Wheels-Tires Need Some Help - Brakes Upgrade/Wheel fitment

#21
SN95 Control arms will improve tire clearance, turning radius, handling and slightly improve bumpsteer.

245-255 tire width is about the max front tire size you can run on an 86, why not improve front geometry? The narrow K member with the SN95 spindles has caused issues on a couple different cars where obtaining acceptable camber wasn't possible (with CC Plates). This issue is why I ran SN arms instead of fox arms. Gained A LOT of tire clearance up front with the same size tire.

I edited a post above--DO NOT run 96-04 spindles on a Fox. Adding spacers will only make it worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willybill32 and jaygee15
#22
Good info on the SN95 lowers with the narrower k-member. There were some guys that had the Fox lowers and running 17x9's with 275's but I haven't seen them in years as I haven't gone to a race in about 15 years.

I do not understand your comment on spacers? Are you referring to the rack limiters or the 0.330" stack of washers or spacer required when running Fox ball joints with an SN95 spindle?

Running 96-04 spindles may not be as optimal as the 94/95 but I ran them for a couple of years in my Coupe with a stock k-member and had zero issues. You just need to run a bump steer kit and before anyone starts talking about having to set the bump steer with a gauge and all that stuff you do not have to for a street driven car. Most just make sure that the tie rod ends are parallel with the lower control arm at ride height and that works really well. Both my cars have the 96-04 spindles with the bump steer set up this way and one is a full Maximum Motorsports suspension and the other a Griggs Racing suspension.

Even with the 94/95 spindles you can get into bump steer issues if the car is lowered very much.

I will also say that everyone wants waaaay too much for the 94/95 spindles when you can get a set of the 96-04 online for around $60 a set and a tapered or though bolt bump steer kit from MM is $200 so about the same price as the 94/95 spindles or a little less. If you plan on running a tubular k-member you need to find out what spindle they designed it around which is why I went with the 96+ spindles as the MM and Griggs k-members are designed around the 96+ geometry.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jaygee15
#23
I was referring to spacers with a bump steer kit, they will make the geometry worse.

Good point on future K-Member plans. 94-95 spindles are $$ these days, got lucky when I bought mine. Picked up spindles w/good hubs and a nice SN95 rack for $150.

FWIW--The bolt hole spread on the FRPP proportioning valve is the same as the stock proportioning valve. I deleted the stock valve entirely and put the adjustable in the factory location on the DS frame rail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaygee15
#24
In regards to the K member, I will need to replace mine from what I understand since my car is a 6 cyl and will be swapping to most likely a 351 windsor(slim but possible chance to a coyote gen 1). How does this effect the recommended suspension/brake upgrades given thus far?
 
#25
If an aftermarket K-member is planned for the future, decide which one you plan on using and buy the parts to support that. Some aftermarket k-members are designed for 96-04 spindles and will have that in the product description. As far as I know most aftermarket members mimic the 87-93 width. In this case it would probably be a good idea to utilize the Fox LCA's, proper camber shouldn't be an issue and the added width of the SN95 arms may end up being too wide, especially if using the wider 96-04 spindles.

Brake upgrades wouldn't be affected by what K-member you choose.
 
#26
86HO5.0 said:
SN95 Control arms will improve tire clearance, turning radius, handling and slightly improve bumpsteer.

245-255 tire width is about the max front tire size you can run on an 86, why not improve front geometry? The narrow K member with the SN95 spindles has caused issues on a couple different cars where obtaining acceptable camber wasn't possible (with CC Plates). This issue is why I ran SN arms instead of fox arms. Gained A LOT of tire clearance up front with the same size tire.

I edited a post above--DO NOT run 96-04 spindles on a Fox. Adding spacers will only make it worse.
Click to expand...
I’m curious about the SN-95 lower control arms. I have an ‘86 5.0 with 17X8 front wheels, and I’m getting the driver’s side tire rubbing when I hit a bump. Would the SN-95 control arms help with that?

Bill
 
#27
Depends on your current setup and wheel offset.

My complete front setup; Stock 86 K-member, SN95 LCA's, 94-95 spindles, 94-98 Cobra spec brakes, Tokico Fox struts with MM CC plates, Tokico lowering springs (about 1" drop), and 05 GT 17x8 Wheels (45mm offset) with 245/45-17 Continental summer tires. MM Fox swaybar, 1 1/8" o.d. SN95 rack with stock SN95 limiters. I can turn full lock to lock with zero rubbing. Zero rubbing on bumps. Could easily clear 255/40-17's, 255/45's would be tight but would likely clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willybill32
#28
86HO5.0 said:
Depends on your current setup and wheel offset.

My complete front setup; Stock 86 K-member, SN95 LCA's, 94-95 spindles, 94-98 Cobra spec brakes, Tokico Fox struts with MM CC plates, Tokico lowering springs (about 1" drop), and 05 GT 17x8 Wheels (45mm offset) with 245/45-17 Continental summer tires. MM Fox swaybar, 1 1/8" o.d. SN95 rack with stock SN95 limiters. I can turn full lock to lock with zero rubbing. Zero rubbing on bumps. Could easily clear 255/40-17's, 255/45's would be tight but would likely clear.
Click to expand...
I have Bilstein struts, ‘87-‘93 spindles, rotors and calipers, FRPP “B” springs, stock K-member and steering rack and the LMR 17” pony wheels. It all worked well until the engine, suspension and K-member came out for engine bay paint. MM caster/camber plates added during reassembly. Since reassembly and alignment, I get rubbing, but only on the driver’s side. I’ve had it at a good shop and they think I should replace the front springs, but they have little mileage on them. I’m booked into a local suspension shop, but they can’t take it ‘til late February!
 
#29
With your current setup, SN95 arms would make things worse unless you change wheels.

Based on what you're describing, the issue didn't exist until the R&R of the K-member? Verify the K member is centered correctly in the chassis before making any other changes. Rubbing on 1 side suggests to me the front track is off center.

Does the car lean? What's the ground to fender height on each side?
 
#30
86HO5.0 said:
With your current setup, SN95 arms would make things worse unless you change wheels.

Based on what you're describing, the issue didn't exist until the R&R of the K-member? Verify the K member is centered correctly in the chassis before making any other changes. Rubbing on 1 side suggests to me the front track is off center.

Does the car lean? What's the ground to fender height on each side?
Click to expand...
Yes, the problem arose after the body shop work. The driver’s side floor to fender opening is about 3/8” less than the passenger’s side, but the driver’s side tire sits in 1/8”-1/4” more than the passenger’s side. I’m wondering if a coil spring spacer would help…

Bill
 
#32
86HO5.0 said:
Don't install a spring spacer. The K member wasn't installed correctly, get this resolved before making any other changes.

EDIT--Do you have a printout of what the alignment was set at?
Click to expand...
No, but they said they used MM’s guidelines for alignment for street use.

Thanks for your help. I’ll just wait ’til I get it into the other shop in late February.

Bill
 
#33
As far as I know you do not need to replace the stock k-member due to the car being a V6. It was the older cars that had the inline 6 cylinder that the k-member had to be swapped out to go to a V8.

I will say that if you are planning on a 351W a tubular k-member makes things easier but not absolutely necessary. For me I would not swap a Coyote in without one but I would not do a Coyote vs a 351W on a naturally aspirated setup. You can put a really nice stroked 351W in the car for about the same money and have way more power. Boosted is a whole other story as I would go with a Gen 2 Coyote.
 
#34
AeroCoupe said:
As far as I know you do not need to replace the stock k-member due to the car being a V6. It was the older cars that had the inline 6 cylinder that the k-member had to be swapped out to go to a V8.

I will say that if you are planning on a 351W a tubular k-member makes things easier but not absolutely necessary. For me I would not swap a Coyote in without one but I would not do a Coyote vs a 351W on a naturally aspirated setup. You can put a really nice stroked 351W in the car for about the same money and have way more power. Boosted is a whole other story as I would go with a Gen 2 Coyote.
Click to expand...
Coyote or Godzilla are on the list, but probably out of realistic reach due to complexity of swap and cost. Most likely will be a 351w, 408 stroker, or maybe even a 347stroker from blueprint. I do want to reserve the possibility of adding turbo down the road to whichever I go with. But budget, ease of install, will most likely take precedence.
 
#37
so this is the stuff I need for right now to get my brakes going and use my existing calipers and rear brake setup.

lmr.com

Mustang Brake Proportioning Valve Plug M-2450-A - LMR

Plug your factory proportioning valve with this 5.0 Resto direct fit Mustang Rear Disc Conversion Proportioning Valve Plug!
lmr.com lmr.com





and is this what you are saying I need to do to the stock proportioning valve?

 
#38
#39
What is the best budget setup for K member. I see some come with no spring perches, some like the BMR with premium perches, and some setup for coil over. I am planning to go with traditional spring/shock setup to keep this budget friendly. Do the ones without perches use the stock? What would be best for my setup and desired use of car as basically just a street car weekend cruiser that I will have some back street fun with here and there etc.
 
#40
You need spring perches for coil springs so BMR or UPR. Probably some other ones.

www.uprproducts.com

DOM Steel Tubular K-Member w/Spring Perches SBF (fits 79-95 Mustang) U

UPR's all new Mild Steel K-member saves weight while adding maximum header and oil pan clearance. Designed for the abuse of hardcore drag race, road race, and Street Enthusiasts.
www.uprproducts.com www.uprproducts.com

I have zero experience with them so do some research and look for reviews.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jaygee15
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

5
Brakes ATS brembos and drums
Replies
19
Views
497
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
AeroCoupe
AeroCoupe
8
87 lx 4cyl to v8 project 4 lug disc conversion questions
Replies
2
Views
495
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
87lx428
8
O
SOLD FS: 18" FR500 chrome wheels and Toyo tires
Replies
1
Views
88
Other Classifieds
optionizerSS
O
H
Forced Induction On3 Turbo Kit- Parts list NEEDED - 302 Stock Motor
Replies
21
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
slow84lx
S
C
Fox Need help identifying brake setup
Replies
2
Views
131
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Mustang5L5
Mustang5L5
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu