Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
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 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,518 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
412 Posts
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,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,722 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,614 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
898 Posts
Discussion Starter #20 (Edited)
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.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top