? If you went to the newer 87+ spindles you'll get more positive camber with a stock suspension.

    The control arms are the same length from 79-93. This includes the FRPP arms that are specific for the 79-93 Mustang. Travis is correct in his statement.

  4. #29
    FEP Power Member kj_80Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Harrisonburg, VA
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by grtskydog View Post
    Hmmmm. When I put '87 spindles on my 85 I installed new FRPP arms and my camber went WAY positive. If the FRPP arms are the same length, then what pushed my wheels out that far? Different mounting point? Spindles?

    I know this is a 5-lug thread, but maybe a lot of guys will benefit who are thinking of getting the FRPP arms too.
    Depends on which FRPP A arm you purchased. M-3075-D are for 94-04 Stangs and push the wheel out to SN95 specs. M-3075-A are for 79-93 Stangs and use Fox specs.

  5. #30

    Default

    Will the sn95 arms work with fox spindles? I'm willing to do a little modification to get them to work if thats all it takes. You can give my car all the positive camber you want but even lowered I still cant get any negative camber out of it. So I'm thinking this could be a way for me to get some more camber adjustment along with new bushings and ball joints.
    1979 Mustang Indy 500 Pace Car
    Modified Mustangs Aug, 2006 Feature Car

    2015 F150 2.7 Ecoboost

  6. #31
    FEP Power Member kj_80Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Harrisonburg, VA
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 795.0pacecar View Post
    Will the sn95 arms work with fox spindles?
    Shoulldn't, but I never tried it, SN95 balljoints stems are shorter than the fox ones so the fox spindle should not fit on a SN95 balljoint.

  7. #32

    Default

    Yeah, thats what I kind of figured because you need a shim to make sn95 spindles work with fox ball joints, but what I need to know is how much shorter is the ball joint stem on the sn95 control arms? If its long enough to get the castle nut on good and tight and the cotter pin in, then their shouldn't be any problems, also if it only takes a little material removal from the fox spindle to get them to work, I'm willing to try it. I live right by summit racing so I guess I may just have to be the guinea pig here.
    1979 Mustang Indy 500 Pace Car
    Modified Mustangs Aug, 2006 Feature Car

    2015 F150 2.7 Ecoboost

  8. #33

    Default

    The newer balljoints don't use a cotter pin. They use a crimped nut that basically cross threads itself on to keep from backing off. What you can do is just swap out to the older style balljoints in the newer arms. There's not enough threads to run the older spindle with the newer balljoint. This may not be an option but a mid 87 and later K member would help give you more negative camber. The control arm mounting holes are 1/2" further outboard on them.

  9. #34

    Default

    TTT... keep this thing alive.

  10. #35

    Default

    I'm hoping someone can come in and add about the other non-sn95 5 lug conversion options for the Four Eyes.
    Corey
    1965 Mustang
    1986 Mustang GT T-Tops - Explorer engine swap, MAF Conversion, 5 lug Cobra Brakes
    2001 True Blue Bullitt
    www.thompsontransmission.com - coming soon
    Fox Body Black Interior Interchangeability Guide

  11. #36
    FEP Senior Member AaronATX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southsiiiiide ATX
    Posts
    769

    Default

    Good post. Lemme add a few things if I may

    First off, my rambling post when I did this: http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...ight=sn95+swap

    More importantly from that thread, the difference between stock 86 a-arms and 94-95 sn95 a-arms illustraited in this picture I snapped:




    And my input on using the sn95 a-arms.....

    Positives --> The turning radius is tremendously better than any fox I have ever owned. "Feel" of the tire on the road is much improved when wheel is turned quite a bit, understeer is a bit less pronounced compared with stock a-arms

    Negatives --> When used in conjunction with sn95 axles the front track is wider than the rear. By how much exactly I have yet to measure, but it is definately wider in the front. Also expect issues with the tire hitting the inner portion of the outside fender lip. (You can chop the offending portions out with your tool of choice...) this is with factory 17x8 98 cobra wheels.

    Lowering the car will darn near require camber caster plates. At stock ride height they give my 86 -1.5 camber, with the factory plates at full adjustment. I definately recommend having the bushings welded into place, see the second post or so in my thread.

    Using a factory steering rack/outer tie rods is iffy as well, not a lot of threads in the outer tie rod....
    No more 4eyes

    Some crappy 90 HCI coupe for now.

  12. #37
    FEP Power Member grtskydog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Carolina Beach, NC
    Posts
    1,546

    Default

    That's good info...the turn radius is one of my big beefs with the fox cars.

  13. #38
    FEP Member ohno5point0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Arctic Tundra Hell, Minnesota
    Posts
    207

    Default

    I am going to add. It is absolutely not necessary and I want to punch people in the throat when they go on and on about having to beat the strut tower in....not accusing you of doing so, but it annoys me. You just elongate the upper left hole for the brake booster, check it, and check it and check it when you elongate it. And eventually it will pop right in without having to beat the crap out of your car. This is one of those myths that floats around the net as the only way to do that job.
    Have questions about

    5 Lug Conversions On 79-93 Capri/Mustangs
    Installing Longtube Headers
    Bushing Installation
    Front/Rear Suspension
    Smog Pump and A/C Delete Tips

    PM Me.

  14. #39

    Default

    Well, now that ohno5point0 has chimed in, I guess his link in his sig is in here.. but really, it should be added (at least the 5 lug portion of it, http://mjbobbitt.home.comcast.net/mustang/5lug.html) to the main post.
    Marc aka tripice351. 84.5 GT-350 2.3T, 89 Vert 5.0, 54 F-250 390FE, and a few more..

  15. #40
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tipp City Oh
    Posts
    4,187

    Default

    When I did the 5lug on the 91, we reused the passanger sideFox front brake line with new crush gaskets and the SN95 Banjo bolt (caliper was from a 95). Just thought I'd add that in.
    Lincoln MKVII rear brake brackets are the same as the TBird TC units and can be used versus the cheap stamped steel units on earlier disc brake set-ups as well.
    As for cost...I have $350.00 in salvage yard parts to convert my 84 to 5lug (98 spindles/rotors/calipers/control arms/brake lines; 91 Lincoln MKVII complete rear end).
    Last edited by 86GT2go; 12-18-2006 at 04:59 AM.
    " If you're not living life on the edge, that means you're taking up too much room."
    1983 GLX vert 3.8/auto (triple black)
    1984 (early) Turbo GT (part coming together)
    1986 GT Ttop 5spd..............all broke!

  16. #41

    Default

    Ranger Axels: I'm 100% sure on the years, but I know up through 91 requires the drivers side (left rear).

  17. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ohno5point0 View Post
    I am going to add. It is absolutely not necessary and I want to punch people in the throat when they go on and on about having to beat the strut tower in....not accusing you of doing so, but it annoys me. You just elongate the upper left hole for the brake booster, check it, and check it and check it when you elongate it. And eventually it will pop right in without having to beat the crap out of your car. This is one of those myths that floats around the net as the only way to do that job.
    If you've personally installed a larger 93 Cobra or SN95 brake booster into a 79-86 Fox Body, I would appreciate a very detailed write up on the process that you took to install a larger brake booster.
    If you do not have personal experience installing a larger brake booster into a 79-86 Fox Body, I would appreciate resources and pictures of those who have installed a larger brake booster into a 79-86 Fox Body without massaging the strut tower.

    I personally have experience installing a 93 Cobra brake booster into my 86 GT. The 93 booster has the stock fox body stud pattern that goes through the firewall. The distance from the firewall to the strut tower is not wide enough to allow a 93 Cobra or SN95 brake booster to fit between without clearancing the strut tower for more room.

    Please download Ford's installation instructions for the M2300K kit and refer to page number 28
    http://www.fordracingparts.com/downl...htM-2300-K.pdf

    It may be necessary to “relieve” the inner fender panel for booster clearance on models prior to 1991.
    Ford redesigned the strut tower specifically on 91-93 Mustangs. This re-design provided more clearance space between the strut tower and the firewall. An 86 and older Mustang does not have the same firewall to strut tower clearance that a 91-93 Mustang has. To throw some confusion into the mix, there are some 88-90 Mustangs that have more firewall to strut tower clearance than other 88-90 Mustangs. I was able to get an SN95 Booster into an 88 Fox without massaging, but I've seen other 88 Foxes that do require massaging. With this in mind, it might be possible that some 86 and older Fox bodies also have more clearance than others. Perhaps this is the case with you? I measured the clearance on my 86 GT and installation without massaging was not a possibility.

    Ford specifically says in their instructions that clearancing may be required on older fox body Mustangs. This is not a Myth, I assure you. I will honor the information you just posted only if you can provide me with resources that indicate a successful brake booster install into a 79-86 Fox body without any massaging of the strut tower.

    I would like to avoid from having this thread turn into an arguement about who is right and who is wrong. Please PM me or open a new thread if you would like to discuss this in more detail.

    Thank You
    Last edited by 50 Proof; 12-18-2006 at 02:43 PM.
    Corey
    1965 Mustang
    1986 Mustang GT T-Tops - Explorer engine swap, MAF Conversion, 5 lug Cobra Brakes
    2001 True Blue Bullitt
    www.thompsontransmission.com - coming soon
    Fox Body Black Interior Interchangeability Guide

  18. #43

    Default

    I haven't had much time to post today. Corey beat me to it and is dead on. My 85 GT with the SN95 booster required clearancing. The edge of the booster hangs over the back edge of the strut tower by almost 1/4". I tried with a crowbar, a long 2x4 and some other tools to get it in without messing up the strut tower. There was no way it was going to fit even with two holes elongated. All I did was put dents in the booster itself. You've got to allow for production clearances when doing modifications that have really close tolerances or measurements. What specifically works on one car may not work on another because of the way the production tolerances fell on that particular car. The "wiggle room" in the production tolerances makes each car somewhat unique. Generally things like this aren't too big of a deal, but when you're dealing with less than 1/8" clearance at best, the tolerances come into play. Massaging the strut tower is definitely not a myth, it's direct from the instructions on the M2300K kit as Corey mentioned.


