04 Cobra front lower control arms

[ID89GT]

I recently found an 04 Cobra at a parts yard, it still has the lower control arms on it. I have read they are wider and have a better track width and such. Basically im wondering if they are worth grabbing for my 85. I have the 95 Spindles with 04 front brakes already. I plan on running MM cc plates, and do plan on getting springs down the road, probably some Eibachs. Will these be any benefit to me? Or should I just stick to my stock control arms and replace the ball joints?

 

[stykthyn]

not worth the effort but if they still have the bilsteins grab those.

 

[ID89GT]

Will I have to make any modifications to make them fit? Or since I have the 95 spindles will they be a direct bolt in? Also would I have to use 99 to 04 cc plates or can I still use the fox cc plates?

 

[ID89GT]

Double post, dumb phone

 

[stykthyn]

they will bolt right in. They fit my 87 CC plates and they will give you a slightly longer travel.

 

[ID89GT]

Awesome, all I needed to hear

 

[95PGTTech]

They will decrease your turn radius but also raise your front end 3/4" or so.

 

[Mustang5L5]

They will also increase your camber.

Wider control arms, but your strut mounting location remains the same. The control arms are about 3/4" wider

 

[ID89GT]

Hmm so is that good or bad? I have read that the older k members are narrower by about a half inch or so and that the control arms can help get the wheel where it should be. Not sure if that will make anything easier or not

 

[Shakerhood]

I would not use them on my car, but that is just me.

 

[Mustang5L5]

Hmm so is that good or bad? I have read that the older k members are narrower by about a half inch or so and that the control arms can help get the wheel where it should be. Not sure if that will make anything easier or not

I've been doing some searching. Can't find a clear answer. You might run into some camber issues, so you may need caster/camber plates at a minumum.

I found this post off corral.net's AutoX board quite interesting

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

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

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

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

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


Hope this helps....

 

[95PGTTech]

Hmm so is that good or bad? I have read that the older k members are narrower by about a half inch or so and that the control arms can help get the wheel where it should be. Not sure if that will make anything easier or not

Generally, you want to increase track width as much as possible without causing (because you are a daily driver) other negative adverse affects such as too much negative static camber, wheel fitment/clearance, etc. Increased track width generally increases grip.

The problem is the Mustang's inherent understeer in the Fox-4 chassis. The stock 4 link rear suspension simply cannot keep up with the grip of the strut front end. Unless you have some serious modifications into the rear end (torque arm, panhard, etc.), you are likely experiencing this. Ford intentionally designed the car this way as it is far easier for the average driver to moderated understeer as opposed to an oversteering or even a neutral car. Adding grip to the front end only makes this problem worse - which is often why after doing the average joe shocks/springs and you call someone like Griggs or MM, they discuss upgrading the rear suspension first.

Cliffs: if you can take advantage of the extra track width, do it. If you're near stock suspension, don't bother.

 

[ID89GT]

Hmm it makes sense that way. I do plan on upgrading the rear, but as of now it will be stock besides springs and shocks till I get the control arms and such down the road. Ill probably just use the stock arms for now, and maybe down the road swap some wider ones when I do the rear suspension stuff. Its a pure street car so its not really that important, but I do want it to handle fairly well.

 

[MFE92]

Why is the 04 cobra in the parts yard? Hit anywhere that could have damaged the front suspension? High mileage? The 04 cobra arms are a good upgrade, but not if either of those cases exists.

 

[ID89GT]

Hit in the front, but the arms are still straight. I looked it over real good, it got hit dead center in the front, looks like it may have rolled too due to roof damage.