Question on SN95 control arms - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 14 Old 02-05-2011, 04:41 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 855
Question on SN95 control arms

Okay, so my car currently has an (admittedly) odd sort of setup. Here's the car as it sits right now:

93 GT Hatch
Stock engine (for the most part)
Stock trans

Front:
Stock Fox control arms
95 GT spindles and single piston brakes
03 Cobra COUPE Bilstein struts
Maximum Motorsports C/C plates
Eibach front swaybar

Rear:
03 Cobra IRS
Stock Cobra rear brakes
03 Cobra COUPE struts
Aluminum driveshaft

The car is currently setup the way it is because I ran out of money to do what I wanted at the time (coilovers, subframes, etc) due to having to replace a radiator and a few other odds and ends. I threw the eibach swaybar on the front as a "band-aid" to help make the car a bit more predictable, as it was really unbalanced (rear was WAY stiff, front was soft). It was added to keep the snap-oversteer under control.

Anyway, I've started co-oping again, and I want to update the front suspension a bit to match the rear. I plan on ordering MM's full chassis stiffening kit next friday (should have done that a LONG time ago).

Now that some background info is out of the way, my question is about putting MM's SN95 tubular A-arms on my car. If you didn't know, the IRS adds about 1.5" of track width PER SIDE to the rear of the car over stock. So, my car currently has a rear end that is significantly wider than the front. I'd like to match the front track width with the rear if possible. To do that requires SN95 arms.

So, If I throw SN95 arms on the front, the track width grows about 1.33" per side. Now my track width matches front and rear. The issues that arise now are 1) The length of the outer tie rods and 2) the fender/tire clearances.

The first problem can be solved by a bumpsteer kit from MM. Okay, easy.

The second, I'm a bit unsure of. I WANT to run 17x9s on all 4 corners of my car. To fit them on the rear, I can run something like a +45mm offset rim and it SHOULD clear. The super-high offset will help bring the rim back under the car from the increased track width. In my head, I can't see why using the same high offset wouldn't work on the front. The track widths would be almost identical.

Only issues I see might be some rubbing on the arm at full lock. Has anyone run anything like this before without major rubbing issues? I wouldn't mind rolling the front fenders, but I'd rather not have to stretch metal.


1993 Mustang GT - Sloppy Horse - SOLD

1994 Mustang GT - Dedicated Racear - Full MM catalog with 03 Cobra IRS - Codename: Rigid horse
93twotonegt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 Old 02-05-2011, 05:57 PM
Registered User
 
Apocolipse's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bulrington, Ontario
Posts: 289
wow with that amount of front widening you are definitely going to need to stretch out those fenders!!

Why not run the arms you have now with a different offset rim to equal the rear track? Would be cheaper and easier in the long run.

Also how are you tucking the wheels in the back with the axles out that much further? Going to need some crazy offset rims for that too.

When you figure it out and try it post it up, i just dont see it happening without having way offset rims. They just wont fit under a fox.

Apocolipse is offline  
post #3 of 14 Old 02-05-2011, 06:44 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocolipse View Post
wow with that amount of front widening you are definitely going to need to stretch out those fenders!!

Why not run the arms you have now with a different offset rim to equal the rear track? Would be cheaper and easier in the long run.

Also how are you tucking the wheels in the back with the axles out that much further? Going to need some crazy offset rims for that too.

When you figure it out and try it post it up, i just dont see it happening without having way offset rims. They just wont fit under a fox.
I'd prefer to have all 4 rims to be the same so I could rotate the tires correctly and not have to worry about buying 2 different sets of rims with such huge offset differences. It's hard enough to find a 17x9 with the correct offset (RX8 rims and Miata rims fit though). I could go 17x8 (want a 245 tire minimum), but 17x9 would be ideal.

As of right now, I have NOT rolled the rear fenders. The car is sitting on 16x7 stock GT rims with stock size 225/55-16 tires. Right now, the rear tires are about an inch (possibly more) wider than the front. At one point, I measured the offset of these rims, but I no longer have the paper I wrote that down on. If the weather is nice tomorrow, I might try to take my car to a parking lot and measure the backspacing. I don't have my tape measure with me, but I can cut a piece of cardboard to match the depth and measure it when I get to work on Monday.

Here's a pic of how the car sits right now:

"Sight" down the door molding and you'll see the difference
The way I see it, I could easily add an additional inch (once again, possibly more) to the front tires and still clear the fender as the car sits now.



Here's how the tires are on the fenders now:


1993 Mustang GT - Sloppy Horse - SOLD

1994 Mustang GT - Dedicated Racear - Full MM catalog with 03 Cobra IRS - Codename: Rigid horse

Last edited by 93twotonegt; 02-05-2011 at 06:46 PM.
93twotonegt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 14 Old 02-05-2011, 08:02 PM
Registered User
 
Apocolipse's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bulrington, Ontario
Posts: 289
I completely agree with you.

What I am saying is with the new rims plus the arms its going to be too much.

I am running sn95 axles in the back which puts them out 3/4" each side, then sn95 arms in the front with a narrow 4cyl kmember (kmember mounts the arms 0.5" inwards each side plus the 1.25" sn95 arms = 0.75" total extra width in the front)

So my setup is equal ride width front and rear which is what youu want to do.

Now I am running stock 8" wide rims from a sn95 and they justttttt fit under the fender.

If I did not roll the front of rear they would hit.

Only running 235 tires as well.

So this is why I say you will hit with the extra 0.5" more width then I have. Plus larger rims and larger tires.
Apocolipse is offline  
post #5 of 14 Old 02-06-2011, 02:37 AM
Registered User
 
aurdraco's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,614
Get the 36mm offset 17*9 cobra knock offs cheap via Discount Tires. I use them with 275s for HPDE and auto-x, no problems. '92 notch, v8 K-member, sn95 FCAs with 94-95 spindles, SN95 rear axles, rolled fender lips, no front fender liners, no rear quad shocks, PHB and short torque arm. I always recommend test fitting before buying.

Oh, on the street I run 17*8 99 GT wheels with 255s or 275s, no clearance issues at all.
aurdraco is offline  
post #6 of 14 Old 02-06-2011, 10:43 AM
Registered User
 
Apocolipse's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bulrington, Ontario
Posts: 289
What's your ride height at? ^
Apocolipse is offline  
post #7 of 14 Old 02-06-2011, 03:27 PM
Registered User
 
aurdraco's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,614
I don't have it measured, but basically my front is set so that the FCAs are parallel to the ground (I have coil-overs) and the rear is probably a touch higher (waiting to buy rear coil overs or the height-adjustable rear LCAs to fix that since I don't feel like cutting any of the dead coils off my torque arm springs), although it may not look like it in these pictures due to the way my buddy's yard was shaped.

Here's two pics of the car wearing the 17*9s and 275 R compounds.




Here's a pic of the car with the GT wheels on it.
aurdraco is offline  
post #8 of 14 Old 02-06-2011, 08:20 PM
Registered User
 
white93pony71's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (23)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Aubrey, Texas
Posts: 709
What about using wheels from an 05+ mustang? they have a deeper off set that could possibly fix your problem.
white93pony71 is offline  
post #9 of 14 Old 02-07-2011, 07:29 AM
Registered User
 
huesmann's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: DC burbs, MD side
Posts: 6,894
Isn't the '86 K-member narrower than '87-93? Could you use that?
huesmann is offline  
post #10 of 14 Old 02-07-2011, 05:01 PM
Registered User
 
Apocolipse's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bulrington, Ontario
Posts: 289
Yes the 86 or 4cyl k-members are 0.5" narrower on each side. That is what I used.

Apocolipse is offline  
post #11 of 14 Old 02-07-2011, 06:34 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 855
I'd like to not have to swap k-members. I'm still on the fence about a MM K-member. I want one, but they're a significant item. I don't think I have the correct area to install one either. There's a guy here I work with who's gonna help me, but I don't think he's got a good, level area to install the thing on.

As for the SN197 rims, yeah, I'm looking at them. Only issue is that I'm limited on style and size. I'd rather not have to step up to 18s if I don't have to. I think they look a tad large on these cars. But yeah, the SN197 backspacing is what I'm asking about. The high backspacing (6" or more) is what I think I need to fit 17x9s, but I'm unsure if anyone has done it.

Aurdraco:
That car looks pretty good. A few questions:

You say you have a V8 k-member, is the K-member you're using identical to the one on my 93?

I'm assuming that with the 36mm offset, your backspacing is something like 6.4"?

Do you have any rubbing issues on the front with 17x9 rims? It looks like it would ride fine in a straight line, but how about turning at full lock (aka: parking)?

You say SN95 axles, however you don't specify which ones. Are they the ones that are .75" longer (94-98 cars) or the ones that are 1.5" longer (99-04)?

Any shots "sighting" down the side of the car from the front and back? I'm interested to see how the wheels sit in relation to the edges of the fenders.

