Progress Thread 12th Owner: My '93 Notchback Restoration & Performance Build

I should clarify... I handed the alignment specs FROM Maximum Motorsports, yet they failed to follow them. I had to bring back the car because it was outside their own "Specified Range" listed on the sheet and then they basically tell me they've done all they can. I discuss this thoroughly in my CONCLUSION above.
 
Yeah, I missed that, you posted the spec sheets while I was still typing. You did get it worked out, didn't you? I don't think the shop that did mine followed MM specs either, I doubt that any run of the mill shop is going to give you anything but OEM specs, (liability, you know) and if you want MMs spec you need a performance/race shop.
 
Yeah those Caster specs are a bit underwhelming. Bet the steering feels light

When you flip the bushings, set them at full rear towards the firewall. That should give you around 5-6* of Caster.

I had a hard time finding a shop to align to my specs, so I bought the tools to DIY. I’ve since found a local speed shop that will align and corner weigh, so I’ll go there eventually.

I run max Caster and 1deg neg Camber.
 
Ok, I see, I was typing while you were posting.
So, you ended up getting it aligned twice? Hope you didn't have to pay twice, ouch!
Nope, only had to lay once, but after two alignments it's still not right. The fact that the caster camber plate "cups" were installed 180 degrees backwards may have affected the alignment, but they still never bothered to align the wheel slightly toe in (-0.10) as requested by me.
 
Pulled my rear lower control arm urethane isolators tonight which lowered the car slightly. Also flipped the caster camber plate "cups" around 180 degrees and even had time remaining to swap the driver's side spark plugs.

Is it possible that the car is lower on the driver's side front due to the poor alignment? Otherwise my car would have to be bent and I don't believe it is.
 

Attachments

  • 20190812_205628.jpg
    183.8 KB · Views: 85
  • 20190812_205642.jpg
    124 KB · Views: 80
  • 20190812_200512.jpg
    261.4 KB · Views: 97
  • 20190812_200554.jpg
    289.6 KB · Views: 84
Very rare to find a fox with all 4 wheels at the same plane. Even MM states that setting ride height is a crapshoot. You'll get 3 in a certain spot and one will be way out.

These cars flex just looking at them wrong
 
Reactions: 1 user
Very rare to find a fox with all 4 wheels at the same plane. Even MM states that setting ride height is a crapshoot. You'll get 3 in a certain spot and one will be way out.

These cars flex just looking at them wrong
Thanks. Removing the rear isolator helped. I think getting a good symmetrical alignment will help as well.

I like the stance of your car, but SoCal is desert county and we have steep entrances to businesses and storefronts for the few months it rains here Dec-Mar in order to channel all the water into drainage channels. I dont want to scrape on every driveway. I also forgot how small and low they cars sat stock. We disappear in the blind spots of the larger lifted pickup trucks. Our only advantage is our speed to quickly maneuver out of a situation before getting run over.
 
Agree 100%. Everytime I get in my car, it feels so small and low compared to a big SUV. I drive it like a motorcycle. Keep moving and don't linger in blind spots or alongside and always scan the rear view
 
Those camber caster plate positions make me think the k member is not square. Alignment settings can affect ride height but not dramatically.

These are some measurements that can help you telk if the car is twisted or not.


 
Reactions: 1 user
Question on the 94-95 spindles - these need to be SN95 or just mustang of those years?
 
Question on the 94-95 spindles - these need to be SN95 or just mustang of those years?
They are sn95 . But from 94-95 they are physically different and the closest to Stock fox track width .

The screen shots came from rock auto and LMR. read this whole thread
 
Question on the 94-95 spindles - these need to be SN95 or just mustang of those years?


You ideally want the spindles off a 94-95 Mustang if you have the stock K-member. The reason for this is due to steering rack location and it's effect on bumpsteer. The 94-95 spindles work best with the stock rack location in the fox body.

You can certainly use 96-04 spindles, but the tie rod end mounting location is lower because ford dropped the relative location of the steering rack those years. If oyu run them on your setup, you get bumpsteer, which is highly annoying.

96-04 spindles can be ha for $100-150. 94-95 spindles go for $200-250.
 
Reactions: 1 user
You can certainly use 96-04 spindles, but the tie rod end mounting location is lower because ford dropped the relative location of the steering rack those years. If oyu run them on your setup, you get bumpsteer, which is highly annoying.
If you already have a bump steer kit, tie rod ends and bushings to relocate the steering rack, installed can they be utilized to eliminate the bumpsteer if using 96-04 spindles?
 
They are sn95 . But from 94-95 they are physically different and the closest to Stock fox track width .

The screen shots came from rock auto and LMR. read this whole thread

Yes - reading through it again for the third time. A lot of epic info and great detail, but throughout the thread it goes a little left and right - so just want to make sure I understand 1006 before buying.