SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? March 12, 2014, 06:58:22 PM So, in the process of going with SN95 spindles and 13" Cobra brakes I have torn my 84 apart only to find it needs ball joints and control arm bushings. I have read on the Maximum Motorsports web pages and on corral.net that there are handling benefits to going ahead and using the SN95 control arms. Can anyone corroborate this from one of their own builds? The junkyard had the arms for $20 a piece and there is no real difference in bushing and ball joint prices between the fox cars and the SN95 cars, so if it does improve things I don't see why not.Also would a bump-steer kit and CC plates be in order if the SN95 arms are used or not? I know MM recommends this but I am not sure if its necessary for a street driven car and with the addition of the SN95 arms, which are longer, wouldn't that help downplay the need for the CC plates?Anyone with some experience on this would help me considerably.Thanks,Drew Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #1 – March 13, 2014, 10:34:50 AM The main benefit is lessened camber change on bump/droop. Is it going to be super critical on a street-driven car? Probably not. Also, seeing as you're sticking with the stock K-member, and using the SN-95 brakes, you could run into fender clearance issues, depending on your wheel choice. I'm just running Fox arms on my '83 with the SN-95 brakes and wheels, and it's close.CC plates may be needed just to get things aligned, depending on how low the car is. Installing some, and making use of the added positive caster would be of more benefit than any camber gain control from the (slightly) longer arms. At least IMO.Also, what SN-95 spindles are you using? 94-95 ones work best on Fox cars with the stock K-member. 96-04 ones may most likely require a bumpsteer correction kit. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #2 – March 13, 2014, 04:59:19 PM The 87-88 Thunderbirds and Cougars use the same size control arms as the SN95s. I think the K-member dimensions are slightly different for the 87-88 cars but Chuck would probably know for sure.FWIW I replaced the stock front control arms on my 88 Thunderbird LX with 2003 Cobra control arms (the rest of the components are stock Thunderbird) and everything went right back into place. The arms were the same dimensionally and have the same stamping. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #3 – March 13, 2014, 06:26:03 PM I tried to install the SN95 control arms on my '83 with a Griggs K-member and they stuck out too far with 245/17/40 on a 17x8 rim. Called my dealer and he had a set of Fox control arms so we swapped and it was 100% better. I am running the 96+ spindles on it and they are a couple mm wider than the 94-95 units and using a bumpsteer kit.I would strongly advise that you use the Fox control arms with the updated SN95 ball joints in them. By using the updated SN95 ball joints you will not have to utilize the 0.330" of spacer between the SN95 spindle and castle nut when using the longer Fox ball joint. This will also keep your wheels under the sheet metal. Chuck is 100% correct with regards to the use of the 94-95 spindles with the stock K-member.http://www.maximummotorsports.com/tech_front_susp_spindle_warning.aspxThe other thing you really need to consider is the washers between the rack and the stock K-member which keep it out of a bind.http://www.maximummotorsports.com/Steering-Rack-Bushings-Solid-1985-04-Mustang-with-stock-k-member-P466.aspxCC plates may not be 100% necessary but they do allow for the front end to be aligned much easier and with these cars being as old as they are the unibody can moved around and some can be hard to align with all the stock stuff anyhow.DarrenDarren Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #4 – March 14, 2014, 06:01:34 AM Thanks for the responses... You guys cut right to where I figured I'd have problems - wheel clearance.I've got a set of 94 Spindles, I had already read that I would have problems with the later model spindles and talked to a friend of mine that runs a fox mustang at VIR who used the full Maximum Motorsports chassis kit, torque arm and all on his open track car...what they (MM) say seems to be Golden.I figured if I was keeping the Fox arms I'd need the Caster Camber plates, and I don't care for shimming the ball joints to the point of losing the taper lock... thats asking for problems, IMO. If I dig around I think I will find I already have a set of Energy Suspension bushings... and Moog stuff is SO much cheaper from Summit than it is at the parts store, IF anyone has looked recently...like almost by half of you look at the SN95 tie rod ends.I need to read up on the steering rack bushings, though. I thought I had read most everything MM had, but I missed that. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #5 – March 14, 2014, 07:33:28 AM Quote from: tbolt64;430537I figured if I was keeping the Fox arms I'd need the Caster Camber plates, and I don't care for shimming the ball joints to the point of losing the taper lock... thats asking for problems, IMO. You're not shimming below the spindle, you're shimming between in the spindle and the lock nut on top. The taper is not affected. The spacers take up the difference between the spindle and the bottom of the castle nut, to allow you to engage the cotter pin, that's all. If you have access to good hardware, you could probably replace the castle nut with a self-locking nut. I've done it both ways, Fox ball joints with spacers under the nuts, and SN-95 ball joints with their supplied nuts (which are a self-locking (nyloc) type). Both work. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #6 – March 14, 2014, 04:54:33 PM I am sorry, I read the MM website wrong... I took the "locking feature of the ball joint retaining nut" to mean the taper lock. I guess I didn't read "nut" at the end.I am replacing ball joints, so I have no problem putting the SN95 ball joints on. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #7 – March 14, 2014, 06:07:19 PM One other note is that depending on how low the car is you may still need a bump steer kit. MM has a tapered one that is reasonably priced. Not saying you will need one but did not want you to not know they offered it.Also, why are you looking at SN95 tie rod ends? Just in case you don't know the threads on a Fox inner and outer tie rod are standard thread but the threads on a SN95 inner and outer tie rod are metric.Darren Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #8 – March 14, 2014, 09:28:13 PM Thanks for the bit on the bump steer kit. I've seen it but after reading a bit more I don't think the car is going to get so low that it needs them. Im just throwing a set of '99 Mustang GT springs and struts under the car for now with a set of 245-45-17s on Anthracite FoMoCo Bullitt wheels. I don't foresee the car sitting all that low, maybe and inch and a half lower than it does now.As for the tie rod ends, I was just freshening up the junkyard quick ratio '92 V8 mustang rack so I was planning on replacing both the inner and outer tie rod ends before I stuck the rack up under the car. I knew of the thread differences, but I appreciate you pointing it out in case I didn't. However, I hadn't found that the Taurus outers would allow the retention of the fox inner tie rod ends. I've read that the thread where the inners mate to the rack is the same for both the fox rack and the SN95 rack. If that's the case, I might as well replace it all while I've got it out. The donor car I got the rack from had 140,000-ish and I figure the inner tie rod ends hadn't been replaced. If I'm off on the wrong track, let me know.Thanks,Drew Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #9 – March 15, 2014, 11:13:17 AM The SN95 inner tie rods have the same thread as the Fox inner tie rods with respect to attachment to the rack. So these two parts will interchange with no issue there. I know this for sure as I am running SN95 racks with Fox inner tie rods and MM through bolt style bump steer kits which are longer than the stock Fox outer tie rods. The only other issue with my setup is you have to run the MM hybrid steering shaft. I run the SN95 racks as they do not have the over boosted feel like the Fox racks but that is a whole other discussion.Getting back on track, several guys on the Mustang sites have said that they did not have enough threads on the Fox inner tie rod to properly engage the Fox outer tie rod when installing the SN95 spindles. Others have said it was enough and had years of street and/or road racing on the car. The on thing for sure is that the mounting point of the outer tie rod end to the SN95 spindle is further out than the Fox spindle. This was backed up by Jack Hidley of MM with this quote:[COLOR="#0000FF"]"The steering arm on the 94-95 spindles is located 13.5mm (0.53") farther outboard than on the Fox V8 spindles so you lost that much thread engagement at the tie rod"[/COLOR]With some additional research I found that my memory was wrong with regards to the Taurus outer tie rods and I will make note of that in my post above so as to not confuse anyone else. The 93ish Taurus outer tie rods are the same length as the Fox Mustang units but they have a metric thread. If you are going to replace the inner and outer tie rod ends and use SN95 spindles you have a couple of choices:1) Use the stock Fox inner and outer and see if the thread engagement is enough for your liking.2) Use SN95 inners and outers but you will most likely have to shorten the inner tie rod as this setup was too long for a Fox Mustang. Cutting them down is not hard as you just run the jam nut down on them, make your cut with a hack saw, grind/file a chamfer on the cut end, and run the jam not off the inner. This works really well and does not take very long.3) Use an SN95 inner tie rod and a Taurus outer tie rod. The reports are that with this combo there is no cutting and everything works really well.Hope that helps.Darren Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #10 – March 15, 2014, 03:27:10 PM It does, thanks. I've read many many posts about the fox tie rod ends leaving little engagement, so I set out with that in mind. I had considered the bump steer kit IF it was necessary, and it seems it is not for what I am doing with the car. I had also read about the SN95 rack and the better "feel" it provided... but the MM adapters seemed a bit pricey to me. So yeah, I kinda cheaped out on that part. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #11 – March 16, 2014, 01:02:35 AM Quote from: Aerocoupe;4305952) Use SN95 inners and outers but you will most likely have to shorten the inner tie rod as this setup was too long for a Fox Mustang. Cutting them down is not hard as you just run the jam nut down on them, make your cut with a hack saw, grind/file a chamfer on the cut end, and run the jam not off the inner. This works really well and does not take very long.Darren This is what I did. I didn't have all the information when I did my 5-Lug, so I bought mostly SN95 stuff, and had Les Schwab cut them down while doing the alignment. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #12 – March 16, 2014, 03:19:38 PM One thing to mention about option 2) is that if you can find a low mile SN95 rack in the recycle/salvage yard then it may be worth it to snag it and pull the inner and outers and use them on your Fox rack. If you can find one cheap enough then it may simply justify getting the MM hybrid steering shaft and going that route.Great thing about this site is this has been done just about every way now that jrad235 has posted up.Darren Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #13 – March 16, 2014, 03:39:12 PM Believe it or not, I don't find the "overboosted" feeling of the fox rack quite so bad... But I've been driving early and mid 70's midsize Fords. Heck...I like the py 20:1 ratio rack better than the Gran Torino power box, and I figure the 15:1 rack will be far superior to that junk. I know its an apples-to-oranges comparison.If I were looking at making the car more than just a cool driver...going 5spd and stroked 351W, like on my Fairmont, then I would seriously give the rack swap some more thought. Quote Selected
SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? Reply #14 – March 16, 2014, 07:48:53 PM Totally understand and why would a person get rid of a perfectly good Fox rack for an improvement in steering response that is solely a feel thing? They both turn the car and other than that it is just a preference thing on a street car. If it was more a road course oriented car then there would be more of a reason to look into the stiffer torsion bar the SN95 rack offers.Anyhow, I think we beat the hell out of this one and good luck with your project!! And remember wrenching pics are always good and make a thread pretty snazzy.Darren Quote Selected
Topic: SN95 control arm benefits on early cars? (Read 3362 times)
previous topic - next topic
