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

87 tbird a arms to a 89 stang

  • Thread starter Thread starter utstangs
  • Start date Start date Feb 29, 2004
U

utstangs

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
16
0
0
Feb 29, 2004
#1
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #1
hey,anyone know if turbocoupe a arms will work on a 89 2.3 stang please let me know.
 

Anlushac11

Founding Member
Feb 17, 2001
2,270
0
0
Indianapolis, Indiana
Feb 29, 2004
#2
  • Feb 29, 2004
  • #2
They should. But the T-bird arm should be 3/4" longer which will make your front track wider. That could cause you many problems trying to get tie rod ends hooked up and problems with wheel clearance.

The 79-88 K-members are narrower than the 89-93 K-members. If you decide to run that setup you may have to run caster camber plates to get the proper alignment.
 
U

utstangs

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
16
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#3
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #3
hey thanks, thats what i thought It is the same in the rear if you use the rear end out of a turbo coupe, Now wouldnt that be the same setup as a svo? Again thanks for you reply.
 

Anlushac11

Founding Member
Feb 17, 2001
2,270
0
0
Indianapolis, Indiana
Mar 1, 2004
#4
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #4
The SVO uses 14" long Lincoln arms and Lincoln spindles and front brakes. To use 87-93 spindle on the Lincoln A-arms you have to use a ball joint spacer from Baer Racing or IIRC Steeda sells it.

The Mustang SVO uses the stock Lincoln parts but has a special narrower K-Member so it can use the long control arms but keep close tothe same front track width.

The point of using the 79-87 K-member was that it was narrower than the 89-93 K-member. So the idea was by using the 79-87 K-member with the 3/4" Thunderbird arms you are creating the same suspension effect that Ford was trying to do with the SVO. But it will not be as effective as the SVO because the SVO's A-arms were angled differently. But it is a step in the right direction.

The width of the rear is not a major factor in how the car handles. A wider track will make the car a little more stable in turns but there are other more urgent problems in the Mustang rear suspension that affect handling much more drastically. And having a wider rear end adds tire clearance problems. Not that big a deal on 15" or 16" wheel cars but with 17" and 18" wheel cars can be a real headache. Personally I had 15"x 8" wheels with P215/60-15 tires on rear of my 86 Mustang and the first thing you learn is how to roll the inside lip of the rear tire in before it cuts your sidewalls.

On the rear the main factor effecting the handling is the bind caused by the 4 link suspension setup Ford uses and the ineffective way they mounted the rear swaybar. Normally a swaybar mounts to the body on eiher side and then bolts to the axle tube so that it can have leverage to apply resisting force. The Mustang rear swaybar acts more like a big torsion bar. The best setup is to use a factory rear bar and the Steeda auxilary adustable rear swaybar.

Fords solutio on the SVO was much stiffer lower control arms than stock and much stifer upper control arms. But where Ford got it right was to make stiffer upper arms but use a high durometer rubber bushing. This makes the upper setup stiffer but not to the point that it creates bind and hursts handling.

When using a stock rear setup the most effective setup was tubular lower control arms, teh SVO or FMS uppers, a .79" rear swaybar and a adjustable auxilary swaybar similar to Steeda's.

The best solid axle setup on a Mustang is a Panhard bar and torque arm. Expensive but works so much better that people I have talked to with the setup says its a completely different car, that it doesnt act at all like a Mustang.
 
U

utstangs

New Member
Feb 3, 2004
16
0
0
Mar 1, 2004
#5
  • Mar 1, 2004
  • #5
Anlushac11 said:
The SVO uses 14" long Lincoln arms and Lincoln spindles and front brakes. To use 87-93 spindle on the Lincoln A-arms you have to use a ball joint spacer from Baer Racing or IIRC Steeda sells it.

The Mustang SVO uses the stock Lincoln parts but has a special narrower K-Member so it can use the long control arms but keep close tothe same front track width.

The point of using the 79-87 K-member was that it was narrower than the 89-93 K-member. So the idea was by using the 79-87 K-member with the 3/4" Thunderbird arms you are creating the same suspension effect that Ford was trying to do with the SVO. But it will not be as effective as the SVO because the SVO's A-arms were angled differently. But it is a step in the right direction.

The width of the rear is not a major factor in how the car handles. A wider track will make the car a little more stable in turns but there are other more urgent problems in the Mustang rear suspension that affect handling much more drastically. And having a wider rear end adds tire clearance problems. Not that big a deal on 15" or 16" wheel cars but with 17" and 18" wheel cars can be a real headache. Personally I had 15"x 8" wheels with P215/60-15 tires on rear of my 86 Mustang and the first thing you learn is how to roll the inside lip of the rear tire in before it cuts your sidewalls.

On the rear the main factor effecting the handling is the bind caused by the 4 link suspension setup Ford uses and the ineffective way they mounted the rear swaybar. Normally a swaybar mounts to the body on eiher side and then bolts to the axle tube so that it can have leverage to apply resisting force. The Mustang rear swaybar acts more like a big torsion bar. The best setup is to use a factory rear bar and the Steeda auxilary adustable rear swaybar.

Fords solutio on the SVO was much stiffer lower control arms than stock and much stifer upper control arms. But where Ford got it right was to make stiffer upper arms but use a high durometer rubber bushing. This makes the upper setup stiffer but not to the point that it creates bind and hursts handling.

When using a stock rear setup the most effective setup was tubular lower control arms, teh SVO or FMS uppers, a .79" rear swaybar and a adjustable auxilary swaybar similar to Steeda's.

The best solid axle setup on a Mustang is a Panhard bar and torque arm. Expensive but works so much better that people I have talked to with the setup says its a completely different car, that it doesnt act at all like a Mustang.
Click to expand...
hey thanks I really app your info Its nice to get help from other stangers, so It might be easier just to use the front brake assys since they are bigger, i'm just starting my turbo conversion project and I am very excited hopefully it might beat my 03 mach (hee hee) i'm converting my 89 coupe using 87 turocoupe as a doner,thanks again
 

evintho

20+ Year Stangneter
Nov 12, 2003
683
245
73
Santa Rosa, CA.
Mar 3, 2004
#6
  • Mar 3, 2004
  • #6
Check out my post on http://www.turboford.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=029264;p=1. It sounds like we're on the same page. This might help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WTB 89 Hatchback interior trim - any color
  • Zero_chance
  • Jun 14, 2026
  • Want to Buy
Replies
2
Views
81
Want to Buy Jun 14, 2026
Noobz347
R
Suspension Lower control arms needed
  • racer_dave
  • Feb 9, 2026
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
3
Views
258
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Feb 20, 2026
Noobz347
WTB Oxford white hood, bumper and fender for LX foxbody
  • keel
  • Jan 7, 2026
  • Want to Buy
Replies
0
Views
264
Want to Buy Jan 7, 2026
keel
S
Smog delete /vacuum lines
  • Serg.Xof
  • Feb 18, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
240
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 18, 2026
RileyDymond
R
Electrical 1987 Map Light
  • Riley Barth
  • May 30, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
8
Views
283
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 6, 2026
Riley Barth
R
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) 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?