MM k-member fitment - Ford Mustang Forums : Corral.net Mustang Forum
 2Likes
  • 1 Post By TomV
  • 1 Post By Jack Hidley
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 20 Old 12-10-2017, 05:01 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Hammer Down's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Highland Mi
Posts: 184
MM k-member fitment

I'm pulling my existing k-member this week and have decided to go with the Maximum Motorsports setup. I'm wondering how much front fender mods will I
Need to do with the 3/4" vs the 1-1/2" forward offset control arms. I don't mind working on the inner fender well and the front lower fascia but I'm Worried I'll have to roll the fender lip. I don't want to mess up my shiny black paint. Thanks

Hammer Down is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 20 Old 12-11-2017, 02:43 AM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
The amount the front wheels are moved forward has nothing to do with rolling the fender lips. Rolling the fender lips is a function of wheel and tire width as well as the amount of camber in the alignment.

If you PM me your full name and e-mail address, I can send you the modification instructions for the fender extensions.


Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is online now  
post #3 of 20 Old 12-11-2017, 12:39 PM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Hammer Down's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Highland Mi
Posts: 184
Thanks, I sent you a pm. I'm running 17x8.5 now with 255/40/70 and I had a little rubbing on the front lower plastic fascia piece. But those wheels are gone and I'm moving to 17x9 and would like to run 275/40/17.
Hammer Down is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 20 Old 12-11-2017, 01:18 PM
Registered User
 
Oldbutnew's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (6)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southeast Michigan
Posts: 514
Garage
I have the MM K member with the "Zero" arms. 17 x 8 wheels with 35mm offset, 245/40 tires.
I trimmed about 3/4" off the inside flange of the extensions. They only touched on turn / jounce like entering or exiting parking lots.

'88 LX hatch. Mild 331. Full MM suspension minus the Torque Arm, Cobra Brakes. Not as slow as it used to be.
Oldbutnew is offline  
post #5 of 20 Old 12-12-2017, 08:03 AM Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Hammer Down's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Highland Mi
Posts: 184
Spring rate/dampeners

I'll go with the 3/4" setup. I've already trimmed the fender extension to
Clear the 255's anyway.

As far as springs/dampeners, I'm thinking 425lb coilovers with MM2 struts or bilsteins. Does this sound good for a mostly(90%) track car? I will keep it street legal to drive to the track but it's only 10 miles away. (1985GT Hatch)
Hammer Down is offline  
post #6 of 20 Old 01-28-2018, 01:47 PM
Registered User
 
qtrracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,348
On my '86, I had to cut the fender in an arc from the body trim down with about 1" at the bottom. Plastic trim would not fit unless I cut an inch out or used the 91-93 LX pieces. I also run the "zero" off-set arms and about -2* camber. With 17x8 et-36 with 255/40s and no fender rolling, I had no fender rubbing at the peak, at the inner or at the cut. However, when I mounted up my 95 Cobra Rs (17x9 et-26 with 255/45s), those rubbed the fender at the peak. I was already running a lot of negative camber so unless I wanted to run more or raise the car (then at 25-3/8" ground to lip), I'd need to roll the fenders. I ran more camber and raised it to about 25.5". That worked for my needs.

Keep in mind that the earlier fenders are longer at the extension area - about an inch or so - over the 91-93 fenders. So if you have an earlier model you need to compensate.
qtrracer is offline  
post #7 of 20 Old 01-28-2018, 05:49 PM
Registered User
 
Striker01's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North America
Posts: 944
Does the same modifications apply for a 90í car as well as the 86ís?

My car would have the wheel moved 3/4Ē forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Striker01 is offline  
post #8 of 20 Old 01-28-2018, 08:06 PM
Registered User
 
qtrracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Striker01 View Post
Does the same modifications apply for a 90í car as well as the 86ís?

My car would have the wheel moved 3/4Ē forward
IIRC, the 91-93 fenders have the larger radiused fender at the extension. This was Ford's way to fit the 16" "Star" wheels. The earlier cars had about 1" more metal at that position. When you move the axle centerline forward 3/4", there generally isn't enough room to clear the larger 17" wheel/tire packages. So, you cut off that part of the fender extension to match the later fender design.

The problem is the extension trim. On the 86, it is a stand-off piece so if you just trim off 1" at the cut end there is an open gap between the metal and the trim piece. So the piece needs to be sectioned in the middle and put back together, or one can try to fit the 91-93 LX extension.
qtrracer is offline  
post #9 of 20 Old 01-28-2018, 10:15 PM
Registered User
 
Striker01's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North America
Posts: 944
I have the wheel liners off on the front now for some other work so Iíll take a look.

Iím still debating on going the k member route. A different subject all together but Iíve heard mixed reviews from all the reading. Some say the OEM piece is the strongest. Albeit the heaviest. But strength wise itís hard to compete with. So Iím not sure.

Car is a street car only with a lot of MM stuff already on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Striker01 is offline  
post #10 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 07:32 AM
Registered User
 
TomV's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: N. Ridgeville, OH
Posts: 453
For a 87-90 GT "street" car I would recommend the reverse offset. I tried the zero offsets, but ended up selling them. I already had slightly stretched fenders and it was going to require more than I was comfortable with. Plus it didn't look right to me. Typically I like the look of the extended wheelbase. On an LX or a 91-93 yes, but not with the smaller fender opening I have. Here's a 3/4" forward pic.



Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_4267.jpg (66.1 KB, 92 views)
Striker01 likes this.

1989 Mustang GT
TomV is offline  
post #11 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 08:32 AM
Registered User
 
qtrracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Striker01 View Post
Iím still debating on going the k member route. A different subject all together but Iíve heard mixed reviews from all the reading. Some say the OEM piece is the strongest. Albeit the heaviest. But strength wise itís hard to compete with. So Iím not sure.
The MM K is not the lightest piece available. It was designed with frontal and off-center collisions in mind (mostly track type). It is a beefy piece. If street safety is your concern, I wouldn't worry about the MM K. Those other Ks designed for drag racing maybe so. I've never had squeaks or rattles from this suspension during the more than two years of street and track driving before it was taken off the street for the resto-mod. As for the axle centerline move, the 90 and earlier LX trim is pretty easy to deal with; not so much the GT trim. After market sells both 91-93 LX/GT trim now so take advantage of the improved geometry if you go the MM K.
qtrracer is offline  
post #12 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 08:32 AM
Registered User
 
Striker01's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North America
Posts: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomV View Post
For a 87-90 GT "street" car I would recommend the reverse offset. I tried the zero offsets, but ended up selling them. I already had slightly stretched fenders and it was going to require more than I was comfortable with. Plus it didn't look right to me. Typically I like the look of the extended wheelbase. On an LX or a 91-93 yes, but not with the smaller fender opening I have. Here's a 3/4" forward pic.





That definitely does not look right! I guess Iíll be selling mine if it comes down to me buying a K member. At the time I never even thought I would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Striker01 is offline  
post #13 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 01:10 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
It's not as bad looking when your nose isn't 2' from the front tire. The attached photo is of a 1987 GT with the front wheels moved forwards 0.75". When driving the car, you can't see the forward position, but you can damn well feel it!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg IMG_2956.jpg (81.0 KB, 33 views)

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is online now  
post #14 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 01:12 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
Also you can't install 1991-93 fender extensions onto pre 1991 fenders without doing some modifications to the fenders. The mounting holes are in a different location on the fenders and you will have to cut some metal on the fenders, but this will all be hidden underneath the fender extension and/or fender liner.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is online now  
post #15 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 01:40 PM
Registered User
 
qtrracer's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (34)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
Also you can't install 1991-93 fender extensions onto pre 1991 fenders without doing some modifications to the fenders. The mounting holes are in a different location on the fenders and you will have to cut some metal on the fenders, but this will all be hidden underneath the fender extension and/or fender liner.
Agreed. But since the earlier fenders have to be cut to allow enough clearance, the mod takes out one stock mounting hole. Fitting the later LX extension trim is easy. I tried that on my 86 but the trim design is different (doesn't flow into the bumper). Rather than live with a mismatch, I had the '86 trim sectioned and put back together; new holes were drilled. Came out nice.
qtrracer is offline  
post #16 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 02:10 PM
Registered User
 
Striker01's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North America
Posts: 944
Jack-

In terms of pure strength and sturdiness- what one comes up on top: MM K-Member or the OEM piece?

