• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

Motor Out

  • Thread starter Thread starter KrazZ27
  • Start date Start date Jan 20, 2012

KrazZ27

Member
Feb 16, 2008
83
0
6
Jan 20, 2012
#1
  • Jan 20, 2012
  • #1
So my motor is still being built and the car is at the body shop getting some touch ups. As I had said in my past threads I am trying to build a street/road racing car with a dart block and a 331 kit. The motor is currently out and I'm thinking I might as well change the k member out now then kick my self later. I have looked around and the prices are pretty close together between different brands. My question is what brand should i go with? I have heard nothing but good things about team Z and maximum motorsports. Does anyone have any first hand experience with either brand? Is their a better brand? I do understand that any kit i go with chances are I'm going to have to go with coil overs no problem. Thanks again
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,288
1,631
214
Acworth, GA
Jan 20, 2012
#2
  • Jan 20, 2012
  • #2
The Team Z is geared towards drag racing and the MM is geared towards better handling. The difference is in the control arm position. I put a QA1 in my car, and I think it was a waste of money. The stock k-member isn't that heavy at all, and it's a heck of a lot stronger. There can't be but a 10lb difference.

Kurt
 

Venom351R

Founding Member
Apr 27, 2002
4,548
40
98
MAINE
Jan 22, 2012
#3
  • Jan 22, 2012
  • #3
Its a huge weight difference Kurt. My stock K member is sitting in my garage and its heavy as hell compared to my Team Z K member. With the Team Z K member, A arms and coil over kit ( Plus taking out the AC System) I dropped 110lbs off the front end.
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
Jan 22, 2012
#4
  • Jan 22, 2012
  • #4
With a road racing set-up in ind I would look at the MM piece and put a Steeda 5 link set-up on the rear.
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,288
1,631
214
Acworth, GA
Jan 22, 2012
#5
  • Jan 22, 2012
  • #5
Venom351R said:
Its a huge weight difference Kurt. My stock K member is sitting in my garage and its heavy as hell compared to my Team Z K member. With the Team Z K member, A arms and coil over kit ( Plus taking out the AC System) I dropped 110lbs off the front end.
Click to expand...

Maybe with all that stuff put together, but I couldn't feel much difference between the stock K-member and the tubular.

Kurt
 

VibrantRedGT

"STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER"
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
14,679
424
154
Boca Raton, Florida
Jan 23, 2012
#6
  • Jan 23, 2012
  • #6
The QA1 piece is ok. I had it and felt it might be a bit too thin. I've seen the TeamZ up close and that's a fantastic unit. I'd go either TeamZ or MM myself if I had to do it again.

 

Attachments

  • KMember.webp
    12.8 KB · Views: 166

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,288
1,631
214
Acworth, GA
Jan 23, 2012
#7
  • Jan 23, 2012
  • #7
I'm not happy with my QA1 at all. It looks weak as crap. Back when I bought it, that was just about the only K-member available. It's not like today where everyone and their mother offers a K-member.

Kurt
 

Venom351R

Founding Member
Apr 27, 2002
4,548
40
98
MAINE
Jan 23, 2012
#8
  • Jan 23, 2012
  • #8
maybe that one you had kurt weighs a lot compared to the stock one but the Team Z one I have is quite light. And yes I meant with all that stuff put together thats why I listed everything. I didnt say the K member dropped 110lbs off the front but it was the major component that did drop a lot of weight.
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,288
1,631
214
Acworth, GA
Jan 23, 2012
#9
  • Jan 23, 2012
  • #9
Damn it. Now I want to go weigh my stock K-member. It's not the heaviness of the QA1, the stock one just doesn't weigh that much.

Kurt
 

VibrantRedGT

"STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER"
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
14,679
424
154
Boca Raton, Florida
Jan 24, 2012
#10
  • Jan 24, 2012
  • #10
If I remember correctly there was an 18lb difference between the stock K-Member and QA1. I thought it was going to be a tremendous difference. In reality going to aluminum heads over cast iron is where the weight savings is at (saves 44lbs off the nose).

Here is my stock K.

 

Attachments

  • IMAG0429.webp
    71.9 KB · Views: 147

Venom351R

Founding Member
Apr 27, 2002
4,548
40
98
MAINE
Jan 25, 2012
#11
  • Jan 25, 2012
  • #11
I'll weigh mine today if I have to, its sitting in the garage. Its usually common to include the A arms when weighing the K member b/c pretty much all aftermarket ones wont accept the stock A arms, some do....but most dont.
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
Jan 25, 2012
#12
  • Jan 25, 2012
  • #12
I think my upr k-member (no motor mounts), rod end adj a arms weighs around 20 lbs
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,288
1,631
214
Acworth, GA
Jan 25, 2012
#13
  • Jan 25, 2012
  • #13
I was able to get my stock control arms back on the qa1 it was so much grinding it wasn't woth it.

Kurt
 

Venom351R

Founding Member
Apr 27, 2002
4,548
40
98
MAINE
Jan 26, 2012
#14
  • Jan 26, 2012
  • #14
that must have been fun lol
 

VibrantRedGT

"STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER"
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
14,679
424
154
Boca Raton, Florida
Jan 27, 2012
#15
  • Jan 27, 2012
  • #15
Yeah, I had to grind up a storm to get the stock A-Arms back on the QA1. Almost through in the towel and bought the tubular A-Arms. However after seeing how thin the QA1 K-Member was I didn't want their A-Arms.
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,288
1,631
214
Acworth, GA
Jan 28, 2012
#16
  • Jan 28, 2012
  • #16
Yeah, the F'd up part was that I really wanted to run tubular's and coil overs. I ended up dropping $120 on new X2 ball joints for my stock control arms just to find that I had to grind that crap out of the outer radius of the control arm to make them work with my brakes. By the time you throw in those X2s, you end up spending close to what the tubulars cost. It's just like my damn engine. I spent $200 on a main girdle for a stock block. Another $600 and I could have had a used aftermarket block that would have been better.

Kurt
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
Jan 31, 2012
#17
  • Jan 31, 2012
  • #17
My UPR K-Member (no motor mounts), radius end a arms and CC plates had a shipping weight of 32 lbs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MRT hood struts shocks need replacement - where to get?
  • TTSaleen
  • Feb 8, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
187
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Feb 10, 2026
Mustang5L5
C
SN95 Another Coyote swap list
  • catkiller
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
81
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2026
catkiller
C
Fox Xtremely high fuel consumption
  • PonyGTrider
  • Apr 11, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 9 10 11
Replies
213
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 9, 2026
PonyGTrider
J
MEED HELP!! 86 mustang
  • Jacob0121
  • Jan 23, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
293
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 25, 2026
CAMTWO1070
H
Brand New Built 302 overheating
  • hassler
  • Sep 26, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 26, 2025
Rcdgl
R
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific 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?