file: fox96.html
collected by: [email protected]
01 Jan 1996
[email protected] (Robert Benson)
Brian I have an older version of the CCM plates and have been using them for
Solo 1 racing. Difference between the old & new version, at least as far as I
understand, is the size of the Aurora bearing. The newer version have gone to
a larger size.
You do need two spacers per bolt, if have your car lowered. The two spacers,
each 1/2 inch, will return the struts suspension travel to normal (assuming
your car is lowered one inch). As has been discussed previously on the list,
if you are using the '94->newer spindles, you will not need the spacers, but
can instead bolt the plate directly to the strut tower. However, you may still
want to use the spacers on top in order to reduce the amount of wrenching
you'll have to do, down the full length of the bolt. In short, I'd contact
CCM and obtain the appropriate number of 1/2 inch spacers. There should be no
problem there, they're good people. Although one double-length spacer may
very well work, it limits your options as far as adjustment is concerned. You
will also have two smaller spacers in the kit. Those are for use with Koni
struts (not sure if needed for other brands?). This spacer makes up for the
distance remaining between the bottom of the male side (they have a metal
spacer pressed into the bottom side of the bearing) of the Aurora bearing
(contained in the upper plate) and the shoulder on the Koni shaft. The plate,
when mounted, must not have any space between the male end of the Aurora and
the shoulder of the Koni. If there is a space left there, you'll probably end
up with one heck of a thud in your front suspension, once your back on the
road. If you have Konis, mount the rubber stop on the shaft first and push it
below the shoulder lip on the shaft, then place the spacer on the shoulder and
mount it up to the upper plate. Lubricating the shaft and the inside of the
rubber stop with soap will assist in the installation.
When I first obtained the CCM plate, I was concerned that the Street/Strip
changeover at the track would not preserve the stock alignment setting. As I
am sure you have already discovered, the bottom C shaped plate that has the
three bolts welded to it, does not lock itself to the strut tower. Instead
the spacers are mounted on top of the strut tower then the plate with the
Aurora bearing is placed on top of the spacers and then the bolts are placed
on top of the upper plate which locks everything in place. When you undo the
bolts, everything goes loose. I wasn't too happy with this set-up so I
modified the lower C plate ( the one with the bolts) by threading the bolts
all the way down to the plate. I then purchased coarse thread nuts that
measured 1/2 inch. With the nuts in hand, I could then set and locked in the
stock alignment setting once everything was in place. The C plate with the
newly threaded bolts is mounted to the strut tower from inside the wheel well,
the coarse thread 1/2 bolts are attached (from inside the engine compartment)
and tightened enough to hold the C plate to the strut tower and the one spacer
goes on top of each of the nuts, then on goes the upper plate and the upper
nuts (nuts that came with the kit) hold the plate in place. The one inch
suspension travel was preserved and the lower plate is locked in.
At the track, it was merely a matter of jacking up the car (this keeps the
upper plate seated on the strut tower - weight of wheel etc is forcing it down
- so, while you loosen the nuts holding the upper plate in place, the strut is
not trying to drive the CCM plate up) removing the bolts holding the upper
plate in place, lowering the car slowly, to raise the plate off of the bolts,
moving the plate inward to the second set of holes, then jacking the car back
up slowly such that the bolts from the lower C plate rise into the "track"
outer holes on the CCM plate. Neat, simple, straight-forward design which
works well.
04 Jan 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>travel to normal (assuming your car is lowered one inch). As has
>been discussed previously on the list, if you are using the
>'94->newer spindles, you will not need the spacers, but can instead
>bolt the plate directly to the strut tower. However, you may still
>want to use the spacers on top in order to reduce the amount of
>wrenching you'll have to do, down the full length of the bolt.
i have the SN95 spindles, and i don't use the spacers to gain additional
travel. however, i do have to use the spacers on top so that the nuts can be
tightened all the way down. the threads don't go down far enough for the nuts
to contact the plate otherwise.
>When you undo the bolts, everything goes loose. I wasn't too happy
>with this set-up so I modified the lower C plate ( the one with the
>bolts) by threading the bolts all the way down to the plate.
i'd have to think carefully about this before i'd be willing to do something
like this. those bolts are pretty heavily loaded, and cutting threads into
the shank in that region might have undesirable consequences.
i just leave them on the race setting all the time, because i'm too lazy to
adjust them.
05 Jan 1996
Eugene Y C Chu
fordnatics
Robert Benson wrote of CCM caster plates:
>In addition, I've raced this Mustang hard for 2 years
>in Solo I events, Street Prepared class and the only difficulties
>I've had with the plates is the Aurora bearings wearing out.
I was wondering two things. First, is it real easy to replace the bearings on
those caster plates? I have the GW plates, and first of all, the bearings
don't look like anything out of the Aurora catalog, and second of all, the
bearing shell is welded to the plate, seemingly very difficult to replace.
Second, has anyone else used their caster plate (any brand) equipped Mustang
so hard that they wore out the bearings? I've had mine for over 5 years, and
aside from the anual shot of LPS3 to lube it, I don't do much with it, and
it's in great shape. But then, I don't race it either.
05 Jan 1996
Raj Boaz
fordnatics
The FOX chassis Capri was available from 79-86. You could get a 5.0 in 79 and
82-86. The Capri received the "Bubble Back" hatch and rear end in 83-86
models. Some people like it. I am in the process of changing mine over to the
older, Mustang style flat hatch with aluminum bumpers to save weight. The
bubble hatch seems a lot heavier because of all the glass. An interesting
observation is that a very large percentage of the Capris made seem to be
modified. In the Detroit area and suburbs there seem to be lots of street
racing Capris. I think the flared fenders are tough.
05 Jan 1996
Jim Pearl
Orin, I'm CC'ing the Fordnatics list on this note as there may be many = Ford
guys out there interested in this product - I hope you don't mind.=20
As for the vendor list, it worked fine for me on my PC using MS Exchange =
(yeah I know - UNIX the prob - got WINZIP so you can TAR it?). I'm = pretty
new to the Internet but perhaps one of the more knowledgeable = Ford guys
could give you a suggestion as to how best to distribute a = large text list
of EFI vendors (hint hint). BTW Ford guys, when replying = keep in mind that
this mailing is going to the DIY_EFI list too so be = careful about the "reply
to all" so we don't foul that list - thanks!
P.S. I wrote this as I read the manual that I received from John = Mccauley
(prez Saleen club). He bought the package and thought I'd be = interested in
it - I'm in turn sharing it with you - I may ramble a bit = in the text (grin)
- be kind!
What I've got is the instruction manual for a product called InterACQ. = It's
not from Crane but rather from the guy who built the Interceptor = and
licensed it to Crane. The InterACQ is both a software and hardware = package
for the Interceptor and Mazda PMS units.
You must replace at least two EPROMs and modify the circuit board to = accept
higher capacity EPROMS (one jumper). It mentions that this last = mod isn't
required for PMS units which I believe are the boxes sold by = Peter Farrel
here in Manassas for the RX7. It's interesting to note = while reading through
the instructions that the InterACQ software = somehow registers the particular
Interceptor unit as some sort of copy = protection. With some of the new chips
the unit gains the ability to = work with both Mass Air and Speed Density
computers. The new "off road" = chips allow you to change warm up parameters,
allows it's use on 4,6,&8 = cylinder Fords. You can make "global
compensations" that effect ALL = ranges of the computer such as idle, cruise,
etc.. You can change the = idle speed and the speed that the idle motor reacts
- however this part = won't work with the newest Crane units since it's
missing some of the = circuitry (SN02460 and above). It gives you two data
acquisition screens = - one for CGA\VGA that's text and faster than the VGA
only graphical = display.
It allows you to set triggers for RPM and throttle opening to start and =
terminate automatic data logging. The software can play back data that = has
been logged and show what portion of the Interceptors data table is = being
accessed for easy modification - including portions you can't = change
directly because of interpolation of values.
These tables show things like boost, WOT, Extended RPM, and part = throttle
maps. You can log Duty cycle, Timing (assumes distributor in = STOCK
location), O2 (L/R) in volts like the DFI, TPS sensor in % = (remember this is
used to trigger accessories like NOS with the = Interceptor), Mass Airflow in
lbs/hr of air, manifold pressure in inches = - also the optional boost MAP
sensor, and the temp of Air and Water - = this is great for those Vortech guys
to see just how HOT that intake air = is (grin) - love that intercooler! Net
fuel and timing adjustments are = also displayed and logged - such as 8% for
boost + 10% adjustment from = WOT=3D18% total. Status of the smart inputs and
smart switches is also = displayed.
The instructions go on to describe how the Interceptor is setup to = trigger
manually and automatically. A caution about the fact that data = is stored in
RAM is mentioned and then goes on to tell how to download = it - remember
because of the 640K limit you only get about 12 minutes of = data - still not
too shabby! My DFI does like 15 seconds at full tilt! = It doesn't mention how
quickly it grabs data, the DFI does it as fast as = the processor allows and
delivers reams. On a normal log though it's = only once per second and that's
really bad - I can go from 2000 RPM to = redline and into the next gear
sometimes in that time period - not cool = for troubleshooting!
The manual then goes on to describe how the data can be converted to = text
and looked at via a text editor. From looking at it I can tell you = that some
serious macros in Excel or something will have to be done - = the DFI output
is MUCH easier. The Interceptor software here will = actually give you numbers
that represent the voltages of things like = temp sensors etc.. The software
doesn't make these conversions from the = A to D converter so it's a little
weird. Of course since my DFI is using = a few Ford sensors some of the
readings for Water temp and such are off. = The Air temp appears correct
though, bet some of the Vortech guys wish = they could have ambient +10
degrees or so going into their intake = (smile).
One last thing that looked nice - the software manual mentions that = there
are a few maintenance menus - one of which allows updates to the = software as
well as backups for some of the data contained in the unit = (with some bold
cautions earlier in the manual about that).
Another note as I read this back over - John mentioned beating on them = to
create a handheld unit with a backlit display and other features. If = you're
serious about using the Interceptor like at least one friend of = mine you
know that the lack of a backlight is a real pain in the rear! = If you want
this and other features contact these people. I know they've = been working on
this software and other features for at least a couple = of years. I nearly
went with an Interceptor years ago but didn't because = I'd have had to rely
on a friend of a friend buddy buddy thing to get = this software bootleg - I
understand that back then it was against his = marketing agreements for this
guy to sell it per Crane. He's out from = under them now apparently and I'm
told that he's a good guy (I've spoken = some to him and had a good experience
years ago). I don't remember the = price quoted for this software but it
wasn't too bad. I'll update = everyone as I get more info. I'd really like to
hear more about the Ford = piggyback I understand will be released sometime
late in '96 too...
[email protected]
The company's name is Plus 1 Micro, Inc. P.O. Box 1781 - Lawrenceville, =
GA - 30246-1781. No phone number seen in the manual but I'll try to get =
it for everyone.
Last but not least I swear - anyone interested in trading DFI MAPS or =
discussing the system i.e. tricks and tips for programming it contact =
me, I'm cooperative but not real good when it comes to tuning I'm afraid =
(sigh). Hope this was helpful!
05 Jan 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
Sorry about the empty reply earlier. I fat-fingered the "send" instead
of the "edit" function in Mush when replying. Mea maxima spazza.
On Jan 5, Eugene Chu wrote:
> I was wondering two things. First, is it real easy to replace the
> bearings on those caster plates? I have the GW plates, and first of
> all, the bearings don't look like anything out of the Aurora catalog,
> and second of all, the bearing shell is welded to the plate, seemingly
> very difficult to replace.
The CCM plates have bearings that are held in with snap rings. They
are no problem at all to replace. I don't know about the GW plates.
> Second, has anyone else used their caster plate (any brand) equipped
> Mustang so hard that they wore out the bearings? I've had mine for over
> 5 years, and aside from the anual shot of LPS3 to lube it, I don't do
> much with it, and it's in great shape. But then, I don't race it
> either.
I've beaten the bejeezus out of my CCM plates for 4 seasons, and they haven't
even begun to loosen up in any way. I just changed over to the Griggs
coilovers, and that setup transfers the *entire* suspension load through the
spherical bearing, not just the damper/location loads. So if there is to be
any acceleration of wear, I'll definitely experience it very shortly!
No biggie- I have a spare set of the bearings in my track spares. So even if
one completely disintegrates, it'll just take 10 or 15 minutes to swap them,
and I'll be back out playing with the car again...
05 Jan 1996
Raj Boaz
fordnatics
>> Robert King wrote:
>> A 351 would be a *little* heavier.
The 351w is a *LOT* heavier. I have heard around 100lbs heavier. I put one
in my Capri, and helped put an injected 351 in my friends 86 gt. On the
injected car, we even had to trim the battery tray 1/4 inch to clear the ps
pump. Don't forget, if using fuel injection, you HAVE to cut the stock hood.
I used a Victor JR on the Capri, and I had to cut that hood also. Now that
I'm using a 351 Performer RPM, it looks like a stock hood might fit. Other
problems we had included: SVO brackets on GALACTIC back order, Header
problems, Underhood heat problems. We had to fabricate the bracket for my
non-a/c car, and waited 6 months for the bracket for the 86. If you use the
MAC full length 1 3/4 headers, make sure you use a heat blanket on the
starter, and don't over tighten it, or you'll have to remove the header to get
it out.
05 Jan 1996
[email protected] (Tim White )
fordnatics
You wrote:
>I've beaten the bejeezus out of my CCM plates for 4 seasons, and they
>haven't even begun to loosen up in any way. I just changed over to the
>Griggs coilovers, and that setup transfers the *entire* suspension load
>through the spherical bearing, not just the damper/location loads. So
>if there is to be any acceleration of wear, I'll definitely experience
>it very shortly!
>
>No biggie- I have a spare set of the bearings in my track spares.
>So even if one completely disintegrates, it'll just take 10 or 15
>minutes to swap them, and I'll be back out playing with the car
>again...
The only problem is when the strut pushes up your hood. I had this happen to
me at the last event, except it was in my teammates car. It was during the
race, I pulled into the pits to see what he wanted me to do (I didn't want to
destroy his hood). He was frantically waving me by but I still lost two
positions. This being an AS car, obviously didn't have a coil-over setup.
Because of this, we have started changing the retaining clip more frequently.
It would be nice if the outside of the cylinder that held the bearing was
threaded, then a bolt with a shoulder on the top could be threaded down the
top.
06 Jan 1996
Eugene Y C Chu
fordnatics
>> I have the GW plates, and first of
>>all, the bearings don't look like anything out of the Aurora catalog,
>>and second of all, the bearing shell is welded to the plate, seemingly
>>very difficult to replace.
And Brian replied:
>That's unfortunate, and a junk design. You're not supposed to weld
>the bearing shell! You're supposed to machine a snap ring groove on the
>ID of some tubing of the correct ID. The tube gets welded to the plate
>and the bearing gets dropped in.
Upon closer examination of my plates (as much as I can, since they're
installed in the car right now), it looks like the bearings are pressed into a
steel tube, which is in turn welded onto the top plate. However, there are
complete weld beads on the inner diameter of the tube that lock the bearing in
place. So again, I don't think that thing will be easily replaceable.
Skod replied:
>The CCM plates have bearings that are held in with snap rings. They
>are no problem at all to replace. I don't know about the GW plates.
Is the only thing that keeps that Aurora bearing in place a snap-ring? That
doesn't seem very strong to me. As Tim White wrote about a track-side
failure:
>Because of this, we have started changing the retaining clip more frequently.
>It would be nice if the outside of the cylinder that held the bearing was
>threaded, then a bolt with a shoulder on the top could be threaded down the
>top.
I was also wondering about the coil-over assembly: Aside from the reduced
weight of the tubular A-arm, does it offer any other improvement like better
geometry (caster/camber/kingpin/Ackerman angles) ove rthe stock?
The following is a pipe dream, and anyone is welcome to critique it
(construtively, of course):
I've always wanted to see if anyone has tried to install a shock inside where
the stock coil spring is (if you can find one short enough with the right
damping and travel) to put the coil-over shock assembly there. Since you
already have a custom aftermarket lower A-arm, it would not be that difficult
to add a shock perch there. Then, you can build a mounting assembly to bolt
up to where the K-member is currently bolted to beneath the shock tower to
provide an inner pivot point for an upper control arm, and just do away with
that silly modified macPherson strut. Of course, you would need to make
something that will bolt to the strut mounting flange on the spindle assembly
for an upper ball joint or something. I think an upper/lower control arm set
up (like the new F-body GM cars) would allow more room to tune the front end
for better behavior than the MacPherson dealie that's there now.
I should spend more time to take some measurements down there to see if any of
this is at all feasible, but does anyone else have any thoughts on this?
07 Jan 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
This went on for a lot longer than that - I have a picture of an '82 that was
stickered the same way (remember, Ford/U.S. went from Cobra to GT in 1982).
Furthermore, the Canadaians got to keep the 4-cyl carb'd turbo in '82, while
it was cancelled from the U.S. at the last moment. It was a bit improved and
much better than the earlier ones (I had a '79 Turbo for a while for
autocrossing...).
07 Jan 1996
Eugene Y C Chu
fordnatics
Dennis J Robinson asked:
>I wonder why anyone would want to put the use one of those arms and try
>to mount the spring the original way on the perch. I always thought one
>big advantage of those arms is that you could adjust your ride height
>with the turn of the screw on the strut, that the spring doesn't have to
>be so stiff since it gets a longer lever arm way out there, and the
>weight advantage.
Well, my original posting on this was under the "pipe dream" heading to try to
create a double A-arm suspension with coil-overs between the arms for
compactness. It is possible to have the coil-over assembly over the spindle
like the current Grigg kit, and modify that to accept an upper A-arm. But
with the compact version, you can conceivably shave off a big chunk of the
shock towers for more engine room.
08 Jan 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jan 6, Eugene Y C Chu wrote:
> I don't believe any of those custom A-arms will have a spring perch at
> the stock location, since the spring is relocated to over the strut.
> But since the arm exists now, it should not be too much more work to add
> a spring and shock perch to the stock location. I can't say whether the
> tubings will be strong enough to support such loads without seeing them
> in the steel.
No. They are made for light weight, and are designed for loads that are only
applied in compression and tension. They would not withstand having the entire
weight of the car crashing down on them in bending. If you wanted to do that,
you'd need a redesign with heavier-walled tubing, and probably some
triangulation.
The stock arms flex a great deal, and only the fact that they are made out of
some pretty beefy stuff makes them live. The tubular arms and the coilover
arrangement go hand in had, so that the suspension loads are taken off the top
of the strut rather than at the midppoint of the arm.
You could still make a tubular arm that would work in this cantilevered mode,
to be sure. In fact, I have a set of plans for some right here in my library
of Autocad designs. I'd just finished the design and was seriously
investigating getting them fabbed when the Griggs coilover stuff happened. As
I see it, their solution is much better than mine would have been. If it makes
my car work better, I have no problem admitting that somebody else's solution
is better and that I didn't find the optimum...
09 Jan 1996
Raj Boaz
[email protected]
It's actually a 5.8L. Any ways, just to re-iterate the issues we had:
Stock hood will NOT close (GT-40 intake).
Had to trim 1/4 inch off battery tray.
Had to buy universal "Fuel Injection" hose to spread fuel rails.
Had stretch air intake duct.
Had to move cross member for Tremec.
Had to upgrade radiator.
Had to wait forever for a/c bracket.
Had to modify(trim) distributor shaft for HV oil pump.
Don't forget to plug extra dipstick hole.
Make SURE H-Bars for roller conversion are seated correctly and firmly.
If using full tube headers, wrap the starter.
That's all I can remember right now, if you have any specific questions, drop
me a line.
10 Jan 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jan 8, Robert Allen wrote:
> Today I called Griggs Racing in CA to see if they
> had some 17" wheels suitable for putting over my
> recently acquired-but-not-yet-installed M2300K brake
> kit. "Jonathan" there told me that it was a bad
> thing to use the same 4 wheels, with the same
> backspacing, on all 4 wheels since the rear axles
> have a wider track than the front. He said I should
> either use different offsets front and rear (thus not
> being able to rotate wheels), or buy a 9" big bearing
> axle setup with custom length axles so I can run the
> same wheels front to rear.
Waitaminnit. Are you sure that this is what he told you? There are a *great
many people* out there running the 2300K setup with the same offset wheels
front and rear. My setup with the big-bearing conversion has the same spacings
as a 2300K car would, and I have no difficulty. If he told you that you
_couldn't_ run this, he must have misunderstood you: you most certainly _can_.
The biggest problem you would face is not at the rear of the car, it's at the
front. With really extreme wheels, like the Cobra R 17x9 items which have only
24mm offset, you can run into problems contacting the control arms with the
wheel inner side at full lock. That has nothing to do with the rear axle.
The 2300K kit *does not* require the big bearing conversion kit. The wider
rear track will leave you with the front track and rear tracks not being
equal, but that is not a showstopper. It is arguably nonoptimal (it would
probably build in a little understeer, due to the lessened mechanical grip
produces by the narrow front track, but that is easily worked around, and not
at all worth coming up with a bizarre set of wheels to fix.
Now, if you were talking to him about the Torsen diff at the same time as the
brake kit, you might well have got him started on the big-bearing requirement
with that discussion. The torque-biasing diff _doeas_ require the conversion,
period, and the Griggs guys go to great pains to insure that potential
customers know that well in advance. But the brake kit _does not_ require that
conversion.
10 Jan 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jan 9, Tim White wrote:
> Whoever layed out the Motorsport catalog should be fired. I could
> swear I saw in there where the 2300K changed the track by 1.5" but I
> can't find it again. If that is true, one could use the T-bird control
> arms up front and the track in front and back would be correct again
> and the same offset wheel could be used. Also, you could get more
> negative camber upfront. Maybe somebody with the kit installed can
> verify this.
The 2300K rear axles shafts are 3/4" longer per side (to acommodate the ABS
sensor rings). Thus the rear track _will_ increase 1.5" total when the kit is
installed. The front spindle/hub combination also produces a track change of
6mm per side (1/4"). So going with the T-bird arms up front on the 2300K kit
will result in the front track increasing by a full 2", not just the 1.5"
you'd expect from the control arms.
In any case, there is essentially zero reason to run asymmetric offset wheels
to correct the front and rear tracks to be an identical number. If the car's
suspension is tuned highly enough that you can detect the difference in the
roll couple that the narrow front track produces (all other things being
equal), well, then, you're doing better than me. But the first order of
business is getting the wheels to fit within the bodywork, rotate without
smashing into too much stationary stuff, and support the car. This will work
just fine with any old Fox, the 2300K kit, and a set of 7" or 8" wide SN95
wheels. There is a finite chance that with 245s or 255s you'll have rubbing
problems at the front on the inner or outer lips, or at the rear on the outer
lips as the axle displaces laterally, but these problems would have existed
without the installation of the kit as well. You may have to move some sheet
metal to run big tires under _any_ circumstances.
11 Jan 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
I have had the opportunity to install a couple of these kits and the track
difference is enough to make the rear tires touch the fender lips under large
bump situations. This is with 94 mustang rims, 17X8s with 5.75 inches of
backspacing or about 30mm offset with 245/45ZR17 tires. You can eliminate most
of this by rolling the rear fender lips. You can also run more offset but as
SKOD said check the inner clearance between the edge of the rim and the back
of the control arm on the front. You can add another steering limiter if it is
too close on the rack. They are located in the bellows and are small nylon C-
clip looking things. The new cobra R wheels Ford Motorsport is selling for the
fox bodies with the 2300K kit have 6.42 inches of backspacing. I am using 6.5
inches with my 17x9.5s but they will touch the control arms if you don't add
more steering limiters so I would expect these wheels to do the same. This
will also increase the turning radius of your car somewhat. The clearance up
at the strut is tight too when running this much backspacing so forget about
slotting the struts for camber. Also the SN-95 spindle when used on the fox
bodied cars does lose static camber since Ford designed in a different
steering axis inclination. It also makes the steering slightly lighter by
changing the scrub radius.
11 Jan 1996
[email protected] (Mark Bettin)
fordnatics
This may be a bit premature, but has anybody investigated putting a '96
Mustang steering rack on an earlier car? The new rack is *much* improved, Ford
finally got rid of the internal bushings and put in roller/ball bearings of
some sort. I feel is great. I have had a Moog rebuilt unit on my '89 for about
a year now, but it has a loose feeling to it, almost like the wheel bearings
are very loose (but they are fine). So I was recently considering spending the
money on an SVO replacement rack (I assume these are new units, is that
true?), but then I thought of the '96 rack, and the possibility of putting one
of those on instead. I don't have a '96 SVO catalog yet, but I doubt the new
design would appear in there yet. Anybody know of a reasonably-priced source
for the new racks?
11 Jan 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
I'm comforted to note that every person who responded to my question about the
big bearing conversion being necessary to fit the M2300K brake kit said that
it was NOT necessary. I also called Griggs back and told Jonathan that I
didn't believe that it was necessary. After some discussion he admitted that
as more and more non-racers or beginnering racers are calling them for work to
be done, Griggs is becoming more and more circumspect about claiming things
will fit easily. I applaud this attitude personally :-).
Since I've been collecting info on the install problems of the M2300K kit I
thought I'd coalesce some usefull comments here for potential
buyers/installers:
1) On the older mustangs which have the smaller fender openings, fit can be an
issue, particularly with larger tires, and particularly under loads that
change the suspension geometry. Minor rubbing on the interior of the fenders
may occur even if you clear the fender lips. The rear fender lips should
almost certainly be rolled, as should the inner, lower, rear fender area. The
inner area can be done with a hammer, but the fender lips must be done
carefully so you don't bend the sheet metal on the outside, or cause the paint
to crack off. Since my car is getting some body damage fixed I am paying the
shop to roll the fender lips. I'll do the innner area myself since it's out
of sight.
2) Concensus is that on the pre-SN95 cars, particularly the Fox bodies up
through '91, that one should not go larger than 245/40/17 wheels if you want
to be reasonably sure the tires will fit. I was quoted 25.2" diameter on an
RE71 street tire. The mathis book says that on the early cars one should go
no bigger than 24.5-25". I'll be going with 245s and hoping for the best.
Jonthan at Griggs claims that a 245/45/17 has a better chance fitting than a
235/40/17, due to some math concerning the ratios of the width to height (does
anyone have the formulas for this?). On all pre-SN95 cars you will likely
have some rubbing at full steering lock (i.e. in parking lots). The rubbing
can be reduced or eliminated by putting the spacers in the steering rack to
limit travel, which increases your turning radius.
3) If you (as I do) have a thicker front anti-sway bar then you will PROBABLY
experienc tire rub on the bar at full lock. You may also experience wheel rub
on the A arms, particularly on the passenger side, at full lock. The rack
spacers should cure this. I recommend stick on wheel weights rather than
clamp ons as the clamp ons may bump on the A arm.
4) Rear track will increase by about 1.6" with the M2300K kit. If you're
running C clip axles you will also have some play. Watch for rubbing.
5) Watch out for brake lines rubbing the rims after you've installed the kit.
6) If your car is lowered you are more likely to have rubbing problems.
7) Depending on who you talk to, running 40-45 series tires with decent shocks
& springs is no-big deal to extremely-punishing. One person said that you
could feel every cigarette butt you drove over in the road. If you want your
car to be streetable, well, it won't be as streetable. It's the price you
pay.
8) Some people have had problems fitting the larger booster in the area and
have had to pound on the shock tower to fit it. Others have not had this
problem. Still others have installed only the new master cylinder, and are
using the old booster. If the booster fits in there, it must just BARELY fit.
You might have to remove the drivers side valve cover to get it in. I'll find
out in a few weeks.
9) You will need 1987 or later struts up front. If you have a pre-87 car you
need to factor this in, or maybe fit spacers to the pre87 shock mounts (not
recommended).
10) One installer had to remove a trim screw from inside the front fender well
to clear the tires. Some rubbing on the inside of the fender liner may also
happen, and under nose dive your wheels may contact the top of the fender
liner. My plan is to do the install, and if necessary to mod the liner.
Since it's out of sight I don't mind hack on it a bit.
That's all I can think of for now.
15 Jan 1996
Eugene Y C Chu
[email protected]
My favorite for non-cutting and slotting is still the Global West kit. It has
the longest tubes and the most reinforcements of any setup I've ever seen.
You can also order the supplemental kit, which provides tubes for reinforcing
the rocker panels (FOX-3 chassis), and they include some cross tubes that tie
them with the main tubes, forming a ladder network on each side. I think that
set up is hard to beat, unless you also add their roll cage (I didn't). Their
roll cage will require interior mods, as they reach through the floor and tie
into the SFCs.
16 Jan 1996
Brian Kelley
We've had good success using 1.5x2.0x.083 tubing for subframe connectors.
We've placed it under the rail, not along side it like some designs (Global
West). I really question how well you can tie in a subframe connector that is
only welded to one side of the rail and to the floorpan on the other. By
placing it directly beneath the rail you can tie it in much better.
We use flat plates to get additional weld area where the rail rises away from
the connector.
You might decide to end the front of the connectors in a capped 45 degree
angle that meets the rear of the K-member. You can weld the two together and
cut it apart later fairly easily if the K-member ever needs to come off.
The front and rear sub-frames don't align perfectly. You can deal with it in
a number of ways. Cutting three sides of the tube and bending (and then
welding) is one method.
For the Capri, things are much more radical. I'm glad I put off adding any
sub-frames (the cage already connects that span quite well). The plan is to
integrate the connector as well as possible to the existing structure (though
the rules prevent me from replacing frame or floorpan.. so I can't just
integrate it like I would prefer) and jog it inboard just before where it
would normally intersect the K-member. Since I'm dumping the factory K-
member, that sub-frame connector keeps going forward and doubles as the lower
portion of my new K-member.
I'm installing a horizontal tube to support an upper A-arm. It will tie into
the lower sub-frame connector and existing frame rail. In the rear it will
also tie into the cage's horizontal dash bar and front hoop downtubes. It is
essentially a copy of a TA front end. The factory metal should be reasonably
superfluous when I'm done. But since I can't remove it without taking a 10%
weight penalty, I'm going to tie into it for all I can get.
With the exception of the 1.5x2.0, the steel arrived yesterday. I'm still
finalizing the geometry.
In regard to your other comments about Ackerman, I remain very divided. I'm
leaning towards parallel steer, hopefully with some room to tweak things.
Building adjustability into the car is great, but you've got to find the time
and consistency to evaluate different configurations. Otherwise you just end
up running your baseline. It may feel _great_ and be damn fast but it sure
isn't likely optimal..
At lighter loads, a tire needs less slip angle to generate max lateral grip.
So for conditions where you are cornering hard, you've got a lot of weight
transfer and the inside wheel is very lightly loaded. It doesn't want a bunch
more slip than the outside wheel! At slower solo II speeds, you often have
circumstances where lateral weight transfer is minimal on the front of the
car. If you optimize for that type of driving, you'd want more ackerman..
Milliken's book actually makes the case for negative ackerman in some apps.
The characteristics of the tire in question become very important.
The real answer is tire data on my slicks and dynamic simulations in
ADAMS vehicle. I just haven't had the time.
17 Jan 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
I just got my 1996 Ford Motosport catalog. A few things of general interest:
Cobra R parts - aluminum radiator, wheels, etc.
What look like Del-alum bushings for the A arms.
A full 9" rear axle housing and axle kit!!! Add the gears and brake mounts at
extra cost. Reduces the rear track 1.5". This REALLY makes me wonder about
how very cool it might be to try this with the M2300K kit :-).
Caster/Camber kits.
Wheels and M2300K kit:
*Two* different versions of the 17" x 9" Cobra R 5 lug, 5 spoke wheels are
available, one with 5.95" back spacing (for newer cars) and the other with
6.42" backspacing (for '79-93 mustang). The former is street legal, the
latter is not. One wonders if the latter just have the hub machined down
further, and if the lack of street legality reflects a known weakness, or just
lack of DOT officiality. Anyhow, if you're looking for options this is
certainly good news for us older car owners.
My '94-95 GT wheels arrived today for use on the M2300K kit. The backspacing
is supposed to be 5.75", but is actually more like 5 11/16". Maybe it's a
metric backspacing. If I wasn't told by several people that these work over
the M2300K kit I'd be concerned... When my car comes back from the shop I'll
find out for sure.
19 Jan 1996
[email protected] (Dale Maurice)
fordnatics
At 3:19 PM 1/18/96, Michael Quinn wrote:
>The only problem with the Griggs unit is that it hangs down
>past the everything else. What I'm mean is the arm seems
>tall from top to bottom. I personally don't know if this
>will effect the car. I imagine the piece would scrap speed
>bumps and driveways. Personally drive me crazy.
The only thing mine hits are manhole covers that rise too high above the road
surface. My side exit exhaust is much more of a problem. But, I do still
drive it on the street occasionally.
19 Jan 1996
Robert Whitley
fordnatics
At 03:19 PM 1/18/96 PST, Michael Quinn wrote:
>The only problem with the Griggs unit is that it hangs down
>past the everything else. What I'm mean is the arm seems
>tall from top to bottom. I personally don't know if this
>will effect the car. I imagine the piece would scrap speed
>bumps and driveways. Personally drive me crazy.
>
>Don't get wrong. I nothing about the preformance aspects
>I'm relaying what I've seen.
I have the Griggs torque arm setup. I've never hit anything with the bottom
of the torque arm. The lowest point of the torque arm is directly between
the rear wheels under the differential. The wheels tend to keep that part
off the ground since the rear axle doesn't bend. My car is lowered 2
inches, and the bottom of the torque arm is about the same height above the
ground as my subframe connectors and the front K member.
If there is a clearance issue with the torque arm and with lowered cars in
general, it is at the middle of the car when the front and rear wheels
straddle a bump. In the case of the torque arm, there is an added problem.
The front mount is a cross piece bolted to the subframe connectors. It
forces the exhaust system to be about 1.5 inches lower than stock. That in
combination with lowering the car can cause some additional ground clearance
problems. Careful exhaust system installation with some custom fabrication
to bend the pipes around the cross piece will reduce the problem significantly.
And, of course, if you are going to lower your mustang you are going to have
clearance problems whether or not you have a torque arm. The reason they
didn't come from the factory that way was because they didn't want them to
scrape, ever. So, the factory compromises the handling by raising the ride
height (increasing weight transfer in cornering).
modified strut with high upper A-arm - retrofit to Fox or SN95? camber
correction in roll - angle A-arm for caster too
25 Jan 1996
"Lawrence S. Harris III"
> What I'd like to do is move up to SN-95 spindles and their inherent
> advantages, while retaining as much of my existing setup as possible (15"
> street rims, SVO/Lincoln calipers, etc...). Maybe later I can put the rest
> og the Cobra goodies in!
>
> So what's the word? Can 15" tires fit on an SN-95 spindle/rotor/caliper
> assembly? Will my SVO/Lincoln calipers fit the newer spindle? (Probably
> not, but hey, its worth a shot...) Will my SVO/Lincoln master cylinder and
> stock '88 booster give me an acceptable pedal with the stock SN-95
> calipers? Or maybe there's somthing I'm missing?
I believe you can run 82-83 Lincoln Continental spindles with special
balljoint shims from Central Coast Mustang. These spindles give some of the
advantage (to what extent I don't know) of the SN-95 spindles in that they
yield an increase in ackerman (sp?). If you want, I can confirm some of this
information by refering to the Mustang Performance Handbook 2, or the slot car
Mustang article re-print in Super Ford a few years back. I recalling this
from my mental Mustang roledex now.
26 Jan 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
>The problems I ran into were the tie rod ends only threaded into the
>rack ends by 1/4 inch! Not enough engagement. I tried to find longer
>rods for the rack, none could be found.
did you check the '92+ taurus tie rod ends? after i put SN95 spindles on my
car, i found myself with much less thread engagement, somewhere around 3/8".
i was told that the '93 cobra R, which had SN95 spindles, used the '92+ taurus
tie rod ends.
05 Feb 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
This car now exists. It is NOT what is was, but it IS more! It is just as if
it came from the factory with the 351, except it has no hood (gotta get those
hood locks for the cowl induction lift-off hood), no exhaust (FMS headers are
a little different than MAC and Flowmaster 4-into-2-into-1 collectors are WAY
longer than others), and no idle. I haven't figured this one out, yet. I
thought it was the timing, but I played with the distributor to no avail.
Checked all the connections (MAF, idle air control, TPS, etc.) but they're all
good. I haven't done any of this "in-depth" as it was late last night when I
fired it up, and the neighbors didn't take too kindly to their windows
rattling and pictures falling off the wall. One thing is very, very good - no
"CHECK ENGINE" light. The engine runs very smoothly above 1500 RPM, but
chokes and dies when you let off the gas. It really does seem like it is not
getting enough fuel at idle to keep it going.
Installation notes (not in any particular order):
Headers are (very) tight. They hit on both the vacuum assist brake canister
and the A/C dryer. Solution: wrapped the tubes with Thermo-Tec wrap (takes
lots of time and patience). Spark plug installation on #3 is difficult, as is
spark plug boot installation on #3 and #8.
Broke the dipstick tube trying to install it. What the hell were the
engineers thinking when they designed it to be screwed into the pan rather
than pressed in like it is on the late-model blocks? There's no room to get
your hand down there, much less a 5/8" wrench! Solution: plugged the hole in
the pan - no dipstick (for now).
Heater core/ECT sensor metal tubes hitting #1 fuel injector. The 351W GT-40
lower intake manifold is slightly different than the 302 GT-40 in the area
around the #1 fuel injector and heater hose fittings. The bend in the tube
from the 302 doesn't have enough radius to clear the #1 injector. Solution:
radius the bend. For all you city folks, that means whack the bejeezus out of
it until it clears.
Smog pump delete option package. I forgot that the hard lines connecting the
two heads to the smog pump won't stretch to fit the extra width of the 351.
OOOPS! Solution: delete the smog pump.
Funky Ford spring-type hose clamps. Either get rid of them or buy the proper
tool to remove/install them - PERIOD. Solution: Bought the proper tool -
saved lots of headaches!
These are a few things I ran into that I hadn't heard of before, so if anyone
is contemplating a similar swap, be aware of this. The thing that really
galls me is that there's absolutely no (installation) reason why Ford couldn't
have been doing this since 1979 when the first Fox appeared. As for
emissions, that's not a reason, either, because they've been putting 351's in
trucks all this time. Same goes for the fuel mileage constraint. So what
gives? Is there some other reason I don't know about that Ford has forced us
to hot rod our endeared 302 to keep up with the times? Wouldn't it have been
much easier and more productive to make the same mods to a 351? Think of the
C*maro and C*rvette busting we could have been doing without the aid of
superchargers and nitrous (not that there's anything *wrong* with that!).
Because of such things as rod/stroke ratio and the like, the Ford 351W is
inherently a better performing engine than its similar sized competition.
While I realize that Ford's intent has (since 1971) been on the "luxary" side
of car manufacuring, would it be too much to ask to stick a larger engine with
the same features in it's ponycar line? And why, oh why, did Ford spend
millions upon millons of dollars in designing the "modular" engine when all
the power they needed in a small engine has been right under their noses since
1969? I'm sure the 4.6 has its place, but, IMHO, it's not between the strut
towers of a Mustang.
Soap box mode - OFF (whew!)
Thanks for all those who gave input (and parts) for my project. If you have
any ideas, suggestions, comments, questions, statements, rebuttles, etc.,
please let me know!
06 Feb 1996
[email protected] (Chris Little)
fordnatics
Okay folks. I have bagged up about 10 parts of the LM340T-5 for those of you
who requested them. I also added 2 parts of an LM338T adjustable regulator
into each bag. The 338T is good for 5 amps, BUT it is an adjustable regulator,
so you will need to add some resistors external to it to use it at 5 volts. I
will work up the values and send a circuit with the values to the list.
The part number printed on the LM340T-5 device says M-36DA. This is an
industrial part number custom printed for someone. They decided not to use all
of the parts they ordered. Believe it or not, it is a Delco part number.
Be sure to use the correct part in whatever circuit you use. The LM338 and
LM340 are all in together.
I am also trying to locate some old LM323AK STEEL parts. They are the part
which can be used directly in Robert Allen's circuit.
The LM340T-5's can be paralleled by using a 0.2 ohm resistor in series with
the output lead of each device, and then tying the resistors together. But it
only works well if the output voltage of the regulators are close in value. If
they are off by about 0.1V or more, they will not work well in parallel. (
This straight from the person who designed the LM340 ).
Good luck, should you choose to accept this mission.
07 Feb 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>Contemplating an upgrade that, in part, would consist of the 17x9" 94-96 Cobra
>wheels.
actually, the Cobra wheels are 17x8. the '95 Cobra R wheels are 17x9. as far
as i'm aware, the '94-'95 Cobra wheels are dimensionally similar to the '94-
'95 GT 17" wheels.
>I've seen 275/40s in the rears, even on the Fox-3 cars (these will fit all the
>way around on a Fox-4).
might have some problems with rubbing against the quad shocks. if you
toss the quad shocks, the 275s will fit.
>Will a 255/40 fit up front, given the off-set of the
>O.E.M. Cobra wheel? Compared to my 245/45-16 that I'm running now, it would
>be only a shade (~1/2 inch) taller than my current setup. That would be ok,
>but not sure about scraping during sharp turns. Anybody out there have
>something like this setup that could share some insight?
scraping against what? the fender, or the control arm? i'm currently running
255/50ZR16 RE71RAZs on 16x8 wheels whose offset places them a bit further
outboard than they're supposed to be. i haven't noticed any problems with
fender interference, on the street or at the track. i do have some rubbing
against the control arms at full lock, but i solve that problem by not turning
the steering wheel to full lock.
now, in the back, that's another matter. the axles are 3/4" longer than
stock, plus the wheels are a bit more outboard than they should be. i had to
roll my fenders to reduce the interference, and i still get some rubbing in
the corners. i think it's partly due to lateral movement of the rear end.
i also have '95 GT 17x8 wheels with 245/45ZR17 BFG R1s, and they fit better
than my 16" 255s.
i wouldn't worry about putting 255/40/17s all around. i'd be more concerned
with whether 255s would be too wide for 17x8 wheels, which is what i think you
have.
07 Feb 1996
[email protected] (Chris Little)
fordnatics
______________
| LM338T |
O---------------0----------|Vin Vout|----0-------------------O
| | Adj | | | R1
| + |______________| | | 120 ohm
_____ |____________| 1/4 watt
Input _____ C1 | | R2 Output
12Volts | 22uF | | 360 ohm 5Volts
| 50V | | 1/4 watt
| |
O---------------0-----------------0--------------------------------O
___
| |
Insulating | |
Shoulder | |
Washer | | | __
||____ |_ || | | | | | Mount Nut
| ____| _ || | | | | |
|| | || | | | |__|
Mount / | | | |
Screw / | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Regulator-> | | | | |
|____| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| /^\ | |
| | | |
| | | | Heat Sink
| | |___|
| |
| |-Insulating Washer (mica or silicone)
The input capacitor should be somewhere around 25uF at about 35 to 50 Volts.
It can be as small as 0.1 uF but does not need to be larger than 25uF. There
should be a resistor with a value of 120 ohms between the output and adjust
pins. There should be a resistor with a value of 360 ohms between the adjust
pin and ground. This will program the regulator to put out a voltage of about
5 volts. The insulating washer is to isolate the device from the heat sink, as
the mount tab on the device is at the output voltage potential. It should NOT
be grounded. The insulating shoulder washer is also to insulate the mount tab
from the heat sink. This allows one to bolt the heat sink to ground.
07 Feb 1996
[email protected] (Chris Little)
fordnatics
_______________
| | ________
O-----------0-----------| LM340T-5 |---|________|-----
Input | | | 0.2 ohm |
| |_______________| 1/2 watt |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Ground 0------O
| |
| | Output
| |
| |
| |
| _______________ |
| | | ________ |
0-----------| LM340T-5 |----|________|-----
| | | 0.2 ohm
| |_______________| 1/2 watt
| + |
----- |
----- 22uF |
| 50V |
| Ground
|
O-------- Ground-------------------------------------------------O
The LM340T-5 is internally set to put out 5 volts. It can be mounted directly
on a grounded heat sink, with no insulating washers needed. They should be
checked however, that the two devices paralleled are close in output voltage.
This can be done before connecting the resistors together at the output, by
measuring each with a voltmeter. They should be within 0.1 volts of each
other. Otherwise one device will not share the load as much as the other. Each
LM340T is good for 1.5 amps, so with 2 in parallel, you can get 3 amps form
the circuit.
07 Feb 1996
[email protected]
Jim Pearl
on Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Jim Pearl wrote:
> Stupid question here - what's the difference between the 93Cobra brakes and the stock 87-93 brakes? I know there's disks in the back right? What size are they and what's different in the front? TIA!
The front brakes are nearly identical. The only difference is
the higher hat on the Cobra rotor:
_____
I I _____
I I I I
----------------- -----------------
Corba GT
Slightly exagerated, but you get the point. The cobra is about an inch
taller. They are the same 11" Diameter as a GT Rotor
As for the rears, they are 10.1 or 10.5 diameter, I can't remember.
08 Feb 1996
[email protected]
> >You need the spacer because on the FOX 3 cars the '95 R wheel will snug
> >nicely against your strut (after the 5 bolt conversion, of course),
> >therefore you need to push it outwards to effectively reduce the backspacing.
>
> what's the backspacing on the '95 Cobra R wheels?
The 17x9 Cobra-R wheel has two different backspacings available-M-1007-R58,
which is 5.95" backspacing, and M-1007-M179, which is 6.42" backspacing. Mine
are the R58s, but my setup is way out in left field so they work very well on
my much-modified '86. I don't know what availability is on the M179s. It'd be
just like FMS to put them in their catalog and then never make any of 'em... I
don't know who would want that wheel with even more backspacing in any case,
unless they were planning on running a trick SLA suspension and souls stick
the whole upright out inside the wheel ID (which is where it really belongs in
any case).
> > They are, but it drives nice for a street car. I will probobly
> >go for 255/40/17 in the front with the 275's in the rear next time around.
>
> your choice, but for road racing, i think most people would stick
> with 235s or 245s on that width rim. my 255s are too wide for my 16x8 rims.
Tires that wide on a rim that narrow are useful for appearance only. The
sidewalls are pulled in at such an acute angle that in cornering major
portions of the tread roll up off the surface. Tires require some very special
design characteristics to be run cantilevered that far, and our street tires
*don't have them*. IMHO, you're spending a lot of money for nothing but looks
at that width. The wheel width required depends upon the manufacturer, but in
general 275s are designed to be supported by a 9.5-10.5" wheel... Talk to your
tire manufacturer for their recommendations, if you really want to get your
money's worth out of that very expensive rubber.
08 Feb 1996
[email protected]
On Feb 7, [email protected] wrote:
> > Stupid question here - what's the difference between the 93Cobra
> > brakes and the stock 87-93 brakes? I know there's disks in the back
> > right? What size are they and what's different in the front? TIA!
>
> The front brakes are nearly identical. The only difference is
> the higher hat on the Cobra rotor:
> Slightly exagerated, but you get the point. The cobra is about
> an inch taller. They are the same 11" Diameter as a GT Rotor
It's actually 3/4". It was done to space the front wheels out to produce the
same track as the disk brake rear axle, which was pinched as a unit from the
T-bird Turbo Coupe stock.
> As for the rears, they are 10.1 or 10.5 diameter, I can't remember.
10.6". The calipers are the 45mm bore T-bird calipers. For all intents and
purposes, the '93 cobra just got the non-ABS T-bird's braking system- except
for those wierdball large-offset rotors. '93 Cobra owners, take note: those
things are going to become _unobtainable_ in a very few years. They are not in
common with any other Ford parts!
08 Feb 1996
[email protected]
> > As for the rears, they are 10.1 or 10.5 diameter, I can't remember.
>
> 10.6".
I typoed this and didn't catch it before sending- I missed the "1". The
correct dimension is 10.16".
19 Feb 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
A word of warning:
Today I was going to go out and get 4 new tires mounted on my new 5 lug, '94
GT 3, dual spoke wheels, for use on my M2300K kit. I'd previously checked
that the SN95 hubs do indeed fit these wheels by checking 1 hub on 1 wheel.
While examining the fit again today I checked teh same hub against a different
wheel. 'she no fit. I could barely get the outer diameter of the hub in, and
the inner shoulder of the hub would not fit, no way, no how. 3 out of the 4
wheels fit the hub, but the fourth one is out of tolerance. A 25% failure
rate. Thanks for sweating the details Ford :-(.
I'm glad I noticed this before I mounted the tires as I' d have a tougher time
sending the defective wheel back after mounting it. As it is I've had the
wheels for a month and I hope I have no problems with the vendor I bought it
from. Christ, who would think you'd have to mic out wheels for gods sake? It's
not like I'm rebuilding an engine damnit. Naturally this will set back my
brake project for at least another 2 weeks as I work out the details of
sending my wheel back.
20 Feb 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Feb 19, Robert Allen wrote:
> Today I was going to go out and get 4 new tires mounted
> on my new 5 lug, '94 GT 3, dual spoke wheels, for use
> on my M2300K kit. I'd previously checked that the SN95
> hubs do indeed fit these wheels by checking 1 hub on 1
> wheel. While examining the fit again today I checked teh
> same hub against a different wheel. 'she no fit. I could
> barely get the outer diameter of the hub in, and the inner
> shoulder of the hub would not fit, no way, no how. 3 out
> of the 4 wheels fit the hub, but the fourth one is out
> of tolerance. A 25% failure rate. Thanks for sweating the
> details Ford :-(.
Ford *does* sweat the details. Sounds like you were the one who blew it here.
I'd bet you a case of beer that you didn't have the brake rotor in place on
the hub when you tried this. The brake rotor is supposed to pilot on the
70.51mm register diameter (that 6mm high "shoulder" you hung up on). When the
brake rotor is in place, the wheel never gets anywhere near that shoulder- the
"hat" portion of the rotor is 6mm thick. The wheel pilots on the smaller
70.0mm snout pilot, and there should be about 0.2mm clearance- a nice slip
fit.
If you are going to try a stackup fit, please try all the parts that are
supoposed to bet there in that stack. The spacer effect if the 6mm thick rotor
hat section is very important.
*Stop panicking*. Those parts stack up just fine, if you put them together as
the factory intended.
20 Feb 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
>>If you are going to try a stackup fit, please try all the parts that
>>are supoposed to bet there in that stack. The spacer effect if the 6mm
>>thick rotor hat section is very important. `
Good advice, and tonight my dad will be bringing down the
necessary components to try on the wheels.
>>*Stop panicking*. Those parts stack up just fine, if you put them
>>together as the factory intended.
I hope so. It is just a bit worrisome that there is 20 thousandths difference
among the 4 wheels, and this difference is between the wheel bearing surface
and the bearing housing. I'm no mechanical engineer, so I can't say whether
20 thou is a lot between bearing surfaces in this context.
Scott, what type of beer do you prefer in the likely event this works out? :-)
20 Feb 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
My dad brought down the brake parts from his house today and we had another
testfit. Even with the correct rotor, correctly oriented, between the hub and
the wheel, the OD of the hub is 1-2 thou wider than the ID of the wheel bore.
If I torqued down the lugnuts you would need a hammer to get the damned wheel
off the hub. The ID of the wheel bore on the other 3 wheels is about 6 thou
larger than the bore on the defective wheel. Since I'm pressed for time and
patience I'm not going to try sending this wheel back, but we're going to try
and lap out the bore for at least 2 thou which should allow things to fit,
hoping that heat expansion or grime won't jam the wheel on (yes,I know it's
unlikely), and hoping that the rest of the wheel is sound.
skod, Sierra Nevada would be find thank you. I'll settle for a free miller at
the next track even though.
God hates me, and I hate 'em back.
03 Mar 1996 11:53:10 -0800
"Theodore A. Chen"
>I just replaced the rotors and pads on my '86 5.0 Mustang. It was realy
>easy but the only thing I think I could have goofed on is the torque on
>the large nut holding the whole assmebly on the spindle. I torqued it to
>about 5 ft-lbs. by guess. I think I got it right but if I smoke a bearing
>in the next 30K miles, I would not be surprized.
5 lb-ft? is that what your manual says? if i remember correctly, the
procedure is to tighten the nut snugly (about 20 lb-ft), back off half a turn,
and then retighten to 10-15 lb-in. that's _inches_. i always did it with the
tip of my index finger on the wrench and called it close enough. 5 lb-ft is
definitely too much.
overtightening could do more than just smoke the bearing. you could score the
races on the spindle badly enough that you'll have to replace the spindle. a
scored spindle is something that's just waiting to break at the track with
sticky tires and high loads.
03 Mar 1996
Jim Pearl
fordnatics
Whew - after several nights of swearing, banging knuckles, and getting
filthy I've finally got my brakes installed - mostly.
Before I go any further I want to express a GREAT deal of thanks to Chris
Ihara (WEB master for The Corral) and John McCauley President of the Saleen
owners club. Most of all my friend Chris owner D&D Motorsports (703)
331-1422) who allowed me to use his tools, heated shop, hoist, and
knowledge for the total of 3 nights and a half day. Without these people's
help this job would never have gotten done! Chris Ihara has also done this
job and has placed instructions out on the WEB at The Corral. I expect that
pretty soon he'll be adding lessons learned from my job as well as some
pictures. Shame we didn't take one or two of my engine!
Anyway, during the course of installing this kit I ran into SEVERAL things
that I've not seen covered in the magazines, here, or in the SVO
instructions. While this is fresh in my mind I thought I'd share it with
you all in the hopes that the next person contemplating this kit will be
better prepared than I was to install it.
First - check the "inventory" closely. Particularly the box containing many
of the small parts. Make sure you have them ALL - use the inventory list!
Second - pull out the three rubber brake hoses and compare the part
numbers. Surprise - Ford SVO may have shipped you two LEFT Cobra hoses
instead of the listed left and right ones. I thought this was a fluke -
when I attempted to install it I noticed a distinct lack of slack (it was
turned 90 degrees to bolt up). Chris Ihara told me that he had installed
his kit using this hose (we think) and that shortly thereafter experienced
COMPLETE brake failure due to it's rubbing the tire. (more on this later)
Checking the inventory list gave me the part number for the "correct" hose.
I ordered it and $20 poorer it arrived the next day. Surprise! - the hard
line fitting on the right flex hose is different than the one on the car! I
had to CUT and DOUBLE flare a new fitting onto the hose. The instructions
mention an adapter "supplied" to be used - I never found mine in the box.
Be prepared to do this or have the adapter and make sure you use the
correct hose, if you use the one I was supplied make sure you've got the
E-brakes hooked up, you'll need it! Perhaps my kit and Chris' were flukes
but... check those part numbers. If the passenger side goes right on then
be suspicious, I'd also make sure you've got that darned adapter if you
don't wish to cut and flare.
Third - Chris Ihara warned me that he'd had trouble with the Wilwood prop
valve. Seems he used the fittings supplied and it leaked pretty bad.
Tightening them up further stripped the prop valve ($40). Reading the Ford
SVO instructions you'll note that they say to use the included adapters to
install this valve. Looking at the adapters and having heard Chris' horror
story I noticed that the fittings are flare type fittings, the Wilwood
sheet specs their threads as being 1/8th NPT. Hmm, says I, off to Pep Boys
I go. I bought 2 "Inverted Flare Connectors - 1/4 tube size, 1/8 Male NPT".
These screw into the Wilwood valve and the Ford SVO pieces screw into them
with the hard line next. I am supposing that Chris used the supplied
fittings, bottomed them out, and after he screwed them tighter lost the
threads. There's no way I can see that the supplied fitting will seal. They
will screw on but they weren't NPT fittings..
Fourth - The drivers side fender well. Chris Ihara had to beat his up
pretty good to get the Cobra booster in and warned me. He said that he felt
removing the upper intake and driver's side valve cover MIGHT allow it to
slip in. On my car I removed the stock booster and began examining the new
one - it's much bigger! In my case, short of yanking the motor there's no
way it'll fit. I've got a turbo manifold right up above the lip of the
valve cover. Remembering what Chris had said I surmised that the booster
would hit the manifold - back in went the old booster (sigh). You'll also
find that removing the neutral start switch inside will make it easier
getting to the booster bolts. Make sure you remember how it goes back in
and the brake light switch too! Chris from D&D swore a blue streak getting
mine back in for me after I gave up! The car seems to drive okay with the
smaller booster but I'd like to install the other one later on, I'll keep
everyone posted! BTW you'll notice in the article that 5.0 Mustang wrote
about this install (June 1995) that they refer to the booster install only
briefly and in the picture they show what appears to be the new master
cylinder but the OLD booster - cute!
Fifth - Dust shields for the front brakes require a 1/4 inch pop-rivet gun.
If you're like me you've not got one of these and the price of one is rude
(convertible bracing kit from SVO also requires this). In my case I simply
left them off.
Sixth - You'll have to flare the connector for the front left fitting
inside the engine compartment. It's short remove the whole thing from the
car and do it right. This is mentioned in the instructions and the new
connector is supposed to be included.
Seventh - Brake low pressure switch. I can't find my connector in the
harness but I'm willing to bet it won't hook up. My car had a kit from
Stainless Steel Brake on it already so my connector wasn't being used. A
connector off of an 83 Mustang looks like it'll work fine. In fact the
gutted prop valve matches this car and others (?). While I'm on the subject
of the prop valve - make sure you understand that gutting the Ford valve
WILL join your two previously separate braking systems (surprise!).
Remember I told you Chris I. lost ALL braking ability at once? I got to
thinking about it and realized that this valve is what normally keeps the
systems separate - not anymore once it's gutted... Also - if you're
converting from a SSB kit like I was - get a set of lines from another
Mustang for the prop to master cylinder connections - the ones from SSB are
no where near close (sigh).
Eighth - Brake bleeding this puppy uses quite a bit of fluid. I used up
nearly two decent sized jugs of good fluid and I KNOW I have air yet to be
removed. My pedal is spongy now but it doesn't sink so I'm feeling okay
about it for now. I'll wait a bit and then bleed again - even the shop's
power bleeder didn't get all the air out! Supposedly banging a mallet on
the rear calipers helps, I tried it but...
Ninth - E-brake cables. The kit comes with two sets, one for 93s and one
for older ones. In my case I'd removed the stock bracket under the car for
the SSB kit and had to use the 93 cables. Using a box end wrench I was able
to easily remove the cables prongs under the car (love that lift!).
Currently, because I was too tired to remove the E-brake handle for welding
mine aren't hooked up. Sure hope I don't have any hoses rubbing, I have to
drive it to work tomorrow!
Tenth - Alignment! Ouch, with the new spindles this puppy has some serious
toe-in, looks like a ballerina! Chris the shop owner was able to visually
align mine on the rack and when I drove it home it tracked straight as an
arrow with no problems, wow! You WILL need an alignment and Chris Ihara
told me he had to have his towed for his alignment - keep this in mind.
Eleventh - wheels and tires. I bought stock 94-95 17s from Connecticut
Mustang. upon unpacking them I found two wrong center caps, peeling
clearcoat on one, and one missing a valve stem! I should've checked them
earlier but I was told they were cherry and wanted to keep the wrap on
until needed (grr). The new spindles DO lower the front but with SVO C
springs minus a quarter coil mine sits okay. I own an '88 but the fenders
in front have both been replaced some time ago. I have no rubbing that I've
noticed so far and my rear lips were rolled, although looking at it I don't
think I had to, we'll see. The car DOES seem to handle a hair better but
I'm not pushing it yet, wheels look good on a black car.
I think that's about it. Again I want to thank Chris Ihara, John McCauley,
and D&D Motorsports for all the help. I figure I myself had about close to
35 hours in this (I'm slow) and the others all had their fair share - this
was no fun but I hope when the brakes have no air in them it'll have been
worth it!
If anyone's got any questions or would like any clarification please drop
me a line and I'll try to answer them as best I can...
04 Mar 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
Jim Pearl writes:
>Whew - after several nights of swearing, banging knuckles, and getting
>filthy I've finally got my brakes installed - mostly.
congrats! it took me a couple of weeks, working a few hours at a
time. and then i spent even more time messing around with getting
the brakes to fit inside 16" wheels...
>Second - pull out the three rubber brake hoses and compare the part
>numbers. Surprise - Ford SVO may have shipped you two LEFT Cobra hoses
>instead of the listed left and right ones.
...
>Checking the inventory list gave me the part number for the "correct" hose.
>I ordered it and $20 poorer it arrived the next day. Surprise! - the hard
>line fitting on the right flex hose is different than the one on the car!
well, yeah. the instructions say so. i would have gone looking for the
adapter, rather than cut and flare the hard line. this would have been a
perfect excuse to pitch the rubber flex hoses and get braided stainless steel
hoses. doing that corner with a braided steel flex hose from Earl's would
have cost less than the $20 you had to pay for the rubber flex hose.
>Third - Chris Ihara warned me that he'd had trouble with the Wilwood prop
>valve. Seems he used the fittings supplied and it leaked pretty bad.
yes, this has been discussed on the list at considerable length. i posted the
correct fittings. you must not have been around then. either SVO hasn't put
together any new kits lately, or they haven't figured it out yet.
>Hmm, says I, off to Pep Boys
>I go. I bought 2 "Inverted Flare Connectors - 1/4 tube size, 1/8 Male NPT".
>These screw into the Wilwood valve and the Ford SVO pieces screw into them
i don't know about the SVO fittings, but are you sure about the 1/4" tube
size? i thought the hard lines were 3/16", and i'd have expected the fittings
to be the same tube size. in any event, i didn't use the SVO fittings at all.
i bought (from pep boys) fittings that mated to the tube fittings already on
the hard line, since daisy-chaining fittings wasn't my cup of tea.
>There's no way I can see that the supplied fitting will seal. They
>will screw on but they weren't NPT fittings..
they will not seal. and in fact, although they seem to fit, you might have
noticed that they move around a little even when they bottom out.
>Fourth - The drivers side fender well. Chris Ihara had to beat his up
>pretty good to get the Cobra booster in and warned me. He said that he felt
>removing the upper intake and driver's side valve cover MIGHT allow it to
>slip in.
nope. you didn't say what year your car is, but i think it's a late 80's -
right? you will have to dent the fender to install the brake booster. there
would be interference between the installed booster and the fender, if you
didn't dent it. it's easy to underestimate the amount of relieving that needs
to be done for the booster to fit. you'll notice that i'm talking about having
the booster fit at all, not about getting it in.
BTW, i installed my cobra brake booster after removing the wiper motor.
everything else stayed in place, including a Maier strut tower brace (which is
why i had to remove the wiper motor). i also disconnected a few of the
connectors by the fender.
>BTW you'll notice in the article that 5.0 Mustang wrote
>about this install (June 1995) that they refer to the booster install only
>briefly and in the picture they show what appears to be the new master
>cylinder but the OLD booster - cute!
that article was useful only for the pictures. as a step-by-step guide, it's
worthless. i don't recall exactly, but they also left out a bunch of hard
steps. sort of like "remove old brake booster. install new brake booster."
sounds a lot easier than it actually is.
>Fifth - Dust shields for the front brakes require a 1/4 inch pop-rivet gun.
>If you're like me you've not got one of these and the price of one is rude
>(convertible bracing kit from SVO also requires this). In my case I simply
>left them off.
you don't want them on a track car, anyway.
>Sixth - You'll have to flare the connector for the front left fitting
>inside the engine compartment. It's short remove the whole thing from the
>car and do it right. This is mentioned in the instructions and the new
>connector is supposed to be included.
the new tube fitting is indeed included, and as you say, it's easier
to remove the line from the car.
>Seventh - Brake low pressure switch. I can't find my connector in the
>harness but I'm willing to bet it won't hook up.
mine works fine. my car is an '87 mustang GT.
>While I'm on the subject
>of the prop valve - make sure you understand that gutting the Ford valve
>WILL join your two previously separate braking systems (surprise!).
>Remember I told you Chris I. lost ALL braking ability at once? I got to
>thinking about it and realized that this valve is what normally keeps the
>systems separate - not anymore once it's gutted...
i don't think so. skod will have to verify this, but as i understand it, the
modification disables the proportioning between the front and rear, but
retains the shuttle function. i really can't see ford letting the kit out the
door without the shuttle function, especially in this litigation-happy age.
the gutted prop valve is supplying full pressure to the front and rear
systems, but they're still isolated.
chris ihara's experience, BTW, is a good example of why you should check your
brake lines for interference.
>Eighth - Brake bleeding this puppy uses quite a bit of fluid. I used up
>nearly two decent sized jugs of good fluid and I KNOW I have air yet to be
>removed.
yeah, it's tough to get a decent pedal. not as bad as the stock system with
the fast-fill MC, though.
feel free to ask if you have questions.
what am i going to do with those splash shields, rubber flex hoses,
and center caps for my 17" GT wheels?
04 Mar 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Mar 4, Kevin Gregg wrote:
> I just hand tightened the nut. Remembering that it came off with little
> effort, I thought it should go back on with the same amount of effort.
> Plus, I don't have a torque wrench that measures in lb-inches.
The proper preload is quite important for decent wheel bearing life. Too
little, and the bearings will die very quickly. Too much, and the bearings
will die even faster. If you didn't replace the cups (the "outer races" that
are pressed into the rotor, you probably don't need to worry about it too
much. But if I were you I'd do a sanity check ont the health in a day or two.
Just jack the car up and give a good wiggle to the wheel assembly- you're
trying to feel for play. If you get more than just a few hundredths of an inch
of play at the tire (just barely noticeable play when you grab the tire at the
periphery and wiggle it), you might want to retorque. I usually torqued to 10-
20 ft-lb, gave the rotor a quick spin to seat the bearing races, then backed
off to full loose and retorqed with one finger on the wrench.
You will always get some play, unfortunately, as the outer bearing race is
generally a suboptimal (read: production-quality) fit on the spindle snout.
Even when the bearings and spindle are brand-new and are perfectly preloaded,
the .005-.008 loose fit there will translate into .020-.030 play at the tire:
enough to feel. If the car has significant mileage, say over 100k, then the
fit out there at the outer bearing is probably .015-.020 due to the effects of
the inner race "walking" and fretting on the spindle, and the assembly will
feel like *hell*, even with the bearings crushed to death.
This is one of the reasons that track fanatics inspect and replace their
spindles fairly often. Detailed inspection is mandatory at least once a
season, since that little wear groove is a great place for fatigue cracks to
form. When thigs get sloppy, out they go.
> I am amazed that this smallish nut and cotter pin setup will even hold the
> rotor on the spindle under any type of driving. I know the caliper & pads
> also exert some holding force on the rotor. How is it that the rotor
> doesn't simply fall off? What am I missing here?
The caliper contributes exactly nothing- it is a sliding design that self-
aligns to the rotor. Nope, the *only* thing holding that wheel on the car is
that nut. The little retainer and keyed washer are simply there to keep the
nut from turning and losing adjustment. The _only_ thing between you and the
toolies is the nut itself.
Now, having said that, I have to say that that nut is a pretty stout piece.
The forged, heat treated spindle snout is more than strong enough in tension.
It's a little feeble in bending- smack a curb, and you'll be buying a new
spindle. The spindle is ductile for a reason, though- better ductile than
brittle, no? The real reliability headache out there is the outer bearing and
its fit on the snout.
The other real headache is that damned pressed steel retainer. On the LF side,
it's pretty much no problem- the natural rotation of the wheel tries to
*loosen* the nut, and any rotation presses the retainer into the cotter pin
more strongly. The keyed washer is supposed to prevent bearing race rotation
from affecting the nut, but those washers have been known to fail- the bearing
inner race frets against it due to the aformentioned production-quality fit,
the key tang breaks off due to fatigue, and then the washer can work directly
on the nut and try to unscrew it. The cotter will save the day, if it's a big
cotter (and not some shrimpy 3/32 replacement that just happened to be laying
around). Use the right cotter here!
Unfortunately, on the RF corner, the natural rotation of the wheel would tend
to *tighten* the nut. And if the washer fails or is omitted, the nut will just
have the (negligible!) shear strength of the retainer to keep it from
spinning. If it does spin, it tightens up on the bearing. Which creates even
more drag and spins it harder, so it tightens more, and in one incandescent
instant it just jams the inner race of the outer bearing right up onto the
snout. This either promptly fusion welds the whole spindle-rotor assembly into
a nonrotating lump, or it breaks the bearing races right out of the rotor,
with or without the wheel departing from the car. Turns out, I have a RF Fox
spindle (donated to me by a thoroughly astounded buddy) that this happened to
laying right on the floor here. it still has the remains of the center of the
hub, whcih broke right out of the rotor, permanently welded in place. Must
have been *spectacular*.
Hopefully, this little morality play has helped illustrate that that assembly
is worth paying some attention to. Maintained properly, it is *stone
reliable*. Leave out the keyed washer, reuse really beat-up old worn bits, or
just use a bit of some random wire or a garbage bag twist tie for the cotter,
and you'll have an interesting time!
An interesting factoid came up when Wilwood first introduced their aluminum
hubs for us trackies, back when they did their first Fox brake kits. The
temperature coefficient of expansion of the cast-iron stock rotor is slightly
lower than that of the forged spindle snout. So to a certain extent, as the
assmbly heats up due to friction in use, it "loosens up" just a bit. Well, the
tempco of the Wilwood aluminum hub is much, much _higher_ than that of the
spindle, so when you warm it up it tightens right up. Which warms it more,
which tightens it more, and so on to the point of bearing destruction. Bang.
So you have to set up the Al hubs with significantly lower preload when cold,
so that they end up where you want them when hot. Problem is, the tech
inspectors (at least, the ones who aren't in the know) bitch at you for having
sloppy loose wheel bearings...
It seems obvious in retrospect, but it wasn't at the time. Some really good
wrenches wiped out several set of bearings, and more than a few
...
much differently than the stock cast iron.
Me? These days I have the SN95 spindles on my track car. And I look at that
36mm selflocking nut that I reef down to 250-ft-lb to retain my hubs, and I
_still_ get the hives a bit. As a result I've drilled the spindle snout for a
nice beefy 1/8" cotter, *just in case* that self locking nut decides to self-
unlock on the LF corner, and starts unscrewing one fine day. Belt and
suspenders- that's me...
04 Mar 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
> >Whew - after several nights of swearing, banging knuckles, and getting
> >filthy I've finally got my brakes installed - mostly.
Yes, but it's a _righteous_ way to get filthy.
> yes, this has been discussed on the list at considerable length.
> i posted the correct fittings. you must not have been around then.
> either SVO hasn't put together any new kits lately, or they haven't
> figured it out yet.
They know about it, *believe me*. I think they are still working off
the first run of kits.
> >Hmm, says I, off to Pep Boys
> >I go. I bought 2 "Inverted Flare Connectors - 1/4 tube size, 1/8 Male NPT".
> >These screw into the Wilwood valve and the Ford SVO pieces screw into them
>
> i don't know about the SVO fittings, but are you sure about the 1/4" tube
> size? i thought the hard lines were 3/16", and i'd have expected the
> fittings to be the same tube size.
Well, you have to remember that most hydraulic catalogs make the hilarious
mistake of believing that there is something resembling standardization in
hydraulic plumbing. So the industry standard name for a 7/16-24 SAE flare nut
is "1/4 tube size". The name is still used even if the hapless nut is drilled
for 3/16" tube, and this causes most folks who are just geting into brake
plumbing no end of despair. Hey, don't worry- it gets worse.
Suicidal depression generally doesn't set in until they begin to realize that
no matter what year of car they have just worked on amd figured out, every
_other_ year of the same model has different fitting sizes and sexes and races
and threadings...
> >There's no way I can see that the supplied fitting will seal. They
> >will screw on but they weren't NPT fittings..
>
> they will not seal. and in fact, although they seem to fit, you might
> have noticed that they move around a little even when they bottom out.
Those fittings are a spot of mud in the eye of the SVO folks, to be sure.
> >BTW you'll notice in the article that 5.0 Mustang wrote
> >about this install (June 1995) that they refer to the booster install only
> >briefly and in the picture they show what appears to be the new master
> >cylinder but the OLD booster - cute!
Well, many of us have been using the PBR setup with our stock boosters for
quite a long time. IMHO, the booster changeover is _entirely_ optional, and is
in fact somewhat error-prone. The new booster differes only slightly in boost
gain and saturation boost from your stocker. It also has a very fragile
injection-molded plastic vacuum valve right at the input pushrod, and this
valve is easily cracked or damaged while manhandling it into place, cuasing a
partial or total loss of boost. I personally wouldn`t install the new booster,
if I bought the M-2300-K kit (I built my setup before the kits were
available). I'd just pop the booster on the shelf and keep it as a spare, or
to sell to some Cobra restorer as NOS in 40 years.
> >Fifth - Dust shields for the front brakes require a 1/4 inch pop-rivet gun.
> >If you're like me you've not got one of these and the price of one is rude
> >(convertible bracing kit from SVO also requires this). In my case I simply
> >left them off.
>
> you don't want them on a track car, anyway.
They are useful as patterns to make termination plates for your brake
ducts. They are also good for wining at the nightbor's noisy dogs...
> >Seventh - Brake low pressure switch. I can't find my connector in the
> >harness but I'm willing to bet it won't hook up.
>
> mine works fine. my car is an '87 mustang GT.
It's actually a "low fluid" switch. The '87-up cars have all had plastic
reservoir MCs with a magnetic reed switch and a magnet on the float in the
filler to turn on the brake warning light. The '86 and earlier cars used a
switch that was tripped by the shuttle valve going offcenter, indicating the
failure of one system or the other in the dual-tandem system. Only small
amounts of hackery are required to make this funtion work, if desired.
> >While I'm on the subject
> >of the prop valve - make sure you understand that gutting the Ford valve
> >WILL join your two previously separate braking systems (surprise!).
> >Remember I told you Chris I. lost ALL braking ability at once? I got to
> >thinking about it and realized that this valve is what normally keeps the
> >systems separate - not anymore once it's gutted...
You should _only_ gut the proportioner function. If you gut that, and leave
the *shuttle* in place in the differential pressure valve, you will still have
the shuttle function intact- and you _do_ need it. You should not just blindly
take everything out of the combination valve-just the piston, seal, and spring
from the large proportioner bore. The proportioner is entirely separate from
the differential pressure valve. Gutting the proportioner according to the
Ford instructions will not diable this very important safety feature.
> >Eighth - Brake bleeding this puppy uses quite a bit of fluid. I used up
> >nearly two decent sized jugs of good fluid and I KNOW I have air yet to be
> >removed.
You may find that tapping the calipers with a soft-faced mallet helps dislodge
some bubbles. You will also find that the gutted proportioner bore in the
combinatin valve is a very difficult to bleed bubble trap. To bleed it,
slightly loosen the blanking cap you put on the proportioner bore, and stroke
the pedal until all the bubbles have purged out- and then tighten it down
while the pedal is being stroked.
> what am i going to do with those splash shields, rubber flex hoses,
> and center caps for my 17" GT wheels?
Save 'em for the year 2040, when al lthe restorers will pay millions of
dollars for them as NOS.
06 Mar 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
> My only remaining question at this point about the kit, which
> is 2/3 installed, is, on my 1985, w/ 1987 front brakes & red
> konis, is it normal for there to be a gap of 3/4-1" between
> the bolt holes in the spindle ears and the strut mounting holes?
> I.e. will my front springs have 3/4" more of preload if I use
> a spring compressor to install the Cobra spindle? Or should the
> new spindle and old Konis pretty much bolt up with just the aid
> of a jack under the A arm? RIght now if we try and jack the
> A arm further the entire car lifts off the stands we have it
> on. I have street Eibach springs and (presmably '87 sized) red
> Konis all around.
from your question, it sounds like you can't get the spindles to come up far
enough to match up with the holes in the struts, because when you try, the car
starts coming up off the stands. do you have CCM camber plates? are you
using the spacers? if so, get rid of the spacers. i tried to use the spacers
with my car, but i wasn't able to jack up the control arm close enough to
reach the strut without making the car come off the stands.
the SN95 spindles have moved the strut mounting point 28 mm down to increase
bump travel. that means your struts are too short to work with both the SN95
spindles and the spacers in the camber plates. you don't need the spacers, so
take them out.
i'll be at thunderhill if you want to pay me in beer. :)
15 Mar 1996
"Lawrence S. Harris III"
> I'm trying to find a used 140mph speedometer for a '79-'93 Mustang.
If you mean '79-'86, good luck! These things are rarer than hen's teeth, and
I've been looking for one also. A friend has the saleen catalog, and they
sell 160MPH ones that say "SALEEN" on them. BBK also sells 170MPH ones that
basically sold exchange (I assume they recal & reface existing ones) for not
that much money. I'm thinking of getting the BBK one since it's cheep, but
170MPH is a bit rediculous.
08 Apr 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>When installing the 2300-K kit on a Fox 3 Mustang, is it also necessary to
>replace the front struts with SN-95 units?? We are installing the Cobra
>brakes on a vehicle that has stock springs all around, but I was under the
>impression that the SN-95 spindles (included with the 2300-K kit) had strut
>mounting points an inch or so lower than the Fox 3 parts. If the car is not
>lowered, do the Fox 3 struts still work??
as you surmise, the SN95 spindles have the strut mounting points 28 mm lower
than the fox spindles do. however, this setup should still work, though your
spring rate will be higher (since your springs are compressed more). you may
have trouble getting the control arm to come up far enough for you to reattach
the strut to the spindle, if the car starts rising off the jackstands.
depends on how stiff your springs are. you could get somebody to sit on the
car.
if you have CCM camber plates, don't use the spacers. you will run out of
droop travel quickly if you do. i tried to use the spacers with my '87 GT
after installing the SN95 spindles. my car has eibach springs in it, which
lower the car about 1.5". the first time i went over a bump, the struts ran
out of droop travel. out came the spacers.
>For those of you that have already installed the 2300-K kit on a Fox 3, what
>wheel width and back spacing dimensions fit under the fenders?? What size
>tires fit without rubbing (too much)??
note that the fox mustangs had different wheelwell sizes during the years.
SVO recommends 5.75" backspacing for an 8" wide wheel. you will have to roll
your rear fenders, but if you pick the right offset, you can fit a pretty big
tire in there without much interference. i've been using CSA Type 35 wheels,
16x8. the wheel is just a few millimeters further outboard than specified by
SVO. 225/50/16s fit fine in the back. i got some interference with the
control arms up front, but i had that with the stock wheels, too. at the
track, i was running 255/50/16 RE71RAZ race tires on the CSAs front and rear.
interference in the rear was minimal, except in full bump. the interference
was on the driver's side, but i have a big dent in the rear fender from an
encounter with an out-of-control high school kid. the 245/45/17s i'm going to
be using at the track are smaller, so i don't expect much interference.
at the front, i had some minor interference with the leading edge of the
wheelwell on the driver's side with the 255s. '91-'93 mustangs shouldn't have
this problem.
in short, i was able to use 255/50/16 tires without much interference, and a
lower profile tire would fit better.
>If any of you have used aftermarket wheels, did the center hole need boring
>out to fit those large diameter locating pilots on the SN-95 spildle??
my aftermarket wheels were CSA Type 35s, and were hubcentric. good wheels
should be hubcentric and not require any futzing to get them to fit on the
pilots on the hubs.
08 Apr 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
>>When installing the 2300-K kit on a Fox 3 Mustang, is it also necessary to
>>replace the front struts with SN-95 units?? We are installing the Cobra
Not quite. You do however need the 1987 and up front struts. I already
had these on my '85 because I'd had 1987 front brakes added. The pre-'87
struts have a different width on the spindle mounting ears (I think the pre-
87 strut is wider, and so requires a spacer). Compare the width of the
spindle mounting ear on the strut with the thickness of the SN95 spindle.
Note also that installing the M2300K kit will lower your car slightly
(about 3/4", maybe a bit more), and it will reduce the amount of negative
camber you can dial in. On my '85 I actually ended up with positive camber
even with my McCaster race plates. The place I got my front end alignment
at got me negative camber by slotting the upper strut hole and grinding the
edge of the spindle ear down slightly, and now I'm running 2 degrees
negative camber.
>>brakes on a vehicle that has stock springs all around, but I was under the
>>impression that the SN-95 spindles (included with the 2300-K kit) had strut
>>mounting points an inch or so lower than the Fox 3 parts. If the car is not
>>lowered, do the Fox 3 struts still work??
The SN95 spindles are indeed shorter. You'll have to use a good floorjack
to jack up the A arm to get the holes to line up. This will put a bit of
preload on your front suspension, making it a bit stiffer and lower. Locate
the jack at the end of the A arm to get enough leverage to compress the
spring. Stay clear of the spring or use a Ford type spring compresser in
case the jack let's lose and the spring spoings out. If that spring hit you
in the fact you can count on at least a visit to the hospital.
If you have '87+ struts you will be ok. If you don't,
you'll either need to get some (recommended) or make
up a spacer (I think this works, but I don't like kludges
so I don't recommend a spacer either).
>>
>>For those of you that have already installed the 2300-K kit on a Fox 3, what
>>wheel width and back spacing dimensions fit under the fenders?? What size
>>tires fit without rubbing (too much)??
I'm running '94-'95 3,dual spoke, 17" GT wheels, which have about 5 3/4"
backspacing (if I remember correctly). My current tires are 245-40-17
Bridgestone R71's. The 40 series tires on 17" wheels are actually a bit under
the diameter of my 15" 60 series gatorbacks. Most people with the Fox chassis
seem to run 45 series on the street becauese it's a bit less bumpy, but I
was paranoid about fitting the tires under the fender wells. 245 seems to
be about as wide as you can go without significant mods to the suspension
(so it doesn't shift under load) or the fenders (so the tires don't rub).
Using wider tires will probably require a different backspacing also, since
the inner side of my tires are VERY close to the quadrashock, and to the
parking brake cable. I'm running the stiffer police/taxi upper and lower
arms, and so far I haevn't had any noticeable problems with the rear
suspension deflecting much, even on the track.
In the rear you definately need to roll your outer fender wells so the tire
doesn't rub when the suspension compresses. In the front no such work
should be required, but with the bigger tires & wheels you WILL have
rubbing. I get rubbing of the tire on my larger diameter anti-sway bar in
parking lot manouvers. Eventually I will put some steering limiters in the
rack. You just learn to be careful when parking or making U turns. It's
like driving a truck.
>>The Mustang featured in the 2300-K installation article from 5.0 Mustang
>>magazine seemed to have no problems with rubbing and if I'm not mistaken,
They didn't say they didn't have rubbing did they? That article is a
pitiful understatement of what's involved in the install. Not that the
install has a whole pile more of tasks, but each task seldom goes as easy. Oh
yeah, they say you should torque the front hub lock nut to 150 lb. ft.
Bull. The Ford instrictions call for much more than that, like over 200 as I
recall. I have a 250 lb. ft. torque wrench which was enough (I don't have
the instructions handy).
That article also does not show them installing the dreaded giant plum of
death, i.e. the bigger brake booster under the hood. People who've
installed it have used heat and/or hammers to relieve the strut tower the
small amount you need to move to fit the bigger booster. On FI cars you may
need to remove various parts including the windshield wiper motor and/or the
upper intake manifold (my car is carburated). One guy said he just popped
the booster into place using a 2x4 for leverage. I just skilled the booster
install. Since I'm using Earls braided stainless brake lines I knew I would
have a stiff pedal and enough pedal travel. Now that the pads are broken in
I'm very happy with the pedal feel, so I probably won't hassle the booster.
You will have rubbing up front at full steering lock. However as long as
you pick your tires well and have a sensible suspension you may or may not
have rubbing under suspension compression. If you do, you can remove or
modify the plastic fender liners to get more space.
>>the 17 inch wheel/tire combo appeared to have a smaller OD than the 15 inch
>>combo also pictured in the article. This is important because the Mustang
The Mathis book has good info on how big a tire you can get under the
fenders in general. He says use 24.5-25" OD tires only on the pre-87 (I think
it was pre-87) cars. '87+ can use slightly larger diameters, like maybe up
to 25.5"?
>>scheduled to receive the 2300-K package has some ground effects parts that
>>intrude somewhat into the wheel wells. Nothing much larger (tire OD &
>>width?) than stock would probably work. It would be even better if the
>>combo were a pinch smaller.
Go with the 245-40 tires if you want smaller. You get a bit more road
noise, but the ride is still not too punishing (BTW, I have Koni red shocks
all around, and Eibach street sprins all around).
>>If any of you have used aftermarket wheels, did the center hole need boring
>>out to fit those large diameter locating pilots on the SN-95 spildle??
I went with the Ford GT wheels because I knew they fit, and
I like the way they look on my car.
>>I've been watching the l*st for 2300-K installation tips and have seen quite
...
>>the advice I could get!!!
Now that I've done it it doesn't seem like it was such a big job. Since I
was messing with Earls fittings and I was installing on a pre-'87 car I had
to do a bit more work. Just take the job slowly, and look carefully at parts
before installing them to make sure that you have the left handed parts on the
left handed side of the car. That includes the rear calipers & mounts, and
the front rotors and calipers at least. These are after all your brakes,
and you don't want them to fail. Check carefully to make sure the rubber
lines don't rub on the wheel or anything else for that matter. And you'll
want the car up on a stand with all 4 wheels off the ground, as you'll have to
replace the hose from the body down to the rear axle, as well as mess with
the parking brake cables.
Go through the install in your head before starting, and make sure you have
all the tools you'll need, including both metric and Standard sockets :-).
The kit is wonderful though. You stop without drama. If it wasn't for the
rubbing at full lock I'd say every Mustang should have these brakes :-).
16 Apr 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Apr 16, Brian St. Denis wrote:
> What is the procedure for checking/replacing wheel bearings on
> the Cobra (M-2300-K) hubs? Or, how can I get this information?
According to Ford, or according to me?
According to Ford, "The hubs are sealed, non-serviceable units. When
necessary, replace hub".
When I first got mine, the first thing I did was tear them down and repack
them with decent grease. The hub is a thinwall unit forging in SAE 1065 steel,
and the double row ball bearing contined in it uses races ground directly into
the hub forging itself as the outer race. So in that respect, Ford is right-
once the bearing starts to go away, you scrap the hubs. No User Serviceable
Parts Inside. However, teardown, repacking, and inspection is not hard to do
at all.
The inner races in the hub assembly are retained by an internal expanding C-
section clip. Looking down into the center bore, you can see it. To remove it,
you'll need two scribers or dental picks- you use one to brace one end of the
clip, and the other to lift the other end up out of the grooves on the inner
races. It'll take 5 minutes to learn the motion, and then it's a simple
maneuver afterwards. The outboard inner race, and the outboard ball cage and
balls, will fall right out then and can be cleaned and set aside.
The inboard race and ball cage requires removal of the seal to get access to.
Be very gentle with this seal- it's a unique part, and there are *no spares
available*. It is a unusual double lip arrangement, with the outer lip running
on the OD of the race, and the inner lip running on the vertical face of it.
The sealing area is very thin, maybe 1.5mm. The whole seal is only about 2mm
thick, and the metal backing plate is fragile. I used a pair of prying tools I
made out of some aluminum bar stock to gently walk the seal out of its bore.
Then cleaning, repacking, and reassembly is a piece of cake.
Inspection is straightforward. Apparently, when these hubs fail in racing use
they either develop noticable play (just like a conventional tapered roller
assembly that is set up too loose- it can be felt at the wheel OD with the
wiggle test), or crack right at the thin section just inboard of the bolt
flange, where the ball race groove on the ID and the finish machining on the
OD make for a serious stress raiser. Keep an eye there for cracking, and give
them a good wiggle as part of your track prep each time, and then just run the
snot out of them- and scrap 'em when they die.
I had 2 seasons on mine when I retired them, and they show perfect wear
patterns, and no sign of cracking. However, the Bondurant guys replace them
every few weeks on the school cars as a scheduled maintenance item, as I
understand it. Apparently there is an aftermarket tapered roller design that
will be available Real Soon Now that is possibly more bombproof than the
stocker, but it requires a change back to the Fox spindle snout (it'll be
available as a kit from the vendor- modified spindles and hubs).
I personally think that that's brain-dead. I designed and had fabricated my
own tapered roller hubs that run on the much stronger SN95 spindles. Mine are
absolute _tanks_, use shims to set the bearing preload so that the nut is
still reefed down to 250 ft-lb, and they will not fail any time soon. And
when they do, they use standard industrial bearings and seals that are fully
replaceable and easily available. But they aren't cost-effective for
production parts, so the two sets of them that I had made for my own use will
probably be the only ones that ever exist. They're just too damned expensive.
If anybody needs a set of spare OEM SN95 hubs, I have my track spares
available. They are brand new in box, still with the OEM studs- I haven't even
repacked them. $75 each. I'll keep my original modified SN95 hubs as momentos,
since they are beyond their fatigue lives, and I wouldn't let them be run on
another car now...
17 Apr 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>First, what all is needed to put Lincoln calipers on an 88 GT? Is it a
>matter of just bolting them on? Or are there spacers needed and such? Is
>there that much of an improvement with the Lincoln calipers over the stock?
gee, haven't seen this question for a while.
the 73 mm lincoln calipers will indeed bolt right up. piece of cake. the
problem is that they won't work with your master cylinder, because it was
meant to work with the smaller 60 mm pistons of the stock calipers. you'll end
up with overboosted brakes and excessive pedal travel. the right way is to
switch the master cylinder over to the SVO/Lincoln master cylinder, which has
a larger bore to match the larger 73 mm calipers. the master cylinder is
available as a rebuilt unit from your local parts store.
but wait! the SVO/Lincoln master cylinder has two outlets. the stock master
cylinder has three outlets. if you want to stick the SVO master cylinder in
there, you'll need to make a tee. Stainless Steel Brakes sells this for about
$35.
if you decide to make your own tee, watch out for the hodge podge that passes
for brake plumbing in fords. double flares, bubble flares, english, metric -
they're all there in your '88.
the advantage of the 73 mm piston is better support of the driven brake pad,
reducing tapered pad wear and the tendency of the pad to cock sideways. while
you're at it, you should pick up a set of stainless steel caliper bushings.
the stock rubber bushings allow the caliper itself to cock sideways.
one more thing. when you go get those lincoln calipers, make sure you get the
ones with steel pistons. ford used phenolic (plastic) pistons in some of the
calipers, which work fine for the street but have a disconcerting habit of
distorting, cracking, melting, and other wonderful things when you subject
them to hard use at the track. rebuilt calipers pretty much always come with
steel pistons, anyway.
aren't you glad you asked?
17 Apr 1996
"Westhaus, Perry M. ASC/XRE"
fordnatics
This brake mod is not too difficult but is a good example of the domino effect.
The 73mm Lincoln/SVO front calipers are a direct replacement for the 66mm
stockers. Get metal piston rebuilt calipers, not the plastic piston ones. New
pads are needed that have the wide anti-rattle springs. The old pads could be
used if you break off the old springs and use a tube of CRC anti-rattle goop.
Use stainless steel brake caliper sleeves and new caliper sliding bolts to
reduce pad skew.
Now you need a new master cylinder to go with the new calipers. This is
needed to reduce the front hydraulic pressure ratio and prevents
oversensitivity of the brake pedal. Use an 86 SVO 1 1/8" cast iron master
cylinder or if you want to be slick get an aluminum 93 Cobra 1" unit - it
looks just like the stocker, uses the same brake warning switch, and utilizes
the existing hard brake lines from the old master cylinder to the fixed prop
valve. Well almost. The LF hard brake line mounts under the old master
cylinder. No matter which new master cylinder you use, the LF line must be
cut and re-flared to fit in a...
Fixed proportioning (prop) valve. Any prop valve from a 80-86 Mustang will
do, but it must have a total of 5 fittings on it, excluding the brake lite
switch. The cut and re-flared LF hard brake line fits in the "extra" fitting
of this valve. Some folks have installed a t-fitting for the LF brake outlet
that eliminates the need to change the fixed prop valve, but I could never
locate suitable fittings to do so. But this prop valve has different thread
sizes on some of the fittings than the stocker, so it requires...
Misc adapters and/or reflaring of the existing hard brake lines to the fixed
prop valve. New master cylinder to fixed prop valve hard brake lines must
also be fabricated now if you use the SVO master cylinder, and a different
brake warning switch connector must be located as well.
But you REALLY want to do the job correct so you must install a...
Adjustable prop valve. This helps to balance out the excessive front-to-rear
hydraulic ratio that occurs when the larger piston front calipers are
installed. Of course now the built-in proportioning system in the fixed prop
valve is incorrect for the Lincoln/SVO caliper so it must be defeated. A
spring and a plunger must therefore be removed from the fixed prop valve, and
the end plug must be replaced with a...
Solid fixed prop valve plug. This is Motorsport part number M-2450-A and
costs about $7.
BTW, now is a good time to inspect the rotors and replace if necessary. Your
88 might also have the plastic front outer bearing retainers, so upgrading to
metal cages is prudent while your're at it.
Whew!! So you see the Lincoln/SVO front brake caliper change is rather
involved and you can get mighty frustrated if you don't have everything lined
up before you start. MM&FF featured this installation recently but it was for
an 85 I think (didn't have to mess too much with the hard brake lines, but
needed 87-93 spindles and rotors).
IMHO, you are better off finding these parts individually than buying any of
the so called "kits." I think the kits that feature most of these same parts
are overpriced.
These are the parts needed to correctly install the Lincoln/SVO calipers. When
you are done you will really notice improved brake pedal modulation and
better, more even pad wear than the stock set up. YMMV.
19 Apr 1996
Brian Kelley
fordnatics
Michael Herrmann writes:
>The stock mustang rear suspension's 4 link setup (two upper and two
>lower control arms) already is a binding mess from the factory. Its
>only saving grace is that its durable and the rubber stock bushings
>do deflect a bit, which helps reduce bind. If you replace all the
>rubber bushings with poly, you will have one crappy-performing rear
>suspension.
How long did you run that way? Bud Jasman won his second C Prepared Solo II
National championship running that very configuration. _Very_ few production
based Mustangs in the country can handle as well (as fast?) as the front
running CP cars. I know quite a few ESP drivers who have also been very
successful with that setup. And even some SSGT racers..
If it turns out you haven't run that config, please don't make it sound like
you have. A few of us think it's one of the better low-buck setups. And it
is FAST when tuned correctly.
I find the wind up under accel/decel in the rear suspension from the mushy
bushings (particularly the large oval bushing) very annoying. The problem
becomes more significant as you increase engine output.
>Suspension is very complicated...much more so than making more
>HP out of your engine, so learn as much as you can before spending your
>hard earned money.
Very true.. And you never learn enough because the combination as a whole and
all of the interactions and variables are so complex.
19 Apr 1996
"Lawrence S. Harris III"
fordnatics
I had posted to the list back in February about my concerns with finding
a spare tire that will work with cobra brakes. I had two list members
email me (who I have copied this message to) asking what I finally did.
Well, since I did something today, I thought the whole list may benefit
from this info. I finally got tired of driving around with that four-lug
piece of ballast in my trunk.
To re-cap, the cobra spare is a unique 17" spare. Very few standard
spares even fit over the _rear_ rotors/calipers, let alone the fronts.
The standard GT spare will not work on the rears. I heard a rumor that
people who run slicks on SN-95 cobras have the option of using SN-95 cast
aluminum 15" wheels. I went down to MPS in Winder, GA today (conviently
1/2 hour from home) and picked up one of these wheels, and tried it. Low
and behold, it fits, so I had an old 15" tire I had lying around mounted
on it. Of course, now my trunk is a little more space constrained, but
what the heck, I never put anything in there anyway. I will still have
them look out for a Cobra spare in the future, but at least I can drive
to Rockingham this weekend without worrying about getting a flat. Once
they junk a Cobra, I'll grab the spare out of it, and one more V6 wheel.
I'll throw an old set of slicks on the V6 wheels for playing around at
the strip, so I don't fry sets of 17" Tires!
19 Apr 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>The standard GT spare will not work on the rears. I heard a rumor that
>people who run slicks on SN-95 cobras have the option of using SN-95 cast
>aluminum 15" wheels. I went down to MPS in Winder, GA today (conviently
>1/2 hour from home) and picked up one of these wheels, and tried it. Low
>and behold, it fits, so I had an old 15" tire I had lying around mounted
>on it.
i take it that this 15" wheel fits only on the rear (still an accomplishment,
with the 11.65" rotors). FYI, PPI sells the Cobra spare for $99. not bad. i
may have to get one myself.
22 Apr 1996
Dan Howley/HQ/3Com
fordnatics
Larry Harris Writes:
>I had posted to the list back in February about my concerns with finding
>a spare tire that will work with cobra brakes. I had two list members
>email me (who I have copied this message to) asking what I finally did.
>
>...............Stuff Deleted.......................
>
>To re-cap, the cobra spare is a unique 17" spare. Very few standard
>spares even fit over the _rear_ rotors/calipers, let alone the fronts.
>The standard GT spare will not work on the rears.
Larry, As one of those two people thanks for following up. I finally broke
down and ordered the 17inch spare from Ford. I called around and the best
price I could find was $164 from Swanson Ford in Los Gatos CA. One dealer
wanted $199 and 2 other dealers flat denied the existence of the 17 inch
spare, said "All" Mustangs took the same spare. Anyway it's not stated in the
parts book and the counter guy didn't know it either, but the number in the
book is for the wheel only and not the tire. After calling around 11 places
looking for a T155/70 -R17 tire and after answering the question "Are you sure
that's an R17?" a total of 14 times because 2 guys asked twice and one guy
asked 3 times, I found it. Only Goodyear makes it and you can only get it
from their wholesaler warehouse for a mere $133. The thing is, they being
only a warehouse can't mount it and it takes special equipment that most shops
don't have. Found a Goodyear dealer who would try to mount and balance it for
$22 if I bring them the tire and wheel. So all told you too can have a real
live Cobra spare for $320 and about 3 weeks out of your life. Quite frankly,
this is pathetic on Ford's part. I think you pay a smaller fine and serve
less time if you steal a Cobra outright and hide the spare before you turned
yourself in.
Does anyone know if Corv*tte, or Toy*ta S*pra, or even P*rche spares would
fit?
28 Apr 1996
[email protected] (Christopher Baye)
fordnatics
I wrote this reply to a question on the mustang news group and thought
I'd share it with the Fordnatics. Thanks for reading.
In message <[email protected]> - [email protected] (Kevin
Brown) writes:
:>Okay y'all.. Forgive my ignorance here, but has anyone swapped an
AOD
:>to a T- 5 or Tremec? Is this possible? What would be involved?
Ok Kevin, you asked for it...
You will need the following stuff to make the swap:
Clutch pedal/quadrant & brake pedal assembly
T-5 belhousing and front cover
T-5
Clutch cable, & fork
Flywheel & bolts (6)
Clutch Pressure plate, disk and throw out bearing
Pilot shaft bearing
Double hump cross member
manual trans H-pipe bracket
speedo driven gear
shifter and boot
Manual trans wiring harness PN: 15525
Shop Manual (Ford/Helm)
Wiring Diagrams (Ford/Helm)
SVO Catalog
Lots of tools
At least one friend.
Courage and commitment (this task is not for the timid)
Optional Stuff:
Steel input bearing retainer for T-5
After market shifter (I like Hurst)
Aluminum clutch quadrant & adjustable cable
Heavy duty clutch disk/pressure plate
Aftermarket bellhousing
Aftermarket Flywheel
Helpful stuff:
Lift
Air tools
Transmission jack
Basic Instructions:
1) Drop off flywheel for resurfacing.
2) pull the console and dash. Install clutch pedal and cable (and
aftermarket quadrant if used), remove extra cables, linkages, and Auto
shifter.
3) Put car up on lift.
4) Drain fluid from the AOD & torque converter.
5) Remove drive shaft and H-pipe.
6) Remove starter.
7) Remove AOD and associated plumbing and wires.
8) Remove torque converter and flex plate.
9) Install pilot bearing into crankshaft.
10) Install belhousing front cover.
11) Install flywheel.
12) Install Clutch plate and disk.
13) Install Cluch fork and Throwout bearing into the bell housing.
14) Install bellhousing.
15) Install Starter
16) Remove shifter lever from the T-5.
17) Install T-5.
18) Install crossmember, H-Pipe bracket, transmission mount and
H-pipe.
19) Install drive shaft, speedo gear and wiring harness.
20) Install clutch cable and adjust.
21) Fill T-5 with fluid.
22) Install shifter and boot.
23) Drive away happy!
Notes from my own experience:
1) It will take 1 day (8 hours) to do the pedals and interior stuff.
2) It will take at least two days (16 hours) to do the swap.
3) Try to get all the parts from the same doner car (of your year if
possible.)
4) Get the Official Ford manuals, they are real time savers.
5) Unless your flywheel is new, have it resurfaced (I didn't and had lots of
chatter).
6) You may have to trim the sheet metal around hole that the shifter sticks
through. Insulate this area well otherwise it will get quite warm!
7) Watch out when you tip the T-5 to the rear; unless the drive shaft is
installed (or the splined peice from the yoke) it will leak!
8) No need to change computers (but I do have a T-5 ECC IV just in case).
9) you will have to re-route the speedo cable. AOD cars route the speedo cable
through the clutch cable hole in the fire wall. The correct hole for the
speedo cable has a rubber plug in it. I slit the plug to the center and made a
round hole for the cable. Look at a friends mustang to see where the clutch
cable mounting bracket goes on the fender.
10) The wiring harness is all set for the conversion from auto to manual; just
look for the jumpers and pull them and replace with the new harness sections
on the clutch pedal. I believe there is a jumper to install as well. see #3 of
this section.
When it is all done; you should have a stock looking installation. The T-5
really woke up my car. And since it is a convertible I shead some weight as
well!
"Performance Parts, Inc."
rec.autos.tech
Subject: Re: Cracked floorboards anyone?
25 Apr 1996
The Special Service (police) floorpan reinforcements were discontinued by Ford
in August of 1993. We sold them thru June of 1994 when our supply was
exhausted. They were never serviced thru Ford Parts and Service and repeated
attempts by us to allow reproduction of the parts have gone in vain. Our
plates are produced to meet the needs of the 1979-1983 Mustang owner who has
NO reinforcement at all on the driver's side. The 1984-1993 Mustangs DO have
a factory installed driver's side reinforcement beit small. Our plate would
do nothing but reinforce this reinforcement.
Performance Parts, Inc.
(703) 742-6207
http://www.mustangparts.com
02 Apr 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Apr 1, Teddy Chen wrote:
> >I did not install any offset rack bushings because I understand that in
> >1991, those came standard on the car? SKOD, is that the case for sure?
> >I have not driven the car on the track, but some hard cornering on the
> >street confirms much less body roll and improved turn-in. No bumpsteer
> >that I could feel on the street.
>
> i'm not skod, but here's my attempt at answering your question:
> the '90-'93 mustangs came with improved tie rod ends, which had a
> longer stud for improved bumpsteer characteristics (by moving the
> tie rod end slightly further down with respect to the steering
> arm of the spindle).
Ted has this right- the later cars came with dropped tie rod ends, which
certainly can help. Lowered cars will almost certainly need the offset rack
mount bushings to really help out the bump steer and Ackerman characteristics.
Milling the rack mount bosses 1/4" to locate the rack aft also helps
tremendously with fixing Ackerman. This is all stuff you want to do if you are
going over the top with your car.
Sorry that I don't have the original message around- this is the first time
I've had a chance to look at this list in weeks, and I haven't kept the
backed-up mail from it. I just kept from midnight last night on.
> whether you need offset steering rack bushings is another question
> that can't be answered without actually measuring it on your car.
> given the large tolerances in the production of the mustangs,
> you're just going to have to measure. some people have gotten good
> results. others have gotten _terrible_ results.
It really depends upon the setup, and it _critically_ depends upon
your ride height. My car now has a front ride heght that is down over 2" from
stock. The front control arm pickup points have been significantly relocated
to make this work, and in the process I've also set up for zero Ackerman. The
point is that the bumpsteer setup that works on my car will not work for
anyone else's. You need to measure and setup your own car- but the benefits
are definitely there, especially in terms of the car's turn-in performance,
steady state understeer, and ultimately in tire life.
> i recently installed
> a set of polyurethane offset steering rack bushings that i got from
> somebody who had tried to put them on his car and gotten terrible
> bumpsteer. in my case, the bumpsteer improved noticeably.
Just watch out for the urethane bushings creeping and cold-flowing and
allowing your rack to drift offcenter. Ideally, offset rack mount bushings
should be aluminum, and should be mechanically locked in place (I used
dogtooth setscrews) to prevent the rack from wandering around when heavy side
loads, such as those from kissing a berm on the track, are encountered.
> but i'm still going to be measuring the bumpsteer and using skod's
> old adjustable tie rod ends to try to hit the null in the bumpsteer curve.
It's a piece of cake to do. Once you've done it once, you'll find yourself
redoing it as a matter of course for every ride height change, since it can be
done so quickly and easily, and the benefits are so great.
One other point: I know for a fact that there are folks on here who have heard
my stories of aligning my car in my garage using nothing more than a set of
jackstands, a spool of thread, and a steel ruler, and a Smartlevel, and said
"Yeah, right!". For you guys- there is a _great_ writeup on stringing your car
in this month's Circle Track magazine. Go buy it, and save yourself a bill or
so every track event. For what it's worth, I use the second technique (the one
they describe in a little box inset at the end of the story), where you refer
your strings to the centerline of the tub, and establish a parallel pair to
measure to. I have to, since my car has different track widths front and rear,
and I refer all measurement to the wheel flanges and not the tire sidewalls
(which wander all over the place).
I was going to write up my stringing procedure for the list, but now I don't
have to. Snag that magazine.
14 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On May 13, Robert King wrote:
> Looks like I answered my own question. The components in the GR40 kit are
> available separately, so I can do this piecemeal. Here are the prices I
> got from Jonathan at Griggs:
>
> Tubular Front Control Arms $500.00 (OUCH!)
> Springs 229.00
> Coil-over Conversion 250.00
> Camber Plates (CCM) 189.00
> Koni Shocks & Struts 420.00 (Reds, maybe?)
> -------
> 1588.00
>
> Does anyone know if the struts in the GR40 setup are Koni reds? $420 is a
> bit high if they are (they look like reds in the ad.) Next, will the
> coil-over conversion work well with the stock control arms? Jonathan
> seemed to indicate they would. Lastly, what do you guys think about the
> CCM plates?
The coilover kit will work very well with stock arms, and that's a very easy
way to save some money on this upgrade (by doing the arms later). I have the
full boat system on my car, and I think it is the best thing since sliced
bread- but everybody here already knew that. I'd have to rate the K-member
upgrade as the biggest bang for the buck (trust me, you _want_ the Ackerman
and camber curve correction!), followed by the torque arm/Panhard, follower by
the coilover conversion, followed by the tubular front arms.
The tubular front arms are a great win in unsprung weight, but this weight
reduction isn't as effective on a front end whose geometries are fundamentally
flawed. I'd put the money into a the K-frame first, for sure.
The struts they provide will be anything you want- reds, yellows, DAs, you
make the call. They'll even do the wierd 90/10 drag struts for the drag race
crowd, as I understand it. For roadracing, the DAs are the struts of choice,
because they don't have the gland nut plate that has to be ground down- the
coilover kit will drop right on them with no mods required. Anyway, just call
'em and ask, if you have questions.
The CCM camber plates will work fine, but I'd make sure that you got them from
Griggs. After I broke one of my 6-year-old ones at Buttonwillow, I fed the
info on the failure back to Griggs. I believe that they're now doing a bit
more inspection on the ones they ship out. I'm in the process of doing some
reinforcement of my plates, because I really pound the hell out of the car,
and I'll keep using them for the time being, until I get some billet ones
tooled up... For most sensible drivers, IMHO the CCM plates are the best deal
going. YMMV.
14 May 1996
Robert King
fordnatics
Looks like I answered my own question. The components in the GR40 kit are
available separately, so I can do this piecemeal. Here are the prices I
got from Jonathan at Griggs:
Tubular Front Control Arms $500.00 (OUCH!)
Springs 229.00
Coil-over Conversion 250.00
Camber Plates (CCM) 189.00
Koni Shocks & Struts 420.00 (Reds, maybe?)
-------
1588.00
Does anyone know if the struts in the GR40 setup are Koni reds? $420 is a bit
high if they are (they look like reds in the ad.) Next, will the coil-over
conversion work well with the stock control arms? Jonathan seemed to indicate
they would. Lastly, what do you guys think about the CCM plates?
14 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On May 14, Robert King wrote:
> I'd have to rate the K-member upgrade as the biggest bang for the buck
>
> I wish you hadn't said that. :-( I just had the engine out 2 months ago.
> I guess I should have installed the K-member then. So, how hard is it
> REALLY to swap K-members with the engine in the car? Is there some way of
> fudging things so it doesn't need to be pulled?
Sure. Mine went on very nicely with the motor in the car. I had it done at
Griggs, and the actual install took them very little time. The guys at Griggs
have a very nice little jig set up that sits across the strut towers and
allows them to lift the motor with a ratchet tow strap and just let it dangle
there while the K-frame is dropped out below. You could, of course, just do
the same thing in the privacy of your own garage with a cherry picker- no
problem.
The K-frame install takes no time at all. It's maybe half an hour, once you
have the weight of the motor off of it. The time-consuming part is squaring up
the car with it in place, so that it is centered, true to the centerline, and
properly located. This is the part that I get to do again, Real Soon Now
(since I jerked the damned thing out of square while towing the car). Gotta
figure out a better way to locate the k-member than 8 bolts in single shear!
> Lastly, should I go with a modified K-member, or a tubular K-member?
Either one. I myself am sort of considering selling off my modified one and
going tubular, when doing the squaring-up. Problem is that mine is a teeny tad
bit radical for most peoples' tastes... I may just keep it and run with it for
a few years.
The tubular k-frame is certainly lightweight- no question about it. It can
also be set up with your own combination of pickup point locations and motor
setback, which I'd need. Is it a mammoth win over a modified stocker? I'm not
absolutely convinced. But it surely does have the Radical Car Dewd Gnarly Toy
Sex Appeal that my car so sadly lacks right now... Only problem is, to show
it off, I'd have to get upside down.
Gotta think about that one some more.
14 May 1996
Robert King
fordnatics
... Mine went on very nicely with the motor in the car. I had it done
at Griggs, and the actual install took them very little time. The guys
at Griggs have a very nice little jig set up that sits across the
strut towers and allows them to lift the motor with a ratchet tow
strap and just let it dangle there while the K-frame is dropped out
below. You could, of course, just do the same thing in the privacy of
your own garage with a cherry picker- no problem.
Thanks for the information. I'm leaning really heavily in that direction for
my Next Big Modification. there's some stuff I need to do first though,
including shocks, quad-shocks and struts (Koni reds,) CCM plates (might as
well install them while the struts are out...) and springs (again, might as
well do it as long as the struts are out.) Then later on, I'll do the K-
member (unless it is VERY cheap, which I doubt.)
Does this sound like a good upgrade path? I don't want to end up yanking
parts I installed later on because the K-member doesn't work well with it.
But [a tubular K-member] surely does have the Radical Car Dewd Gnarly
Toy Sex Appeal that my car so sadly lacks right now... Only problem
is, to show it off, I'd have to get upside down.
Gotta think about that one some more.
Well, painting it bright red should help. As far as folks noticing it, you
could always get REALLY airborne, or roll the car, although this might be
excessive ("Oh, there goes Skod again, showing off his K-member...") Then
there's the show car trick, putting mirrors underneath the car. Or you could
just keep breaking stuff underneath the car so folks helping you wrench on it
can notice it...
14 May 1996
Eugene Y C Chu
fordnatics
Since I'm receiving the list in digest form now, I have to resort to
replying in batch mode as well.
To William Keller, who tried unsuccessfully to install the stainless
steel caliper sleeves: I installed mine by drawing them through with
a long bolt. I used a high strength fine-thread 5/16" bolt, with lots
of washers and lubricant to let it slide easier.
On breaking camber plates: I used to think that I liked the CCM plates
the best, regretting my earlier purchase of the Global West plates. But
having looked at both I realized I may have made a better choice after all.
The CCM plates I looked at have a fixed castor setting, while the GW is
adjustable. (The Maximum Motorsports version provides the best
adjustment of all; the castor and camber can be independently adjusted.)
The CCM plates are raised a little, so that they give you back that 1 inch
of suspension travel that you lost from the lowering springs. The GW
plates are not raised, but that probably adds to their longevity.
However, they come with different sized spacers for the strut rod so
that you can still get back the suspension travel. That's what I'm
running now. Finally, just looking at the two, you can tell that the GW
plates are thicker and more substantial than the CCM plates. Oh yes, on
the JBA Street Dominator, they used modified GW plates with additional
aluminum spacers to get them really high up to make up for the really
low springs they used.
On wheel weights, with very few exceptions, I think just about ANY
aftermarket wheel that I've seen are lighter than stock Mustang wheels.
In fact, I'm not sure that the stock alminum wheels aren't just as heavy
as stock steel wheels of similar sizes. Ford has to assume that most
drivers aren't as paranoid as us "fordnatics", and they will bump the
curbs a few times, but the wheels can not get noticeably warped. A
counter example is a BWM M3, which came stock with some really low
profile tires (I think 245/40/17 or something like that) on really wide
BBS wheels. Many drivers were bending the wheels just going over pot
holes. At almost $400 each, the weren't very happy customers.
14 May 1996
Tom Stangler
fordnatics
From the current issue of SUPER FORD.....
"....Griggs has streamlined to just two K-members: one with engine mounts, and
one without for motor-plate equiped cars. Both require Grigg's tubular lower
control arms, and coil over front strut system......"
total, about $1650. then add the cost of the rear suspension parts....
I'll stay low tech, thank you.
14 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On May 14, Tom Stangler wrote:
> total, about $1650. then add the cost of the rear suspension
> parts....
>
> I'll stay low tech, thank you.
Super Ford is not exactly correct in this article, at least from this
excerpt (I haven't seen the magazine yet, so I haven't read the whole
article). This info applies only to the tubular K frames.
You can get the K frame separately. The modified stock K-frame (that
is still available, by the way, in several different configurations)
does *not* require the control arms. Only the tubular K-frame requires
the tubular arms, as it turns out (they narrow the mounting bosses to
reduce bending stresses in the control arm mount bolts, which is a Good
Thing). The modified stock K-frame does not require the coilover
rig- only the tubular arms require the coilover setup.
You can still get all the bang for the buck that you want one piece at
a time. Bruce Griggs is no fool: there are very few of us well heeled
enough, and hardcore enough, to write that check all at once.
The introduction of the tubular K-frame did not result in the elimination of
the modified stocker, and that piece is still available as a good entry level
mod. And a very good mod it is, too.
Questions? Call 'em and ask. They know what they are doing better than I do...
15 May 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>Well, for example, the 1" engine setback on my k-member (which is not
>a stock Griggs mod) is not for the faint-of-heart.
it's not "stock", but it's a $100 option now, according to their catalog.
>It requires moving
>a lot of sheetmetal in the tranny tunnel, and under the floorboards,
>to create clearance for the exhaust and for the thermactor air
>injection plumbing on the backs of the heads (assuming the car is to
>remain street-legal).
i'll have to check out your car again to see what's involved. if you'd be so
kind as to put it on jackstands or ramps, i'd be only too happy to make the
appropriate admiring noises over your soon-to-be-acquired tubular k-member
while i'm down there.
>No biggie, but it's definitely
>not the simple half hour bolt-on that the non-set-back K-frame is.
half hour? it sounds to me as if the k-member swap will take the better part
of a day.
>Still, I very much like the weight distribution improvement- not to
>mention the fact that I can practically stand between the radiator and
>the accessory drive pullies.
the weight distribution improvement i can understand, but i'm not sure how you
get your jollies out of being able to stand between the radiator and the
motor. :)
>Griggs built the geometries that I wanted on my crossmember (the roll
>center and antidive percentages were set up to my specs).
care to share your specs?
for the rest of you guys, if you care, here are some specs on the
k-members.
the Griggs catalog gives specs for both the modified and tubular k-members.
the tubular k-member spec states that the coilovers and tubular control arms
must be used, so i infer that the modified k-member specs are given for use
with stock control arms, while the tubular k-member specs are for the tubular
control arms. specs are as follows:
Modified k-member
caster (with Griggs or CCM camber plates) 6 degrees
front track increase 0.45"-0.52"
roll center (at recommended ride height) 4.43"
camber gain 0.7+ degree/inch
anti-dive (typical for average CG height) 45%
ackermann (with 1/4" machined off rack mounts) Close to Ideal
Tubular k-member
caster (with Griggs or CCM camber plates) 6 degrees
front track increase 0.45"-0.52"
roll center (at recommended ride height) 4.43"
camber gain 0.75 degree/inch
anti-dive (typical for average CG height) 77%
ackermann (with 1/4" machined off rack mounts) 50%
judging by the track increase and camber gain, it looks like the stock and
tubular control arms have the same length, as well as offset.
i don't know what "Close to Ideal" ackermann is, though. i would have thought
100%, but the tubular k-member gives 50% (and i would expect the tubular k-
member to be better).
i assume the anti-dive for the modified k-member is lower because they
couldn't move the holes as much and still have enough metal. the catch with
the greater anti-dive for the tubular k-member, i would think, is that you'll
get suspension lock-out under heavy braking.
it's $485 + $150 core for the modified k-member. $100 more if you want the
engine set back. $675 for the tubular k-member, which is tempting, but you
have to get the coilover stuff (and supposedly the tubular control arms, but
it sounds like the stock control arms will work fine). if you leave out the
tubular control arms, you're over the $1000 mark. ouch. tubular control arms
will push you over $1500. however, if you go bare bones and do the swap
yourself, you could do it for $524 including tax.
>This mod can save you a lot of tires. For many seasons, I threw away
>tires about every 4 track days. My current set (Toyo Proxes R1S) has
>now done its 8th track day, and I do believe that I'll be able to get
>in the June event before they're gone (although I may take a fresh set
>to the track just in case).
hmm. $485 for the modified k-member, and for that you get doubled tire life.
at $150 a pop for 245/45ZR17 R1s, that k-member could pay for itself very
quickly. and you get the handling improvements for free.
>Then I fixed the front, and I'm now convinced that I did it backwards.
>I would have learned more, faster, and cheaper, by making the front
>end work sooner. But the choice is certainly yours.
"The Razor's Edge", in the February 1996 MM&FF, claims that 70% of the GR-40's
handling improvement is due to the torque arm (and panhard rod, one would
assume) and 30% is due to the front k-member kit. i don't know if that comes
from Bruce Griggs.
however, i do want to buy as few tires as possible, and i may get the modified
crossmember on that basis alone. you may be able to tell that i'm already
talking myself into it. i'll want to do some more reading on suspension
design first, and convince myself that the geometry that griggs uses is what i
want.
watch out for skod, fellas. he may not look like a siren, but he sings a mean
song...
15 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On May 14, Teddy Chen wrote:
> in what way is yours "a teeny tad bit radical"?
> how much money are we talking about for the Griggs crossmembers?
> stiil, i'm sure that in the long run, the K-member upgrade will be
> cheaper than replacing front tires all the time. more grins,
> fewer bucks for tires.
Well, for example, the 1" engine setback on my k-member (which is not a stock
Griggs mod) is not for the faint-of-heart. It requires moving a lot of
sheetmetal in the tranny tunnel, and under the floorboards, to create
clearance for the exhaust and for the thermactor air injection plumbing on the
backs of the heads (assuming the car is to remain street-legal). If the car is
going to lose the shorties and cats and become a track car, a 1" engine
setback is much less of a chore. But you'll spend a great deal of time
clearancing so that things fit, believe me. You'd also have to shorten the
driveshaft 1", and relocate the tranny crossmember. No biggie, but it's
definitely not the simple half hour bolt-on that the non-set-back K-frame is.
Still, I very much like the weight distribution improvement- not to mention
the fact that I can practically stand between the radiator and the accessory
drive pullies.
> isn't there another company out there that makes tubular crossmembers?
> i believe they were about $500, but i know nothing about the geometry.
There are no less than 3. At least one of them that I've seen in the ragazines
is absolutely only suitable for drag-only ultralightweight duty. On that
design, the control arm mounts are simple ungusseted flat plates that would
collapse very shortly under roadracing braking loads. Caveat emptor, unless
you know a part was designed for hard braking and turning. As for the
geometries- well, you'll have to call them and ask them.
Griggs built the geometries that I wanted on my crossmember (the roll center
and antidive percentages were set up to my specs). If another company can't
do that for you, and gives you a "one-size-fits-all" story, I'd probe a bit
further to find out just what that one size _is_. Griggs has a very good
handle on exactly what stuff does work for a roadracing Fox Mustang, since
he's been doing it with them since 1979 (when he first campaigned one in IMSA
in the old LuK Clutch sedan series, or whatever it was called back then).
This mod can save you a lot of tires. For many seasons, I threw away tires
about every 4 track days. My current set (Toyo Proxes R1S) has now done its
8th track day, and I do believe that I'll be able to get in the June event
before they're gone (although I may take a fresh set to the track just in
case). I do honestly believe that the geometric mods are good for a sizable
improvement in tire life as well as grip in the case of my car. This is
nontrivial, given the nature of the expenses in this sport...
> the real issue on my mind is that if i do the K-member upgrade
> first, the car will probably stick a lot better in the front
> than in the back. that could lead to some significant oversteer.
I don't think that that will be the case. You can make the rear stick well
enough that the car will be improved significantly from what it is. What the
rear end won't do in 4-link trim is contribute more under braking, hook up
better ender power, and stay more stable during transient maneuvers. I fixed
the rear on my car first, and I liked it. Then I fixed the front, and I'm now
convinced that I did it backwards. I would have learned more, faster, and
cheaper, by making the front end work sooner. But the choice is certainly
yours.
I'll just say that the car is almost unrecognizable as a Mustang once it has
front geometries that work. Once you drive a car with tweaked front roll
centers, antidive, bump steer and Ackerman, you _won't go back_.
> i've been thinking all along that the torque arm/panhard rod
> would be the first major suspension change on my car - particularly
> since i keep hearing the odd clunk from the rear, despite tightening
> everything down.
You could do that- I did. But I could have done better, knowing what I know
now. The modified stock K-member is also cheaper than the torque arm/race duty
Panhard combination, and doesn't require the exhaust system mods. If I was
doing it one bit at a time, I'd definitely do it the other way around next
time.
15 May 1996
"Brian St. Denis"
fordnatics
> Locked 'em up a bunch, huh? Except for the occasional bald spot, that
> looks like normal Fox wear with track-setup negative camber, too much
> toe in, and stock Ackerman.
I think that tire had been locked up once. It had the worn spots all
the way around the tire, though. I was running some static toe-out.
My theory on this is that, even with static-toe out, I still get major toe in
(from bump steer). See, when trail braking, weight is shifted forward to both
fronts. This toes them in. Now, the turning shifts the weight towards the
outside. This allows the inside to go a bit more toe out but the outside more
toe in. So, the braking causes some toe in and the turning doens't "fix" it.
Basically, I agree with what you said, although I do have static toe-out.
> But ultimately, to really fix this wear pattern, you _have_ to fix the
> bump steer and Ackerman- and that takes some flame-wrenching and time
> on the mill for your rack and spindles. All the spring and bar and
> damper in the world really can't help when the inside front is getting
> dragged sideways.
I'm making a first attempt at fixing bump steer for this next event by putting
in Al offset rack bushings. I'll be taking some measurements at this time,
too. I'll consider working on Ackerman after that.
[about locking up brakes]
> Easy fix- don't do it. If you're experiencing long-duration front
> lockup, you're pushing your brakes too hard, too soon, as you enter
> the braking zone.
Right. I have done that before and I am not refering to that. I used to
"jump on the brakes" with the stock system. This is because of several
reasons. One is that my pedal was never totally firm. Another is that, at
full temp, the pads I was using probably couldn't lock up the fronts anyway.
But, with the Cobra brakes, squeezing them on is the only way. They can lock
up the tires any time, any place.
> You have to get into the brakes smoothly and
> *progressively*. I can tell from your descriptions that you're still
> coming on the brakes too quickly all at the last possible second, in
> your efforts to go as deep as possible into the corner. That light
> feeling in your pocketbook is your car's way of telling you "don't do
> that!".
Come on, man. I squeeze on the brakes. The lock up I'm talking about is in
the middle of the braking zone, right before I start to turn in. I squeeze on
the brakes up until I think I'm at the threshold of lockup. Occasionally, I
reach that point (threshold) and the car gives some signs. I then try to brake
each time to this point. However, if I accidentally go too far and do lock up
the brakes, it is usually the rears. This comes from nearly all the weight
being shifted to the front tires. I have pictures of my car at full
suspension drop in rear from braking. When the rears lock up, there is so
little weight back there that it doesn't hurt the tires too much.
Other times, though, the fronts will lock up due to one of several reasons.
One may be me turning the wheel just a bit. If the front tires are giving
100% of their grip to braking and I turn the steering wheel, that can cause
lock up right away. Gotta be careful of that. Also, at Hallett, the track is
very rough and uneven. As the tires at full braking roll over the uneven
surface that can cause them to lock up. At TWS, turn 1 is a super high speed
180 degree turn. It really send the temp of the outside front tire soaring.
This can cause uneven grip between the two fronts. Anyway, lock up isn't
always caused by jumping on the brakes too hard too soon.
My point was that the tires are super sensitive to lock ups. I'm sure I can
always drive better but my problems with the R1s aren't from mashing the brake
pedal too hard, too soon.
[about how I may be jumping on the brakes too late and too hard]
> The
> cracked rotors sort of support that theory, too...
Well, I cracked the rotor the last session of a 2 day event. I didn't
lock up the front brakes a single time that session (maybe only once over the
whole weekend). Not sure if this means anything conclusive or not.
16 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On May 15, Teddy Chen wrote:
> >Well, for example, the 1" engine setback on my k-member (which is not
> >a stock Griggs mod) is not for the faint-of-heart.
>
> it's not "stock", but it's a $100 option now, according to their catalog.
I note that the tubular K-member gives you the option of either 1" setback or
stock powertrain location- both sets of engine mount holes are present. The
only reason that the setback is an either/or thing on the modified stock K-
member is so that people can use a setback K-member as part of a concerted
program of extremely liberal rules interpretation in A Sedan, presumably while
praying that their competition won't notice that Things Are Different under
the hood. Apparently the thought is that having two sets of holes there would
be somehow more obvious than having that huge gap between the motor and the
radiator. Having rules leads to some interesting mindsets, apparently...
> i'll have to check out your car again to see what's involved.
> if you'd be so kind as to put it on jackstands or ramps, i'd
> be only too happy to make the appropriate admiring noises
> over your soon-to-be-acquired tubular k-member while i'm down there.
Well, I made my decision last night- I'm going to stay with the modified
stocker that I have now. To misquote Dave Williams, "paid-for is a quality
that excuses many faults". I have the geometries I want, I'm only giving away
19lb (which is the weight differential between the tubular piece and the
stocker), and the additional bang for the additional bucks isn't there for me
at this time. Somehow, I have successfully avoided getting drawn down into my
usual maelstrom of Creeping Elegance just this once. The neverending search
for tenths of a second seen as Scylla, the bill collector as Charybdis- there
must be some smooth sailing in here _somewhere_.
One other minor item is that the tubular K-member does not provide the same
protection for the rack and PS plumbing as the stocker does, with that nice
protruding lip that extends under and forward. This is no great shakes for a
track car, of course, but if you occasionally make major offcourse excursions
the rack is more exposed to meeting up with a rock. For folks who find
themselves four-wheels-off often, this might bear consideration.
> >No biggie, but it's definitely
> >not the simple half hour bolt-on that the non-set-back K-frame is.
>
> half hour? it sounds to me as if the k-member swap will take the
> better part of a day.
If the straight K-frame swap is a day, then using the BFH to move the belly
pan that much would probably be two or three days time...
> Modified k-member
> caster (with Griggs or CCM camber plates) 6 degrees
> front track increase 0.45"-0.52"
> roll center (at recommended ride height) 4.43"
> camber gain 0.7+ degree/inch
> anti-dive (typical for average CG height) 45%
> ackermann (with 1/4" machined off rack mounts) Close to Ideal
"Close to Ideal" here means very close to zero. Mine is at something like -5%,
which is one hell of an improvement over the -70% or so that you start out
with.
> Tubular k-member
> caster (with Griggs or CCM camber plates) 6 degrees
> front track increase 0.45"-0.52"
> roll center (at recommended ride height) 4.43"
> camber gain 0.75 degree/inch
> anti-dive (typical for average CG height) 77%
> ackermann (with 1/4" machined off rack mounts) 50%
50% Ackerman is too positive, IMHO. It'd possibly be an asskicker for
autocross with lots of low-speed twisties, but it might be very unpleasant at
a high-speed track like Willow. The unloaded inside front would be scuffing
sideways again, but in the oversteer direction, instead of the understeer
direction. This would probably lead to some odd behaviors at turn-in in a high
speed, heavily loaded corner- like transient oversteer at turn-in, followed by
a mid-corner push once the weight transfered off the inside front. But that's
only conjecture on my part. That's not a combination I've played with, and the
autocrossers here can set me straight on that. All the really well-sorted
track cars that I've ever driven have been from negative to very mild positive
Ackerman. I've never driven one that was _way_ positive.
The reason for this is that the tubular K-member relocates the rack aft 1/4"
to start with, so going yet another quarter inch aft by milling the rack on
top of that is arguably too much. I'm a fan of getting as close to zero
Ackerman as possible.
> i don't know what "Close to Ideal" ackermann is, though. i would
> have thought 100%, but the tubular k-member gives 50% (and i would
> expect the tubular k-member to be better).
It is better *with an unmilled rack*. With a milled rack, I don't think so-
but I'm sure that there will be spacers available for whoever needs them. I
like it, actually, since you could then shim the rack fore and aft
incrementally and set the Ackerman just where you wanted it, just like a Real
Race Car. On mine, I still can't get quite far enough aft without more
munging, and I haven't gotten around to it yet.
> i assume the anti-dive for the modified k-member is lower because
> they couldn't move the holes as much and still have enough metal.
> the catch with the greater anti-dive for the tubular k-member,
> i would think, is that you'll get suspension lock-out under
> heavy braking.
I don't buy that anti-dive percentage, somehow. I think that that may well be
a typo. I'm not conviced that you want anti-dive over 50%, and furthermore I'm
not certain how you'd get it without really dropping the front pickup into the
weeds. The rear pickup point can only go so high before you run into the frame
rail, so that would mean that the front pickup would have to drop down below
the crossmember centerline-or the base spacing between pickup points would
have to be narrowed, and I'm not sure that that's a win either. I could very
easily be wrong on this, since I haven't held one in my hands, but I'd bet
that it is 50% antidive at the most. I'll have to call 'em up and ask them.
> $675 for the tubular k-member, which
> is tempting, but you have to get the coilover stuff (and supposedly
> the tubular control arms, but it sounds like the stock control arms
> will work fine).
No, with the tubular crossmember you have to go with the tubular arms-which is
a recent change, apparently. The original design I discussed with them didn't
require them, but it sounds like they did streamline things a bit when they
hit production. The modified stocker can be set up to run with stock arms or
tubular arms (the setup I have now). You
...
but you need to tell them that when you order it- or they may remove the
spring buckets on the K-member to save some weight. Basically, they'll do
whatever you want, within reason.
> hmm. $485 for the modified k-member, and for that you get doubled
> tire life. at $150 a pop for 245/45ZR17 R1s, that k-member could
> pay for itself very quickly. and you get the handling improvements
> for free.
Bingo. That was quite a revelation to me, and one that I would have
strenuously decried as mere marketing hype- before I did it to my car. It
actually does work as advertised in that respect. You learn something new
every day...
> "The Razor's Edge", in the February 1996 MM&FF, claims that 70% of
> the GR-40's handling improvement is due to the torque arm (and panhard
> rod, one would assume) and 30% is due to the front k-member kit.
> i don't know if that comes from Bruce Griggs.
It entirely depends upon what criteria they used. Since MM&FF is mostly a
straightline sort of magazine, they might very well have looked at the
dragstrip numbers and a slalom or two and reached that conclusion, since the
torque arm really does help the rear hook up. However, if you like to drive
high speed sweepers at the limit all day long for your ya-yas, and you don't
have enough power to break loose the rear anyway, the weighting you arrive at
might be a bit different. Each of us has some portion of the car's handling
that pisses us off, and for each of us, the thing, and the degree of
pissedness, varies.
> watch out for skod, fellas. he may not look like a siren, but
> he sings a mean song...
Who, me?
William Keller also wrote:
> I must say, I think that painting the new k-member red might be a bad
> idea. I can just see it when they go to pull you out of the dirt. They
> look under the car, see something red, and wrap the tow line around it.
> Woops. You should probably go with a nice dirt color, like the rest of
> the car. :)
The modified K-member on my car started life in silver hammertone, but it has
acquired a most pleasing Thunderhill Mud patina over the past few months. Some
persons, perhaps uninformed as to the true nature of the cosmic Scheme of
Things, might very well call that dirt. But _I_ call it Art. (;-)
I sorta feel like the old Peanuts character, Pigpen. Remember his catchphrase?
"Cleanliness isn't next to godliness- cleanliness is next to *impossible*..."
17 May 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>Ford has specifications for minimum and maximum camber
>and toe *FOR THE REAR WHEELS*. These specs are to determine
>whether a car that has been twisted in an accident or
>sloppily assembled needs to be fixed. John told me about
>getting a press shop to purposely bend the rear axle
>assembly to the limits to get about 1 degree of negative
>camber and a little toe-in at each rear wheel! John warned
>me about the stress this puts on the gears in the differential,
>and how this wouldn't be prudent for a street car.
when you're getting rear end work done, that's a great time for the shop to
"slip" and give you about a half degree to a degree of rear camber.
although i have not had a chance to verify this, i have heard that virtually
all mustangs with more than a few miles on them will have some rear camber.
maybe i ought to launch my car off a few ramps.
19 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
<< OK, I've stayed out of this one long enough (mainly because I don't own a
Mustang) but this has gone on long enough...>>
Which doesn't disqualify you, but it certainly lowers your credibility a
little. Those of us who have spent our $ on Mustangs have put our money on
more than just a ride from point A to point B. We have cast an expensive
vote for a philosophy. Those of us that cast it for the 93 and earlier cars
feel a lot like computer users who spent a lot of money on a particular
system, only to find out that the company is making a more expensive new
system, that's not too backwards compatible with the one we are using, and
doesn't do some of the things we liked it to do as well as it used to. OTOH,
it does some things better.
<>
I assume when you make a broad reference to the 4.6 you are referring to the
4.6 DOHC? If not, try racing a 95 GT against a 96 GT in ANY racing and see
what happens.
<< If the SOHC is not a high performance motor, was the identically rated
5.0? >>
They are not identically rated, they just happen to have the same peak HP.
If you think that makes them identical, then your ignorance is showing - I
don't mean that in a nasty way. HP is not about peak numbers, and it's not
even always about HP, often it's about torque. Once again, I ask you: try
racing a 95 GT against a 96 GT in ANY racing and see what happens.
<>
Apparently he didn't know how to drive it. I am assuming from your sig you
have a 93 Probe GT? So does my dad. I have driven it many times and it's a
slot car in turns, but fast in a straight line it ain't. An average GT
driven half-well will beat a Probe GT by more than 2 lengths.
<>
No, unfortunately that is not the case here. See everyone runs around
talking about the Cobra. It looks like they'll make less than 10,000 of them
this year - probably 9,000. With that engine, we know the Mustang will run
high 13's to low 14's. So far no one on this or the SVT list has actually
reported running a stock Cobra faster than 14's - to the best of my
knowledge. So far, no one has reported _much_ of anything. Anyway, back to
the issue. How many aftermarket parts are there gonna be for the 4.6 DOHC?
If even 10% of the owners modified them, then the most that a company could
hope for is a 900 unit run. That's why the 5.0 did reach the success level
it did. They were selling 100's of thousands of them a year. There were
probably a million 5.0 Mustangs out there. You didn't have to hit a high
percentage of the audience to move some units. That brought prices down.
So, you say, "so what, the aftermarket will work with the SOHC then." Two
problems. First, Ford has made it very clear that they are targeting a
different type of owner now. The type of owner they are targeting is less
likely to hot-rod their Mustang. And the car costs so much up front that
there is less money left over in the budget for it as well. Second, even if
you build the crap out of the SOHC and lets say you add - oh - 100 hp to the
engine. Guess what it will run? We already know the answer, high 13's/Low
14's. Meanwhile for about the price of a GT you can buy a Cama*o or Fi*ebi*d
that will run with the Cobra performance wise and for which a rapidly growing
aftermarket is developing.
<>
See above. Sure, you will be able to get the basics, pulleys, headers (if
they will fit), mufflers and the ususal "do-they-make-much-difference-anyway"
items, but again - what are you gonna shoot for - 305 hp and low 14's? I
suppose a S/C will be along soon. That's no trick - with boost anything is
possible (if it stays together) - look at the Buick GNs.
<>
It is irrelevant. Do the math. You are an aftermarket parts supplier. Not
everyone is gonna buy your stuff, not even a good percentage. That means
that you either find a bigger market (F-body) or you have to charge more per
piece because of low volume.
I've heard that it isn't so easy to retro the heads. What do you think that
will cost BTW? And cams? Whew.
<>
It isn't just as fast, unless you pay $5k more for the Cobra.
<>
Yup - do all that and race a 95. See who wins.
<>
Yes they were, Paxton has made blowers since long before I was in HIGH SCHOOL
(x83). Aside from making them fit in that now-cramped-beyond-belief engine
bay, all the old technology carries over.
You say the rest is not far behind. How soon will cams be available for this
motor? Headers? Sure, TB's and exhaust and gears and such are either
carry-over or easy to create, but the stuff that really makes power (intakes,
cams) will take a while.
<>
Great - IRS, then it will truly cost what a Corvette does.
Otherwise, HP numbers are nearly meaningless. What the GT needs is to get to
the traps within a tenth or so of the Cama*o and the Cobra should soundly
stomp it. Otherwise the GT is really just a big Probe anyway.
21 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On May 21, Darius Rudis wrote:
> Does anyone currently have the "rear" coil-over setup (maybe from
> Griggs) on their Mustang? I am interested in this setup, and wanted
> to know what spring rate... you would use for the Griggs t-arm &
> panhard setup.
Griggs doesn't currently sell a rear coilover setup- but it would not be that
difficult to do one, not at all. They have custom-buit one or two such
installations on customer cars, I know. I've been seriously considering it for
my car as part of its ongoing evolution, and I'll probably do it next year.
With the torque arm and the Griggs lower arms (which run the springs in the
stock location), I favor 400lb/in springs right now. To arrive at the new
spring rate, just set up the leverage ratios to give you the same wheel rate.
Right now, the spring is at about 70% of the swing arm. Aft of the axle, it'll
be at 110% or so. Measure your own effective arm lengths and arrive at the
wheel rate from that- but I'd bet that you'd start out with 175lb springs, or
200lb springs and a very soft rear bar, and tune from there. You really don't
need just one hell of a lot of spring back there.
The optimum spring will depend on your car and driving style. There's no
obvious cookbook answer- but the joy of coilover suspensions is that spring
changes are pretty undramatic, and the springs are small, cheap, and easy to
carry to the track for test days.
I believe that Carrera does have a rear coilover kit for the car, but I'm not
kindly disposed towards their shocks. When I do mine, I'll just pick some Koni
double adjustable coilover race shocks, and build the appropriate bracketry to
mount 'em up.
23 May 1996
Eugene Y C Chu
fordnatics
I was wondering about what folks here said about coil-over setups. First, I
don't understand how it can give you quick spring changes, (front or back)
unless you're talking about changing spring heights with that adjustment
collar. It seems to me that you can't really set spring rates with it. If
you actually needed to replace the spring, you would still have to disconnect
the top of the shock/strut. In fact, with a coil-over, you actually need to
remove the shock/strut, where as in the stock setup, all you need to do is
disconnect the top, and push it out of the way. One advantage I can see is
that it gives you some space so that, in the back, the exhaust pipes have more
clearence. Someone mentioned all that stress on the shock mounting bolt. I
also worry about the stress on the threaded spring perches. Plus, it seems
like you're limited in spring selections as well. Anything else?
I'd also like to mention one inherent advantage of IRS that everyone seemed to
have missed; they allow much reduced unsprung weight than a solid live axle.
This can only help handling and ride quality, and is one feature that a live
axle simply can not match. It's probably true that grafting an MN12 rear end
onto a Mustang inevitably ends up in a very expensive kludge. But if, as
suggested, it was designed from the beginning as an integral part of the car,
it should work much better. (One counter example I know of is the fabulous
Mazda RX-7, whose suspension bestows it with tremendous handling and
manuverability, but was found to be pretty lousy for hard off-the-line drag
type acceleration.)
23 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On May 23, Eugene Y C Chu wrote:
> I was wondering about what folks here said about coil-over setups.
> First, I don't understand how it can give you quick spring changes,
> (front or back) unless you're talking about changing spring heights with
> that adjustment collar. It seems to me that you can't really set spring
> rates with it. If you actually needed to replace the spring, you would
> still have to disconnect the top of the shock/strut.
Sure- but it is much simpler. In the front, you remove the upper strut shaft
nut, and let the suspension drop into full droop. Remove the upper spring
seat, and the spring slides off the strut shaft into your hand. Replace it
with a different spring, set the ride height collar at the right height for
that spring, put the upper mount back in place, reinsert the shaft into the
camber plate, run down the nut. Bingo. Do both sides at once, and you don't
even have to disconnect the antiroll bar. There's a spring change in 5 minutes
*without even taking off the front wheels*.
This is definitely easier than having to remove the wheel, pull the spindle-
strut bolts, guide the regular spring out of its pocket, and lever the new
spring in... It also has negligible impact on the car's alignment. It's hard
to drop the control arm far enough to get a conventional spring out without
completely pulling the strut, although it could probably be done (at some
hazard to the brake line).
In the rear, same thing. The secret is that the spring need not have any
preload at full droop- so you can just pull the single shock mount bolt,
remove the upper eye and spring seat, and swap springs without having to take
the suspension into extreme droop (which makes life easier for your brake
line).
This would also be true of extremely high-rate conventional springs, of
course. But the coilover setup can make the spring accessible without
requiring as much disassembly to get to them, it that is a goal that is
engineered in from the start. The springs are also much lighter and more
compact, in addition to being cheaper- so it is east to justify having more of
them to tune with.
> Someone
> mentioned all that stress on the shock mounting bolt. I also worry
> about the stress on the threaded spring perches. Plus, it seems like
> you're limited in spring selections as well. Anything else?
Limited? I don't think so. 2.5" coilover springs are available in 25lb
increments, from basically 100lb to 3000lb. There are about 6 good quality
vendors who sell this stuff through the circle track outlets, and they all
sell their springs for right at $40 apiece. Thr larger conventional springs
are only available in 50 or 100lb increments, fewer free lengths, and
ultimately are more expensive (more steel to buy).
The selection of pigtail-type rear springs for the stock Fox rear spring
location is *truly* limited. That's one reason that Griggs sells their
adjustable arms with either pigtail seats or flat-finished seats to your
specs, so that you can use the much more common 5" x 10.5" flat-finished
springs from the circle-track sources.
The anhustable spring perches will handle the loads quite well, and a sane
person would engineer their shock mount in double shear, and gusset it
appropriately. These are heavy cars, to be sure, but designing a reliable
structure to feed the suspension loads into the tub is not an insurmountable
problem. Just because the sprint-car guys can sometimes get away with single-
shear shock mounting doeasn't mean that we should try to as well...
> I'd also like to mention one inherent advantage of IRS that everyone
> seemed to have missed; they allow much reduced unsprung weight than a
> solid live axle. This can only help handling and ride quality, and is
> one feature that a live axle simply can not match.
Yup. In the limit, a well designed IRS will outrun a live axle. That's not
under dispute. But it is entirely unlikely that any of us, working within a
real-world budget, could come up with that IRS for the Fox or SN95 platform.
You can get a long way with relatively little money with a live axle. What's
being debated is whether the additinal bang is worth the additional bucks that
the IRS develoment would require!
24 May 1996
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics
-> The selection of pigtail-type rear springs for the stock Fox rear
-> spring location is *truly* limited. That's one reason that Griggs
TRX (got it back yesterday!) uses truly weird bastard metric springs in back,
about 4.5" in diameter. Standard US springs are usually 5 to 5.5", and the
way the RX shrouds the tops of the coils with sheet metal would make it very
hard to put larger springs in. That's why I'm kicking around the idea of
coilovers in back - torch a 4.5" round plate, weld two tabs, stuff it up in
the bucket, and voila! Upper spring perch. Unfortunately the shocks are very
expensive.
-> > seemed to have missed; they allow much reduced unsprung weight than
-> a > solid live axle. This can only help handling and ride quality,
-> and is > one feature that a live axle simply can not match.
A solid live axle, yes. A solid dead axle (DeDion) can match almost any IRS
layout in unsprung weight. It beats the IRS hands-down on strength. My
Marauder has a supercharged, intercooled 455 Olds, four wheel drive, and
substantial rubber - I just upsized from 275/40s on 17x9.5s to 335/35s on
17x13s. I am still fabricating the suspension pieces. It will use DeDion
axles front and rear.
It took a long time for me to break away from the independent suspension
concept. If anyone cares about the blow-by-blow reasoning they can ask over
on racefab or wheeltowheel. Old Mallock finally passed away; it looks like
I'm the only one carrying the flag for beam axles at this time.
30 May 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
>I have had several respnoses to my original postings concerning the
>R-rims. A couple of people indicated that there were two offsets
>available. What is the correct offset for the 96 Rims?
For the newer body style (94-96) you want the 5.95" backspacing--part #
M-1007-R58
For the older Fox-bodies (79-93) you want the 6.42" backspacing (at least
this is according to Ford Motorsport)--part # M-1007-M179
03 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
Saturday I finished up installing the DelAlum control arm bushings and Griggs
coil over setup.
DelAlum bushings: these are (I think) made by Global West and are now
available through Ford Motosports. They are solid aluminum with Delrin
inner liner and Delrin bushings at either end. They replace the stock
squishy rubber bushings which have metal shells.
To remove the old bushings use a 12 ton press and a fixtureof your choice (we
used a length of threaded rod with some nuts and washers, and a custom
machined piece of alum the same diameter as the old bushings.) Make sure you
use the little piece of angle iron included with the bushings to brace the
mounting ears of the arm from bending as you press out the old bushings.
After I got the old bushings out I sent my A arms off to Charlie Bruno to
have him weld two gussets between the mounting ears to decrease flex of the
ears under load. When the welding was done we used the 12 ton press
again to press in the new bushings. This was something of a pain. First,
note that each arm has two bushings, and they are different diameters, to
match the holes in the arm. It appears that one cannot accidentally mis-
install the bushings or the delrin bearings, as they only go together one
way (right?). Make sure to screw in the supplied grease zerks tight and lube
the bushings with a grease gun loaded with Neo synthetic grease. Note that
the bushings have one thin and one thick delrin bushing each. Mine came
assembled in the box in a different order than they had to be installed in, so
take it slow when you're doing the install. In my case we found that the K
member mounting ears on one side were not properly aligned and we had to do
some surgery to get things to fit. Charlie Bruno says he's never had this
happen. At worse he's had to spread the K member mounting ears slightly. I
don't think that would have helped me though.
Bolting up the arms w/ new bushings was tricky. The stock bushings have a
lot of bind of the inner tube against the rubber. The Ford manual says to
torque the bolt (requiring a 22mm bolt on one end and a 15/16" deep socket for
the nut at the other end) and nut to something like 150 lb ft. However with
the DelAlum bushings I had to stop at 50 lb ft. or the arms would not rotate
in the mounts. I'm going to drive the car for a week then go back and see if
the nut needs more tightening. I hope the bushings loosen up after a bit of
use.
Test drive: I and my dad were surprised that using solid alum instead of
rubber does not make the car significantly more punishing to drive. Road
dots and potholes are definately felt more, but the car is still streetable.
If you live in an area with bad pavement however you'll have to put up with
some amount of annoyance, and probably retightening interior trim screws or
other parts periodically. The car now handles *significantly* better. Turn
in is precise and road feel is better. I do have a couple of problems which
I've not yet diagnosed:
1) my car has developed a nasty power steering shudder when turning the wheels
while stationary. I don't know if this is because my pump or rack are
finally going south, or if the delalum bushins transmit resonances
differently, or if having the front end of the car up in the air for 2 weeks
let air in. It might also be the '93 Cobra underdrive pulleys I installed
just before doin the bushing work. More diagnosis is needed.
2) I went to the Griggs coil over setup at the same time as I installed the
bushings because I did not want to try to reinstall the big Eibach springs.
The coil over alone shouldn't make much difference in road feel, should it?
Twice since Saturday I've had either the rear or front wheels break loose
and chirp under hard cornering in a freeway cloverleaf. I don't know if I'm
actually pushing the car harder now with the new bits up front, or if the
stiff fit of the A arm is resulting in a lack of suspension responsiveness.
More diagnosis is needed.
Conclusion: if you're going on the track and cannot afford a full Griggs
front suspension then these bushings, or perhaps their cheaper urethane
brothers, are must haves.
03 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
In a previous review I described how I installed Global West DelAlum bushings
in the A arms of my 1985 Mustang GT 5.0. At the same time I went to the
Griggs coil over setup up front because I was too lazy to fight getting the
big springs back in the a arms. This is my story.
The parts: the Griggs coil-over setup includes two 10" long springs (I have
the blue set, which are about 400 lbs I think), and the coil-over sleeve
and hardware. Total expenditure is about $400.00. The hardware consists of
an anodized alum tube with square threads cut on the outside surface, a bottom
spring perch that screws over the tube, an upper spring "perch", 4 flat
washers, 2 needle thrust bearing bushings(?) and 2 alum cones or hats. You
slide the spring over the coil over tube and cap it with the upper perch, a
sandwich of 2 flat washers & 1 thrust bearing, and the little conical hat
(cone pointing upward). The sandwich prevents bind from backing the spring
compression off when your suspension works. This whole setup slides over
your struts, after you modify them. Oh yeah, you'll also need caster plates
in your car before you can install the coil over setup. That's another $150 or
so.
Pre-install: measure your front static ride height and write it down for
later use.
The install: Remove the front struts completely. You'll need a 10mm open end
wrench and a standard box wrench to break lose the Koni struts (which I
have) from the Heim joint in the McCaster plates. After you get the strut out
you are in for a couple of hours of grinding work. You see, in order to be
able to slide the coil over parts over the strut tube, you must grind down
the lip on the flange at the top of the strut tube. On my Koni reds there are
two notches up there for what looks like a spanner wrench used in the
manufacture of the strut. You must grind down *past* the depth of those
notches. This presumably voids the warranty on the struts, and it also may
make them impossible to rebuild if the factory spanner no longer works.
C'est la vie. The amount of metal that has to be removed is signifcant. A
large bench grinder is the way to go, but there are a couple of tricks:
1) Use tie wraps to wrap wet rags around the strut inner rod down near the
area you'll be grinding on. Keep the rags wet (not just damp) and use the
wet rags to keep the temp of the strut down to COOL as you grind. For me this
meant Grind, Squeeze water onto hot area, grind, repeat. The struts heat up
very quickly and should be kept cool at all times. Gas charged struts can
explode if they get too hot, so I didn't take any chances.
2) Leave the rubber bump stop on the strut rod and use it as a spacer against
the case of your bench grinder to get the proper offset for grinding, and,
to damp vibration. Wear safety glasses. And if you use a bench grinder
with 2 wheels be careful you don't poke the tip of the strut rod into the
other grinding wheel.
Eventually you will be able to slide the coil over assembly over the strut
tube. You may also have to take a couple of file strokes to the threaded plug
on the side of the strut. This is where the gas charged struts are filled
with gas. Don't take off more than is necessary or the gas can leak out of
your strut.
Now that your arms are pumped up like Arnold Braunschweigers, take a break.
When you've recovered, testfit the struts with the coil over hardare
installed. Do NOT forget to put the rubber bump stop on the strut rod inside
the coil over spring to protect the strut from ramming up against the coil
over hardware upper spring perch. Hook up everything and check your
clearence between the tire and spring, and between spring and K member, at
full droop. At full compression you should have plenty of space, but at full
droop and full turn the coil over threaded tube just kisses the K member.
You might want to take a die-grinder in there and clearance the K member a
bit. While you're looking, check the clearence between the coilover hardware
& spring, and your front brake lines. I had to move my brake lines about 1"
inboard to clear the spring at full droop and full turn. I moved the brake
lines by removing the heavy 90 degree brace that holds the softline-hardline
weatherhead fitting, and using padded hose clamps down on the hardline.
Earls sells the padded clamps but so does Orchard supply. I had to use some
rubber vacuum line to ensure the brake line wouldn't move around inside the
padded clamps. These are your front brakes we're talking about here, so be
VERY careful and check all your clearances with the wheel on. NOTE: I'm
running the M2300K brake kit up front with 17" wheels and 245/40 series
tires, so my setup is much tighter on clearence than the stock setup should
be. There is just 1/4" of clearence between the coil spring and my tire when
running 2 degrees negative camber with a slotted upper strut hole.
After you've determined that things fit, torque everything down good.
Griggs suggests starting the coil over with about 2" of thread exposed BELOW
the lower spring perch. I did this and when the car was reassembled my static
ride height was identical to where it was with the old Eibach front springs.
Test drive: I did the coilover install at the same time I went to DelAlum
bushings in my A arms, so I can't say what the coilover alone would feel
like. My car is now much more responsive. I'm still not sure whether I have
enough compliance up fron though. 1" high pavement ripples give me quite a
jolt, and pressing down on the front of my car shows nearly zero
compression, although the coil spring clearly has more room to compress.
Question: of what use is changing the front ride height with the coil over
setup? Or more to the point, what changes in handling will result by
raising or lowering the front end with the coil over adjustments?
03 Jun 1996
Dan Howley/HQ/3Com
fordnatics
There has been talk recently about all the different K-members available,
from stock to the supertrick Griggs tubular. So now I have a question, are
any of these K-members adjustable in any way. The reason I ask is that
my car recently received the M2300-K disk brakes and well as Eibach
progressive rate springs, E-Sup poly bushings, Tokiko 5-way struts, and
CCM cast/camb plates. When I went to get my front end aligned the rack
dude said the best he could do camber wise was -1.8deg driver's side and
0.0 deg passenger's side. This is with the plates in the inner most set of
holes and the strut pulled all the way inboard (max neg). I expected to get
reduced negative camber due to the different spindle geometry (85 vs 95),
but I didn't think I would lose that much. Can always go to T-Bird A-arms
and get some of the negativity back. My real concern is the disparity from
side to side, it's like the body/chassis got tweaked somehow. Is there any
way this can be fixed, hopefully by moving the K-member sideways
slightly (rough guess would be 1/4 to1/2 inch to the car's right but I
haven't done the trig yet). The car has GW subframe connectors with the
supplements welded as only Charlie Bruno does. Can I move the stock
K-member to balance this cross-camber out out? Will an aftermarket
piece do it? Can a body shop do the adjustment? Any suggestions for shops
in the south SF-Bay area? Thanks!
03 Jun 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
Dan Howley writes:
>When I went to get my front end aligned the rack
>dude said the best he could do camber wise was -1.8deg driver's side and
>0.0 deg passenger's side. This is with the plates in the inner most set of
>holes and the strut pulled all the way inboard (max neg). I expected to get
>reduced negative camber due to the different spindle geometry (85 vs 95),
>but I didn't think I would lose that much. Can always go to T-Bird A-arms
>and get some of the negativity back. My real concern is the disparity from
>side to side, it's like the body/chassis got tweaked somehow. Is there any
>way this can be fixed, hopefully by moving the K-member sideways
>slightly (rough guess would be 1/4 to1/2 inch to the car's right but I
>haven't done the trig yet).
the Griggs k-member (modified or tubular) increases the front track by about a
half inch, which will give you slightly more negative camber. i am not aware
that you can adjust the k-member in order to change the camber, but somebody
more knowledgeable than i will have to address that.
as for the difference in maximum camber that you describe, just about
everybody i know with a mustang has less on the passenger side than on the
driver's side. i don't know why. in my case, the difference is about a half
degree. 1.8 degrees difference does sound like a lot, though.
you have the CCM plates in the innermost set of holes? are you saying that
you are using the inboard mounting holes in the plates? if that is the case,
you don't have them on the race setting. the race setting would be the
outboard mounting holes in the plates, so that the strut itself would be moved
further inboard and tilt the wheel more (thus making the camber more
negative). in other words, put them on the setting that moves the spherical
bearing (to which the strut shaft attaches) further inboard.
i wouldn't be surprised if you had one side on the race setting and the other
side on the street setting. that would account for a lot of the 1.8 degree
difference you're seeing.
>Can I move the stock
>K-member to balance this cross-camber out out? Will an aftermarket
>piece do it? Can a body shop do the adjustment? Any suggestions for shops
>in the south SF-Bay area?
i don't think so. for one thing, you'll be shifting the centerline of the
front suspension with respect to the rest of the car. also, the engine sits
on the k-member, so you'd be moving that weight as well. i'd say that shifting
the k-member to the side will have effects on your car than just altering the
camber.
a cheaper and better way to fix the camber is to slot the struts. grind the
strut-to-spindle mounting holes slightly (like 0.060") so that the spindle can
tilt inwards slightly with respect to the strut. slot the upper hole of the
strut-to-spindle mounts inboard, and the lower hole outboard. take it easy
with the lower hole, because you don't want to weaken it to the point that
it'll break out.
the t-bird arms will work, and i considered doing this. however, this is a
major tweak. they are 3/4" longer, and your wheels are going to stick out
more. also, your tie-rod ends will probably be too short to reach. you'll
get some serious negative camber as well, maybe too much for a street car.
04 Jun 1996
"K. Michael Sen-Roy"
fordnatics
It says in the FMS catalog that the M-8005-R58 radiator requires "extensive
modifications" to fit SN-95s. The de-gas system is required.
I'm interested in hearing what the radiator differences are between Fox-3
and SN-95 platforms, and what "extensive modifications" means if fitting one
to a Fox-3. Has anyone tried this?
04 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
The Baer catalog lists an (expensive) bump steer kit for Mustangs. Actually
they list several depending on what model year you have. But the kits all use
the same tapered stud that replaces the stud in the stock tie rod end and
allows you to use spherical rod ends to hook up the rack to the spindle. The
photo makes the part look very much like the Pinto Bump Steer Stud from
Coleman, but I called Baer and was told they make their own. I was also told
that the part will work on both the old Fox and the new SN95 spindles.
However they are out of stock on the part and so couldn't measure it for me.
I'm a bit dubious, but I figure'd I'd ask here:
1) is the thickness of tie rod hookup point on the old and the new spindles
the same? (I have the SN95 spindles but not the Fox ones).
2) is the taper the same between the old and new spindles?
3) On the average Fox mustang, about how much unthreaded "grip" on the bump
steer stud (often a grade 8 bolt) is used to set the null? I realize
this wil vary, but let's say a Fox body with 1/4" milled off the back of the
steering rack, and offset alum. rack mount bushings?
Mathis specifies an AN10-22 bolt, but from what I've seen on other cars that
is WAY too short. Has anyone here actually set their bump steer correctly?
What is the distance from the bottom of the spindle to the upper edge of the
spherical rod end?
BTW, I previously posted that Baer sells the molded brake air ducts. They
just told me they've discontinued those.
04 Jun 1996
Brian Kelley
fordnatics
Robert Allen writes:
>Conclusion: if you're going on the track and cannot afford
>a full Griggs front suspension then these bushings, or
>perhaps their cheaper urethane brothers, are must haves.
So you could only get 50 ft/lbs before the arms bound so badly that they
couldn't be moved? I guess that's a step up from their old design. It only
allowed 20 ft/lbs, as I recall. Junk alert!!
You're not stretching that large bolt at all when you only torque to only 50
ft/lbs. You need to stretch the bolt in order to maintain a clamp load. Lose
the clamp load and the fastener becomes a shear pin and the nut either backs
off or you risk failure..
It sounds like the polyurethane bushings are still the hot low-buck ticket.
Bearings are also available for the application.
With a proper poly bushing installation and 150 ft/lbs, I can move the control
arm with one finger (it's heavy, but it moves smoothly and easily). Anything
less is unacceptable.
04 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
>The Baer catalog lists an (expensive) bump steer
>kit for Mustangs. Actually they list several
>depending on what model year you have. But the
>kits all use the same tapered stud that replaces
>the stud in the stock tie rod end and allows
>you to use spherical rod ends to hook up the
>rack to the spindle. The photo makes the part
>look very much like the Pinto Bump Steer Stud
>from Coleman, but I called Baer and was told
>they make their own. I was also told that the
>part will work on both the old Fox and the new
>SN95 spindles. However they are out of stock
>on the part and so couldn't measure it for me.
>I'm a bit dubious, but I figure'd I'd ask here:
The Bear part is exactly the Coleman part you have seen. Dale Maurice and I
have compared them and they are exactly the same part.
04 Jun 1996
"K. Michael Sen-Roy"
fordnatics
>>Conclusion: if you're going on the track and cannot afford
>>a full Griggs front suspension then these bushings, or
>>perhaps their cheaper urethane brothers, are must haves.
>
>So you could only get 50 ft/lbs before the arms bound so badly
>that they couldn't be moved? I guess that's a step up from their
>old design. It only allowed 20 ft/lbs, as I recall. Junk alert!!
It sounds like you didn't get the new kind with inner sleeves. Those (new
kind) torque just like stock/urethane bushings. The sleeve is held firmly in
place and the bushing spins over it.
With the old kind the bolt torque goes towards bending the crossmember arm
mounting ears and squashing the bushings/spacers together. The bushing spins
directly on the bolt.
You did mention something about needing crossmember work to fit them. Maybe
the spacers are effectively too thick for your particular crossmember. If you
do have the inner sleeve kind, they must be torqued to stock specs. If that
ends up with bind then the spacers or crossmember aren't of proper dimensions
(which isn't too surprising).
04 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
>>So you could only get 50 ft/lbs before the arms bound so badly
>>that they couldn't be moved? I guess that's a step up from their
>>old design. It only allowed 20 ft/lbs, as I recall. Junk alert!!
>> ...
>>
>>With a proper poly bushing installation and 150 ft/lbs, I can move the
>>control arm with one finger (it's heavy, but it moves smoothly and
>>easily). Anything less is unacceptable.
Good thing, since FMS is now selling the bushings :-).
And...
>>>So you could only get 50 ft/lbs before the arms bound so badly
>>>that they couldn't be moved? I guess that's a step up from their
>>>old design. It only allowed 20 ft/lbs, as I recall. Junk alert!!
>>
>>It sounds like you didn't get the new kind with inner sleeves. Those (new
>>kind) torque just like stock/urethane bushings. The sleeve is held firmly in
>>place and the bushing spins over it.
I do have the kind with the inner sleeves, but based on comments by you two
gentleman and another, the problem I have is that the fat delrin bushings are
a bit too thick, making the overall length of the stack in each half of the A
arm being a few thousandths longer than the length of the interior metal
sleeves. The solution is for me to drop the A arms again and face a few thou
off the fat bushings until I can get a clamping load on the inner metal tube
without the delrin bushings being too loose. This weekend I'll put the car
under anethesia again and see what I can do. I figured the tight fit was
deliberate in order to let the delrin wear in, but I guess not. Since the
stock bushings were a tight fit I figured these were supposed to be also,
but now that I think about it I guess the delrin is there strictly to
protect the bushings from the side of the K member, not to act as self-
lubricating bearings, i.e. a few thou of looseness isn't a horrible thing.
I'm learning. Not bad considering that this time last year I didn't even
know how to change disk brake pads I guess...
At least my Griggs coil over setup will allow easy dropping of the A arms.
Thanks for the tips people, it's a big help!
04 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
>>>The Baer catalog lists an (expensive) bump steer
>>>kit for Mustangs.
>>Robert,
>>
>>The Bear part is exactly the Coleman part you have seen. Dale Maurice and I
>>have compared them and they are exactly the same part.
If that's true then the Baer prices are worse than I thought. Baer sells the
stud & spacer for about $57 each. Coleman sells them for under $20 each as I
recall. Sheesh. And to top it off, I've seen the Coleman part, the "Pinto
Bump Steer Stud", and it's designed to work with the Mustang II or Pinto
spindles, not the SN95 Ford parts. It's not long enough at either end for use
on the SN95 spindles.
05 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
>>>It sounds like you didn't get the new kind with inner sleeves. Those (new
>>>kind) torque just like stock/urethane bushings. The sleeve is held firmly in
>>>place and the bushing spins over it.
>
> I do have the kind with the inner sleeves, but based on comments
> by you two gentleman and another, the problem I have is that the
> fat delrin bushings are a bit too thick, making the overall length
> of the stack in each half of the A arm being a few thousandths
> longer than the length of the interior metal sleeves. The
> solution is for me to drop the A arms again and face a few thou
> off the fat bushings until I can get a clamping load on the inner
> metal tube without the delrin bushings being too loose. This
> weekend I'll put the car under anethesia again and see what
> I can do. I figured the tight fit was deliberate in order to
> let the delrin wear in, but I guess not. Since the stock bushings
> were a tight fit I figured these were supposed to be also,
> but now that I think about it I guess the delrin is there
> strictly to protect the bushings from the side of the K member,
> not to act as self-lubricating bearings, i.e. a few thou of
> looseness isn't a horrible thing. I'm learning. Not bad
> considering that this time last year I didn't even know how
> to change disk brake pads I guess...
On a previous revision of things I used the early style of these bushings. I
modified them to an acceptable alternative. Mine did not have the metal sleve,
but I shimmed up the delrin with esentially washers until the center tube was
clamped down by the bolt with proper torque. I could still easily move the a-
arm up and down. You have to watch this closely as the wear that will occur on
the "pucks" on the ends will eventually allow fore/aft slop on the a-arm then
you need to go in and replace the washers with thinner ones. I also replaced
the bolts with bolts that got the threads out from the ears on the k-member.
With the configuration like GW intended you had the threads there sawing away
at the holes on the ears (this is not insignificant wear and worth checking to
anyone using the bushings as delivered). But beyond that for something like
autocrossing these bushings are a hot setup, but need maintaining (don't
install and leave them). For a street/track car, at least thoroughly check
them before and after every weekend!! They are not put them in a forget them
parts.
10 Jun 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>I'm ready to upgrade the brakes on my 91 GT.
...
>I am flexible in my thinking and will
>listen to anything, so the things I'd like in a system are just that,
>not absolute must-haves.
>
>1. Should work with a minimum of 16" 4-lug wheels (stock "pony" type).
>2. Should be suitable for occasional street use (The odd trip to the
>track or Mustang club cruise).
>3. Should not be so exotic that parts can only be obtained from a
>single source.
>4. Must give safe performance suitable for road racing/Solo I speeds.
>5. Should not dictate special chassis setups that would restrict
>selection of chassis components.
good thing you're flexible, because the first thing i'm going to tell you is
to forget about staying with 4-lug.
for 4-lug brakes, you have essentially three choices.
1) SVO/LSC brakes (11" rotors).
2) Wilwood 4-piston with 12" rotors.
3) Baer Racing PBR brakes (available with 12" or 13" rotors).
you'll be beating up the SVO/LSC brakes very quickly at road race speeds.
they can be made to work, and are the cheapest option, but you'll spend a lot
of time figuring out how to make them live. these are probably fine for
autocross, but a decent driver on a road race course will run into the
limitations of these brakes very quickly.
Wilwoods are nice brakes, but not in this application. the kit that works
with stock wheels uses a wafer thin rotor, about 0.8" thick. the regular
rotors are 1.125" thick, but you'll need to get new wheels with more offset to
clear the calipers (the two outboard pistons make the caliper thicker than
stock). the calipers are also fixed calipers, and have no ability to track
the rotor as it moves from side to side. the tapered snout of the fox spindle
is rather flexible, and deflects under hard cornering loads. you'll get pad
knockback and dragging brakes. same kind of problem in the back, with the c-
clip axleshafts (ford's spec allows up to 0.030" of play). some list members
do have wilwood brakes, so maybe they can tell us about them.
the Baer Racing brakes use a modified fox spindle. they cut the caliper
mounting ears off and weld on their own caliper mounts. they use PBR twin-
piston calipers, which are a floating design and can track the rotor. comes
with 13" rotors, but their A-Sedan package has 12" rotors. these brakes are
nice. lots of capability, and you don't run into the fitment and pad
knockback problems of the wilwoods.
of the above, the Baer brakes are the best option for your application if you
want to stay 4-lug. there's a catch, though: price. the Baer brakes are
expensive.
the M-2300-K kit gives you everything that the Baer setup gives you, and more.
in particular, you get SN95 spindles, which are significantly improved over
the fox spindles. the snout is much beefier, and the geometry has been
revised for improved Ackermann (a big problem with mustangs). and with a
street price of $1200, it's a few hundred bucks cheaper than the Baer brakes.
the catch is that they're 5-lug. 4-lug axleshafts are no problem, but there
are no 4-lug hubs for the SN95 spindle that i'm aware of, and because the
races are integral with the SN95 hub, you can't just weld it up and drill it
for 4-lug (you'd lose the heat treatment of the races).
also, the M-2300-K kit uses 13" rotors, which require 17" wheels. you could
make 16" wheels fit, but you'll have to do some work. the problem is
interference between the outboard top edge of the caliper and the bead relief
of the rim. i've got CSA Type 35 16" wheels which have an unusual amount of
clearance, and fit, without modification, on the Baer fox-based 13" brakes.
to my chagrin, i discovered that the Cobra PBR calipers used in the M-2300-K
kit are thicker than the standard PBR calipers that Baer uses. also, the
rotor offset is different.
so i had to do some work to get my brakes to fit. i currently have modified
calipers and 12.5" rotors, but sometime i'll get 1/2" hubcentric wheel spacers
made up so i can run the full 13" rotors with my 16" wheels.
back to the money part. i already had 16" wheels (4-lug) and newish 16"
tires, so i was reluctant to get 17" wheels and tires. so i modified the
brakes to work with 16" wheels, and i sold my 16" 4-lug wheels. my bottom
line for everything, including the cash from selling my 4-lug wheels, was
$1750 or so. that's about the cost of the Baer kit, i think, and i ended up
with 5-lug wheels, SN95 spindles, and new axleshafts.
note that my wheels were $160 each. you can buy new 17" wheels for $170 or
so, an option that i didn't have. at the time, 17" wheels were expensive as
hell. i'd probably just go with the 17" wheels if i were doing it now,
especially since people are selling off their stock 17" GT wheels and putting
on the '95 Cobra R wheels.
10 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
:After several very useful posts from people
:on this group I realized my install of DelAlum
:bushings was not working right. There was
:excessive bind in the A arms caused by the
:mounting ears clamping on the Delrin, not the
:internal metal tube. So last Saturday I
:took out the A arms again. It was MUCH
:easier to do this with the Griggs Coil Over
:installed as there is no compressed spring
:to fight. The front end parts came out quickly
:& easily.
:
:After I got the arms out, I and my Dad used
:a vernier caliper to measure the overall length
:of the internal tube vs the overall length of
:the external stack (including thick & thin
:Delrin bushing and alum bushing). We found that
:in all cases the outer stack was 0.040-0.060"
:longer than the inner tube, makeing it
:impossibly to clamp. Since the thin bushings
:cannot be made any thinnner, we put the thick
:ones on the lathe and faced off about 1/32"
:(depending on the specific set of parts). After
:doing this I was able to put 120 lb ft. of torque
:on the A arm nuts
...and reassemble the front end. The arms now moved MUCH more freely, and
could be lifted with one arm.
I took the car out for a spin and nearly all traces of harshness were gone now
that the bind was gone. Ride with the DelAlums in is not significantly worse
than with the stock rubber bushings. However turn-in is MUCH better. I
haven't had the front end aligned yet so I don't know how much caster I'm
running, but the bushings are supposed toincrease it. Much of the understeer
I had before is gone. The care is much more predictable and confidence
inspiring in turns.
The Griggs setup seems very nice, although it is slightly firmer ride than
with my Eibach street springs.
I recommend the Griggs coil over setup wholeheartedly. The DelAlums are very
nice once you finally get them to work, but the tolerances of the parts from
the factory appear extreamly poor, and without a lathe handy it would have
been difficult to face the delrin bushings. Caveat Emptor.
11 Jun 1996
Josh
fordnatics
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, Tim B. Stiles wrote:
> attaches to the rocker panel. Has anyone heard of this happening to late
> model Mustangs or is this a sign of worse things to come. FWIW it didn;t
> rust through, it just broke free.
Yes, it's a common problem. Consider getting custom floorpan reenforcements
welded in, since the Special Service pieces are not being reproduced.
Certain brands of subframe connectors also have crosspieces to help support
the floorpan. The Kenny Brown super-subs with the dual crosspieces come to
mind.
You should definitely get it taken care of as soon as you can, it gets worse,
and I'm sure you don't want to have to replace the entire floorpan. ugh.
11 Jun 1996
Bob Nell
fordnatics
>Yesterday I pulled the passenger seat out my '89 Stang to run some wires for
>some car stereo stuff. Imagine my surprise to see daylight-and the ground
>from INSIDE my car!! It seems that the floorpan has separted where it
>attaches to the rocker panel. Has anyone heard of this happening to late
>model Mustangs or is this a sign of worse things to come. FWIW it didn;t
>rust through, it just broke free.
When I was welding a stress crack in my floorpan, near the drivers seat but
not anywhere near the mounts... I noticed the seam when the rocker panel and
floor pans meet had daylight coming through.. all the spot welds were still
in tact but it didnt seem like a very good job... Someday Ill go back in and
weld it up.. maybe with a piece of angle iron
11 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Joseph Weinstein)
fordnatics
well known problem with mustangs that ever see cornering. There's a Ford kit
for floor strengthening. I had to weld up the floor pan and the driver seat
internals, which broke from autocross loads.
11 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Jim Dingell at Performance Parts, Inc.)
fordnatics
Ford no longer produces a repair kit for cracked floorpans. This mentioned
repair kit was for the mid '80s recall campaign that has long expired. Ford's
service phiosophy on this issue is simple: If the floorpan is cracking, the
car is not roadworthy and thusly should not be driven.
12 Jun 1996
[email protected] (Peter L. Turek)
fordnatics
>Yesterday I pulled the passenger seat out my '89 Stang to run some wires for
>some car stereo stuff. Imagine my surprise to see daylight-and the ground
>from INSIDE my car!! It seems that the floorpan has separted where it
>attaches to the rocker panel. Has anyone heard of this happening to late
>model Mustangs or is this a sign of worse things to come. FWIW it didn;t
>rust through, it just broke free.
This is not altogether uncommon. The floorpan is weak to begin with and I've
seen many floors just crack outright, usually right near the left rear seat
mounting hole (but not RIGHT on it, just 2-3" away). A buddy's car literally
had you're exact problem.
His was a GT and had the tall heavy GT seats, and well, this buddy of mine
weighs...about 250lbs (easy) I'd say, so the tall seat perhaps leveraged the
floor where this problem-prone area was and his seat literally started to go
thru the floor. This happened probably also because he made about 50 slick
launches on the car, so I'm not surprised.
Also note that ford's welding back in the 80s on these mustangs was quite
inconsistent, and some cars will suffer from bad welds in the floor and torque
box areas and some won't. One guy summed it up succinctly with "it seems that
some days the welder's juice knob was turned up right at Ford, and some days
it wasn't..."
Just weld the floors with a good MIG/TIG stich weld and you might get some
scrap 16(?) guage steel panels to reinforce it or consider buying the "Police"
floorpan reinforcment kit from Ford. I heard that this was discontinued, but
cannot substantiate it. If you're interested, try Jim Dingle on PPI (he's on-
line too) as he's the "Police/Special service" Guru as far as I know.
17 Jun 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jun 15, Will Goodman wrote:
> 1) When I install the new MC will I need new hard lines to run to the
> combination valve or will the ones on the car work? If I do need new
> lines where can I get them?
Since you'll be running the 1.125" SVO MC, you'll need to reflare the existing
lines from the combination valve to the MC. Your '90 has the metric ISO outlet
ports, 10mmx1 and 12mmx1. The SBO MC has 7/16-24 SAE inverted flare and 9/16-
16 SAE inverted flare outlet ports. You'll have to do some flaring.
But wait, there's more. The SVO MC has only two outlet ports, your '90 has 3.
You'll also need to make a tee fitting so that you can drive the LF caliper
line from the tee, as opposed to the other port on the MC. Stainless Steel
Brakes has the preflared, ready-to-use line you'd need to do this adaptation
job, BTW.
> 2) Should I bleed the MC on the bench or can I do it on the car? Which is
> easier? Which works best? And could somebody please give me a quick run
> down on how to do it? I've read BTPP and I don't quite understand
> Scott's method. How do you bleed both wheels on one side at the same
> time without two other people to help?
With the SVO MC, you can bleed it easily enough in the car. It's not a fast-
fill design. The fast-fill MCs are the ones that are the huge pain in the butt
to bleed. Bleeding in the car is easy, and usually works very well- especially
if the car is nose-low. Bench bleeding is a lot easier, conceptually, but then
you have to figure out how to get the thing into the car and get the lines
attached to it before it drains all thefluid into your engine compartment. It
can be done, but it's messy.
> 3) Any other things I need to look out for that I'm not thinking of right
> now? I want to get it all together before I start the install.
Get all the port sizes and flarings figured out, and preflare all the lines,
It's no fun doing them in the car with the MC peeing fluid on your headers...
18 Jun 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jun 18, Teddy Chen wrote:
> i'm embarassed to be asking this question, but for those
> of you who have installed oil pressure, oil temperature,
> water temperature, etc. gauges, how did you route them from
> the engine compartment to the interior of your car?
> at a glance, the most obvious way is to use the grommet on the
> driver's side through which the wiring harness passes to get to
> the fuse box.
I'd suggest not tampering with the harness and grommet, especially on a higher
mileage car that has seen some abuse. I have seen those harnesses get a bit
brittle, and munging on them can cause some annoyance- not to mention that the
sharp body panel edges will carve up the insulation on the harness unless you
use great care. IMHO, you'd do better to pick a nice blank spot of firewall,
and drill your very own clearance hole, line it with a nice grommet, and have
it for your own wiring use. It may be only one wire now, but it'll turn out
that eventually you'll probably end up with 5 or 6 different circuits that you
need for one reason or another- so plan ahead.
I've always wanted to stick a nice watertight Amp bulkhead connector in there,
one that carries maybe 10-15 circuits, but I've never gotten around to it. And
it's arguably turd-polishing in any case. Still, when the motor is out, I'm
going to be committing urban renewal on the firewall in any case (adding
bulkhead unions for the fuel lines and so on), so that'd be a good time to get
in there and just do it... Another tidy approach is to use a bulkhead terminal
strip- one that has insulated passthroughs, and screw terminals on each side.
That's pretty bulky, but very easy to service.