Any more shots of the 17x8s? How does the 255/275 tire look on the 8" rim?

Thanks!

1993 Mustang GT - Sloppy Horse - SOLD

1994 Mustang GT - Dedicated Racear - Full MM catalog with 03 Cobra IRS - Codename: Rigid horse
93twotonegt is offline  
post #12 of 14 Old 02-09-2011, 10:32 PM
Registered User
 
aurdraco's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 93twotonegt View Post
Aurdraco:
That car looks pretty good. A few questions:

You say you have a V8 k-member, is the K-member you're using identical to the one on my 93?
Thanks! It's taken a lot of abuse over the years. Hope it survives the Boston winter!

Yup, it's the stock '92 v8 k-member, identical to the '93 v8 unit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93twotonegt View Post
I'm assuming that with the 36mm offset, your backspacing is something like 6.4"?
6.42" to be exact, iirc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93twotonegt View Post
Do you have any rubbing issues on the front with 17x9 rims? It looks like it would ride fine in a straight line, but how about turning at full lock (aka: parking)?
I did, on the front inner fender liners at full lock. Solution? Remove the inner fender liners . I used some stuff to block the door jamb gap (to keep rocks and dirt out), works like a charm ALTHOUGH I should note that I think I got a reverse-hail dent from the tire launching a rock UP into the underside of the top of the fender. I need to add some sort of padding up there (probably the same stuff I used to block the door jamp). I rolled the fender lips as well, which is necessary with wheels and tires this big. I haven't had any issues with the wheels hitting the control arms, afaik. Also, in that pic, it was probably suffering from a lack of negative camber.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93twotonegt View Post
You say SN95 axles, however you don't specify which ones. Are they the ones that are .75" longer (94-98 cars) or the ones that are 1.5" longer (99-04)?
.75", they are from a '98 Cobra.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93twotonegt View Post
Any shots "sighting" down the side of the car from the front and back? I'm interested to see how the wheels sit in relation to the edges of the fenders.
I took some last year when the car had 17*10.5s with 315s on the rear and the 17*9s with 275s on the front, but I can't find them. It looked pretty silly in the rear, the 315s were WAY too big. Once spring is here, remind me to take some pics of the 275s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 93twotonegt View Post
Any more shots of the 17x8s? How does the 255/275 tire look on the 8" rim?
No photos, unfortunately. 255s, imo, look great because 245s look puny. 275s are definitely a bit too large but nothing noticeable from more than 10 feet away, imo. I have the 275s either because they were cheap or because I had them lying around. If I were doing the 17*8s right, I'd stick with the 255s.

Casey
aurdraco is offline  
post #13 of 14 Old 02-17-2011, 05:01 PM
Registered User
 
qtrracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,353
On my 86, I'm using 04 Mach 1 a-arms with a stock k (the .5" narrower pickups) and 96 cobra 17x8" running 245/45/17s. Ride height is 25.5" ground to lip. Outside of tire is even with the fender lip on the D/S, a little further out on the P/S. Camber is -1.4* As measured, the track in front is about .75" per side wider than a stock 87+ v8 car with the wider k member. Clearance is an issue during aggressive braking and on some corners (the tire kisses the fender); there are no fender mods. At full lock, the tire might touch the fender extension but not the a-arm. With my backspacing, there is maybe two fingers clearance at the C/O with 10" springs. There is no way I can run a longer spring. I can't get the a-arms parallel with the ground; the arms are parallel with the tie-rods. If I were to run a wider wheel/tire combo, or a wider k-member with these arms (or sn95 tube arms), especially with off-set geometry, significant fender mods would be required and beyond the scope of a primarily driven street car, IMO.

Last edited by qtrracer; 02-17-2011 at 05:03 PM.
qtrracer is offline  
post #14 of 14 Old 02-21-2011, 11:09 AM
Registered User
 
Apocolipse's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Bulrington, Ontario
Posts: 289
Can you not run parallel due to running out of travel on the struts?
Apocolipse is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale Wolfe Racecraft Upper and Lower Control Arms xcoldricex Suspension 3 01-02-2011 07:15 PM
Front Control Arms Question huesmann SVT & DOHC 0 12-21-2010 07:59 AM
Proposed Modular Shootout Renegade rules (very long!) Modular Performance GT & SOHC 30 12-19-2001 07:30 PM
Mod Shootout racers heres your chance to be heard Dave King GT & SOHC 237 12-19-2001 09:53 AM
Rear Control Arms SNAKE97 5.0/5.8 Engine Tech 2 12-12-2001 12:34 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome