95 K-member and a-arms on a 93, which struts?

[KAILUAZ]

I have a 95 K-member/a-arms/spindles going on my 93 coupe. I'll be running 03 Mach-1 springs.
Which year run struts should I use (83-93 or 94-98)? I know one series is too short I just cant remember what year run it was.
Thanks!
Eric

[huesmann]

The SN-95 guys with slammed cars are supposed to run Fox struts to maintain bump travel. I didn't think there was a difference in the Fox struts.

[KAILUAZ]

So I can just use the 83-93 struts then?

[d brune]

Why are you going to install an SN95 K-member in a Fox? Is there a geometry advantage to this?

Darren

[KAILUAZ]

You get more track width with the 95 K member and control arms.

[gt40mkII]

If you're going to the trouble of swapping K-members, why dick around with a factory one when you can just as easily install an aftermarket K-member?

[Moving Target]

No offence but Robert has a point.

[KAILUAZ]

$$. I cant afford a MM k member (the SN95 was next to nothing). MM is the only one I would buy. I have baby formula and diapers to pay for.

[gt40mkII]

Originally Posted by KAILUAZ

$$. I cant afford a MM k member (the SN95 was next to nothing). MM is the only one I would buy. I have baby formula and diapers to pay for.

I understand.

in that case, I wouldn't screw with the SN95 K-member. There's just not enough advantage to justify the effort of installing it.

[KAILUAZ]

I already have the 95 K and the car is just a shell. I got the 95 K with the intention on using it on my 86, which would have made some improvements track width wise. Now I'm using the 93, so its going on it.
All I need to do is figure out which struts to use and bolt it on.

[Moving Target]

I would run the Fox front struts and call it good.

[KAILUAZ]

Originally Posted by Moving Target

I would run the Fox front struts and call it good.

Sounds like a plan, thanks for the input everyone.

[d brune]

So what are you going to do for fenders? I cannot help but wonder what the bump steer, ackerman...hell the whole front end could possibly be a mess to try and align. I would think it would cost quite a bit of money to get the car to align and drive right.

Darren

[KAILUAZ]

Originally Posted by d brune

So what are you going to do for fenders? I cannot help but wonder what the bump steer, ackerman...hell the whole front end could possibly be a mess to try and align. I would think it would cost quite a bit of money to get the car to align and drive right.

Darren

The fenders will be rolled and I'm only running 245's up front. I'm using all the 95 suspension minus the struts, springs, bump-steer kit and camber/caster plates. I don't see any problems with getting it aligned.

[vicbaby]

Originally Posted by KAILUAZ

You get more track width with the 95 K member and control arms.

I thought the extra track width came from the a-arms, not the k?

[gt40mkII]

Originally Posted by vicbaby

I thought the extra track width came from the a-arms, not the k?

I haven't seen anything authoritative saying the chassis pickup points on the SN95 cars are any different than on the Fox cars (i.e. same width, same anti-dive, same height.)

I do know the control arms are .75" longer, increasing the track width.

[vicbaby]

Supposedly the modular sn95 k-members have better geometry. Someone posted someplace that the 93-95 geometry was the same - no idea if true or not.

[Thomas]

Correct, the only difference is in the control arms, not the k-member itself. pre-87's (79-86) used a narrower k-member and the GT and SVO got longer (sn-95 length) control arms. So sn-95 control arms are actually 79-86 GT and SVO control arms. And you can use the longer control arms in 87-93 k-members to get a wider track width.
-Thomas

[vicbaby]

Originally Posted by Thomas

So sn-95 control arms are actually 79-86 GT and SVO control arms.

I don't think this is correct.

[Thomas]

the MM site recommends that SVO owners use the SN-95 MM control arms to keep the same track width. If this is wrong please correct me.

Taken from MM's site:
Maximum Motorsports Front Control Arms, designed for an SN95 Mustang, can be installed on a 1984-86 SVO Mustang. This will require the installation of a coil-over conversion kit.
Installing the stock geometry MM Front Control Arms (MMFCA-7 or MMFCA-8) will retain the original track width and wheelbase of the SVO Mustang.


-Thomas

[d brune]

Read this whole thread as there is some really good tech and measurements in there that will answer some of your questions:

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30274

Darren

[Goodson]

The SVO's used the early 80's continental front LCA's. The only thing they did was add track width to the front of the SVO. They're not the best performance piece as they are a little heavier than the stamped steel Fox versions.

There's a picture of one here in this thread.

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...-arm-ball.html

[Jack Hidley]

A few quick comments.

T-Bird SC, SVO and all SN95 FCAs have the same ball joint location relative to the inner bushing location. They have slightly different swaybar mounting hole locations. The "width" is about 14".

All Fox (79-93) FCAs have identical geometry (except of course the SVO FCA). The "width" is about 12.75".

The FCA mounting holes in the k-member have been moved around by Ford a lot over the years. Both in and out as well as up and down. On the SVO, the holes were moved inboard significantly to allow the "wider" FCAs to be used. The same is true of the SN95 k-members, the holes were moved inboard.