86 w/03 front control arms?

its going to casue the top of the tire tean lean in. its gonna throw off the camber.

Summary,
For an autocross only car - do it!!
For a street or street/autocross car, forget about keeping the stock look at the fenders unless you go with thinner front tires and you're "lucky" enough where your car is in respect to build/part tolerances.

There are a number of issues. I talked about my experiences on the corral. I'm not sure of the links or an easy way to do a search to find just those posts.

A few things,
The sn95 FCA's move the bottom of the wheels out ~1.25".



Note the following observations are for PRE-87 Stangs:

o If you have sn95 spindles (either 94/95 or 96+), for autocross you want/need the sn95 FCAs if you want any sort of decent camber at all, even if you have CC plates.

o Forget about keeping your fenders 100% stock.

o Here is where things get to be a problem.
For auto cross, you want/need 245s up front. If you stay with thin 225's and roll the fenders and limit the drop, you may squeeze the tires in there. But, you're well into tolerances.

For 245's you're screwed with sn95FCAs! It will require that your fenders get modified/changed. You can not just throw on 92/93 Fenders or the very wide Griggs fenders and not have it noticeable. The fenders lines differ. The fenders will "fit". But, the difference in body lines will be noticeable if people look at the bottom.

Your other option is to push the **** out the fender to make it wider. Also, likely some cutting in the bottom of the front and back of the wheel well.

Someone on the corral does have an '86 with sn95FCAs. But, he has thinner 235's, other mods, and he's well into the real-world tolerances that exist between cars.


Last, *I* yanked the sn95 FCAs right off my car after I saw the real-life problems. I now have the new FRPP Fox FCAs (with the better ball joints and firmer bushings) Also, I limited the drop in my car. I have wide 245/45/17 RE720 tires. They are wider than a typical 245/45. With brand new tires, I have only a few *mm* of clearance at some points between the fender and the tire.

My mainly street car as it is now:
http://www.veryuseful.com/mustang/tech/misc/Mustang1986_with_Mach1_springs/

Here is something:
http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=967314&highlight=sn95+FCA+fox

But, it's not about my car with the sn95 FCAs.

I agree with stang&2birds, if it's a track-only car. The negative camber will help keep the outside tire planted better when turning, because it'll keep the tread face more square with the ground, like a SLA (Griggs) setup. With body roll and turning, the negative camber is essential to properly setting up the suspension for the best handling. If it's a street setup, you're going to eat tires and might want to invest in some stock with your favorite tire manufacturer. Ask them to pay you in tires instead of money.

Realize that with an 87+ k-frame, you will also have fit problems on a pre-87. Also, doesn't the MM k-frame move the mounting points (?forward?)? Again, with a pre-87, a 245 tire *barely* fits without mods (I would even argue that 245's do *not* fit).

If you don't run ABS, you can _try_ with smaller diameter tires.

With fox LCA's, you can't run the 94-04 sway bar on a fox. I tried to put that on my 81 notch. The track width isn't as wide, so the bar is moved from the tabs in the engine bay to the actual frame rail itself. When I mounted it up, my wheels hit the sway bar right away. If you run the 94-04 LCA's you might be able to run the newer sway bar as well. The newer LCA's move the wheel out as you already read, so it would be interesting if you tried it and see if you could get away with it.