But in the short term, just poke yourself a new hole and pop a nice tight
grommet in it to seal around your wires.
22 Jun 1996
"Chris Johnson Jr."
> -> Look at it this way...my Cervini ram air hood (fiberglass) weighs in
> -> at 12 pounds.....compared to the stock '93 Mustang hood's 41 pounds!?
> -> It's MUCH lighter....
Well I hate to burst your bubble, but a carbon fiber stock look alike is ~ 11-
12# and a bolt on fiberglass hood is about 20-25#. Now a pin on glass' hood
(like mine) is 13#(2.5" cowl), but since we redid it and created a 7" cowl for
the position the motor was in for the spring break shootout (351W with stock
mounts and Victor Jr, 2" carb spacer plus a 1050 Dominator, so she sat kinda
high) the weight is up to about 16# with the liquid glass (read: heavier). I
have since created new motor mounts that sit the motor down and back 1.5" and
we will be redoing the hood to the NMCA limit of 4".....
> 41 seems awfully heavy. Is your 12-pound hood strong enough to sit
> (or, in many cases, walk) on? Does it bulge or warp when traveling over
> 75mph? The A&A Fiberglass parts on my brother's car didn't make the
> grade.
My Harwood has seen several 140mph 1/4mile pass' and alot of street driving
with no problems.....and I wouldn't think about walking on it unless I was
really Pissed off so it hasn't seen that test yet...;).
24 Jun 1996
Chris Herzog
fordnatics
"Theodore A. Chen" wrote:
> caveat: the Howes in the Summit catalog are not
> specified as being for the mustang, although they have the
> ford configuration (in the placement of the upper and lower
> outlets and of the heat exchanger). that being said, i don't
> see why you can't make it fit in your car. you'll have to do
> some hacking to put the Griffin in your car, anyway.
The Howe 19X31 without the oil cooler is a total drop-in into a 79-93 Mustang.
You need to trim the rubberpads a little but all the stock bracketry works
fine. I think the one's with the oil cooler are a little wider...
24 Jun 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>are there any stock wheels from any car with the correct
>offset, width, and bolt pattern to fit an SVO besides the stock ones?
>Fifteen inch would be fine, as they would allow me to run the 235-
>60/15's from BFG. I've heard that 89+ T-bird wheels *might* be a
>possibility, but can anyone verify or comment on this? Thanks.
sure, any SN95 wheel will fit. the bolt pattern is 5 x 4.5". the 15" steel
wheels are pretty cheap, but make sure they're wide enough.
no joy on the t-bird wheels. those are a 5 x 4.25" bolt pattern.
25 Jun 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
i'm trying to install adjustable tie rod ends and use spacers to get to the
null in the bumpsteer curve. quite simply, it looks like i'm getting toe-out
in bump and toe-in in droop, on both sides of the car. this is the opposite
of what i was expecting to see. i have offset rack bushings, and the rack
appears to be centered and aligned properly. the rack was milled 1/4". i
have SN95 spindles, and the tie rod ends appear to be the pre '90 ones. the
spindles have been slotted 0.060" inboard at the upper strut-to-spindle mount
and 0.020" outboard at the lower strut-to-spindle mount. the springs are
eibach competition, and i'm running 3/16" of toe-out.
the tie rod is angled upward slightly with respect to the control arm at ride
height (about 14.5" vertical distance from the lip of the fender to the center
of the hub). at ride height, the control arm is more or less parallel to the
ground. at full droop, which is at about 1.5" (might be more with the spring
in there), the tie rod is approximately parallel to the ground with the
control arm pointing slightly downward.
to measure bumpsteer, i followed the steps that skod gave in his writeup. i
took out the front springs and reassembled the suspension except for the
antiroll bar. i set up my ammo box with a dial indicator and stand. the ammo
box lid was standing more or less vertically, and was approximately parallel
to the new rotor, which was pointing straight ahead. on the lid was the dial
indicator stand, and the tip of the stand rested against one side of the wheel
mounting surface of the rotor. the dial indicator rested against the wheel
mounting surface on the other side of the hub. i would have preferred to put
both contact points on the friction surface of the rotor, but the stand wasn't
big enough to be able to touch the friction surface on both sides.
my results don't make sense to me, because it seems that if the tie rod is
already angled slightly upward at ride height, going into bump should cause
toe-in. but i'm seeing toe-out. maybe i'm reading it wrong. with the tip of
the stand at the leading end and the dial indicator at the trailing end,
jacking up the control arm causes the reading to decrease.
as a sanity check, i asked karl brandt to take a look at my setup and he
agreed that i seemed to be measuring it right. as a test, we replaced the
stock tie rod end with one of the adjustable rod ends. first, we installed it
with spacers and measured the change in toe. at 1.5" of bump, the toe-out was
0.105". this seemed worse than with the stock tie rod end, so we removed all
the spacers and measured again. this time, the toe-out was 0.070" at 1.5" of
bump. so, for the time being, i'm going to install the rod ends without any
spacers.
it looks like the offset rack bushings are hurting me, and i need to move the
rack back down. but we were surprised at this, because this is contrary to
the experience that other people have had (they get toe-in in bump).
25 Jun 1996
Raj Boaz
fordnatics
>>> Tim B. Stiles 06/25/96 12:35am >>>
>A short time ago someone on this list posted that they had a '79
>MustangCobra rear bumper on their late model Stang because it was
>aluminum. Two weekends ago I was prowling the junkyards for misc
>stuff and came upon a '79 Mustang underneath another car. It has a
>fiberglass rear hatch but I couldn't get a look at the bumper due to the
>bumper cover. Does anyone know if this bumper is aluminum as well
Many 79-82 Turbo and V8 cars had aluminum front and rear bumpers. I don't
know of a way to check aside from using a magnet or something, but I've seen a
few sets, and I bought a set through the Internet a few months ago. You would
not believe the difference in weight.
25 Jun 1996
"Darius Rudis
fordnatics
>Paul Receveur
>This bring me to the question, are there any stock wheels from any car with
>the correct offset, width, and bolt pattern to fit an SVO besides the stock
>ones?
When I was shopping for wheels (like 10 years ago), I went into a Wheel/Tire
store. I asked to look thru their application guide, and used it in reverse.
Instead of looking up _my car_ to see the offset and bolt pattern, I went page
by page looking at the offset/pattern to find the car. That is how I came
accross a Chrysler Conquest TSI rear wheel with a 25mm offset on a 16x8 wheel
5 on 4.5 bolt pattern. These fit the motorsport 5-lug conversions for Fox
bodies, which is what I was after. Years later I sold my wheels to an SVO
owner at a swap meet.
25 Jun 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jun 25, Teddy Chen wrote:
> i'm trying to install adjustable tie rod ends and use spacers to
> get to the null in the bumpsteer curve. quite simply, it looks
> like i'm getting toe-out in bump and toe-in in droop, on both sides
> of the car.
This means that you are _way_ off from the null. On my car, I run almost 3" of
spacers to get to the null. HOWEVER: I have a very extensively modified K-
member (which relocates the inner pivots), and I run a significantly lower
ride height than you do with your stock K-member. So your spacer stack may
very well vary *dramatically* from mine.
If you are at the null, you'll get toe in in *either* bump or droop with a
semi-stockish Fox setup with stockish-length control arms. If you're getting
toe-in droop in and lots of toe-out in bump with short spacer stacks, that
surprises me a tad, but it's quite possible. I'm troubled by the *sign* of
the error that you're getting. Running with zero spacer should probably put on
the "toe-in-in-bump, toe-out-in-droop" side. I would think that you would need
to lower the outer end to get to the null, with your combo of parts. However,
I never ran your exact setup, so I can't say for sure" do this thing, it'll
work". The closest I ever came to your setup, I still needed about 1.5" in
drop spacer stck height.
Are you positive that you are reading reality with your gage? Any track change
caused by going into bump needs to be nulled out by the gage, that's why you
need the lid to be vertical. I'd recommend checking your setup. I personally
prefer to set the dial indicator up on the leading edge, and the reference on
the trailing edge, so that I read toe out as a "negative" indication- but
that's just because my brain works that way. I also put both the indicator and
the reference on the rotor face, not the wheel mounting flange, so that the
total indication is doubled (helps when you're near the null). Do whatever you
need to to make sure that your measurement makes sense to you.
If you're positive that you are going toe-out in bump, then yes indeed you
have the outers too low- even with zero spacer. In that case, you'll need to
lose the offset bushings and try centered bushings instead. Running Heims with
zero spacer height (ball flush against the steering arm) is a bad idea, since
the Heim's body and steering arm can bind up at extremes of steering and
suspension travel. Running at least 1/4" of spacer is best, to make sure that
the Heim can't get into the steering arm. Breaking a Heim in the steering is a
_really_ bad idea, and nothing good has ever been reported about it. They
break very easily when loaded in bending- *check this* while you have your car
in the air with the springs out.
> the tie rod is angled upward slightly with respect to the control
> arm at ride height (about 14.5" vertical distance from the lip of
> the fender to the center of the hub). at ride height, the control
> arm is more or less parallel to the ground.
Whoa. The angle of the _arm_ doesn't matter, and is quite misleading. The line
that you care about goes from the center of the inner pivot bushings to the
center of rotation of the ball joint- and there are no convenient lines or
angles on the arm to make this true axis visible. In particular, the ball
joint's center of rotation is slightly above the top surface of the arm
stamping, and the bushing's center is well *below* it. You might do well to
paint a reference line on the arm between these _real_ centers.
In any case, you're trying to null out angles that are essentially too small
to eyeball out. The real source of the bump error is every bit as much a
function of the different arc length of the arm-to-ball-joint segment and the
inner-to-outer tie rod segment, as it is the initial arm and rod angles. So
ignore the arm and tie rod angles, and *trust the dial indicator*. It does not
lie.
> in toe. at 1.5" of bump, the toe-out was 0.105". this seemed worse
> than with the stock tie rod end, so we removed all the spacers and
> measured again. this time, the toe-out was 0.070" at 1.5" of bump.
> so, for the time being, i'm going to install the rod ends without
> any spacers.
Hell, try a 4 inch spacer stack, and see what it does- and then stick the Heim
on the wrong side of the arm (a *negative* spacer stack!), and see what it
does. *Then* converge on the null. All your data points are from one side of
the null, so far. If you plot the curve from limit to limit, you'll see that
it is a parabola. The null is the apex of the parabola. You have to cross the
null to see the bumpsteer error change sign. You're so far below it that you
don't even see a change in sign- you're just seeing one "flank" of the curve.
When in doubt, _exagerate_.
Trust the dial indicator. Oh, one other thing- you are using either new, or
newly-surfaced rotors, and you do have them snugged in place with a lug nut or
two, right? Otherwise, you'll mostly read surface imperfections in the
grooving, and the angular error from the rotor not sitting flush on the hub...
25 Jun 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>OK, let me get this straight...are you saying that the new
>SN95's have the same extra 3/4" (or whatever it is) of offset
>that my SVO has in comparison to a 87-93 5.0? I just saw
>some new Cobra wheels on a 5.0LX that had been converted
>to 5-lug, and they looked perfect on that car. I know mine is
>different, please enlighten me...
yes, the SN95s have 3/4" longer axleshafts, and the SN95 spindles also
increase the front track. the backspacing for an 8" wheel is 5.75". i don't
remember what it's supposed to be for a 7" wheel.
the SVOs have the same axleshafts, and the front track is wider than the stock
fox mustang due to the continental spindles, control arms, and k-member combo
used by the SVO.
i would expect SN95 wheels to fit an SVO.
you might also consider mitsu 3000GT or nissan 300ZX wheels, although i don't
know how closely the offset will match.
01 Jul 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>However, the 50 million dollar question is what type of rims to you
>get? I don't think I've seen anything on this list regarding rims,
>wheels, and tire sizes. So, I found ppi's web page and came across
>the 95 Cobra R wheels that look nice. The question is, will
>they fit my 89 lx?
they'll fit, but you'll probably have to roll your fenders. what size tires
were you planning on getting? 245s and 255s will fit. i have doubts about
whether a 275 will have enough clearance, at least for street use.
>So, the question is will the Cobra R rims fit with a 89 lx? I
>believe that they are 17 inch, but I'm not sure how wide they are
>and if they will hit the quad shocks.
they're 17x9. you'll probably find that your turning radius is larger because
the tires will rub against the k-member at full lock.
another option would be the 17" GT wheels, which are 17x8. the '96 version
are rather expensive, and i would just buy the Cobra R rims for just a bit
more. but '94-'95 rims are significantly cheaper, especially if you can find
a set of used ones. i'm using the '95 GT rims myself.
>Also, if anybody installed this kit themselfs, was the kit lacking
>in anything that I should know about before I start the installation?
well, the instructions sort of suck. "remove all those parts. install all
these parts." there was a problem with incorrect fittings being supplied for
the adjustable proportioning valve, but SVO appears to have fixed that now.
the kit is very complete, but neglects to provide any support for the
adjustable proportioning valve. instead, it leaves the prop valve hanging off
the hard lines. that's an invitation for fatigue failure of the brake lines -
not a good thing if you're relying on those brakes to keep you from hitting
that wall at 100 mph.
the fix is easy - get an angle bracket from the hardware store, drill two
holes in it, attach it to the prop valve, and bolt it to the firewall (i used
the hood hinge mounting bolt).
somebody did a writeup on the M-2300-K kit installation. it's on the mustang
corral website, i believe. i did a writeup too, but i neglected to save it.
02 Jul 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
My biggest problem of the weekend came Sunday. While at the apex of Turn 6, a
left hander, I heard a pop from under the front of my car. I knew the handling
didn't feel right but could tell what had happened. I came in immediately and
took a look. My left anti-roll bar mount had broken free of the subframe. I
was disappointed to find that Ford had only attached it with a few tack welds.
A Hoosier dealer had a flux core MIG welder for rent but didn't weld himself.
After asking around, I couldn't find anyone else that would profess any skill.
If someone had asked me to weld in that heat I would have said I didn't know
how either. I'm a pretty good TIG welder but my MIG welding skills leave a lot
to be desired. Since I was out of options, I gave it a try. You haven't lived
until you've welded above your head in shorts and a T-shirt in the scorching
sun. I managed to get the mount reattached.
It worked fine through the next session but my amateur welding skills showed
through during the second session when it popped lose again. That was it for
my weekend. That probably wasn't such a bad thing since the heat was wearing
me down quite a bit. Of course, I wanted to go out again but I don't think I
was mentally at 100%.
When I went over to return Skod's suit, I mentioned what had happened. He
smiled and said, "The left side, right?" He then showed me where his car had
been welded up. When I told Borys, he asked if it was in the usual place.
Apparently, this is a fairly common failure of track driven Fox Mustangs. If
your driving one on the track, you might want to have it welded up before it
breaks. Let's all say it together, "Drive it like a race car, maintain it like
a race car".
15 Jul 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>I know that 79-85, 87-93, and 94 and up struts are different.
>
>What makes them different? Bolt hole pattern to mount to the spindle or
>somethine?
>
>So there is no way that these struts can interchange with the others? I
>would like to use 94 and up struts on an 85 if there is anyway in the
>world possible.
the '79-'86 struts have a different spindle bracket to accommodate the thicker
strut mounting ear used on the earlier spindles. '87-'93 and SN95 spindles
have thinner strut mounting ears which are compatible with each other, so the
spindle brackets of their respective struts are the same.
however, if i remember correctly, SN95 struts also have longer shafts (and
longer strut bodies to match). you'll also have less bump travel, especially
if your car is lowered.
you can't use '87-up struts on an '86 and earlier car - the brackets are too
narrow to match up to the strut mounting ears of the spindles. you can get
'87-'93 spindles, though, and this would also allow you to use the 11" rotors
instead of the 10" microbrakes.
15 Jul 1996
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
>>I know that 79-85, 87-93, and 94 and up struts are different.
>>
>>What makes them different? Bolt hole pattern to mount to the spindle or
>>somethine?
>>
>>So there is no way that these struts can interchange with the others? I
>>would like to use 94 and up struts on an 85 if there is anyway in the
>>world possible.
At least one difference is the spindle mounting ears on the strut. The
stock '85 has different spindles than the '87-93. As I recall the width of
the ears on early spindles are narrower, so you have to use spacers if you
want to mix them. The smarter thing to do if you have an '85 however is to
get '87+ front spindles, calipers, and rotors, or even the LSC Lincoln 73mm
calipers. These will give you substantially improved braking, and they will
allow you to use '87-93 struts. They should bolt right up too. Beware of one
thing, I've heard rumour that the early telephone dial wheels were a smidgen
too small to fit over the '87 calipers. Mine weren't, but they were made late
in '85 (August I think).
I don't know about the SN95 struts, but I'm running the SN95 spindles w/ pre
SN95 Koni struts up front and they fit just fine.
15 Jul 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
> At least one difference is the spindle mounting
> ears on the strut. The stock '85 has different
> spindles than the '87-93. As I recall the width
> of the ears on early spindles are narrower, so you
> have to use spacers if you want to mix them.
other way around, i think. the earlier spindles have thicker strut mounting
ears, so the corresponding brackets on the struts are wider. you use the
spacers when using '86 and earlier struts on '87 and later spindles.
22 Jul 1996
Dean Collins
fordnatics
Thanks to all of you who responded. It was kind of a tie between the Kenny
Brown's & the Global West pieces. I haven't seen the Kenny Brown units, but
people had many good things to say about them. What I didn't like about the
Global West units is that they were tubular. Great if you're dealing with
twisting forces, but we're dealing with bending here. Tubes don't mind
bending. Box section hates to bend. The winner is, (insert drummroll here),
Griggs.
Here's why; *Massive* box section that joins the bulkhead in the rear area of
the car just on the other side of the rear subframe and runs all the way to
the front subframe. Also comes with gratuitous gussetting in several other
places. Then a flatter box section under the car where a normal SFC would
live. These two are then mated to each other making sort of a SFC sandwich.
Where they located the attachment points mean the car is not trying to bend
them as it tries to flex, it's trying to *compress* them. I don't think
there's much I can do on the street to actually try to compress two box
sections of steel welded together. The welding was very meticulous. There's
a couple of channels that the big bar has to pass through and they did a very
fine job of cutting them, setting the bar into the channel and then rewelding
everywhere where they cut into the channel. Did I mention they'll also remove
all the sound deadening goop. Did I mention that they'll stick the car on a
chassis jig to make sure it's square and that they won't accidentally weld a
twist into the car? Did I mention I saw a Boss 429 sitting in their late
model mock-up car? Did I mention I checked out their new tubular K-members.
Picked it up wi/2 fingers. Asked to see a car, (86-93), that had one
installed *with* the engine setback 1 inch. You can hardly tell. I looked
real hard and the thermactor tubes seemed to have all the room they'd ever
want. They've got shortened drive shafts laying around all over the place.
Started to get late, so I didn't have time to ask about moving/altering the
tranny mount. And for the final kicker - they're about 10-15 minutes from my
house.
Oh yeah, they're not giving this stuff away. You'll pay large, but as my
daddy always said, "You'll never regret buying quality." $700 out the door.
They R/R the interior. I offered to drive in with nothing but a drivers seat,
but he said that wasn't the prep. time killer, other things were so don't
bother. We'll see how many of the various other braces I'll need after this
stuff gets installed. I'll probably be buying some as we're dealing with a
ragtop here.
03 Aug 1996
Tom Stangler
fordnatics
Christopher Alen Sanders wrote:
> Well, I think I'm finally going to upgrade my wimpy 10" fro nt
>rotors to the later model 11" discs. A friend of mine has a totaled 88
>GT and he said I could have all the brake parts. My question is: What
>all do I have to take off of the car? I know I need the discs, calipers,
>spindles, master cylinder, but I'm not sure of what else I'm going to
>need. Are the hard lines the same? How about the proportioning valve?
I didn't use the prop valve when I did mine, nor did I use the master
cylinder.
you will need the hard lines. the 87+ uses banjo fittings, the 86 used a screw
in fitting.
>Also I've also got some Koni struts and I don't really feel like buying a
>new set so can someone also explain the spacers that must be used?
here is the pattern I used:
take a piece of steel plate, .23" thick (or two pieces, .115 each) and cut it
to 1.25 x 3.50 in size. Bevel one corner with a .25 angle. drill 2 holes .640
diameter, 2.25 apart, centered on the center line of the plate, with the first
one .62 from the beveled end.
<-------------3.50 +/- .10 ------------------>
_____________________________________________
| | ^
| | |
|<-.62 ----> | |
| + (centerline) + | 1.25 +/- .10
| | |
\ | |
bevel \__________________________________________| |
(.25) ^
<-----2.25 +/- .03 ->
03 Aug 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
> Well, I think I'm finally going to upgrade my wimpy 10" fro nt
>rotors to the later model 11" discs. A friend of mine has a totaled 88
>GT and he said I could have all the brake parts. My question is: What
>all do I have to take off of the car? I know I need the discs, calipers,
>spindles, master cylinder, but I'm not sure of what else I'm going to
>need. Are the hard lines the same? How about the proportioning valve?
nope, the hard lines aren't the same, and neither is the prop valve. for one
thing, the '86 has two ports in the MC, while the '87+ have three. i have
trouble remembering all the things that were different (ford used a _lot_ of
different brake parts over the years), so i'd grab everything that can be
removed.
>Also I've also got some Koni struts and I don't really feel like buying a
>new set so can someone also explain the spacers that must be used?
>Should I just make them myself or is there a place I can buy them?
you can make them from mild steel. they're basically two rectangular pieces,
1/8" thick, with two holes drilled in each piece. you'll need four of them
(two for each side). cut them to the same size as your strut mounts.
>never done major brake work, but I think I could probably figure out how
>to run lines if I got a little more information if it is necessary.
get the hardlines for the front brakes, along with the retaining clips.
>This
>car has never seen a road course, but maybe someday, so any cheap
>upgrades could be done now.
if that's the case, then don't waste your time setting it up for the '87+
brakes. instead, take those calipers and master cylinder to an auto parts
store and use them as cores for rebuilts. get the SVO/lincoln mark VII 73 mm
calipers and the SVO/lincoln master cylinder. those have the same number of
hardlines as your '86, but i'm not sure if the fittings are the same. you
might have to contact stainless steel brakes to get the right
fittings/couplers.
you can also swap in some stainless steel caliper bushings, which will pay for
themselves in track use (they reduce tapered pad wear, enabling you to get
more life out of them).
you should consider replacing the flex hoses as well. either get some new
rubber/fabric hoses from ford, or for not much more, use braided stainless
steel hose.
06 Aug 1996
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics
In a couple of weeks my brother will be flying back from England to visit for
a week. We're probably going to de-fangle his 4.6 motor and do some more
planning on what to do with his Mustang.
I took the opportunity to order a bunch of 5.0 catalogs, and they've been
interesting. I had been planning on doing the brake upgrade on the Mustang
myself - I already have 12" and 13" PBR brake sets on the shelf to use to make
the bracketry, and all the proper tools. So I'd never really looked at the
various brake upgrade kits for the Mustang.
What stands out are the Ford M-2300-K and the Baer "Track Combo", which are
roughly equivalent - 13" PBRs in front, smaller in back. However, the Baer
kit is $1735 while the Ford kit lists for $1149 and comes with little extras
like new rear axles, master cylinder, and brake booster. Baer's next step up
uses Alcon calipers in front and PBRs in back, for only $2785 - and for
replacement purposes, *each* Alcon caliper costs more than the whole M-2300-K
kit! The Alcon is probably a little stiffer than the PBR, but I think it's
'way down on the wrong end of the cost-to-goodness curve. Baer also wants
$104 each for 13" rotors, which are plain old Corvette rotors with an extra
set of holes drilled for Ford bolt pattern. We're paying $55 each for rotors
for Jay's plastic Chevy... I bet the Cobra R 13" rotor is somewhere in
between the two, and you can order it from any Ford dealer.
I think I see why Fordnatics who've made the leap have pretty much went to the
M-2300-K.
07 Aug 1996
Chris Herzog
Dave Williams wrote:
> What stands out are the Ford M-2300-K and the Baer "Track Combo", which
> are roughly equivalent - 13" PBRs in front, smaller in back. However,
> the Baer kit is $1735 while the Ford kit lists for $1149 and comes with
> little extras like new rear axles, master cylinder, and brake booster.
> Baer's next step up uses Alcon calipers in front and PBRs in back, for
> only $2785 - and for replacement purposes, *each* Alcon caliper costs
> more than the whole M-2300-K kit! The Alcon is probably a little
> stiffer than the PBR, but I think it's 'way down on the wrong end of the
> cost-to-goodness curve. Baer also wants $104 each for 13" rotors, which
> are plain old Corvette rotors with an extra set of holes drilled for
> Ford bolt pattern. We're paying $55 each for rotors for Jay's plastic
> Chevy... I bet the Cobra R 13" rotor is somewhere in between the two,
> and you can order it from any Ford dealer.
The Baer stuff is _way_ overpriced. My opinion is that the "K" kit is the
best brake deal in the Mustang universe at this point. I can't tell you how
pissed off I am at Baer having to deal with them in regards to my AS car. I
think the welded up Fox spindles are a crock when compared to the decent SN-95
parts (even though Baer bashes other solutions as if he was God).
Boy, you really touched a vein there!!
07 Aug 1996
McCauley John
Dave:
I don't know if this will help much, but here goes. I have a '93 Saleen
which came with 13" Alcons. It presently has 13" Baer PBR's. As you noted
the cost of Alcon rotors is very high. I put the Baer kit on for less than
the rotors would have cost me and since I do a fair amount of track time, it
was the only way to go. Therefore, I can categorically state that the Baers
perform as well as the Alcons (in my use) and offer a better feel due to the
change in Master Cylinders. Additionally, the Baer rotors are superior to
the Cobra rotors. I did a Car Guys at Summit Point 7/6 & 7/7. There were a
number of Cobras as well as M-2300K kits. Several of the Ford rotors cracked
and had to be replaced during the event. Mine are fine after the event
which put the 2nd & 3rd track days on the rotors.
Having installed 2 M-2300K kits as well as the Baer fronts, I can tell you
that the Baers go on much easier than the M-2300 fronts. Keep in mind that
you can buy 4 lug versions of the Baer; only 5 lug M-2300K. In either case
you will need 17" wheels to accommodate 13" rotors. However, you should
consider the overall savings with the 12" kit @ $1665, which will allow 16"
wheels. Also, the Baer kit includes the Master Cylinder and you do not need
a new booster. If I can be of any help, either e-mail me or call me at
703-818-4458 during the day.
07 Aug 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
> What stands out are the Ford M-2300-K and the Baer "Track Combo", which
>are roughly equivalent - 13" PBRs in front, smaller in back. However,
>the Baer kit is $1735 while the Ford kit lists for $1149 and comes with
>little extras like new rear axles, master cylinder, and brake booster.
not to mention the fact that you get SN95 spindles instead of hacked-up fox
spindles, which is a nontrivial improvement in itself.
the main reason people go with Baer is that it's available in 4-lug, while
SN95 requires 5-lug wheels. but that $600 price difference will buy you a set
of used SN95 17" wheels.
the Baer does come with PBR calipers, while the M-2300-K kit makes do with the
base rear calipers with wider bridges (which makes pad selection a little
more, um, interesting).
>Baer also wants $104 each for 13" rotors, which
>are plain old Corvette rotors with an extra set of holes drilled for
>Ford bolt pattern. We're paying $55 each for rotors for Jay's plastic
>Chevy... I bet the Cobra R 13" rotor is somewhere in between the two,
>and you can order it from any Ford dealer.
the ford dealer charges in the neighborhood of $90 each. however, jim dingell
at PPI sells them for about $60 or $70 each.
> I think I see why Fordnatics who've made the leap have pretty much went
>to the M-2300-K.
yep. but the investment in wheels is a big sticking point for a lot of
people.
08 Aug 1996
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
>Yup. Don't sweat it. They wobble around and essentially self-align to
>the springs, which is actually a good thing. Coil springs really don't
>care much for being loaded between non-parallel surfaces, since it
>puts uneven stresses on the coils. The Griggs arms don't completely
>correct this, but they do let the springs have a slightly easier life-
>which gets really important when you use really short springs like the
>teeny little 5"x8" 450lb/in guys (with only 6 active coils!) that I
>run.
>
>This angulation of the spring seats is inherent in the design of the
>Fox suspension. I actually think that that has a lot to do with the
>fairly common perception that many of the Mustang aftermarket springs
>"take a set" and change their free lengths (sag) more than springs for
>other applications. Loading springs up between non-parallel surfaces,
>so that they bow out, really is a fairly unpleasant thing to do to
>them... And generally speaking, when you relocate suspension bits,
>you'll almost always make this angulation *worse*, too (like
>relocating the front pickup points up for more antidive and a raised
>front roll center). Just one of those unfortunate side effects.
It should be noted that the stock Mustang springs neck down to a much smaller
diameter and many of us replace the stock style springs with off the shelf
stock car or coliover springs which have larger diameter coils which make the
parallel alignment of the top and bottom more important in addition to the
aggrivations Skod mentioned. If there is some swivel or ball effect on the
bottom spring mount it is a really good thing.
08 Aug 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 7, Cliff Koch wrote:
> Anyone out there using the Griggs heavy duty adjustable rear lower arms? I
> have a set I picked up last year (along with a torque arm which I also
> haven't gotten around to installing yet). I was going to put the control
> arms in while I had the exhaust pulled down and the car 3 feet in the air,
> but was a little unsure about the spring perches. They just sort of sit on
> top of the adjustment bolts with enough play it looks like they could sit a
> little cockeyed. Any problems associated with this? I guess it doesn't
> matter, it just looks like someplace that could use a bushing of some sort.
Yup. Don't sweat it. They wobble around and essentially self-align to the
springs, which is actually a good thing. Coil springs really don't care much
for being loaded between non-parallel surfaces, since it puts uneven stresses
on the coils. The Griggs arms don't completely correct this, but they do let
the springs have a slightly easier life-which gets really important when you
use really short springs like the teeny little 5"x8" 450lb/in guys (with only
6 active coils!) that I run.
This angulation of the spring seats is inherent in the design of the Fox
suspension. I actually think that that has a lot to do with the fairly common
perception that many of the Mustang aftermarket springs "take a set" and
change their free lengths (sag) more than springs for other applications.
Loading springs up between non-parallel surfaces, so that they bow out, really
is a fairly unpleasant thing to do to them... And generally speaking, when you
relocate suspension bits, you'll almost always make this angulation *worse*,
too (like relocating the front pickup points up for more antidive and a raised
front roll center). Just one of those unfortunate side effects.
08 Aug 1996
"Theodore A. Chen"
>-> yep. but the investment in wheels is a big sticking point for a lot
>-> of people.
>
> True, *but* you still have to find some 17" four bolt wheels somewhere,
>and they don't cost any less than five bolt wheels. Of the two Mustangs
>I am concerned about, one has 14" wheels, the other has 15" wheels...
true, although there are a number of 16" wheels that will fit over the Baer
setup without modification. this is harder to do on the M-2300-K setup, due
to the rotor offset (more outboard on the M-2300-K setup).
i imagine a lot of people buy the Baer A-Sedan package with 12" brakes
so they can continue to use their 16" 4-lug wheels.
in your case, that's not an issue since you'd have to buy wheels anyway and
you don't have an investment in wheels/race tires.
10 Aug 1996
"Chris Johnson Jr."
fordnatics
Theodore A. Chen wrote:
> >Fabrications like this are fun if you have the right tools and a little
> >knowledge. This modification would benefit not only hood clear-
> >ance (you won't have to run the UN-stealth cowl hood) but alter
> >weight balance MASSIVELY. <<< Look track drivers!
> >
> >Just remember, moving the engine back moves everything that
> >attaches to the engine back, also....headers, air intake tube,
> >throttle cable, oil pan, etc. Think ahead.
>
> an engine setback? i've considered getting a griggs k-member with
> the engine setback. problem is that to move the engine back 1",
> you'll need a BFH to make all the sheetmetal clear. not for
> the limp of wrist...
Thats why you must set it down also.......with the stock steering you can go
down a MAX of 1.5" and back 1.5" (actually you can go back about 1.8" but you
won't get off the valve covers and #8 plug access is MUCH worse than a 1.5"
setback)......
I went down all the way down to the rack(with my oil pan), but again my car
isn't a daily driver (but I do get about 50 miles in a week) and I put it
about 1/3" from the firewall.....I also run the 351W and a set of 1 3/4" long
tubes with no problems.....these are solid mounts and if I had to do it again
I would have had them go together with a bolt thru the middle (like da Chevys
do) that way putting them in and out would be much easier(in between unbolting
the steering shaft and jacking the hell out of everything I have to slide the
drivers mount into place and bolt it up and with the added bulk of a SFI JW
bellhousing its kinda a bitch) the passenger side just slides in but if I
would have put a bolt in the middle it would have made life GREAT! I didn't
do any firewall bashing (got my fill when I did a engine setback 4" on a S-10
with a 350ci) to get the job done and with steel heads and a big brass
radiator I need all the engine setback I could get.
Things that didn't fit were: driveshaft, shortened it myself 1.5"(with the C-4
in the car and motor set back), when I went to the Glide, (which is 1" shorter
than a C-4/T-5) the crossmember worked even with the motor setback and it
BARELY cleared the linkage on the 1 3/4" mac long tubes the driveshaft for the
powergilde was fun: I had to use a conversion U-join on the front so I could
use a Chevy yoke which was shorter than the ford (which would have worked if
the splines would have matched the glide, also the Chevy was a inside clip,
ford outside...what fun, but again no big deal after chasing the correct part
down) so I purchased a used long driveshaft out of a lincoln that I had to
shorten from its 54" down to my measured (between the welds) 44" needed length
(my C-4 shaft was 41" weld to weld) and no problems she worked
Now I did bash/flatten both the drivers and passenger seat areas so I could
make(easily) some lightweight seat mounts, cause the stock floor pan is NOT
flat and I was in no mood to measure but thats another story.
And I run 29X11" (measured) tires up (yes they sit UP under) under the
fenderwell with no problems and with stock wheel tubs....can you say 12-15
hours with a 10/2# hammer ;)....I was so beat I don't remember how long I
spent on it all I know is that I started at 6am and I found myself at home
drunk about 3am the next morning after I got the tires to fit correctly!!
Hmm....lots of beer and hammers, good combo.
17 Aug 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 16, Dave Williams wrote:
> How many variants of SN95 front brakes exist? Do they use different
> spindles? That is, can I bolt the 13" Cobra parts to any SN95 spindle,
> or just a Cobra spindle?
Two. The original SN95 parts were superceded for the '96 cars with a new
spindle, with relocated steering arms to acommodate the lowered rack position
that was dictated by trying to shoehorn the modular motor in there. In any
case, only one spindle design was used for all the '94-96 cars, regardless of
motor size or brake buildout, and ony one spindle design is in use on the '96
and up cars. They still use the same 34.5mm cylindrical spindle snout, and so
on.
There are only two dimensional differences between the '94 parts and the '96
parts. The steering arms (which have an upward kink in the '94 parts) are
straight, which results in the outer tie rod pickup being 25mm lower on the
'96 parts. Additionally, the ball joint stud is cantilevered inboard 5.5mm
further on the '96 parts. This was done to prevent contact between the ball
joint boss and the rotor/hub bits on the '96 and later cars- some people had
complained about the ability of things to get together on some cars at extreme
steering lock.
Now, the good news- the Cobra brakes will bolt up on _any_ '94-96 spindle. And
for those of us with extensively modified front crossmembers (raised pickup
points to raise the front roll center), the '96 spindles are a big win- they
reduce the amount of drop spacer needed to dial in the bump steer by an inch
(from 2.6" to 1.6" on my car) which is a huge win for stiffness and lowered
torsional fatigue problems in the long haul. The extra negative camber, and
extra 11mm of track width, is just gravy for me.
