• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

04 Cobra front lower control arms

  • Thread starter Thread starter ID89GT
  • Start date Start date Mar 9, 2013

ID89GT

10 Year Member
May 26, 2008
1,659
18
49
Spokane Valley, WA
Mar 9, 2013
#1
  • Mar 9, 2013
  • #1
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

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.
15 Year Member
Jul 6, 2006
5,232
2,652
223
gainesville
Mar 9, 2013
#2
  • Mar 9, 2013
  • #2
not worth the effort but if they still have the bilsteins grab those.
 

ID89GT

10 Year Member
May 26, 2008
1,659
18
49
Spokane Valley, WA
Mar 9, 2013
#3
  • Mar 9, 2013
  • #3
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

10 Year Member
May 26, 2008
1,659
18
49
Spokane Valley, WA
Mar 10, 2013
#4
  • Mar 10, 2013
  • #4
Double post, dumb phone
 

stykthyn

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.
15 Year Member
Jul 6, 2006
5,232
2,652
223
gainesville
Mar 10, 2013
#5
  • Mar 10, 2013
  • #5
they will bolt right in. They fit my 87 CC plates and they will give you a slightly longer travel.
 

ID89GT

10 Year Member
May 26, 2008
1,659
18
49
Spokane Valley, WA
Mar 10, 2013
#6
  • Mar 10, 2013
  • #6
Awesome, all I needed to hear
 
9

95PGTTech

Member
Jan 28, 2008
302
20
19
Mar 10, 2013
#7
  • Mar 10, 2013
  • #7
They will decrease your turn radius but also raise your front end 3/4" or so.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,230
17,912
224
Massachusetts
Mar 11, 2013
#8
  • Mar 11, 2013
  • #8
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

10 Year Member
May 26, 2008
1,659
18
49
Spokane Valley, WA
Mar 11, 2013
#9
  • Mar 11, 2013
  • #9
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

20+ Year Stangneter
Oct 28, 2004
3,356
208
114
Ohio
Mar 11, 2013
#10
  • Mar 11, 2013
  • #10
I would not use them on my car, but that is just me.
 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,230
17,912
224
Massachusetts
Mar 12, 2013
#11
  • Mar 12, 2013
  • #11
ID89GT said:
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
Click to expand...

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....
Click to expand...
 
9

95PGTTech

Member
Jan 28, 2008
302
20
19
Mar 12, 2013
#12
  • Mar 12, 2013
  • #12
ID89GT said:
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
Click to expand...

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

10 Year Member
May 26, 2008
1,659
18
49
Spokane Valley, WA
Mar 13, 2013
#13
  • Mar 13, 2013
  • #13
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

10 Year Member
Aug 25, 2010
1,094
373
124
Phoenix
Mar 13, 2013
#14
  • Mar 13, 2013
  • #14
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

10 Year Member
May 26, 2008
1,659
18
49
Spokane Valley, WA
Mar 13, 2013
#15
  • Mar 13, 2013
  • #15
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Suspension Harsh Ride
  • PonyGTrider
  • Mar 20, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Apr 11, 2026
Noobz347
R
Suspension Lower control arms needed
  • racer_dave
  • Feb 9, 2026
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
3
Views
224
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Feb 20, 2026
Noobz347
C
SN95 Another Coyote swap list
  • catkiller
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
105
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2026
catkiller
C
P
Suspension Different height ball joints?
  • pindude80
  • Jun 10, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
15
Views
3K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jun 12, 2024
limp
What's it Worth? 2000 GT
  • Mustang5L5
  • May 8, 2026
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
6
Views
275
What is it Worth?!?!? Jun 13, 2026
KRUISR
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?