    I would also like to see what you specifically did to make it fit. I tried like hell to get it to work, but my hands couldn't recreate the magic created by yours.

    Respectfully,
    Bob
    Last edited by silver85; 12-18-2006 at 03:26 PM.

  19. #44
    FEP Senior Member AaronATX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southsiiiiide ATX
    Posts
    769

    Default

    My strut tower did not require that much hammering to get my 94-95v6 booster to fit, but going slow and using a 5lb sledge on both the booster edge and the strut tower, combined with elongating some holes got the job done.
    No more 4eyes

    Some crappy 90 HCI coupe for now.

  20. #45
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Tipp City Oh
    Posts
    4,187

    Default

    So this question begs to be asked then...will the 94+ master cylinder bolt to our older brake boosters or is the pattern completely different?
    " If you're not living life on the edge, that means you're taking up too much room."
    1983 GLX vert 3.8/auto (triple black)
    1984 (early) Turbo GT (part coming together)
    1986 GT Ttop 5spd..............all broke!

  21. #46

    Default

    I got a 95 GT booster in my car without hammering anything or elongating any holes, I had a big crow bar and I pryed it into place. It popped in and god help me if it ever goes bad.
    1979 Mustang Indy 500 Pace Car
    Modified Mustangs Aug, 2006 Feature Car

    2015 F150 2.7 Ecoboost

  22. #47
    FEP Power Member kj_80Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Harrisonburg, VA
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    I have a 94 Cobra booster test fitted for my 80 Cobra. It is not installed yet but it will fit. It required me slotting all four mounting holes and taking a little off the large middle hole. You also have to massage the strut tower some as it absolutely will not fit with just slotting the mounting holes. After getting it in place, you can slide it over towards the driver side some and almost get it back to the original position.
    Last edited by kj_80Cobra; 12-18-2006 at 09:38 PM.

  23. #48

    Default

    So from what im reading is the most economical front swap to 5 lug going to be using the sn95 spindles/calipers/rotors/struts, on the stock control arms how bad will the c/c plates be effected? Will aftermarket c/c plates be a required? Also i see specs for the balljoint spacer but does anyone know where one can be purchased? I was considering just using the 95 a-arms till I read about the tie rods/steering rack issues. I am just planning on running bullit wheels and lookiing for the easiest way to do so.. Thanks

  24. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 86GT2go View Post
    So this question begs to be asked then...will the 94+ master cylinder bolt to our older brake boosters or is the pattern completely different?

    I've got a 94-95 GT master cylinder on my 88 GT stock booster. The bolt pattern is the same on them from 79-93 and the 94+ vacuum booster has that same bolt pattern. The ones from the hydroboost won't work though. The master cylinder bolt holes are clocked in a different position. The acorn nut on the end of the booster rod needs to be adjusted properly for the newer master cylinders. That's the only modification needed to make it fit. Brake lines are another story. The older brake lines are standard, the 94+ are metric on the master cylinder.
    Last edited by silver85; 12-18-2006 at 07:16 PM.

  25. #50
    FEP Super Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Northern Colorado
    Posts
    5,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 50 Proof View Post
    I'm hoping someone can come in and add about the other non-sn95 5 lug conversion options for the Four Eyes.
    Sure.

    Front.

    87-93 V8 spindles, SVO calipers, brake lines, SVO rotors. If your using drums in the back the Lincolm MS seem to work well. If you are using SVO rear brakes the SVO MS works best.

    Struts. You can use the pre 87 struts as long as you get the spacers for the strut

    Rear.

    The ranger method discussed in this thread.

    or SVO axles brakes E brake etc. or ranger axles with the svo brakes. You either need to cut flip weld the bracket or get the brackets form north race cars to keep the stock length

    As mentioned above watch for wheel fitment. 94-96 wheels work great and the Cobra wheels look sweet in my opinion.

    FYI.

    Maximum motorsports make adapters so taht you can run SN95 or tubular control arms on the stock SVO spindle (bigger ball joint hole in the spindle).

    I have all of this written down at home so I will come back and edit the post with all of the little details. Heck I think I may have the old part #s also.

    kyle
    Also, do not be so quick to judge someone's comments as being derogatory. It is often difficult to interpret someone's intentions having only text and no body language or tone of voice to guide you.
    "If road racing where easy it would be called drag racing"
    1986 Thunderbird 5.0/AOD

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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