The downside is that this steering arm location is too _low_ for Foxes with
*stock* K-members and control arm pickup locations. So the M2300K kit is in
trouble, since the '94 spindles are now out of production. I don't know where
they're going to get spindles after maybe another year. I guess that Don Walsh
is gonna be scrambling for parts... Maybe you could make it work with offset
rack spacers, but there'll have to be some hackery done to find out.
I've been running the '94 spindles for a while. I have two brandy-new '96
spindles sitting down in the garage, and I'll be popping those on the car
after the Mini Nats, and redoing the steering arrangements. If anybody needs
the part numbers, I could go read 'em off the boxes.
It just never seems to end...
17 Aug 1996
[email protected] (Jim Dingell at Performance Parts, Inc.)
fordnatics
There is only one style of SN-95 spindle. That is, with a change of caliper
mounting brackets, you can go from 11" to 13" rotor systems. JD
17 Aug 1996
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics
-> Ok, that brings up something I've been curious about. Why is the
-> front little dip even in the pan on the Fox bodied cars?
That's where the oil pump sits. And it's a tight enough fit that some
aftermarket pumps require "adjusting" the pan with a hammer to get it to sit
right.
Putting the steering linkage behind the front wheel centerline gives many
advantages, geometry-wise, so Ford put the tierod and steering arms in back.
That's why so many third party NASCAR and dirt track chassis are rear steer,
much to the annoyance of the Bowtie Brigade.
The only reason I can figure for Ford going to front steer on the rack and
pinion cars (Pinto, Fox) would be to reduce the angularity of the steering
shaft. There are cars with more than 45 degrees of angularity there, though.
The position of the rack ahead of the crossmember severely compromises the oil
pan design. The Fox pan is shallow, has poor oil control, and requires a long
pickup tube. Ford in its infinite wisdom designed and produced a
chassis which would take no existing Ford powerplant without butchering the
oil pan, and not only that, the steering design sucks to begin with.
21 Aug 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 20, Terry Fair wrote:
> The GT/LX 5.0 rotor is the same. They are confused...the 4 cyl
> rotor is different. I remember the same problem with the '87-93 11"
> rotor...the seal was always wrong. Look up the '86 SVO seal, and
> it is the right one!?
That error has been in all the books for so long it's just pitiful, and it has
caused a lot of people a lot of annoyance. Terry's exactly right, and most of
the books are _still_ wrong, even today. Maybe if we all write 'em letters to
them, eh?
Basically, on the Foxes '79 through '92, there have only been 3 front rotors
in use. All of the '79-86 cars came with 10 inch brakes (base 4 and 6 cyl,
and the GT), and used the same rotor. The 4 and 6 cylinder cars from '87-93
continued to use this small rotor as well- that's the 10.08"x.870" stock Fox
rotor, with the small bearings and the small seals.
The '84-86 SVO Mustangs inherited the braking system from the '82-83
Continental, with 10.91"x1.03" 5-lug rotors. This brought the larger
Continental bearings, seal, and spindle into use in the Mustang line.
Starting in '87, the 5.0 GTs and LXs got a different, larger 11" brake setup,
based on a variant of the Continental rotor and caliper. The rotor is still
10.91"x1.03" like the SVO, but it's a 4-lug (there are some other subtle
dimensional differences as well, but forget 'em). These rotors also use the
larger bearings and seals that came from the old Continental usage,
identically to the SVO. Unfortunately, the folks who maintain the aftermarket
parts cross-references (especially Federal-Mogul!) didn't seem to get the word
on this, and continue to list the old small bearings and small seals from the
10" setup for the '87-92 5.0 GTs and 5.0 LXs. And they're wrong as heck. There
are a lot of people whov'e been burned by this one over the years.
If that was all there was to keep straight, I'd be happy. But then, the '93
Cobras got one final variant on the theme. They were equipped with a unique 4-
lug Continental-like rotor that is identical to the '87-92 rotors, *except*
that the "hat" section produces 3/4" more offset (moving the wheel mount plane
3/4" further outboard). This allows the use of symmetrical wheels on both the
front and rear, since the '93 Cobras got the last of the T-bird disk-brake
axles, which are 1.5" wider. I can't _wait_ to see how many of the parts
catalogs get that one screwed up. That part is a one-year wonder, so I hope
that '93 Cobra owners have laid in a a couple of spare rotors...
21 Aug 1996
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
>Basically, on the Foxes '79 through '92, there have only been 3 front
>rotors in use. All of the '79-86 cars came with 10 inch brakes (base
>4 and 6 cyl, and the GT), and used the same rotor. The 4 and 6 cylinder
>cars from '87-93 continued to use this small rotor as well- that's the
>10.08"x.870" stock Fox rotor, with the small bearings and the small
>seals.
Can't believe Scott made a small error when talking about brake parts :-). The
'79-81 (and maybe 82 forget exactly) all cars had 9 3/8" front rotors. I think
it was 83 that the GT's got 10" rotors. Imagine a 5.0 Mustang on that small of
a brake. Granted the V8 only had something like 130 HP, but they were still
pretty fast. An old Shelby racer from the '60's and 70's named Ken Halprin
used to race a 79 5.0 Indy Pace Car replica in SCCA SS? (I think this was
before SSGT existed). He actually used get 2-4 laps out of his 9-3/8" brakes
before he considered them toast and drove the rest of the race with no brakes
at all.
21 Aug 1996
"Westhaus, Perry M ASC/FBJ"
fordnatics
>of the axle. These brackets used to be something like $150 _each_ because
>they weren`t some type of product part from something else. The '93
Cobra's used
>that same rear setup and last I heard, the brackets got really cheap
>(something like $40 I heard) because it's a regular FOMOCO part as opposed
to an FMS-only (or SSB only) part.
The Motorsport M-2300-C rear disc brake kit uses special offset caliper
mounting brackets to make the Turbo T-Bird parts work on Mustangs (M-2C100-A
and M-2C101-A for RH and LH sides) without changing to the 3/4" longer T-Bird
axles. They are still about $100 each through FMS. SSBC has similar brackets
available for about $80 for the pair.
The 93 Cobra uses exclusive F3ZZ caliper mounting brackets that are most
similar to the 87-88 Turbo T-Bird and the Lincoln LSC. The axles are also
3/4" longer on the 93 Cobra, same length as the 87-88 Turbo T-Bird. Price on
these brackets are about $60 each.
An interesting point is that the 93 Cobra uses special (1993 year only)
anti-moan brackets to eliminate a resonance caused by slight flexing of the
caliper mounting bracket under some conditions. This resonance manifests
itself as a low frequency "groan" noise. These same brackets were intended
to be used on the 87-88 Turbo T-Birds, but they somehow never made it to
production. I have vintage 1988 drawings that show these brackets installed
on Turbo T-Birds. Instead, a H-shaped bracket was welded from the caliper
bracket directly to the axle tube on these cars.
The 93 Cobra anti-moan brackets will fit the FMS and SSBC rear disc kits, but
for some odd reason they are not included with the kits, even though the
resonance still persists back there. Funny that 94-96 Mustangs were/are
factory-supplied with their own anti-moan brackets.
I bought a set of the 93 Cobra anti-moan brackets to use on my M-2300-C rear
disc kit to quiet down the noise. Since I am going the M-2300-K route, the
brackets are now available if anyone is interested.
21 Aug 1996
Chris Herzog
fordnatics
> The 93 Cobra uses exclusive F3ZZ caliper mounting brackets that are most
> similar to the 87-88 Turbo T-Bird and the Lincoln LSC. The axles are also
> 3/4" longer on the 93 Cobra, same length as the 87-88 Turbo T-Bird. Price
> on these brackets are about $60 each.
Perry's right on this and I was messed up. The longer axles is the reason
for the unique front rotor on the 93 Cobra's skod mentioned earlier...
21 Aug 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 21, Calvin wrote:
> The '79-81 (and maybe 82 forget exactly) all cars had 9 3/8" front rotors.
> I think it was 83 that the GT's got 10" rotors.
And Terry Fair wrote:
> I think there was another rotor....the 10", the 11" (both) and an even
> smaller one. Someone mentioned the 9-3/8"....?
Yup, Calvin and Terry are right. Serves me right for trying to type from
memory, without having my spec books right in front of me. There were indeed 4
rotor sizes used, and the early ones were _way_ dinky. I don't remember if the
9" rotors ran the same bearings and seals as the 10" rotors. I believe that
they do share spindles, but that's one I'll have to look up. These are not
parts that you commonly encounter, because most of the cars that had them from
the factory have already been pancaked into the backs of other vehicles due to
brake failure...
I moved the vast majority of my car-guy reference materials home about 4
months ago, when my boss noted that I had more Mustang documentation than
processor design stuff (which is what they are under the delusion that they
pay me to do) in my office here. Hmm. Good point, that.
Also- sorry about the completely garbled post this morning. Emacs would appear
to have hiccuped and not written the ispell-corrected buffer in my mailer, and
the stream-of-consciousness uncorrected version got out. Jeez, I've gotta
learn to type someday, so I don't have to rely on a fallible spelling checker
to make me appear as if I'm anything otjer than a functional illiterate....
22 Aug 1996
Anil V Narwani
fordnatics
So I finally got around to calling TSM (they advertise disc-brake conversions
in Street Rodder magazine) and came up with the following for converting a
Mustang 8.8 rear...
1) Unlike SSB, the guy on the phone (Skip) was VERY helpful and decently
knowledgeable.
2) They use the same T-bird turbo-coupe rotors for 4-lug.
3) 83-89 Lincoln rotors for 5-lug.
4) Calipers are from 79-85 Eldorado, Olds Tornado or Buick Riviera if you
wish to use an e-brake.
5) Calipers are from a 78-83 Monte Carlo if you don't care for the e-brake.
6) No width increase with the 4-lug. +1/8" on each side for the 5-lug.
Basic kit includes brackets, bolts, rotors. $300 for 4-lug, $250 for 5-lug.
Brackets alone are $100/pair. They won't work with the t-bird calipers.
Calipers (item 4 above) are $280/pair for the e-brake units, $100/pair for the
non-e-brake units (item 5 above).
Adj prop valve is $60.
Rubber flex-hoses are $40/pair.
Braided flex-hoses are $70/pair.
[ He went on to describe some MC bore sizes I should use for my custom
(Mustang II front) setup, but that won't apply to ya'll here. ]
I really don't see much of a $$$ saving here, so for my money I'll probably
stick with SSB etc. If only I could get 'em to knowledgeably talk to me...
27 Aug 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 27, Darius Rudis wrote:
> The strength is plenty for even the occasional road race course. One
> guy in the Shelby Club Motor City Region uses the street panhard and
> t-arm without the upper control arms, and even had his exhaust
> reworked to fit around the panhard. He runs 275-17 R1's on his 92 LX
> at Waterford Hills Race Course.
Yes, _but_. The street version has been used by many folks, with a torque arm
and without. With the torque arm and without the uppers, it will work, _for a
while_. On the street, it will work for a very long while. On the racetrack,
that while will be significantly shorter. Please let your buddy know that
Griggs strongly recommends not using that setup for extensive track use, and
to keep an eye on the axle end pickup point for possible cracking. If the car
is used for roadracing-like applications with sticky tires, cracking is a
definite possibility. The "street" setup was designed to be essentially
immortal for street use. In racing use it will *not* be immortal.
The race panhard will be, if not immortal, then the very next thing. I have
now seen two of the "street" panhards fail their axle end mount in extreme
track usage. Both were early versions (one was in fact the 5th ever example of
the part), and both were on very fast cars driven very hard. But there is no
question that the street piece is a little bit anemic for that kind of
pounding. If you're going to run it on the track, I'd suggest that you amend
your maintenance schedule to include a very through inspection of it daily, or
every 3 track hours at the most.
Carroll Smith said it best: "There is no such thing as a part that can safely
be bolted onto a race car and then forgotten". Everything has a fatigue life,
and the fatigue life of the street Panhard setup in race use may be rather a
lot shorter than you'd like. There's no question that it can be made to work,
but do yourself a favor and inspect it _often_. If you're gonna drive it like
a race car, you've got to maintain it like a race car.
> My panhard is adjusted (side to side) to not have any preload. When
> driving, it finds that neutral zone and makes a slight click noise.
> The noise is a click-click... click... click-click-click... click...
> type of noise as the suspension loads the rod from either side
> (picking up the slack). Any suggestions as to how to get rid of the
> slop?
Sure. Your rod ends have had it. If silent operation is important to you, then
I'd suggest replacing them with higher-quality, 3-piece Teflon lined ends.
Griggs uses the moderate cost 1-piece swaged ends for several reasons. Cost is
certainly one, but another important reason is that if the car is spun into a
curb, the Heim will fail first (in either tension or compression), acting
essentially as a fuse to keep from ripping the chassis mount off the back of
the tub, or the axle mount off the axle, with the lateral loads.
You can certainly use much stronger rod ends that will have a much longer
life- but if you whack something hard, you'll be repairing the pickup points
and not the rod ends. That's "design for repairability" in action, just like
sizing the Heims used in formula car suspension pickup points so they they
will fail before the tub is damaged. But the tradeoff ultimately is yours to
make... The better ends are about $50 a pop instead of $25- Aurora/NMB/NHBB
type ABWT-12 will do it. That will trade the ~10,000lb rating of the 1-piece
units for a ~27,000lb rating.
I personally made this change- primarily because I figure that I shouldn't be
hitting things with the car, and I don't care for having to replace the ends
any more often than I have to...
Most Real Race Cars that have more than 5 or 6 hours' use on them make the
most *amazing* clatter as all their slightly-sloppy rod ends pound along. It's
a good thing that you can't hear 'em over the exhaust noise... Rod ends are
scheduled maintenance items, even the best ones. The best ones just stay tight
for two seasons, rather than only one.
28 Aug 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 27, Terry Fair wrote:
> This brake hop is inherent in ALL torque arm suspensions. The
> brake torque transfers through the torque arm and can cause this
> when driven hard. Every T-arm equipped Mustang I've ever
> driven on R tires in an auto-x has done this badly. The Global
> West 5th link is not as bad, as the brake torque isn't transferred
> (nifty sliding bearing). I like this set-up on a fox3, but the binding
> upper arms are still there. It starts to get complicated when
> visualizing all five links interacting...
>
> Changing the arm length can affect this, but it changes the
> anti-squat characteristics, too.
Yup, and the tradeoff works against you. Shorten the arm, and get much greater
torque-reaction antisquat- but you'll make your hop much, much worse at the
same time. The longer the better, for hop control. They don't call 'em
tradeoffs for nothing, I guess.
The GW piece doesn't hop as badly, but it avoids hop differently than you
might think. The upper arms are still there, and their very short length gives
them a lot of leverage to influence the axle's path. So they enforce a
completely different effective swing arm length on the axle as it deflects
into bump or droop on the brake torque. The Trak Link is bolted rigidly to the
center section, so it can't acommodate any competing instant center location
to create a virtual swing arm-so the assembly deflects the upper control arm
bushings until they have maxed out in deflection, and then it essentially
binds up solidly. The *good* news is that it binds too badly to hop! If it
didn't, that little tiny short effective swingarm that it represents would
jackhammer like there was no tomorrow. And putting urethane bushings in the
upper arms on a car with the Trak Link is likely to make that bind situation
intolerable, as the car would be skittishly loose all the time.
It's pretty amusing to draw out the geometries and the instant centers created
by the lower arms, the upper arms, and the Trak Link, and then try and figure
out how they can all play together. Basically, they only do so grudgingly- but
the part does work, no doubt about it. If the Trak Link's front mount didn't
accept that 1 inch of plunge, that sucker would be very bindy indeed!
> Also, de-coupled torque arms do not do this...they de-couple
> with brake torque. They need an axle supporting link for this
> situation, though.
Yup. But don't forget that there is no reason to feed the brake torque
reaction into the axle _at all_. Nobody said the calipers had to be attached
to brackets fixed rigidly to the axle. So you can leave the torque arm as
delivered, and then isolate the brake torque reaction by floating the calipers
(on mounts that are free to rotate around the axle's centerline, just like a
4-link's birdcage) and feeding their loads into the tub via separate radius
rods. This one could be fun to play with. Dirt cars do this all the time to
help bias the turn-in for their circle track environment.
You could set up for a very long (and therefore hop-resistant) virtual swing
arm for the brake reaction (set by the instant center defined by the lower
arms and the brake floater links- make it 10 or 20 feet, maybe), and have a
very short rigidly mounted torque arm for to create vast quantities of drive
torque antisquat. This is arguably a lot easier than decoupling the torque arm
proper. The downside it that it is somewhat more complex, and therefore more
failure-prone (and easier to get lost with)...
> A _good_ 3 link or 4 link is much
> better. (well, it can be...done right). The packaging can become
> a big problem for a street car.
Yup. I'm currently designing a 3-link for my setup, and Brian Kelley
has long been an advocate of his own. I'm actually thinking that a 3-link with
floated brake calipers would actually be a lot of fun, since I'd finally have
the thrust and brake reactions completely isolated. The downside is in all
that ironmongery. That, and the fact that the brake reaction radius rods would
have to be quite long to avoid unpleasant changes in the anti-jacking as a
result of body roll. Getting differential anti-jacking when trailbraking could
be _way_ unpleasant, on a car that has to turn both left and right!
> He uses a panhard rod....might switch to a Watts-link later. With
> the Ford 9" and custom front suspension,
> it has very little GM left! It would work well on a fox3 race car
> (with rules that would allow it).
I may go with either a Watts or a Mumford to replace my Panhard setup at the
same time. I've had a vague urge to play with a Mumford since seeing it in
that Racecar Engineering article a couple years ago. It's essentially a folded
Watts, but the spiffy thing about it is that you can position the roll center
arbitrarily, without having to have half of the bellcrank and one of the
radius rods dangling below it. You can even set up the roll center below
ground with it, if you wanted to... I have to create some structure to mount
the fuel cell, so I might as well make it a bit stronger and use if for axle
location as well.
> Oh well, I'll just have to keep wrenching on my own cars to
> make them 'my ideal car'. It may never happen.
Probably won't. And it's a good thing- if Detroit made the car I want, I
couldn't afford it. And besides, what fun would it be just having the car be
an appliance, delivered ready-to-use with all the bells and whistles of my
dreams? If I were ever to somehow *finish* my car, I think I'd probably fall
into a vast pit of despair, and have to take up bridge and join the Rotary or
something...
28 Aug 1996
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
>> This brake hop is inherent in ALL torque arm suspensions. The
>> brake torque transfers through the torque arm and can cause this
>> when driven hard. Every T-arm equipped Mustang I've ever
>> driven on R tires in an auto-x has done this badly. The Global
>> West 5th link is not as bad, as the brake torque isn't transferred
>> (nifty sliding bearing). I like this set-up on a fox3, but the binding
>> upper arms are still there. It starts to get complicated when
>> visualizing all five links interacting...
>
>The GW piece doesn't hop as badly, but it avoids hop differently than
>you might think. The upper arms are still there, and their very short
>length gives them a lot of leverage to influence the axle's path. So
>they enforce a completely different effective swing arm length on the
>axle as it deflects into bump or droop on the brake torque. The Trak
>Link is bolted rigidly to the center section, so it can't acommodate
>any competing instant center location to create a virtual swing arm-
>so the assembly deflects the upper control arm bushings until they
>have maxed out in deflection, and then it essentially binds up
>solidly. The *good* news is that it binds too badly to hop! If it
>didn't, that little tiny short effective swingarm that it represents
>would jackhammer like there was no tomorrow. And putting urethane
>bushings in the upper arms on a car with the Trak Link is likely to
>make that bind situation intolerable, as the car would be skittishly
>loose all the time.
>It's pretty amusing to draw out the geometries and the instant centers
>created by the lower arms, the upper arms, and the Trak Link, and then
>try and figure out how they can all play together. Basically, they
>only do so grudgingly- but the part does work, no doubt about it. If
>the Trak Link's front mount didn't accept that 1 inch of plunge, that
>sucker would be very bindy indeed!
There had to have been a great deal of though, planning, and track testing
that went into the GW part. Looking at it casually I would never use the
thing, but when you really plot out what happens and do it very accurately
(using bushing deflections also) this thing does actually do what it is
supposed to. It's big thing is that it makes use of the bushing deflections in
all directions. It helps out the roll steer by handling bushing deflections.
It is an interesting piece. I still don't like it, but you have to give the
devil its dues.
>> Also, de-coupled torque arms do not do this...they de-couple
>> with brake torque. They need an axle supporting link for this
>> situation, though.
>
>Yup. But don't forget that there is no reason to feed the brake torque
>reaction into the axle _at all_. Nobody said the calipers had to be
>attached to brackets fixed rigidly to the axle. So you can leave the
>torque arm as delivered, and then isolate the brake torque reaction by
>floating the calipers (on mounts that are free to rotate around the
>axle's centerline, just like a 4-link's birdcage) and feeding their
>loads into the tub via separate radius rods. This one could be fun to
>play with. Dirt cars do this all the time to help bias the turn-in for
>their circle track environment.
>
>You could set up for a very long (and therefore hop-resistant) virtual
>swing arm for the brake reaction (set by the instant center defined by
>the lower arms and the brake floater links- make it 10 or 20 feet,
>maybe), and have a very short rigidly mounted torque arm for to create
>vast quantities of drive torque antisquat. This is arguably a lot
>easier than decoupling the torque arm proper. The downside it that it
>is somewhat more complex, and therefore more failure-prone (and easier
>to get lost with)...
Scott is giving away the secret on the rear suspension of my unfinished
A/Sedan car. I ran a similiar suspension setup on my old '70 Mustang A Sedan
we ran back in the '70's and early '80's. I had leaf springs on that thing
with floater mounts and birdcages. Floater caliper mounts that fed brake
torque back into the chassis via links, a torque arm with a coilover
cantilevered underneath, watts link for lateral location. It fit the late
'70's rules and I fit all of that more or less under the stock unibody that we
had to run back then. Mom recently sold that car to a vintage racer and he
unbolted everything and put leafs and a panhard rod under it all to the Boss
302 chassis manual specs. I felt pretty good about developing this at 18 years
old pretty well from scratch at the time.
>I may go with either a Watts or a Mumford to replace my Panhard setup
>at the same time. I've had a vague urge to play with a Mumford since
>seeing it in that Racecar Engineering article a couple years ago. It's
>essentially a folded Watts, but the spiffy thing about it is that you
>can position the roll center arbitrarily, without having to have half
>of the bellcrank and one of the radius rods dangling below it. You can
>even set up the roll center below ground with it, if you wanted to...
>I have to create some structure to mount the fuel cell, so I might as
>well make it a bit stronger and use if for axle location as well.
I have been toying with the mumford idea as well. I read the same article
about the Mallock cars. Mallock was the garage race car engineer we all dream
of being. His cars are very cool indeed. I have seen a couple of them raced as
CSR's over here in the US.
I did notice that that BOSS 429 powered '94 that Shinoda put together and was
pictured in all the magazines had a Mumford. I looked as closely as I could
with those magazine pictures. It fit the Mustang with little more complication
than a Watts link. I never did see that car in person, but would like to have
solely for that reason.
28 Aug 1996
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics
-> Yup. But don't forget that there is no reason to feed the brake
-> torque reaction into the axle _at all_. Nobody said the calipers had
That's what most motorcycles do with the rear brake. Ones that attach the
brake to the swing arm have ferocious wheel hop in decel. Most bikes float
the caliper or backing plate on the axle and use a rod from the caliper to the
chassis.
-> loads into the tub via separate radius rods. This one could be fun to
-> play with. Dirt cars do this all the time to help bias the turn-in
-> for their circle track environment.
You could pick most of the parts out of the Coleman catalog. You already have
3" axle tubes at the ends, right?
-> I may go with either a Watts or a Mumford to replace my Panhard setup
-> at the same time. I've had a vague urge to play with a Mumford
Mumford! Mumford! Even if you don't do anything special with the roll center
height, it'd be worth the extra hassle just to watch people peer under the car
and go, "What the @(!*@ is that stuff, anyway?"
-> I have to create some structure to mount the fuel cell, so I might as
-> well make it a bit stronger and use if for axle location as well.
You could make a righteous Mumford bracket out of the front of the fuel cell
bracketry. Colin Chapman would be proud of you.
So, when are you gonna ditch the McPherson struts and go to a real front end?
28 Aug 1996
Tom Stangler
fordnatics
>My cuz (A fellow Fordnatic) suggested that I replace my stock front disc
>calipers with 73 mm. Lincoln LSC calipers. He said they should be a bolt
>on situation and that I should get the braided stainless lines to make it
>complete.
>My question is, are there any extras I need?
87 spindles and rotors. will not fit on the 86 spindle
>Will my stock Master Cylinder work with this setup?
Yes barely, but the feel will be unacceptable. use the LSC MC.
29 Aug 1996
Gaetan Corneau
fordnatics
>I hear lotsd of talk about rev limiters but my car definately doesn't have one.
Mine doesn't: I can make it rev way over 7000.
>In other words, they operate with or without the ignition on.
Your car is just like mine. Maybe it's a canadian car :)
I have an '88 GT Cobra (GTs sold in Quebec had "Cobra" striping).
29 Aug 1996
"Darius Rudis USAET(UTC -04:00)"
fordnatics
>I did notice that that BOSS 429 powered '94 that Shinoda put together and
>was pictured in all the magazines had a Mumford. I looked as closely as I
>could with those magazine pictures. It fit the Mustang with little more
>complication than a Watts link. I never did see that car in person, but
>would like to have solely for that reason.
A friend of mine (name-dropping Al Oslapas) works in the Dearborn Beech Daly
Garage#5 at Ford. He is an engineer that did a lot of work on the Shinoda. I
went to the garage to see it myself (after looking at the magazine with a
magnifying glass...).
They were desinging a rear suspension not only for the drag race crowd, but to
also appeal the the road race crowd. Remember, this was a big publicity stunt
to see what $100K could build and how many covers of magazines it could cover.
The torque arm was "mega-duty" to say the least. The panhard/watts/ mumford
was in concideration. The panhard has biases as to which side it is frame
mounted. The watts was a better choice over the panhard. To raise the
curiosity factor, they decided to use something more exotic, mumford. The
mumford is basically a watts, but attaches from the center and pivots there
also (sort'a).
>Skod:
>Its essentially a folded Watts, but the spiffy thing about it is that you
>can position the roll center arbitrarily, without having to have half
>of the bellcrank and one of the radius rods dangling below it. You can
>even set up the roll center below ground with it, if you wanted to...
>I have to create some structure to mount the fuel cell, so I might as
>well make it a bit stronger and use if for axle location as well.
One of the major concerns, is the amount of force generated on that attachment
point. The other concern is that once you determine the ride height, and
attach the center pivot point, you cannot alter ride height without torching
it all off and starting all over again. When they made the brackets, I think
it was to withstand some IMO astronomical side load forces on one specific
attachment point. The ride height must be maintained thruout the suspension
travel too. What I mean is that it has a "small" rage of suspension travel.
(whatever "small" is). He didnt tell me exactly, but if you noticed, the axle
has aircraft cables limitting the unloaded suspension travel. A normally
lowered Mustang has lets say 4" compression (guessing) and 10" unload (like
when you lift the car by the frame and hang the rear by the shocks. The
mumford cannot have this much travel or it will bind (break?). Thats why the
aircraft cables limit unload to about 3" in either direction.
When I went to the shop, I was hoping to get a ride in it, but it was on a
hoist and was being worked on. Bummer! Then we started talking about my car
and Al convinced me to get the Griggs t-arm suspension. He put one on for
another employee and he said the owner was extremely happy with it. Other
than the road noise and ground clearance, he said you cant beat it, and when
they picked it for a $100K prototype, thats gotta say something for the
product.
09 Sep 1996
Tom Stangler
fordnatics
At 12:37 PM 9/9/96 -0500, Dennis J Robinson wrote:
>I seem to recall that there were some spacers that need to be fabbed in
>order to get 87-93 struts to fit on pre 87 cars. If anyone knows how to
>fab these spacers I would pay a fair fee for them in order to mount the
>struts I have on the car until I get all the stuff ready for the
>Lincoln/SVO caliper/spindle installation.
Just backwards. 86 struts on 87 spindles. here's the pattern. I've never heard
of 87 on 86 spindles. with the 86 spindle being thicker than the 87 spindle it
wouldn't work.
if it is 86 on 87's, you might visit some shock shops (Midas, etc) and see if
they don't have a few laying about. I put some new shocks on my 87 (KYB) and
they came with spacers, as they were originally designed for the 86, and to
make them universal they included spacers to fit the 87+.
--------------------------------
take a piece of steel plate, .23" thick (or two pieces, .115 each)
and cut it to 1.25 x 3.50 in size. Bevel one corner with a .25 angle.
drill 2 holes .640 diameter, 2.25 apart, centered on the
center line of the plate, with the first one .62 from the beveled end.
<-------------3.50 +/- .10 ------------------>
_____________________________________________
| | ^
| | |
|<-.62 ----> | |
| + (centerline) + | 1.25 +/- .10
| | |
\ | |
bevel \__________________________________________| |
(.25) ^
<-----2.25 +/- .03 ->
11 Sep 1996
[email protected] (Dave Compton)
fordnatics
> my clutch pedal engages really high and I was wondering if the
> quadrant can be reset to it's lower settings so the clutch will both
> sit and engage lower. or do I have to buy an adj. clutch quadrant.
>
When I need to reset the clutch, here's how I do it. Self-adjusting my A**!
Push the seat all the way back, crawl under the dash.
Take a regular hammer, holding it by the head.
Push on the clutch pedal about half way down with your other hand.
Put the handle END of the hammer against the flat spot on the quadrant.
Pull the clutch pedal UP with your hand.
Check clutch action for your preference.
Make appointment with Chiropractor :)
The above actions will RAISE the point on the pedal that the clutch
disengages. I learned how to do this after replacing the clutch on my 82
Capri. and not being able to get the car in gear. I like to set the start of
disengagement at about 2 inches of down travel on the clutch pedal. It makes
it easier to hold the clutch to the floor, shifts are quicker and I believe
the clutch should last longer. And it feels right...
If you dump the clutch, and the position on the pedal changes, your quadrant
or pawl is shot. This is an absolute PITA to change, so I recommend the BBK
aluminum replacement. Yes, it's expensive, but this is a job you only want to
do ONCE! I've thought of just putting a screw thru the pawl and quadrant to
hold it in one position, but I couldn't figure out how to drill the hole to
pin it with, without removing them. At which point I would replace them.
Eddie,
If you think it's too high, push on the PAWL with the end of the hammer and
it will totally release. Then you can use the above directions to set it
where you want. Make sure the clutch is releasing fully or you will wear out
the clutch prematurely.
11 Sep 1996
William H Goodman Jr
fordnatics
Since this topic seems to be of interest to some, I'll share my experiences
with putting the Autopower bar in my car (1990 LX Hatchback). I ordered the
standard 4 pt. race bar (this is the one with the diagonal brace, mine is
welded in, but it can be ordered with a bolt in brace) with the optional seat
back brace (horizontal bar across the back for mounting harnesses, and as far
as I know it can only be welded in, no bolt in available).
Installation on mine was a breeze, but that's due in large part to the fact
that I no longer have a back seat nor rear interior panels, I took it all out.
If you want to keep the panels it wouldn't be too big of deal, just a little
work on a hatchback. If done with care you could cut the holes in the exact
location and the bar would look professionally installed. On a coupe you
don't have to cut any holes, the rear braces go between the seat back cushion
and the interior panel. As for where the main hoop rests in the rear
floorboard you have two options: mount it on top of the carpet or cut holes
and mount it below the carpet. I did mine below because with the seat out it
is easy to trim the carpet.
As far as fit is concerned, the bar fits like a glove. The main hoop fits
very close the the sides(probably real good and close with interior panels in
place) and to the headliner. The only problem for some people may be the seat
belts. Since the bar fits so closely to the sides, routing of the belts is a
little tricky. I routed mine between the main hoop and the rear braces, which
seemed to be the most logical location. Works just fine for me, but some
people may not like it. Most of the time I have to give the belt a little
help for it to retract, but once you get used to it no problem.
Another option I wish I had considered at the time of purchase is opting for
the 6 point cage. It can be ordered with the optional bolt it
crossbrace(diagonal) and it comes standard with the welded in seat back
brace(horizontal). I almost wish I had gone ahead and come up with the money
for the cage, but the budget just didn't allow. There is good news though.
If you can't afford the whole thing at once you can later order what Autopower
calls a U-weld kit. It come with everything needed to make your roll-bar a 6
point cage and it has a few other goodies the the other cage does not. It
includes a horizontal underdash brace and instead of one door brace the U-weld
kit has two. I've seen this kit and it is made very nicely too. From what I
can tell it appears as if you can have the front bars go through the speaker
holes in the dash or trim a little off and have them fall in front of the
dash, but I'm not sure about this. Anyway, this got a little longer than
anticipated, sorry. But if anyone has any more questions about my install or
about the different options feel free to email me.
16 Sep 1996
"Darius Rudis USAET(UTC -04:00)"
fordnatics
> The '79 to '86 Mustangs are easy to identify. But how can I determine the
> year of any '87 to '92 Stang, without having the keys, just buy looking at
> the car (and the interior thru the windows)? I'm *not* asking that to stea
> the cars :) but I'd like to know if there are any differences.
Read the VIN (especially position #10):
Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) has 17 alphanumeric characters.
Typical VIN number: 1FABP41E2K123456 (1989 Mustang LX 5.0L hatchback)
Position 1-3 (1FA) World Manufacturer Identifier (IMOHO always 1FA)
Position 4 (B) Restraint System Type - Passenger Car Only (B=pass)
Brake Type and GVWR Class (Trucks and Vans Only)
Position 5-7 (P41) Line, Series, Body Type (P= Mustang 40=sedan 41=hatch)
Position 8 (E) Engine Type (E=5.0l EFI HO+ 302 gasoline)
Position 9 (2) Check Digit (whatever...)
Position 10 (K) Model Year (K=89, L=90...)
Position 11 (F) Assembly Plant(F=Dearborn)
Position 12-17 (123456) Production Sequence Number
Note: this is a "typical" number. From year to year, the model "P41"
changes... but this is close.
17 Sep 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, Gaetan wrote:
> The '79 to '86 Mustangs are easy to identify. But how can I determine the
> year of any '87 to '92 Stang, without having the keys, just buy looking at
> the car (and the interior thru the windows)? I'm *not* asking that to
steal
> the cars :) but I'd like to know if there are any differences.
Josh wrote:
Yes, by looking at the VIN plate, which is located in the bottom driver's side
corner of the windshield. I wish I could tell you what digit designates the
model year, but I can't remember. Someone else on the list probably can.
The VIN for Fox Mustangs can be seen through the windshield. The sequence
changed in 1981. Here is how to determine the year of the vehicle:
1979 & 1980 - first digit of VIN = year
1979 - 9
1980 - 0
1981 through 1993 - tenth digit of VIN = year starting with B and omitting
letters I & O because they resemble numbers.
1981 - B
1982 - C
1983 - D
1984 - E
1985 - F
1986 - G
1987 - H
1988 - J
1989 - K
1990 - L
1991 - M
1992 - N
1993 - P
19 Sep 1996
[email protected]
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
I'm doing the new windshield for the car this weekend. Made a seal-cutter tool
out of two screwdrivers and 4 feet of .041 safety wire, and popped the remains
of the old one out. Looked at the windshield bed, and decided on the spot to
go with a foam-and-clips mount rather then try to make a butyl-seal factory
style mount work again. The glass was resting directly on body metal in 3 or 4
places-should have broken _long_ ago... Where some of the panel overlaps lie,
the flexing of the tub has flanged up the edges and pooched 'em right through
the seal, with matching dings in the back surface of the glass. That cowl
moves around a lot more than I'd thought!
When I finish of the halo in the cage, a few gussets to the leading edge of
the roof and to the A-pillars are going to find their way in there. Nothing so
extravagant as a NASCAR-style swisscheesed flanged filler panel, but something
to keep the cowl from flapping in the breeze quite so badly...
27 Sep 1996
Teddy Chen
fordnatics
> If you're running these, drop me a note on how you like/dislike them...
