Best stock components for a Fox body road racer - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 02:42 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (90)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: b'ham,al
Posts: 878
Best stock components for a Fox body road racer

Without "trick parting" myself out of the ball park,what would be the best combo of stock Ford front crossmember,lower arms, strut mounts, steering rack etc.? Trying to build a low-dollar track day car to beat up on the Porsche and BMW guys. I'm seriously considering a 2 door fairmont "box" body. What are the negatives of using this body VS a Mustang? Anybody done a cheap roadracer and if so what did you use? Any and all suggestions are appreciated. Dale

BOBBYA312 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 03:07 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 412
Front:
1. 94+ front lower A-arms and 94+ spindles
2. Camber plates
3. 4-cyl front sway bar with rubber frame bushings

Rear:
1. MM std. lowers with 3-pc bushings
2. FMS HD uppers
3. MM Panhard bar
4. No rear sway bar

Other:
1. Konis or Bilsteins
2. Stock cross-member modified per Mathis' Mustang Performance Handbook 2
3. '93 Cobra R rack

This is an easy, cheap, and pretty forgiving combo to make the rear end offer traction and the front grip some.

Good luck.


Wishing everyone peace, love, and the perfect apex . . . everytime.
89FirehawkGT is offline  
post #3 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 03:13 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (90)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: b'ham,al
Posts: 878
I'm new to the Mustangs and have heard of the Mathis book but never seen one. The only one I've seen was on e-bay at over $100.00. Specific measurements to relocate the lower arms and ?
BOBBYA312 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 04:02 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by 89FirehawkGT View Post
Front:
1. 94+ front lower A-arms and 94+ spindles
2. Camber plates
3. 4-cyl front sway bar with rubber frame bushings

Rear:
1. MM std. lowers with 3-pc bushings
2. FMS HD uppers
3. MM Panhard bar
4. No rear sway bar

Other:
1. Konis or Bilsteins
2. Stock cross-member modified per Mathis' Mustang Performance Handbook 2


This is an easy, cheap, and pretty forgiving combo to make the rear end offer traction and the front grip some.

Good luck.
Updated, I am getting old.

3. 99-04 rack
4. MM solid steering shaft-Fox w/SN rack
5. New pump

Wishing everyone peace, love, and the perfect apex . . . everytime.
89FirehawkGT is offline  
post #5 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 04:18 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: GTA
Posts: 156
whats this cross member modification???
johnny2.3 is offline  
post #6 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 05:17 PM
Registered User
 
87Fox5.0's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Coast, USA
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny2.3 View Post
whats this cross member modification???
Read all about it here:

https://forums.corral.net/forums/road...mber-94-a.html

You basically move the front control arm pickup points up (vertically) about 2". This improves the camber curve and changes the roll center.

Better have some fabrication skillz if you choose to go this route.

'87 Fox C-Prepared Mustang
2013, 2015 Pacific NW Regional Champ
Car has trophied at 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 SCCA Nationals
Zero scrub SLA front end
87Fox5.0 is offline  
post #7 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 05:51 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (90)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: b'ham,al
Posts: 878
What about springs? Any cars from the factory with what we need? Thanks for the other info. I found both Mathis books in the classifieds and bought em right. I understand that they are old tech and will have to take everything with a grain of salt but should probably have some good ideas.
BOBBYA312 is offline  
post #8 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 07:20 PM
Registered User
 
sivnalem's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 114
For stock K-members I would do (and am doing ) the narrower K-member (86 and earlier) with SN95 length LCA's. Mathis mods would be a great move.

Bullitt/Mach 1/Cobra Springs Would be about the stiffest stock springs. They probably aren't enough but would be a good start if you could get them used and cheap. May have to cut them a little to get the ride height you want.

Neal
-86 coupe project sitting in my garage on a 5 lug conversion.. and the motor is in.. and it runs
-newspeak SUCKS
sivnalem is offline  
post #9 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 07:38 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (90)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: b'ham,al
Posts: 878
Any idea how much negative camber that will give? I'm still thinking about the Fairmont body,just haven't pulled the trigger. Seems like the inner strut mounts are closer together than a Mustang. If thats the case is there enough adjust- ment in a set of MM plates to get it back to something reasonable camber wise? Would early Fox application plates fit the F'mont. Dale
BOBBYA312 is offline  
post #10 of 26 Old 06-27-2011, 11:58 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 529
The Fairmont chassis and the Mustang are the same. Only the wheel base is different. The front track or width of the front wheels was determined by the length of the LCA's and the offset of the wheels used. In the rear the length of the axle's and the offset of the wheels determined the rear track.

