QA1 coilover, K-member suspension problems!!!

SmockDoiley · Feb 15, 2009

I purchased a QA1 tubular K-member, coilover conversion and control arms from Summit Racing, and I'm having clearance issues now. I've double checked the part numbers I ordered and everything checks out. The problem is that my rims are pushed way forward and I can barely turn my steering wheel before they rub hard on the front part of the wheel well. Just looking at the rims in the wheel well you can tell they are kicked way forward. My car is an 85 GT. I'm running 87-93 spindles. Anybody run into this issue or have a fix? The bolt holes for the K-member are slotted, but its butted up against the body as far as it will go so I can't push it back anymore. I'm pretty lost for ideas at this point.

Rick 91GT · Feb 16, 2009

That is one reason I do not like the QA1 K-Member, it moves the wheels 1" further forward by design....

SmockDoiley · Feb 16, 2009

Are you serious?? I'm gonna have to junk the whole suspension and put all the old stuff back then. Thats horsecrap!! The coilovers arent even straight up and down, they are kicked forward at an angle. My father in law said that doesnt look right. On top of that, the coilovers hit my rims and I had to use spacers to get them to clear. I'm very dissatisfied. Guess you'll be seeing my stuff on Ebay.

88mouse · Feb 16, 2009

Yes the qa1 moves the wheel forward one inch. I have mine for sell now. And this morning ordered a upr one.

SmockDoiley · Feb 16, 2009

Did you bolt it in and have a clearance problem with the rims and the wheel well? I'm looking at the K-member and it looks like I can hack at it in a couple spots and move it make. I'm not sure how this will affect the mounting of the motor though. Its a big block and its already installed in the forward mount hole. Its gonna be a real chore puting that motor back in if the K member is another inch back. Do you think I can use the QA1 control arms with the UPR K-member?

2000xp8 · Feb 16, 2009

I'm truely starting to think that almost all k member setups are garbage. Problem after problem gets posted here and in other forums with all different brands.
I think even the MM kit moves the wheels.
As far as coil overs, i don't know of any kits that accept wide rims, pretty much seems like another useless mod.

Rick 91GT · Feb 16, 2009

Nope, I'm not kidding! They do move it 1" forward

I am not sure about the a-arms, I use the UPR almost everytime, only issue I have had is the slot the nipple from the passenger motor mount it can be a little tight. I usually grind that a little if needed. You usually have to remount the brake lines as well, since they are in the way of the spring, but I have run into that with the other brands as well.

I just finished doing a UPR set-up on a customers 88, he had 9" rims on it and I had to adjust the coilovers around his rim or they hit, but he's swapping to Weld skinny's.

white 89 GT · Feb 16, 2009

Summit will most likely take it back.
Then you can buy a upr or team Z.

fastfiftymike · Feb 16, 2009

I have a similar problem. Just got done with my DnD Kmember (although its stock locations, and Granatelli Coil over kit.

The Coil over kit DOES NOT work with 9" wide rims. I called Maximum Motorsports and they said that the Granatelli kit uses a 12" coil. They have the same coil in 10" so I am trying that. If that does not work, then I will add 1/4" wheel spacers up front.

My 18" rim's will fit fine though when i do the 5 lug conversion, but they are 18x8.5" all the way around.

Mike

stang&2Birds · Feb 16, 2009

SmockDoiley said:
My car is an 85 GT. I'm running 87-93 spindles.

I want to double check to make sure that you realize that all aftermarket k-frames are the 87-93 type k-frame? So, the aftermarket k-frame will move the wheels out ?0.75"?.

The wheel wells in a four-eye are super tight as it is. On a Four-Eye, you can not move the wheels out, or even go bigger than 225 without "some issues".

In the case of going with an 87-93 k-frame, you should/must do "something" with the fenders. Depending on your exact rim/tire combo, you may have to trim the fender lips, push out the bottom of the front fender (make a new bracket), and maybe do some sheet-metal trimming.

On my car, it's a super tight fit. In fact, my brand new Blizzaks will rub the front of the fenders. The old model Blizzaks didn't do that. But, even a 0.1" diameter change is a big deal in my setup (I check/set the air pressure).

FWIW: My car:
Mustang 86 - Mach1 Springs

Good Luck!
Four Eyes RULE!

SmockDoiley · Feb 17, 2009

Actually you are wrong. In respect to the factory K-member I had the rims pushed out an inch and was running 245/45/17s with lowering springs and they never rubbed. I don't know how that changes with a K-member since they quote these things for 79-95, and I don't believe the suspension is different from 85 to 87 except the spindles.

90lxcoupe · Feb 17, 2009

i had no problems with my UPR, there were a couple little things(the locating tab on the passengers motor mount had to be removed and the pad had to be trimmed for the power steering rack) but all in all i like it, and the price is good. I wanted an MM k-member, but they are too much coin for me. But MM does sell a k-member that keeps the wheels in stock position.

summit will most likely take it back, they are really cool about customer service, and tell them the whole situation, that you cant turn the wheel without it rubbing, im sure yuor not the first person with this issue. Then if they dont budge tell them that its too bad your gonna become a jegs customer after all this... works everytime

SmockDoiley · Feb 17, 2009

I love Summit and they are very good to me but I bought this stuff over 18 months ago so I doubt they'll take it back. As for Jegs, they have horrible customer service, lol. I ordered the UPR setup but I'm just concerned why they have the rack bolts slightly off. I don't understand why they did that. I know you have use the offset rack bushings, but those bushings arent intended for that purpose, they are to lift the rack up. If you have to use the offset bushings to accomodate for the spacing difference left to right, how can you use them to correct the geometry up and down which is what they were designed for in the first place??
Why can't aftermarket companies just give the customer what they want and need?

2000xp8 · Feb 17, 2009

UPR stuff worries me, i've seen more than one cracked or broken. I realize that they have been re-worked, but aje says the same thing about their K's and people still have fitment issues. (used to be an aje fan, but like other k member companies they let too many people down).

stang&2Birds · Feb 18, 2009

SmockDoiley said:
Actually you are wrong. In respect to the factory K-member I had the rims pushed out an inch and was running 245/45/17s with lowering springs and they never rubbed. I don't know how that changes with a K-member since they quote these things for 79-95, and I don't believe the suspension is different from 85 to 87 except the spindles.

What ever!
The four-eye k-frames are shorter - end of discussion. I strongly suggest that check out a real book not not listen to the BS you read in some threads, or by people trying to sell you cr*p.
Amazon.com: The Official Ford Mustang 5.0: Technical Reference & Performance Handbook : 1979 Through 1993: Al Kirschenbaum: Books

Define "don't rub". Yea, on perfect streets and no bumps maybe. But, most people do not live in SoCal with their concrete, pothole-free roads. In the real world, for most of American drivers, there's a good chance that they will fully compress the suspension at least once.

For lowering springs, you need 600+ rate springs for a 1/2" drop. Otherwise, your car requires less force to go to full jounce. Add in the POS Stang front suspension geometry, and you have a car that handles worse than stock. Again, check out the Official Ford book I linked to. The Mach1, Bullitt, and 95 Cobra R are all examples of properly designed Stang suspensions for the real world. The 95 Cobra R was designed as a pure circle track handling car (no AC, no radio, sold only to race teams/members, etc).

Feel free to a Mustang car show, find a 100% stock GT 4-eye (stock rims, stock tire size, etc), check out the front wheel clearance to the edge of the fender. If you find one that has over 1" clearance to the fender lip with the original unmodified body-work-free OEM fenders, let me know. We have the Mustangs Unlimited shows here twice a year.

The 1" wheel spacers and lowering springs says it all. You're looking for looks and not handling or quarter mile time. That's fine, that your choice and your desire.

I help people trying to get better handling from their Stang. And, sometimes, better qtr mile times. For looks, it's what the person wants. There's not really a better or best option.

Last, do you also realize that there were 2 different 87-93 K-frame designs, the 87-93 K-frames changed some mounting points multiple times, and the strut tower moved multiple times over the years. So, even if you read that someone put an "87-93" stock k-frame in a 4-eye, that's only partially useful info. There are still a number of possibilities. And, even 0.1" clearance one way or another often makes a big deal. So, an aftermarket "87-93" K-frame can not be a 100% exact geometry replacement for all 87-93 K-frames.

