Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok, I have searched for an answer to this problem, but not found a clear description of what happens when SN95 control arms are fitted to an early fox k-member. My car has an 84 4-cyl K-member with 87-93 control arms and MM c/c plates. I installed the plates and arms this spring and could only get .5' neg. camber when the plates are adjusted to the stops. The car also has the 87-93 V8 brake upgrade.


Will the SN95 arms clear the current rotors? I had heard there might be an issue there.

With a 16" x 8" wheel and 225 tires, how much will I have to pull the fenders out?

How much track gain will I see with the SN95 arms on the narrow 4-cyl k-member?

Besides track width increase and added camber, is there any other advantages to going with a longer control arm?

Finaly, would I be better off just adding a later model fox K-member and use my current control arms. The car is being built for Solo II ESP and a few track events.

Thanks in advance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
I assume you found this thread in your search where I posted the following:

Toys said:
I did this same swap to my 82 GT with a lot of time invested in researching the differences not only between Fox and SN95 parts but also early Fox vs. late Fox.

I started out building the car with Fox length control arms, SN95 spindles, Cobra rotors / calipers, and 2000 Cobra R Bilstein struts. Goes together fine except you won't be able to achieve much more that - 1.5 deg camber. This is because the older Fox k-members are ½" per side narrower for a total of 1" narrower track width vs the later model Fox. I believe the change happened in 87? I'd have to dig out my notes.

Next phase of the build was to add the mysterious 87-88 Turbo T-Bird arms said to be ¾" longer to add additional neg camber adjustability. Thought this would be the hot ticket, not. Laying a set of T-Bird arms next to SN95 arms they come out to be the same length. Many people also believe the SN95 arms to be ¾" longer than the Fox arms, wrong again. If true, we should be able to put the SN95, or T-Bird arms, on our cars with 1/2" per side further inboard lower control arm mounting holes and only gain ¼ " per side in track width over a stock late model Fox. The SN95 arms are actually 1.33" longer than the Fox parts. This creates major fender clearance issues and more neg camber than desired.

So.....what I did was to find another k-member and move the control arm mounting holes inboard to allow for SN95 arms. ½" for old fox k-members, 1" for newer fox k-members, net gain in track width = .33" per side compared to a late model Fox. Much more manageable from a clearance and camber adjustment standpoint.

While I was at it, I moved the mounting holes up .80" to improve camber gain and roll center height. I believe I now have ¾ degrees of neg camber gain through compressive travel, would have to check the notes again for exact numbers.


Hope this helps....
SN95 arms on your 1/2" per side narrower 84 k-member will give you 0.83" per side additional track width over the say a 93 k-member with stock Fox arms. If you don't mind rolling fender lips and pulling them outward it might be the hot ticket. The longer arms are going to give you a better camber curve. Also, the older k-member have a high control arm mounting point which is better for roll center height on lowered cars.

Let me know if you plan to stop by Gingerman next weekend (23-24th), I'll bring the prints so you can see for yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
thanks Mike,
I had read that post, but just wanted to make sure I was on the right track with my thoughts of the narrow k-member. After going to the AI race this weekend, I had a few new idea's about what to do with the front suspension. I am not sure about the SVTOA event this coming weekend. My brother will be there for sure, but I might be stuck at home with projects.

Would I use fox or SN95 balljoints? Also are there any differences between the 4 cyl (non SVO) and V8 k-members? I thought they carried different part numbers in the Ford Parts computer.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top