A Fairmont would be cool but of course not as aero as a Mustang. Weight of the two would be close all other things being equal. A 2dr Fairmont vrs a Mustang for instance.

The coolest would be a 4dr Fairmont with flares and 99-2004 Mustang track width and tires & wheels to fill them.


"Drag racing is for those people who don't know how to down shift and brake at the same time. "
DD '12 VW Jetta TDI, Race car '87 ITA 16V Scriocco
Cars owned: '86 Mustang GT, '92 Mustang LX, '93 Mustang Cobra "R" #58
Jim Brozynski is offline  
post #11 of 26 Old 06-28-2011, 01:40 PM
Registered User
 
aurdraco's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 89FirehawkGT View Post
Front:
1. 94+ front lower A-arms and 94+ spindles

Rear:
2. FMS HD uppers
3. MM Panhard bar
Keep in mind that the 94-95 spindles are not the same as the 96+. Go with the 94-95 if you can.

Re: the rear UCAs, do NOT go with non-stock UCAs and a PHB. If you do a PHB, might as well do a PM3L. Cheap and way more effective than a pentabind (quadrabind + PHB) rear setup.
aurdraco is offline  
post #12 of 26 Old 06-28-2011, 03:09 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (90)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: b'ham,al
Posts: 878
Jim B- I thought there were some front crossmember width differences. I said earlier, I am new and don't claim to know. Other than for different engines (4-6-8), are the ft crossmembers the same? What about SN95?Is an SN95 wider than a fox? Because of the control arms or crossmember and control arms? What about steering rack widths? SN 95 wider than Fox? Tie rods? Has anybody done any real comparisions on rack feel/steering effort on the SN95 racks base vs Gt vs Cobra ? I know it's a lot of questions-anybody got real answers?
BOBBYA312 is offline  
post #13 of 26 Old 06-28-2011, 04:36 PM
Registered User
 
qtrracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOBBYA312 View Post
Jim B- I thought there were some front crossmember width differences. I said earlier, I am new and don't claim to know.
The 86 and earlier Mustang k-member has the a-arm pickups .5" further inboard per side than the later 88-93 v8 k-members (there is a question regarding the 87 and early 88 v8 k-members). With the earlier ks and the later sn95 a-arms, you gain about 1.25" per side more track width over stock (about .75" wider than the later v8 mustangs) and keep the wheel under the fenders on a mustang. On my car ther is some tire/fender clearance issues on the P/S but not the D/S at -1.5* camber using MM CC plates. I can go as much as -3* camber.
qtrracer is offline  
post #14 of 26 Old 06-28-2011, 11:26 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurdraco View Post
Keep in mind that the 94-95 spindles are not the same as the 96+. Go with the 94-95 if you can.

Re: the rear UCAs, do NOT go with non-stock UCAs and a PHB. If you do a PHB, might as well do a PM3L. Cheap and way more effective than a pentabind (quadrabind + PHB) rear setup.
FMS HD Uppers are stock on SSP Mustangs.

The setup works well for several cars in CMC and works well in mine. PM3L is not always the answer. A Z-link comes to mind as well.

I'd use the 96+ spindles myself, you get the twin pot brakes which hold up to 30 minute track sessions better than you'd expect,

Wishing everyone peace, love, and the perfect apex . . . everytime.

Last edited by 89FirehawkGT; 06-28-2011 at 11:30 PM.
89FirehawkGT is offline  
post #15 of 26 Old 06-29-2011, 12:39 PM
CSG
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (18)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sulphur, La.
Posts: 1,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by qtrracer View Post
The 86 and earlier Mustang k-member has the a-arm pickups .5" further inboard per side than the later 88-93 v8 k-members (there is a question regarding the 87 and early 88 v8 k-members). With the earlier ks and the later sn95 a-arms, you gain about 1.25" per side more track width over stock (about .75" wider than the later v8 mustangs) and keep the wheel under the fenders on a mustang. On my car ther is some tire/fender clearance issues on the P/S but not the D/S at -1.5* camber using MM CC plates. I can go as much as -3* camber.
I have verified a 87 4 cylinder k-member to be of the narrow version.
CSG is offline  
post #16 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 07:57 AM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: winston salem
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by 89FirehawkGT View Post
FMS HD Uppers are stock on SSP Mustangs.

The setup works well for several cars in CMC and works well in mine. PM3L is not always the answer. A Z-link comes to mind as well.

I'd use the 96+ spindles myself, you get the twin pot brakes which hold up to 30 minute track sessions better than you'd expect,
What is a Z link?

2003 Azure mach1 5 speed with IUP
Maximum Motorsports R&T Box with Torque Arm
2012 Candy Red Metalic Premium Brembo GT w/373
HPDE Instructor
j rick kirby is offline  
post #17 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 11:59 AM
Registered User
 
aurdraco's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (9)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by 89FirehawkGT View Post
The setup works well for several cars in CMC and works well in mine. PM3L is not always the answer. A Z-link comes to mind as well.

I'd use the 96+ spindles myself, you get the twin pot brakes which hold up to 30 minute track sessions better than you'd expect,
IME, the fast CMC/CMC2 cars run pseudo-PM3L (the UCA is there, but the bushing is foam), at least in the Texas region (Robert King can correct me on this if I am wrong). Those with pentabinds are not only sacrificing potentially faster lap times, their car's handling is far less predictable due to the rear roll centers fighting each other. So, yes, when going cheap, the PM3L is almost always the answer. There is pages of discussion on this topic over on corner-carvers. Buried in those threads is post after post affirming that if you run both UCAs, either with or without a PHB, you should NOT run UCAs with stiffer bushings. Stiffer bushings in the UCAs add bind to an already bound system.

What's a z-link?

I use the 98 cobra brakes with my 94-95 spindles, so I am not sure why you say you need 96+ spindles to run two piston calipers.

Last edited by aurdraco; 06-30-2011 at 12:02 PM.
aurdraco is offline  
post #18 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 12:02 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by j rick kirby View Post
What is a Z link?
Tossing the stock uppers altogether and using the quad-shock mounts (appropriately beefed up) as the new uppers. Use rod ends and AFCO swedged tubes.

Wishing everyone peace, love, and the perfect apex . . . everytime.
89FirehawkGT is offline  
post #19 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 12:33 PM
Registered User
 
thadude's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurdraco View Post


I use the 98 cobra brakes with my 94-95 spindles, so I am not sure why you say you need 96+ spindles to run two piston calipers.
I think he's talking about the standard GT/V6 brakes, '96 and up have twin piston pbr calipers. I hear they work pretty good and you can get em for significantly less $$$ than a Cobra set up

1993 Cobra #1282
thadude is offline  
post #20 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 01:31 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (90)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: b'ham,al
Posts: 878
I think most of us agree that the stock Ford bushings in both positions of the uppers is the way to go if you aren't using a 3 link. If you use the stock uppers, do you still need the quad shocks? Are they more to eliminate wheel hop on starts than to improve overall handling? Somebody please elaborate a little more on the homemade style 3 link. Maybe somebody with some exper- ience using a stock suspension and then changing over to the 3 link.

Last edited by BOBBYA312; 06-30-2011 at 01:31 PM. Reason: can"t speel
BOBBYA312 is offline  
post #21 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 03:06 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by thadude View Post
I think he's talking about the standard GT/V6 brakes, '96 and up have twin piston pbr calipers. I hear they work pretty good and you can get em for significantly less $$$ than a Cobra set up
Correct.

The pads are nowhere near as pricey.

Wishing everyone peace, love, and the perfect apex . . . everytime.
89FirehawkGT is offline  
post #22 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 03:10 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by aurdraco View Post
IME, the fast CMC/CMC2 cars run pseudo-PM3L (the UCA is there, but the bushing is foam), at least in the Texas region (Robert King can correct me on this if I am wrong). Those with pentabinds are not only sacrificing potentially faster lap times, their car's handling is far less predictable due to the rear roll centers fighting each other. So, yes, when going cheap, the PM3L is almost always the answer. There is pages of discussion on this topic over on corner-carvers. Buried in those threads is post after post affirming that if you run both UCAs, either with or without a PHB, you should NOT run UCAs with stiffer bushings. Stiffer bushings in the UCAs add bind to an already bound system.

What's a z-link?

I use the 98 cobra brakes with my 94-95 spindles, so I am not sure why you say you need 96+ spindles to run two piston calipers.
No idea what a pentabind is.

I know it works well in my application, as the roll center stays planted and the snap oversteer is gone.

Now you need to re-read what I said. I said FMS HD uppers with the stiffer upper bushings. I should have said stock uppers, my bad.

I think you are ASSuming I mean Delrin, poly, or rod-ends. Not the intent of what I was saying.

I explained the Z-link above.

The stock GT sized brakes work great when they are in race mode (braided lines, good fluid, good pads).

Wishing everyone peace, love, and the perfect apex . . . everytime.
89FirehawkGT is offline  
post #23 of 26 Old 06-30-2011, 09:15 PM
Registered User
 
qtrracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,353
The rear suspension on my 86 went from stock uppers and lowers and stock sta-bar, to MM standard, non-adjustable LCAs and FRPP uppers, to the MM PHB, then to a one-off rod ended PM3L, to MM height adjustable LCAs and finally an adjustable MM sta-bar. I pretty much ran Bilsteins after switching to the MM parts and when I went with the PM3L, upped the rear springs from "Cs" to H&R Super Race conventionals. By far, the biggest improvement in forward bite, axle articulation, and overall suspension stabilty/predictability was adding the PM3L. Now, this is not without it's own issues such as upper torque box fatigue, but so far I'm not pushing enough RWHP to make this a primary issue, but it could be a problem.

For a guy wanting to try a nearly bind free rear suspension without going with a T/A, try the PM3L. Of course, you'll need the PHB or Watts for lateral control, and running a PM3L using a FRPP or stock upper will put some tremendous loads on the bushings which will eventually fail. But as an experiment to see the difference before opting for the higher cost options, I'd advise giving it a shot especially if the PHB/Watts component is already part of the plan. Car handles competely different.
qtrracer is offline  
post #24 of 26 Old 07-01-2011, 02:55 PM
Registered User
 
Trader Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by 89FirehawkGT View Post
Tossing the stock uppers altogether and using the quad-shock mounts (appropriately beefed up) as the new uppers. Use rod ends and AFCO swedged tubes.
How successful is this? I only know of one racer who did this and his car was not fast, but i think it was more related to the driver & engine and not the rear suspension and how well it worked or didn't work.

I know that the upper links will be pushed backward and not pulled like the upper link in a 3 link. How does this effect traction?

"Drag racing is for those people who don't know how to down shift and brake at the same time. "
DD '12 VW Jetta TDI, Race car '87 ITA 16V Scriocco
Cars owned: '86 Mustang GT, '92 Mustang LX, '93 Mustang Cobra "R" #58
Jim Brozynski is offline  
post #25 of 26 Old 07-01-2011, 08:34 PM
US Army Active Duty
 
SVTCobra347's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Massena, Iowa
Posts: 2,433
Some cheapo tips:

Newer A arms (definitely 01-04, possibly 99-04) have the same stamping as a Termi A Arm so you can turn more without rubbing the arms..

SN95 Cobras and possibly all new edges had the same as FRPP UCA's on them from the factory.

99-04 GT's and possibly V-6's had the aluminum twin piston PBR calipers, just on the smaller rotors like the 94-98 GT's. 96-98 GT had the same iron ones as the 94-95 GT. They can be had very cheap, sometimes free. They are larger but lighter than the cast iron single-pots they replace The only thing to watch is banjo bolt thread pitch.. somewhere around early '01 they changed from fine to coarse thread. IMO just get lines when you get calipers They fit 94-04 spindles.
SVTCobra347 is offline  
post #26 of 26 Old 07-13-2011, 12:39 AM
Registered User
 
Gustav129's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 351
Thanks for the great info. I'm starting a similar build, and was looking for something like this.
Gustav129 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 Stock fox parts and explorer tb mdbstang Windsor Engine Parts 2 06-10-2011 10:06 AM
Headliner for Fox Body Convertible-Does it quiet down the Road Noise Kool85Vert General Mustang Tech 1 01-05-2002 08:30 PM
Mod Shootout EFI Renegade rules Dave King GT & SOHC 3 12-20-2001 03:46 PM
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

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