Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I'm in the middle of installing a Maximum Motorsports K-member in my car. After bolting in the new K-member, I checked the front to rear and diagonal distances per the directions and amazingly only had to adjust the right side forward about 1/8". After that, the measurements were spot on. I was expecting to have to move the K-member around quite a bit to get it straight, but I suppose the engine mounts will kinda put it close where it needs to be right off the bat.

Anyway, once I re-measured and torqued the bolts, I noticed that the flange of the K-member that sits flat against the "frame rail" where the spring pocket used to be protrudes out about 1/4" further on the driver's side than the passenger side. Does this sound plausible? I know this is a mass produced 1980s American car, so it shouldn't be surprising that things aren't completely even on both sides, but now I'm worried about tire clearance on the left. Things are already going to be tight since I now have a wider '87+ spec K-member and '96+ spindles compared to the '85 K-member and '94 spindles I was using before. I'm already reconsidering my decision to purchase SN95 arms instead of Fox length.

Does anyone who has this K on their car have the same issue? I'm confident in my measurements, but if I did get it slightly wrong, is it something that would be detected once I get a front end alignment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,519 Posts
My factory k on the 86 favors the P/S by +/- .5". The car has never been in an accident and tracks absolutely straight with no odd tire wear issues. This "off-set" was not noticable until I put on 04 a-arms, 94/95 spindles and 17x8 wheels which increased my front track 2.5" over stock 86 and about 1.5" over 87-93 v8 cars. At 25-1/8" ground to lip and -2* camber, the P/S tire hits the fender hard in a typical autocross driving class. So hard that the cone tenders reported smoke coming off that tire in tight left handers. On the street, I didn't notice anything except over the occasional bump. Of course, I heard the noise but didn't see the smoke. Even so, tire damage was minimal and limited to the tread shoulder. With the MM K and Fox-length a-arms, even if there is a slight bias to one side the total front track should be +/- 1" narrower than mine is currently. So unless you are running 9" wheels and wider tires than say a 245, I'm not at all certain you will have a clearance problem or even notice such a small bias, so long as everything is square. Even mine is hard to see at rest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
Thanks for the feedback. Tire clearance is a big issue for me because I don't have the luxury of big wheel openings like you.



My tires have to tuck up inside the fenders quite a bit. I actually switched to '05+ 17X8 wheels to gain more offset for a better fit. Previously I was running the '85 K-member with '94 control arms and spindles. According to Jack Hidley, the MM K, with MM SN95 arms will push things out .30" per side, and the '96 spindles push things out about .35" further, so in total the front end will be about .60"-.70" wider than before.

I'm currently running 1/8" spacers and there's just adequate tire clearance at the moment. If I take out the spacers and add the .65"ish from the K/arms, I'm at a net increase of about .50" on each side. Now you can see that the 1/4" difference caused by the K-member being off center matters a lot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,259 Posts
I just installed mine as well. Mine is the opposite. Looking on the inside of the engine bay, I can see more of the flange on the drivers side. Makes it look like it might be too much to the passenger side but the measurements seemed good. I'll double check it again when I get back under the car next week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
880 Posts
I'm in the middle of installing a Maximum Motorsports K-member in my car. After bolting in the new K-member, I checked the front to rear and diagonal distances per the directions and amazingly only had to adjust the right side forward about 1/8". After that, the measurements were spot on. I was expecting to have to move the K-member around quite a bit to get it straight, but I suppose the engine mounts will kinda put it close where it needs to be right off the bat.

Anyway, once I re-measured and torqued the bolts, I noticed that the flange of the K-member that sits flat against the "frame rail" where the spring pocket used to be protrudes out about 1/4" further on the driver's side than the passenger side. Does this sound plausible? I know this is a mass produced 1980s American car, so it shouldn't be surprising that things aren't completely even on both sides, but now I'm worried about tire clearance on the left. Things are already going to be tight since I now have a wider '87+ spec K-member and '96+ spindles compared to the '85 K-member and '94 spindles I was using before. I'm already reconsidering my decision to purchase SN95 arms instead of Fox length.

Does anyone who has this K on their car have the same issue? I'm confident in my measurements, but if I did get it slightly wrong, is it something that would be detected once I get a front end alignment?
did you ever resolve your issue? how did you regain your wheel tuck?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
910 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I ended up having to get Fox length arms.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top