> I'm looking at the Bennett or HPM arms.
don't do it. the upper control arms move in different arcs, and you need to
have some compliance along the longitudinal axes of the arms. if you
eliminate that compliance, you'll get bind.
that's assuming you also change the bushings in the ears of the differential
to polyurethane, aluminum, or rod ends. polyurethane will have slightly less
bind, but there'll still be plenty.
using rubber bushings will reduce the bind, but then what's the point of using
those heim jointed upper control arms if you're going to use those rubber
bushings with their inherent slop?
i'd use poly bushings at one end, and rubber at the other if you contemplate
going around corners. if you're drag racing, the bennett/HPM arms might work
for you. ask a straightline guy.
26 Sep 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Sep 26, Dave Zeckhausen ([email protected]) wrote:
> Just got my car back from the shop with the Griggs Torque
> Arm and Heavy Duty Panhard Bar installed. The instructions
> did not mention anything about removing the quad shocks,
> so the shop left them in. I seem to recall some comments
> about removing these quad shocks when the Griggs setup is
> installed. Does anyone have any advice?
Dump them. They are pretty meaningless in any case, but they are _truly_
meaningless with the torque arm in place. They are there to try and damp
torque reaction shudder and hop in the case of the stock suspension,
especially the huge sloppy rubber bushings in the lower arms. Well, the torque
arm completely nails the torque reactions of the axle for you- so the quads
have no meaning at all. They are simple dead weight.
> By the way...WOW! What a difference in the car's behavior
> under braking! The car does not dip forward AT ALL even when
> I mash on those M2300-K brakes. I expect that I can now
> adjust the proportioning valve to increase the rear bias of
> the brakes. I'm looking forward to Saturday at Bridgehampton
> Raceway to finally drive this car without the excess axle
> deflection that has haunted me since I first took it on the
> track.
Wait'll you feel how it hooks up coming off of low- and medium-speed corners.
The brake reaction is improved, but at the extreme limits of rear braking you
can get a _righteous_ hop going, so be delicate with your bias tuning.
Eventually, you'll discover that you need a lot more jounce damping from the
rear shocks that you used to, to help control the axle in extreme braking
conditions. Still axle hop will likely be the ultimate limiting factor for
braking setup.
> Quick panhard bar question. The shop adjusted the bar so that
> it attaches in the top hole. My interpretation of the sparse
> instructions provided by Griggs is that this setting maximizes
> rear stiffness and oversteer. What adjustment setting are you
> other Griggs-equipped folks running at on the track? Should
> I start out with the middle setting and experiment or will I
> just end up going to the top setting anyway?
You'll probably end up pretty high, especially if you still have a stock K-
member. I run my bar in the third hole down, most of the time. For really
pushy tracks like Thunderhill I'll go up one. You'll probably find that you
have to run right at the top hole to keep the car from being very tight at
corner exit. You'll have so much more bite at the rear that it really
magnifies the deficiencies in the front when you're on the power...
27 Sep 1996
[email protected] (Christofer Hoff)
fordnatics
At 12:42 PM +0000 9/27/96, Tre' Ridings wrote:
>Ok, so I take a drive to the local Saleen dealership with my
>girlfriend (who drooled as much as I) to meet up with my dad
>who is wheelin' and dealin' for a new Saleen S-351....
>Found out some interesting things about the '97 Saleens...
I design and maintain the Saleen Website (http://www.saleen.com) and while the
97 pages are still being finalized, I thought I'd add to Tre's post regarding
the 97 Saleen Specs. This is NOT an official Saleen post, nor do I claim to
represent Saleen. I own one and am just posting this is an enthusiast's
reply to Tre's message and because the 97 Saleens really do make some quantum
leaps in performance and suspension technology is sure to effect the
performance aftermarket for everyone, and I thought you guys would like to get
this information ahead of time.
>1. Naturally-aspirated 351 will be no longer available.
Correct.
>2. Vortec supercharged 351 goes from 480 hp to 518 (EPA Certified 50
>state and fully OBD-II compliant)
Yup. S-Trim Vortech Blowers are standard, but the horspower ratings are 510
HP. Torque and other performance specs. are pending.
>3. The only difference between the S-351-R and the
> S-351-SR is that the SR gets carbon-fiber body panels,
> Recaro RACING seats, roll bar, magnesium 18" wheels, etc...
Almost.
Engine
=======
Both engines come with forged pistons this year rather than the hypereutectic.
80mm Mass Air Meters are standard as are Saleen Aluminum valve covers. A
custom Saleen EEC-V engine management processor is also incuded.
_______
[_______]
S-351R
_______
[_______]
Performance Enhancements
========================
Saleen/Alcon Brake Braking System (standard)
Racecraft G-Load brac
Borg-Warner T56 6-speed transmission
Saleen Short-throw shifter
Torsen traction-lok differential
Oil Cooler
(there are more, but these are the most noticable)
Suspension
==========
Saleen F.I.A. gas front struts
Saleen F.I.A. gas rear shocks and quads
Saleen lower control arms
18x8 1/2" Magnesium wheels Front and Rear (standard)
BFG 245/40ZR18 Comp T/A Tires F/R
Interior/Styling
================
Twin gauge boost/fuel pressure pod
Saleen Mustang owners Jacket
_______
[_______]
S-351 SR
_______
[_______]
Features all of the above PLUS:
Saleen 13" grooved front brake rotors
Saleen 11" grooved rear brake rotors with Saleen rear brake calipers
Custom Aluminum driveshaft
3:55 rear
F.I.A. AIR MANAGEMENT
=====================
Saleen FIA urethane front fascia and splitter
Saleen FIA extended front fenders
Saleen FIA side skirts
Saleen FIA doors
Saleen FIA Carbon Fiber hood
Saleen FIA extended rear fenders
Saleen FIA urethane rear fascia
Large rear brake duct scoops
Saleen FIA rear wing
Saleen FIA read ground effects tunnel
SUSPENSION
==========
Saleen Caster/Camber plates
Aluminum steering rack bushings
Saleen rear shock tower brace
Saleen Racecraft rear swaybar
Mag. wheels with 18x10" rears
Dunlop SP8000 255/35ZR18 Front 285/35ZR18 rear
INTERIOR/STYLING
================
Saleen carbon fiber shift knob
Saleen racing steering wheel with air bag (COOL!)
Saleen/Recaro SR seats
Saleen SR front and rear mats
High Intensity headlights
Race pedals
SR OPTIONS (the REALLY cool Stuff)
==================================
Saleen FIA Independent front A-arm suspension
Saleen FIA Independent read suspension
Saleen FIA Center-lock hubs with Saleen/Speedline FIA Mag wheels
Competition Interior:
Saleen Recaro carbon fiber racing seats
4-point chassis brace
Read race tray (replaces rear seat)
Racing safety harness
OPTIONAL COLORS (AWESOME!) [Flip-flop paint similar in style to Mystic)
==========================
BASF Extreme Red to Yellow -- Silver graphics
BASF Extreme Green to Purple -- Silver graphics
Canary Yellow -- Black Graphics
These Specs are subject to change, but since this is what I was given to add
to the site, it appears to be what the 97's will have.
Is this awesome or what!? Flip-flop colors, IRS, 510 HP STANDARD (!), Racecar
aerodynamics...I think I have to clean myself up now!
Now, did someone say Viper? Here boy....
>7. And other stuff that I probably forgot.
See above.
>I'm not sure about the S-281....I think It's the same....
Pretty much, except the Torsen Diff. and Vortech blowers are options.
01 Oct 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
Thanks for all the info on the Griggs Torque arm / panhard bar setup. I
removed the quad shocks Friday night before the event at Bridgehampton.
The rear axle deflection is gone. It's amazing how much better the car tracks
through bumpy turns. The car oversteers more than before but it is much more
controllable and predictable. I don't like the increase in rear body roll. It
takes longer to get the car settled after a turn. Axle hop is a problem under
hard braking, especially on a track surface as rough as Bridgehampton. Front
end dive under braking is ELIMINATED. That takes a bit of getting used to!
Rear end squat is also reduced under acceleration but since I have a stock
motor, it's not as big a deal.
After a period of getting used to the new suspension, my lap times came down
nearly 2 seconds from earlier events.
I'm still running the stock lower control arms. Exactly what type of handling
changes will I experience if I change nothing other than the lower control
arms to the Griggs racing arms? Should I move to the 450 lb/in springs when I
change the control arms to reduce rear body roll? How about a larger rear
anti-sway bar? I currently have the single-adjustable Koni competition yellow
shocks. Should I crank up the setting on these a bit to reduce the axle hop?
I have two weeks to get ready for my last event of the year, a two-day event
at Pocono.
Finally, during my first session at Bridgehampton, something broke in my
clutch. I was shifting to 5th gear just past the start/finish line when my
clutch pedal suddenly kicked back at my foot. I thought I was going to be
stuck in 5th, so I slowed down and tried to shift up and down. The clutch now
engages at the very top of travel and the pedal effort is about twice as hard.
Eventually, my wife & I got used to the new feel of the clutch and we
continued for the rest of the day. No slipping experienced at all (after we
figured out where it engaged!) and it didn't get worse or better throughout
the event.
So obviously, something broke inside. What could break in a stock Ford clutch
and result in higher pedal effort and engagement near the very top of travel?
I plan to change to a Motorsports clutch soon, but do I need to do it before
my 2-day event at Pocono?
07 Oct 1996
Teddy Chen
fordnatics
> This time out, I added the Griggs rear suspension. BOY DOES THIS STUFF
> WORK!!! I havnt timed myself yet (using the video), but I am estimating
> shaving 10 seconds off from my 90 seconds of last time.
i have to get one of those for my car. it's amazing how sloppily some people
drove their GR-40 cars without spinning. they did things that would have had
my car going off backwards in an instant. i was hot on the tail of this GR-40
car at Laguna Seca this weekend. in turn 11, he got on the gas too hard, and
the inside front wheel lifted several inches off the ground. then he lifted
off abruptly, causing the wheel to come slamming back down. at the same time,
he booted the gas again and the wheel went back up again. he took off down
the straight with his car bouncing up and down like that. i couldn't believe
how well he hooked up even with that inexcusably sloppy driving. the tail
didn't step out at all that i could tell, and he still came out of the corner
faster than i did.
(BTW, i'm not talking about you, Don R.)
> Later I worked the start/finish tower, and could yell to them watching
> from the rooftop. My kids wanted me to wave the flags to them, but
> somthing about waving all sorts'of flags from the start/finish tower
> probably wouldnt be a good idea :)
that didn't stop Scott Griffith and a couple of other Norcal SAAC guys from
waving them all at me at Thunderhill in March. :)
> Last time, my wife asked "Was it better than sex", and I replied "YEAH,
> cause you get to do it 4 times in one day, and for 25 minutes too!".
that's a dangerous thing to say, even if it's true.
10 Oct 1996
Robert Whitley
fordnatics
At 04:16 PM 10/9/96 -0400, Ron ([email protected]) wrote:
>One of the items I would like is a G -Load Brace. Does anyone
>have any preferences or experience with which ones are best?
BTPP recommends the Kenny Brown brace. In order to save a few dollars, I got
a Dugan 4 point which is a knockoff of the KB. It didn't fit and I sent it
back. The kit was also missing some pieces (washers and a bolt, I think). I
must say however that Dugan took it back without much protesting.
I ordered a KB brace from Texas Mustangs and was able to install it without a
problem. It is a real bolt on. All one has to do is to replace two k-member
bolts with bolts provided in the kit and use two other bolts which come in the
kit to bolt the other two ends of the brace through the k-member. The brace
didn't just drop in the mounting holes because of a slight misalignment but I
could get all the bolts in (unlike the Dugan which would have required a pry
bar). Minimal force from a few turns of the ratchet seated the brace.
I noted one important difference in the design of the KB compared to the
Dugan. The KB brace ends protrude through the k-member a small amount. This
makes it impossible for the brace to slip. The Dugan and similar designs rely
on the bolt clamping force to keep the brace from slipping. The KB uses
mechanical interference between the bottom of the brace and the k-member to
prevent slipping. A better design.
I noticed a difference in front end stiffness and flex right away.
14 Oct 1996
Larry Smith
fordnatics
Joe,
I have seen tailpipes installed with the Griggs panhard bar. You have to
watch the clearance between the turned down portion of the tailpipe at the
axle and the vertical support bar for the Griggs. Worst case...could cut the
tailpipe at the top of the axle bend and take out what ever is required for
clearance, this might be on the order of .5" or so depending on YOUR
installation, then add it back in to the horizontal run of the tailpipe to get
the tip in the proper location. So much depends on the installation of the
Griggs parts and how everthing on the exhaust is put together. On mine
(pictures you see) I decided to go a different route as I also had tailpipe
rub on the tires when we were at the track (cornering loads a little higher
than seen on the street). This could have been solved by working on the
tailpipe mounts probably...for our case, I went the side outlet route. Do
trial fits to determine the limits of installation and you should be able to
get BOTH in the car. I do know of one car in Charlotte that is set up this
way. Mark Ray at Carolina Mustang Performance is set up in this manner (704-
527-4377 9-5).
fordnatics
October 11, 1996
On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Matt Wehland wrote:
> http://www.webtripper.com/automotive/ford/mustang/mustang.html
Well i think it looks like if i get a Griggs panhard rod, my NEW Dynomax
exhaust with modified LX 2.5" stainless tailpipes, that are gonna hang below
my rear GT skirt won't fit ... PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME I AM WRONG, and that
tailpipes WILL fit, PLEASE!!
I really want BOTH, as i am greedy :) if it won't fit than the Griggs will not
be a priotity for spring 97 anymore :(
15 Oct 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
Bob Nell wrote:
>Im planning on correcting my bump steer....
I'm just finishing up putting adjustable tie-rod ends on my '86 Mustang so
maybe I can help.
>#1. Aluminum rack mount bushing that I'll drill myself after careful measuring
This would be a nice solution but how are you going to determine where
to drill. You can't simply measure the bumpsteer and expect to calculate
where the rack needs to be. It's a matter of changing the spacers on the
rod-ends until you get a minimum bumpsteer.
>#2. Bumpsteer kit from CCM/Griggs??? ( adjustable tie rods i presume)
I believe it's a combination of adjustable tie-rod ends and offset rack mount
bushings. While this is wholely adequate, there are a few things I don't like
about this kit. First, it uses Grade 8 bolts instead of AN. Also, they use
fairly cheap rod-ends. Good rod-ends run $40-$50 ea. Arguably, it's no big
deal but the tie-rod sleeves are aluminum. I made mine out of steel. Don't get
me wrong, these kits are used by a lot of people without any problems. I just
think you can do better.
It's worth mentioning that this will require having your spindles drilled out.
Don't go putting them in a vice and grabbing your hand drill. This is a
machine shop only job. .005" clearance between the bolt and hole is good. Less
is even better. You won't get that with just a drill bit. It needs to be
drilled undersized and then reamed out to the appropriate size.
The other drawback of adjustable tie-rod ends is that even the expensive rod-
ends aren't made to be run on the street. They will require frequent checking
and probably need to be replaced every year or two. This is only worth it if
you're a track slut.
>#3. Plain old poly/aluminum offset bushings
Don't bother with poly bushings. While they're better than stock, they distort
when tightened down and just generally look ugly. You'll probably need
aluminum offset bushings even with the adjustable tie-rod ends to minimize the
bolt length. These bolts are heavily loaded in single shear so shorter bolts
are a win.
I say probably because one list member, Teddy, ran across a problem
where he needed a negative spacer stack with the offset bushings. I hear
Dave is making him a non-offset set of rack bushings.
>Car is 88 with 88 tie rod ends and FMS B springs...
>
>
>I'm looking for the easiest/most streetable solution however if just
>slapping in off the shelf bushings is going to be shooting blind then I'll
>go the measure/drill route...
I used offset aluminum rack bushings and '90-'93 tie-rod ends for a couple of
years and it worked pretty good. Yeah, it's shooting blind but for most street
cars it is plenty. It has the _really_ big advantage of being cheap and easy.
It can be done for $60 and half a day in the garage.
>I also want the most steering feel possible, so aluminum is preferable
So far, this has been the biggest improvement that I've felt. Getting rid of
all that slop in the stock bushings gave a much more precise feel to the
steering. The only drawback was that more noise and vibration is transferred
through the solid bushings.
15 Oct 1996
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
>>#2. Bumpsteer kit from CCM/Griggs??? ( adjustable tie rods i presume)
>
>I believe it's a combination of adjustable tie-rod ends and offset
>rack mount bushings. While this is wholely adequate, there are a few
>things I don't like about this kit. First, it uses Grade 8 bolts instead
>of AN. Also, they use fairly cheap rod-ends. Good rod-ends run $40-$50 ea.
>Arguably, it's no big deal but the tie-rod sleeves are aluminum. I made
>mine out of steel. Don't get me wrong, these kits are used by a lot of
>people without any problems. I just think you can do better.
>
>It's worth mentioning that this will require having your spindles drilled
>out. Don't go putting them in a vice and grabbing your hand drill. This
>is a machine shop only job. .005" clearance between the bolt and hole is
>good. Less is even better. You won't get that with just a drill bit. It
>needs to be drilled undersized and then reamed out to the appropriate
>size.
The Baer kit uses the tapered pins made by Coleman. This is a good part used
by many stock car racing teams. One end is a tapered fit like stock tie-rod
ends and the other end is a pin that is threaded on the end. This accomplishes
the same thing Karl talks about here, but eleminates the need to machine your
spindles and it is a very high quality part used by many stock car racing
teams.
>The other drawback of adjustable tie-rod ends is that even the expensive
>rod-ends aren't made to be run on the street. They will require frequent
>checking and probably need to be replaced every year or two. This is only
>worth it if you're a track slut.
This is very true. If you get the Seals-It washers and rod ends with grease
fittings you will lenghten the life of your rod ends, but you will not turn
them into the almost bolt them on and forget them parts that the factory tie-
rod end are.
15 Oct 1996
Teddy Chen
fordnatics
> >#1. Aluminum rack mount bushing that I'll drill myself after careful
> >measuring
>
> This would be a nice solution but how are you going to determine where
> to drill. You can't simply measure the bumpsteer and expect to calculate
> where the rack needs to be. It's a matter of changing the spacers on the
> rod-ends until you get a minimum bumpsteer.
i think he's talking about the setup in Mathis's Mustang Performance Handbook
2. Mathis talks about adjusting the steering rack up and down until the
bumpsteer is reduced, which strikes me as being on a par with driving a nail
by holding the head of the hammer.
it's definitely easier to use adjustable tie rod ends and change the spacers.
> >#2. Bumpsteer kit from CCM/Griggs??? ( adjustable tie rods i presume)
>
> I believe it's a combination of adjustable tie-rod ends and offset
> rack mount bushings.
i thought the CCM "trick tie rod ends" were just the improved
'90+ tie rod ends with longer shanks.
> While this is wholely adequate, there are a few
> things I don't like about this kit. First, it uses Grade 8 bolts instead
> of AN.
they can cause you pain in two ways. first, the tolerances are looser than
with AN bolts, and this is not an area where you want any slop. any looseness
in the steering will come back to haunt you. second, grade 8 bolts are often
counterfeit and much weaker than they're supposed to be. this could really
bite you hard, since any breakage here is virtually guaranteed to result in a
collision with something solid.
some FAA engineer said he'd never fly in a plane that had any SAE bolts in it,
and there's a reason why.
> It's worth mentioning that this will require having your spindles drilled
> out. Don't go putting them in a vice and grabbing your hand drill.
right. no kludges. bear in mind that if you blow it, you're looking
at replacing the spindle, and that will cost you.
> The other drawback of adjustable tie-rod ends is that even the expensive
> rod-ends aren't made to be run on the street. They will require frequent
> checking and probably need to be replaced every year or two. This is only
> worth it if you're a track slut.
like us, you mean?
> Don't bother with poly bushings. While they're better than stock, they
> distort when tightened down and just generally look ugly.
hey, it's not that bad. mine were free, and they were an improvement
over stock. who cares if they look ugly as long as they work?
> You'll probably
> need aluminum offset bushings even with the adjustable tie-rod ends
> to minimize the bolt length. These bolts are heavily loaded in single
> shear so shorter bolts are a win.
not too short. you need to have _some_ spacer in there. too short and the
heim joint will bind against the steering arm of the spindle, likely resulting
in breakage and a quick trip to the wall shortly thereafter.
> I say probably because one list member, Teddy, ran across a problem
> where he needed a negative spacer stack with the offset bushings. I hear
> Dave is making him a non-offset set of rack bushings.
yeah, i'm getting toe-out in bump and toe-in in droop with no spacer stack.
adding more spacers increased the toe-out in bump, which is not the way i want
to go. so i'm going back to centered rack bushings (when dave gets around to
making them), and if necessary, i will run the tie rod end upside down. this
is the negative spacer stack that karl was talking about.
> >I also want the most steering feel possible, so aluminum is preferable
>
> So far, this has been the biggest improvement that I've felt. Getting
> rid of all that slop in the stock bushings gave a much more precise feel
> to the steering. The only drawback was that more noise and vibration is
> transferred through the solid bushings.
i think changing the control arm bushings to polyurethane bushings made a
bigger difference.
17 Oct 1996
Teddy Chen
fordnatics
> The Baer kit uses the tapered pins made by Coleman. This is a good part
> used by many stock car racing teams. One end is a tapered fit like stock
> tie-rod ends and the other end is a pin that is threaded on the end. This
> accomplishes the same thing Karl talks about here, but eleminates the need
> to machine your spindles and it is a very high quality part used by many
> stock car racing teams.
these things are listed in the Coleman catalog as "Pinto studs". i have them.
unfortunately, my car is sort of weirded-out and needs a negative spacer stack
with the current setup. i'm going to change the steering rack bushings back
to non-offset bushings, and hopefully that'll allow me to use a positive
spacer stack. if i still have to run a negative spacer stack, then i'll have
to drill the spindles and use AN bolts.
also, if it turns out i need a large spacer stack, the studs may not be long
enough. this will also necessitate using AN bolts.
one more thing - these studs don't have holes in them, unlike normal tie rod
ends. i'm going to drill holes in them for cotter pins, since i really don't
want the studs to separate from the spindles...
18 Oct 1996
Matt Wehland
fordnatics
Ok here is my list of SN95 differences
These are the differences that I know of between 6, GT, GTS, and cobra. First
all models changed from horizontal to vertical taillights in 96. Also the
rocker panels have changed in early 95 production. 94 and early 95's have the
rocker panel stop at the front wheel well while later cars have a vertical
piece at the rear of the front wheel well. 96 cars changed the grill opening ,
it is now filled with a honeycomb pattern and the hood release has been
changed.
Cobra 94-95 have Mustang in the rear valence and the valence is body color,
just like a 6. Had the special cobra rear wing with turned in sides and
different 3rd brake light. Special front end with round fog lights, 17" cobra
wheels all one color (no highlighting as on the 96+). And 2 tailpipes out the
rear. Cobra badges on side and SVT badge on Left (?) of trunk lid opposite
of Ford emblem.
Cobra 96- No wing, say Cobra in rear valence, same 17" wheels but they are now
2 tone. Hood with fron opening vents.
Cobra 97-Same as 96 except standard GT wing is an option.
GT- 2 tailpipes, part of rear valence (above and between the exhaust pipes)
is blacked out. Has Mustang GT in rear valance. GT badges on the front
fenders, either 16" (5 starish 94-96, possibly 97) or 17" (3 spoke 94-95,
funky many spoke on 96+) wheels. Came stock with GT wing and fog lights.
GTS- 95 only, should have the 95+ rocker panels. 16" 5 starish wheels only,
no wing, no fog lights, normal GT badging, dual exhaust and rear fascia
blackout.
6 cyl- 15" wheels either steel w/ wheel covers (which I have only seen a few
times) or aluminum 15". No wing, no fog lights, pony badge on front fenders.
Single exhaust pipe (out Left ? side), says mustang in rear fascia, body color
rear fascia.
Note these are only good for Stock cars. My dads car looks like a GT with fog
lights, wing, ROH ZR6 wheels and such. When he changes to side exhaust and
looses the ponies on the side, who will know what it is. Also my car has no
badges on it and the rear fascia is body color. Around me there are more 6
cyls with wings then there are GT's so check more than one thing out.
Oh yeah just for those that don't know the GTS was an LX version, stripped
down, cheaper. No 17" wheels available, 6 cyl seats and such.
Does any else know of any other visual differences? I would love to hear of
them or any corrections if I have screwed up (no not me).
20 Nov 1996
"Lawrence S. Harris III"
fordnatics
> RE: the 351 swap:
> Going into a 90 convert, If you go with EFI what is the minimum
> hood rise you need to add because of the increased deck height
Mine looked like it missed by about 1-1.5". I bought a 2.5" Cervini Cowl hood
that will probably clear by a mile. When I finally get the motor in the car,
I'll check and see how much it misses by.
I have already started to put together a 351 swap page, so if anyone else has
run different hoods that work, please let me know. I would like to publish
what will work and what will not on the page. I have not published the URL
for this page yet, since I am not happy enough with the content (It might not
be error free).
26 Nov 1996
[email protected] (Peter L. Turek)
fordnatics
>> If you go with EFI on a 351 what is the minimum hood rise you need to
>> add to get it to fit??
>Chris Johnson said to me 2.5" when i asked him this q.
>
>I am gonna get a 2.5 not only cause my new 302 don't fit, BUT becasue a
>351 is in my list for upcomming mods.
Yup. A friend of mine who I helped stuff a 351W (well it wasn't stuffed, but
we had to bang the trans tunnel a little for the C-6.) in an 87GT noted that a
cowl hood was necessary for the big bro' Windsor engine.
Actually, he initally ran the same 2.5" Hartman cowl lift-off hood I run now,
but that hood went into orbit one day as he forgot to put the pins in the hood
eyelets. Well, upon rentry it kinda didn't make it, so he actually went to a
stock metal hood and an 82 or 84 Mustang GT hood scoop. Thus a stock hood
would fit, but not without a scoop.
If you squint a little, you can pretty much see that a 351W has a real hard
time fitting below the fender line of a Fox 5.0. It might be able to be done,
but it's usually the acessory brackets that hit on a carbed car, and I don't
think the tall EFI manifolds would clear all that well either.
26 Nov 1996
"Chris Johnson Jr."
fordnatics
I have seen two cars with (GT-40, and EFI) with 2.5" cowl's get the job
done.....(convertable motor mounts), and one was a 88' the other a 84'.
With a 750/850 carb, dual plane intake , 1" spacer, 1/2" thick NOS plate and
NO air filter you can get away with a stock hood, but add a 3" filter and a
2.5" cowl is needed.......stock height.
With a Hi-rise Victor Jr and two 1/2" nos plates, a 1/2" spacer, and a
750/850 carb you can get away with a 2.5" cowl and a short filter (3" filter
will need a 4" cowl hood). This is with dropping the motor down 1". Or if you
leave the motor at the stock height you will need a 4-5" cowl to clear a 3"
filter.
With a Hi-rise Victor Jr and two 1/2" nos plates and a 1050 Dominator and a 2"
spacer you will need a 5.5"-7" cowl hood (with the motor left at the stock
height).
Drop the motor down 1" and back a bit (1.5" in my car) and the above will fit
under a 4" cowl hood. I don't run a air cleaner with the dominator so I don't
have any height info on that.....
27 Nov 1996
Teddy Chen
fordnatics
> I'd like some advice on shocks and struts. I have an '83 GT with a GT-40
> crate in it, FI and everything. I have swapped in a 3.73 8.8 with quads,
> and am in the process of swapping in the 11" front brakes/spindles/etc.
> This necessitates the 87-up struts, so I'm going to pick up an entire set
> (struts/shocks/quads).
actually, it doesn't. the earlier struts have wider spindle mounting ears.
you can use spacer plates to make them work with the '87+ spindles. guess it's
about time for tom stangler to post his handy instructions on making the
spacer plates (maybe he could put them in the fordnatics archive). it's
pretty simple, though - use 1/8" rectangular plates, and drill holes in them.
two plates for each strut.
as a matter of fact, if you buy Monroe Formula GPs, this is exactly what
you'll get: struts with spacer plates.
> It is a true street ride, with many stoplight races and long distance
> jaunts, but not a drag car worthy of lakewoods or a roadracer needing
> Konis. I basically just want a better than stock handling and ride package
> that wont bounce me all over the place. I figured on the local AutoZone
> for some Monroes. What does everyone think? Are Sensatracs the way to go?
> Are their any other brands like Gabriel that have a good unit for my
> application? Part numbers and info would be much appreciated . . .
i'd go with the Monroe Formula GPs. BBK has them for a pretty good price.
> Oh, I am running boxed HD upper arms that I got from High Performance
> (http://www.execpc.com/~hppapers/hpparts.html) and plan on some
> boxed/tubular lowers like Bennett's econos. I am also cutting the stock
> springs half a coil per Herb Adams technique, and run the 10 holes with
> 225/60 15 Yoko Y509s. It is really only an April-October car.
actually, the best lowbuck upgrade in the back would be poly bushings in 6 of
the 8 locations. the bushings in the ears of the differential should stay
rubber.
i wouldn't recommend cutting the stock springs. you'll be hitting the bump
stops more often.
27 Nov 1996
Tom Stangler
fordnatics
At 02:03 PM 11/27/96 -0800, Teddy Chen wrote:
>actually, it doesn't. the earlier struts have wider spindle mounting
>ears. you can use spacer plates to make them work with the '87+ spindles.
>guess it's about time for tom stangler to post his handy instructions
>on making the spacer plates
Ask and ye shall receive....
-------------------
take a piece of steel plate, .23" thick (or two pieces, .115 each) and cut it
to 1.25 x 3.50 in size. Bevel one corner with a .25 angle. drill 2 holes .640
diameter, 2.25 apart, centered on the center line of the plate, with the first
one .62 from the beveled end.
<-------------3.50 +/- .10 ------------------>
_____________________________________________
| | ^
| | |
|<-.62 ----> | |
| + (centerline) + | 1.25 +/- .10
| | |
\ | |
bevel \__________________________________________| |
(.25) ^
<-----2.25 +/- .03 ->
11 Dec 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
Well, I decided to buy the Racer's Edge torque boxes to replace my _entire_
factory torque box assembly. They were worse than I originally thought.
Dallas Mustang did the removal and installed the new boxes. I was told that
while pulling the lower control arms out and removing the springs, they moved
the axle housing a little bit. Moving the axle housing caused the torque
boxes to MOVE fore and aft with the lower control arm bolted in. Ack!!
Some of you may have seen SF's article on these replacement boxes. They do
indeed replace the entire assembly, so they need to be done by someone who
knows the Fox chassis. Otherwise, you could get the geometry screwed up when
going back in with the lower control arms. Dallas Mustang and I can attest to
the high quality of craftsmanship that these RE boxes have. Much better than
what Ford gives us from the factory.
Anyway, total cost was $550 including labor ($250). The RE boxes come in
three seperate pieces. The subframe connector, the torque box itself, and the
round tube bar that connects them together. This was cool, b/c the person
doing the welding can adjust the things a little for slight variances in one
car to another. Since I already had a quality set of subframe connectors on
the car, we used those, and I have a nice set to go on the 96 Cobra.
It may sound expensive, but when your car veers to the left when you floor it
in ANY gear at any rpm (not spinning the tires and going sideways--literally
moving left under load) you've got a problem. I had absolutely no positive
control of the already weak live axle suspension. The only alternative (which
I contemplated) was buying a newer, unabused 93 car and swapping _everything_
out of this car into it. A huge project, not to mention a lot of man hours,
and a complete waste of an immaculate '90 (except of course for the torque box
problem). It's really too bad Ford did such a poor design for these cars. I
know they didn't expect many of us to throw gobs of extra power at them, or
run slicks, but still. I have noticed that some cars with lots of passes on
them don't have bad problems with their torque boxes. I guess some of us got
some good welds, and others of us didn't.
30 Dec 1996
[email protected]
fordnatics
>>I read recently in one of the Mustang Pubs that all 79-93 GT's came with
>>springs identical to the SVO #M-5300-B kit. If this is true, then
>>according to the SVO catalog, the fronts would be variables @425-530
>>lb/in & rears also variable @200-300 lb/in. Or, is the M-5300-B kit just
>>designed to lower the car without stiffining.
>
>my SVO/FMS catalogue says "similar to those found on the 85 and later
>Mustang Gt's" for the 5300-B springs. so yes, the B's are much, if not
>identical to the GT springs.
I kept a copy of a post Dairus Rudis made here a few years ago. I've added to
it and changed a few things so I don't know how much is his and how much is
mine anymore.
front rear drop
stock 425-550 180-200 0
Eibach Street 450-580 205-250 1.5
Eibach 600-720
Eibach 515-685 140-300
Eibach Compet. 700-850 200-260
Susp. Tech. 725 180-260 1.25
BBK 650 250 1.5
Slot car 850-1000 195 .5
Steeda ? ? 1 to 1.25
Saleen ? ? 1.5
SVO 650 200-300 .75 to 1
H&R Street 490-575 205-250 1.5
H&R S. Street 600-720 205-250
H&R Race 750-850 260-280
H&R Super Race 950-1050 260-300
M-5300-B 425/530 200/300 7/8"F-1/2"R
M-5300-C 650 200/300 7/8"F-1/2"R
Take these numbers with a grain of salt but they do show the 5300-B to be darn
close to stock rates.
Since we're on the subject of spring rates, I'd like to ask a question. Why do
so many people like stiffer than stock rates? I've been open tracking for
three years and still have uncut stock springs. Several of my friends have the
Eibach competition springs and I can keep up with them just fine. As much as
I'd like to think it's due to my superior driving skills, I know that's not
really the case.
Both Carroll Smith and Herb Adams say to choose springs that are as soft as
possible without allowing the suspension to bottom out. This is done to give
as much compliance to road imperfections as possible.
The only reason I can come up with for stiffer springs in a late model Mustang
is to limit positive camber in the front end. If the body rolls over too far,
the front outside tire will get positive camber since the Macpherson struts
suspension doesn't have enough camber gain. This might be a good enough
reason. I'm just not sure. Anybody care to comment?
31 Dec 1996
[email protected] (Ed Mulligan)
fordnatics
OK, I checked all the references I have (not many) and added to the earlier
list of spring rates. Someone else will have to chart the drops for each
spring. If the M-5300-B is really the same as the factory springs, how does
it drop the car? Or is it not the same spring, but a similar spring with the
same rate but shorter overall?
For a street car, is there any advantage to raising the spring rates, or
should we just go for the heaviest front and rear sway bars that give a
front/rear ratio a little lower than stock (not much lower)?
Front Spring Rear Spring Maker Model Info Source
370 170 Ford Stock 1992 GT Ford SVO
465 253 Ford Stock 1988 GT Mathis Book
650 260 BBK Mathis Book
650 250 BBK
650 200-300 Ford M-5300-C
650 200-300 Ford SVO
660 220 Eibach Must. Unlim. Mustangs Unlimited
725 180-260 Susp. Tech.
345-462 345-462LH, 180-350RH Eibach Drag Launch Mustangs Unlimited
425-530 200-300 Ford M-5300-B
425-530 200-300 Ford Stock 1993 GT Ford Cust. Service
425-550 180-200 Ford Stock GT
450-500 205-250 Eibach Street
450-575 170-315 Eibach S3517 Mustangs Unlimited
460-570 170-315 Eibach S2112 Mustangs Unlimited
460-570 200-250 Eibach S2036 Mustangs Unlimited
460-570 170-310 Ford M-5300-F
480-580 200-260 Eibach S2009 Mustangs Unlimited
490-575 205-250 H&R Street
515-685 140-300 Eibach
600-720 Eibach
600-720 205-250 H&R S. Street
700-850 200-260 Eibach Competition Mustangs Unlimited
750-850 260-200 H&R Race
850-1000 195 Slot Car
950-1050 260-300 H&R Super Race
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Foxbody 1995
Return to Foxbody Tech Index
Go to Foxbody 1997