Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Got a call from Steeda today and they said their new K-Member for 96-04 is ready for sale, I was inerested in them doing a 87-93 piece and they said all they have to do is change the motor mount points. and they will be doing that in the next several weeks. I then ask if they were going to make their own A-Arms and they told me that the stock arms are the strongest thing available and that they have seen after market ones fold or bend due to hard cornering. They also said that running coil-overs on a Fox is a bad idea as well b/c the strut towers aren't designed for that. I'd like to hear what you guys think of that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Got a call from Steeda today and they said their new K-Member for 96-04 is ready for sale, I was inerested in them doing a 87-93 piece and they said all they have to do is change the motor mount points. and they will be doing that in the next several weeks. I then ask if they were going to make their own A-Arms and they told me that the stock arms are the strongest thing available and that they have seen after market ones fold or bend due to hard cornering. They also said that running coil-overs on a Fox is a bad idea as well b/c the strut towers aren't designed for that. I'd like to hear what you guys think of that.
That is funny....this is the same Steeda who also said that the stock K-member was fine and you don't have to change it. I guess they changed their mind.

I have had a Griggs K-member, coil overs and tubular arms for 8 years with no issues. I have had Griggs SLA for about 8 months.

My suggestion would be to look long and hard at Griggs or MM before giving them a dime
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yeah i've been really wanting the MM stuff, could i still use the steeda bumpsteer, C/C plates and X2 balljoints with the MM Kmember and a-arms?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
I then ask if they were going to make their own A-Arms and they told me that the stock arms are the strongest thing available and that they have seen after market ones fold or bend due to hard cornering. They also said that running coil-overs on a Fox is a bad idea as well b/c the strut towers aren't designed for that. I'd like to hear what you guys think of that.
Then why does Steeda now sell coil-over kits for the Fox-Body?

http://www.steeda.com/products/billet_front_coil_over_kit.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I don't know either, that C/O kit is for drag racing not RR /AX. It just doesn't add up. MM all the way for me from here on out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
I don't know either, that C/O kit is for drag racing not RR /AX. It just doesn't add up. MM all the way for me from here on out.
The fact is that dynamic loads from the struts are ORDERS of magnitude higher than those imposed by the coilovers. running coilovers won't hurt a damn thing. Steeda must have a big stick up their ass to say something like that.

And they're statement about the A-arms is BS too. I've been in and around road racing Mustangs running Griggs arms (the weakest of the lot,) for 15 years or more. I've seen TWO fail -- TWO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Why do any of you sound surprised about this. Steeda has been saying these things for well over a decade. They always used the stock K-member and A-arms in all their road race cars. Why would they say anything different now?

Check our post 3 on the link below, its a Steeda guy explaining why they chose to do a K-member. He even confirms what I said that they recommended the stock K-member for years.

http://forums.themustangsource.com/showthread.php?t=477017

Then why does Steeda now sell coil-over kits for the Fox-Body?
For Drag Racing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
The fact is that dynamic loads from the struts are ORDERAS of magnitude higher than those imposed by the coilovers. running coilovers won't hurt a damn thing. Steeda must have a big stick up their ass to say something like that.
I find this hard to believe. If this were true, how does the factory strut mount hold the factory strut in place just fine, but if you use a coil over with the factory upper strut mount it will break it.

On 94+ cars too MM was first to release 4 bolt camber plates cause 3 bolt plates would bend under the increased loads you claim dont exist. I dont buy this at all..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
i just wanna know who to believe, so i can purchase a good front suspension. and not worry about all the geometry being correct and things bending or falling off.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
I find this hard to believe. If this were true, how does the factory strut mount hold the factory strut in place just fine, but if you use a coil over with the factory upper strut mount it will break it.
Have you ever SEEN a factory upper strut mount broken by a coilover setup?

On 94+ cars too MM was first to release 4 bolt camber plates cause 3 bolt plates would bend under the increased loads you claim dont exist.
I never said they don't exist. I said that the loads imposed by the springs are less than the dynamic loads imposed by the dampers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,133 Posts
i just wanna know who to believe, so i can purchase a good front suspension. and not worry about all the geometry being correct and things bending or falling off.
Then just write a check to Griggs or Maximum Motorsports and stop worrying.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Have you ever SEEN a factory upper strut mount broken by a coilover setup?
Yes I have, I had a friend years ago stupid enough to try it....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,252 Posts
Q. Why doesn't my Fox chassis Mustang require 4-bolt Caster/Camber plates?
A. The 1979-93 Mustang Caster/Camber Plates only require three bolts because the strut top is captured inside a triangle formed by these three bolts (as viewed from the top). This means each bolt carries a portion of the vertical strut load and the plate is in fixed bending (loaded in the middle, supported on each end - like a bridge).
On 1994+ Mustang Caster/Camber plates, the strut top is outside of the triangle formed by the three factory mounting bolts. This means that two bolts carry the entire vertical strut load, and the plate is in cantilevered bending. The plate, and the Mustang's strut tower, are much more likely to bend. Adding a 4th mounting bolt on the main plate now captures the strut top inside the square formed by the four mounting bolts. Now the vertical strut load is shared between all four bolts, so the Caster/Camber plate and your Mustang's strut tower will never bend.
You guys. :lol:
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/index.html?http&&&www.maximummotorsports.com/content/faq/faq_ccplates.php

I was typing my own answer and then remembered MM has a bunch of FAQs and Tech Tips.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
Yeah i've been really wanting the MM stuff, could i still use the steeda bumpsteer, C/C plates and X2 balljoints with the MM Kmember and a-arms?
Bumpsteer, i dont see why not. C/C plates yes. but X2's, I wouldn't use. MM designed their K member and controll arms to have correct geometry with OEM ball joints.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,653 Posts
MFE seems to have good success with the X2/MM kit. :confused:
I ran the X2's with stock A-arms, but not since I installed the MM A-arms and K-member.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top