Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've been running a griggs k-member for nearly 8 years now. About 1.5 yrs ago i had to send my k-member back for servicing under their warranty. At the time I got a deal from them on new 94-95 a-arms. The old ones needed to be resprayed and I wanted to install new ball joints. They offered me new/show room a-arms for only $50 bucks more than what i'd pay to respray and get new ball joints for the old ones. Anyways when I installed these new a-arms I could not get the camber to be greater than about -2.2 deg. I called griggs and they said i had the proper length arms. But I still can't get a good street camber. I used to get -1.6 deg regularly. The k-member fits fine and is square, the strut tower brace fits as well. The only thing I can see is at the base of the strut towers there is some rotting of the steel frame rails. But I had this when i would run -1.6 deg camber.

I want to run -1.0->-1.5 deg of camber on the street. I tried cam bolts but I found that the struts interfered with the spindle and I couldn't get anything close I what I wanted. Plus I was getting steering wheel shakes in corners, so i stopped using them. I've seen the website MM has on mustang spindles...it's informative but it doesn't mention anything about kingpin inclination.

Griggs are hard to get to these days for questions. When i call or email them no one seems to be around. I guess their recent move has got them on the back foot.

Can anyone tell me if 96+ spindles will give me the street camber I want to run as well as good track camber.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,657 Posts
The 96+ spindles won't have any significant effect on camber compared to the 94-95's
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,203 Posts
It seems to me that the old 94/95 FCAs must not be the same length as the new 94/95 FCAs. This of course assumes that nothing else was changed in the suspension.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
It seems to me that the old 94/95 FCAs must not be the same length as the new 94/95 FCAs. This of course assumes that nothing else was changed in the suspension.
Yeah no nothing else changed. Like I said I called them up 'cause I thought they were longer and I measured them while I had griggs on the line. They confirmed the measured length to be correct with me. I can't help but think they are longer however.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top