I have a lot of your components on my street driven coupe. A arms and coil overs. The STB and front sway bar, to name just a few. The natural step up would be to do the K member. But Iím wondering if itís sturdier then the OEM piece. Or do I get your four point brace and call it a day?

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Striker01 is offline  
post #17 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 02:39 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
With the rear brace installed, the MM k-member is stiffer than a stock k-member in the directions that you care about. Cornering and braking.

The only way that it is weaker is in the area of engine mount pads. We had a car roll at about 75mph. Afterwards the engine mount pads were somewhat bent out of shape. Look at the video of Ed Hunters AI car crash below. The car went sideways into a tire wall at more than 60mph. Other than the engine mount pads, there was only minimal damage to the k-member. One of the tubes that the engine mount pad attaches to was slightly bent due to the forces from the engine moving sideways at 60mph.

Video link.


We've never seen a failure of an MM k-member.

There are several geometry improvements compared to the stock k-member. If you take the stock k-member and add a rear brace to it, you do not end up with an MM k-member as none of the geometry is fixed.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is online now  
post #18 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 02:48 PM
Registered User
 
Striker01's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North America
Posts: 944
MM k-member fitment

Appreciate that info as always Jack.

Iíll continue to purchase your products without question. Itís crazy to me however, that even WITH the 4-point brace on OEM K-member; the tubular piece is still stiffer.
Striker01 is offline  
post #19 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 03:00 PM
Registered User
 
Jack Hidley's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Danville, CA USA
Posts: 2,976
"even WITH the 4-point brace on OEM K-member; the tubular piece is still stiffer"

I didn't say that. It is definitely not true.

The list of parts below MUST be used with the MM k-member.


Tubular front control arms
Front coil-over conversion with high-performance struts
MM Aluminum Steering Rack Bushings
Caster camber plates
Bolt-through-style bumpsteer kit
Short swaybar endlinks
Front swaybar relocation brackets required with non-offset and forward-offset Front Control Arms
Striker01 likes this.

Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
Jack Hidley is online now  
post #20 of 20 Old 01-29-2018, 03:31 PM
Registered User
 
Striker01's Avatar
 
Trader Feedback: (0)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North America
Posts: 944
MM k-member fitment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hidley View Post
"even WITH the 4-point brace on OEM K-member; the tubular piece is still stiffer"



I didn't say that. It is definitely not true.



The list of parts below MUST be used with the MM k-member.





Tubular front control arms

Front coil-over conversion with high-performance struts

MM Aluminum Steering Rack Bushings

Caster camber plates

Bolt-through-style bumpsteer kit

Short swaybar endlinks

Front swaybar relocation brackets required with non-offset and forward-offset Front Control Arms


Thanks for clarifying the first bit for me; I must have read it wrong. In this case tho, for my application I may end up keeping the stocker and throwing in the four point brace.

On a side note- my car was completely transformed with your coil over kit this past summer. Would never ever go back to OEM location spring/strut


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Striker01 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
On3 351w downpipe fitment with PA bellhousing, qa1 k member richstang75 Turbochargers 1 05-23-2017 05:56 PM
Has anyone else had problems with UPR k member fitment blown91stang General Mustang Tech 0 06-06-2016 05:45 PM
Stiffler's Fox trans crossmember install....pics inside FiveLiterFox General Mustang Tech 10 07-31-2013 05:39 PM
k member H pipe fitment please help ccgt03 SVT & DOHC 1 08-01-2012 06:52 PM
Concept Supercharger almost to prototype / production stage justmjc Superchargers 9 07-10-2002 01:57 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