Have Fun!

white 89 GT · Feb 18, 2009

I have had a cheap D&D motorsports on my 80 with no fitting problems, was just no header room so I removed it after 2 yrs.
Now I have a team Z motorsports, had to enlarge two holes so it would bolt up. But the wheels are no further forward, the wheels are further apart than the D&D by 1" each side.
The team Z is a much better made k-member than many on the market.
Had an 89,85 and an 80 so far I have yet to see any real difference in k-member position

I have 225x60x15`s on 7in. welds up front and no rubbing problems

SmockDoiley · Feb 20, 2009

Listen Stang&2birds, stop trying to act like mister know-it-all. I dont live in Socal and I'm not listening to internet BS. I've owned this car for 9 years and it has never rubbed. If you want to call me a liar then go ahead. I'm tired of idiots telling me I can't do things when I've already done them. End of discussion. You are wrong!!! Do you want pictures and videos??? Its an 85 GT with 87 spindles, and 99 Cobra rims with 7/8th spacers and Eibach lowering springs. Its driven in San Diego, Illinois, 6 inches of snow, highway, drag strip, dirt roads, potholes, and now Corpus Christi which has the worst roads ever, its even been on the beach. So stop telling me I'm wrong. Its never rubbed and never will. So shut up!!!

I'm not looking for looks you moron. I need the spacers to clear the center hub so I can run the 99 rims. You are the stupidest person I have ever seen on here. Stop assuming anything. Your assumptions alone make you sound like an idiot. You dont know me, the purpose of my car, or anything about my mods. I know this car like the back of my hand and I dont care to look at anybody elses "4 eyed" mustang because I dont need to.
I'm ASE master certified, FAA A&P licensed and a mechanical engineering degree. I'm right, youre wrong, so just stop before you look even more like a fool.

90lxcoupe · Feb 20, 2009

SmockDoiley said:
I ordered the UPR setup but I'm just concerned why they have the rack bolts slightly off. I don't understand why they did that. I know you have use the offset rack bushings, but those bushings arent intended for that purpose, they are to lift the rack up. If you have to use the offset bushings to accomodate for the spacing difference left to right, how can you use them to correct the geometry up and down which is what they were designed for in the first place??
Why can't aftermarket companies just give the customer what they want and need?

The offset bushings are not designed to compensate for the UPR k-member's bolt hole locations, they are needed because the rack needs to sit lower because it will hit the motor mounting pads if it is in the stock location. So basically the bushings make the rack sit lower, and have nothing to do with bolt spacing difference.

SmockDoiley · Feb 21, 2009

Thats the problem, the bushings are intended to correct geometry when you lower the vehicle, not help clear another part. someone else said they were spaced farther apart and that is also what the UPR sales rep told me, and because of that they had to squeeze the two together to get the rack to go on.

montyd · Feb 21, 2009

i have the upr on my 93 ordered the kit with the coil overs and a arms and everyhting. only fitment issues i had were i had to grind off the tab on one motor mount. and i had to grind the motor mount ont he k to clear teh stearing rack. put a nice curve on it and no one will ever know. my mheels are 9 inches wide and they rub the coil overs if there all the way down. just a hair and i havent had it aligned yet. hoping that will fix it. if not 1/8 inch spacer will. good luck!

QA1 coilover, K-member suspension problems!!!

SmockDoiley

New Member

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master

SmockDoiley

New Member

88mouse

New Member

SmockDoiley

New Member

2000xp8

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master

white 89 GT

Member

fastfiftymike

New Member

stang&2Birds

SmockDoiley

New Member

90lxcoupe

SmockDoiley

New Member

2000xp8

stang&2Birds

white 89 GT

Member

SmockDoiley

New Member

90lxcoupe

SmockDoiley

New Member

montyd

Member

Similar threads

QA1 coilover, K-member suspension problems!!!

New Member

Mustang Master

New Member

New Member

New Member

Mustang Master

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency