'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Topic: '83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber (Read 6090 times) previous topic - next topic

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #15 – July 08, 2016, 09:57:25 AM

Looking over your parts list, I'd say this pos camber issue may be the result of the struts you used. More specifically, the mounting tab placement or the placement of the holes in those mounting tabs for the spindle to strut bolts.

Assuming of course you didnt have the camber issue before, and you didnt change anything with the control arms, the strut towers or the Kmember that would effect track width or camber, so that leaves us with the spindles and the struts as suspects since they are the parts being changed.

Obviously the angle that the spindle, and moving further up, the strut, are going to be critical to you having what you want which is a little bit of negative camber. The camber is largely built in to the parts being used unless you slot the strut's mounting holes as Chuck suggested or the ones on the car's actual strut towers some more, and/or get the MM camber plates. So the struts/spindles need to be correct or you are just modifying and fighting to make the incorrect parts work well enough to get the camber back into the negative.

Chuck is right about the 87/8 Kmember having LCA pickup points more inboard as used with the 13.75" control arms (as measured from centerline of ball joint stud to CL of control arm chassis mounting bolts at the Kmember, the earlier 83-6 Tbird/Cougar arms measure out at 13"). Also, the 11" TC rotors also have a thicker hat that pushes the wheels outboard somewhat when compared to using the 11" 87-93 Mustang GT rotors.

When looking at various Fox chassis struts from various manufacturers and different vehicle applications it is apparent that where the strut to spindle mounting tabs are mounted (vertically speaking) up or down the strut body, varies quite a bit in my experience. As does the clearance between the strut body and the spindle's strut mounting pad..some being very close and some having some gap.

Its important to compare these things when swapping aftermarket or SN95 struts,etc onto earlier foxbody cars because these little differences can sometimes create some not so little changes once the wheels go on and the car is set back down on the driveway.

TLDR;: If you dont mistakenly have some weird spindles that have an altered angle for the lower strut mounts I'm guessing that you'll find your problem is with the struts themselves.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #16 – July 08, 2016, 06:26:08 PM

Well, eyeing the struts, I don't think simply slotting them would give the required camber correction, but I would definitely gain a little. There isn't a ton of space between the back side of the spindle and the brackets welded to the strut assemblies. I used cheap 87-88 Monroe struts from O'reilly, just to have unblown struts for now, intending to use Mustang struts of some sort with the Monroe spacers at a later date.

I think I will try out the SN95 control arms, just because I want to get away from the stock control arms with horribly ovalled out swar bar link holes.

This is one of those instances where there really is more than one way to skin a cat, eh?

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #17 – July 08, 2016, 10:01:17 PM

Ok, just be mindful that the SN95 balljoint stud is shorter and slightly different thickness taper I believe than the ones used before '94 on the 87-93 Mustangs. I've had new replacement SN95 balljoints pressed into the 87-93 Mustang control arms when swapping to SN95 spindles on a 92 Mustang and because the original balljoints were pretty beat up anyways. So the old or new style balljoints can be installed in either length control arm, but the balljoint and spindle combination needs to be the same to fit together right.

Hope you dont have wider, aftermarket rims unless they have some healthy positive offset. 3/4" doesnt sound like much but it does start pushing the wheels towards the edge of the fenders or past if you have the 9" wide 4 lug Cobra Rs or something like them.

Good luck with it !

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #18 – July 09, 2016, 12:35:09 AM

Quote from: Kadams4458;456094

Well, eyeing the struts, I don't think simply slotting them would give the required camber correction, but I would definitely gain a little. There isn't a ton of space between the back side of the spindle and the brackets welded to the strut assemblies.

Then slot the bottom hole outboard. It's not going to take too much adjustment. You're only talking a couple degrees at the most.

Quote from: Vintage;456095

Ok, just be mindful that the SN95 balljoint stud is shorter and slightly different thickness taper I believe than the ones used before '94 on the 87-93 Mustangs. I've had new replacement SN95 balljoints pressed into the 87-93 Mustang control arms when swapping to SN95 spindles on a 92 Mustang and because the original balljoints were pretty beat up anyways. So the old or new style balljoints can be installed in either length control arm, but the balljoint and spindle combination needs to be the same to fit together right.

SN-95 ball joints won't work with Fox spindles. The stud is too short. Something to keep in mind.

You can go the opposite (Fox ball joint/SN-95 spindle) with spacers under the nut.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #19 – July 09, 2016, 10:34:55 AM

Hi Chuck, yeah I know, that is what I was trying to get across, that he'd have to take the junkyard SN95 control arms somewhere to have the balljoints pressed out and some Fox balljoints pressed in to the SN95 arms if he was using the Fox spindle. It was late and I was beat, sorry if I was unclear.

Its been a while ago, but on my 87 TC with SN95 brake swap I think I ended up with from what I can remember:

>stock 87 TC Kmember with engine mount pads removed and Mustang style pads welded in to set engine back 1/2" and down 3/8".
>stock control arms with balljoints replaced with new SN95 ones and I think Energy Susp bushings.
>Eibach progressive rate springs off wrecked 95 Mustang Gt
>Koni Reds with MM caster/camber plates.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #20 – July 09, 2016, 10:22:26 PM

I'm running '87-'88 17" TC snowflakes. It seems to have plenty of space.

Hmm, so I need to put fox ball joints in the SN95 control arms. Good to know. I can do that easily enough if it comes to swapping control arms, as I have a 20-ton press in my shop.

I will try slotting the lower strut holes and see how much adjustment I can get out of it, just because I am curious. I can always pull the stock control arms and weld up the worn end link holes if it looks like I can get the required adjustment from slotting the struts. Knowing me, I'll end up powder coating them, too.

Thanks for the wealth of info so far, folks. I really appreciate it!

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #21 – July 10, 2016, 06:11:05 PM

Yeah the snowflakes have more positive offset so that'll help keep them tucked inside the fender if you go to longer SN95 arms. Are u running rear disc brakes ?

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #22 – July 10, 2016, 08:30:59 PM

Double-fired that post, sorry.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #23 – July 11, 2016, 11:50:29 AM

If you bought the basic Monroe's and it was for your 83 Heritage then there may be an issue. The struts for the 83 measure 19-1/2" fully extended and 14" compressed giving a 5-1/2" stroke. The struts for an 87-93 GT Mustang or 87-88 Thunderbird Sport measure 20-1/8" fully extended and 13-5/8" compressed giving a 6-1/2" stroke. Remember the Turbo Coupe struts are a different animal so they have a different part number so I left them out of the comparison. My suggestion would be to take the ones you bought back and see if there is a measureable difference in how they mount to the spindle like Vintage has been shining the light on. This combined with the stroke length difference and the Mustang struts will not need the shims to bolt to the spindle would make for a much better package up front that is engineered to go with the spindles.

I checked the part numbers between the 87-88 Turbo Coupe, 87-88 Sport, and the 83 Base Heritage and the strut mounts are no different and are not left / right dependent as Chuck pointed out.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #24 – July 11, 2016, 01:37:56 PM

When swapping the spindles to 11 inch the strut mounting changes. You need either washers to put in place of gap or narrow mounting struts. I went with SN-95 struts on my 83 bird but i think that is why it sways on the highway.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #25 – July 11, 2016, 11:05:06 PM

The width has nothing to do with the camber gain the poster is having.

The SN-95 struts are also not causing your "sway", unless they are just worn out.

Quote from: custompunk;456115

When swapping the spindles to 11 inch the strut mounting changes. You need either washers to put in place of gap or narrow mounting struts. I went with SN-95 struts on my 83 bird but i think that is why it sways on the highway.

'83 upgraded to 87-88 TC front spindles ended up with extreme positive camber

Reply #26 – July 12, 2016, 02:23:03 AM

Oh boy. I believe that I ordered and received 87-88 TC front struts, but perhaps I brainfarted and got them for the '83 by accident. Hmm. Good catch. If they are incorrect, I am likely stuck with them at this point. Pretty sure I recycled the boxes. If I need to swap them out, I am certain someone here can make use of them, so it shouldn't be hard to gift them to someone that can use them.

Heh. Can't say I have ever seen wheels alter caster. Glad to see I am not the only person that suffers ftom brain farts around here. :)

It's not a factor for this thread, but since it was asked, I am in fact running the 8.8" 3.73 disc brake rear from the same '87 I pulled the spindles from. You gotta love it when the parts you want are actually in the yard on a half-price weekend. I plan to pull it apart soon to address the leaking seals, and will sandblast and paint it with black epoxy while am at it.

Also unrelated, but I'm still working on the truck. Flex plate took out the tranny pump seal and bushing from the converter flailing around, so I had to drain and drop the whole thing. The PO didnt have any locating dowels between the engine, tranny, and transfer case. I sure am glad I got a killer deal on that thing, but I'm working for it, now. Lol!