Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #105 – November 14, 2007, 02:44:16 AM In the mustang performance 2 book on page 75 they tell you how to convert the mustang crossmember to use the 87-88 lower control arms. All the measurments are there and I think it would be easy to do. http://www.amazon.com/Mustang-Performance-Handbook-William-Mathis/dp/1557882029/ref=sr_1_2/102-1991869-7305704?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195025973&sr=8-2I hope this helps.TED Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #106 – November 17, 2007, 05:48:39 AM Quote from: Chuck W;186808This coming from the guy who used a POS UPR K-Member. Talk about cutting corners. :rolleyes: I wouldn't use one of those things on a s rolling chassis.Chuck:I was wondering why you commented on the UPR? Is there some defect with those or is it a fitment issue? Just curious.Alan Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #107 – November 20, 2007, 12:51:15 AM I think UPR k-members are awesome and they are made about an hour form where I live.I have buddies that run N/A 9 sec 310ci motors(blowbyracing.com Rob Mollet)and they have them in their cars and said they have the best fitment and the most room then the others.Seing what they do with these 3,000 mustangs(added weight for specific class)is enough for me to believe so they have my vote. http://blowbyracing.com/robmollet.html (this is his old car he has a new one running low 9's) Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #108 – November 20, 2007, 09:21:57 PM What happen to this item anyway? Where are we on this?TED Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #109 – November 20, 2007, 09:50:23 PM Quote from: 83-88T-Bird Guy;188202Chuck:I was wondering why you commented on the UPR? Is there some defect with those or is it a fitment issue? Just curious.AlanThey are a "copy cat" company and will never get any business from me. People like them because of the price, but you get what you pay for and you're not paying for UPR's work...you're paying for something they knocked off. Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #110 – November 20, 2007, 10:32:38 PM I'm not getting into the UPR thing but here's a forum with pictures of an install of a K-member, just happen to be an UPR. This kind of tells you how to do the install and advantage of doing it.http://www.mustangforums.com/m_3178882/tm.htmDoes anybody know how much the coil overs reduces the tire clearence? My tires on my LTD LX are very close now and I don't think it will clear. I'm using Turbo Coupe snowflake wheels with 245-50-16 tires.What K-members do you like more chuck? Do you like the D&D? I kind of like these because you can order them without motor mounts for cheaper. Did I read somewhere that the lower control arms for the 94+ is a closer fit for our 87-88 T-Bird?I know lots of questions and I should use search.TED Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #111 – November 21, 2007, 10:21:38 AM Quote from: Cad-T-Bird 500;188852What happen to this item anyway? Where are we on this?TEDTedI had lots of I will buy one but when I put up a order sheet NOT ONE persone has signed up... I am not going to bust my ass on this anymore unless I see interest... I am very busy upgrading the entire car and don't have time to stop unless I see more interest......Ron 734-776-5987 Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #112 – November 21, 2007, 11:22:22 AM Quote from: 347Thunder;188707I think UPR k-members are awesome and they are made about an hour form where I live.I have buddies that run N/A 9 sec 310ci motors(blowbyracing.com Rob Mollet)and they have them in their cars and said they have the best fitment and the most room then the others.Seing what they do with these 3,000 mustangs(added weight for specific class)is enough for me to believe so they have my vote. http://blowbyracing.com/robmollet.html (this is his old car he has a new one running low 9's)(Good thing I have a Chuck filter on :D )Street driving and autocross/road racing is far more stressful on suspension. A drag car with coilovers doesn't transmit any weight force through the K-member, at least very little, and it also has very little lateral force being applied. When you turn, you will have full cornering force trying to rip the K-member apart at the very bottom as force is transferred to the A-arm mounts.The 87-88 Thunderbird has A-Arm mounting points set more inboard allowing a longer control arm for the same overall track width at the wheel. This is a superior geometry, as the longer control arm swings through a shallower arc. Now here is where I might mess up but I think I have things pretty straight, the shallower arc means as the suspension is compressed the spindle is not pulled in as much at the bottom for a given amount of compression, so camber stays more negative or gains more negative compared to the short control arm.I guess the earlier style motor mount attachment allows for the most flexibility in that area. The 87-88 geometry should be conducive to better handling. You can always run shorter A-arms and tuck the wheels in if absolutely necessary, but you can't very easily put the long A-arms on the wide early k-member without flaring out the fenders or running a high offset wheel. Some people will do this to get even BIGGER track width, but mostly just track ws that aren't afraid to take pipes and hammers to their fenders to make things fit.I at least hope I could shed some light on the situation. If you want to see a GOOD STRONG K-member, go to maximummotorsports.com, then come back and complain about the prices here if you dare. Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #113 – November 21, 2007, 05:06:58 PM Quote from: jlewis05;188920but you can't very easily put the long A-arms on the wide early k-member without flaring out the fenders or running a high offset wheel. Some people will do this to get even BIGGER track width, but mostly just track ws that aren't afraid to take pipes and hammers to their fenders to make things fit.hey, i resemble that remark.....:hick: Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #114 – November 24, 2007, 01:24:03 AM Yeah, I knew you'd pick up on that. Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #115 – December 12, 2007, 07:13:28 PM I hate to bump and old thread, but did anything ever come out of this? I'm planning to start building my 85 so it will be ready for track opening in the spring. Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #116 – December 12, 2007, 08:03:08 PM Quote from: Drewstang;192445I hate to bump and old thread, but did anything ever come out of this? I'm planning to start building my 85 so it will be ready for track opening in the spring.No one ever contacted Ron with interest, and there was really no consensus on what people wanted...and they weren't going to make several styles.I know he was looking for an 87-88 K-member to look at, but I don't think he ever found one, and with the lack of interest, I doubt he would make the effort. Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #117 – December 12, 2007, 11:24:16 PM So what would be the next best choice besides UPR? Maximum Motorsports is too expensive for my budget and Steeda is right there with them. Is UPR really that bad other than being a copycat company? Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #118 – December 12, 2007, 11:27:09 PM Quote from: Drewstang;192517 Is UPR really that bad other than being a copycat company?That right there is reason enough that they will never see a cent of my money.The MM stuff is more expensive than the cheapos, but you get what you pay for and the MM piece is a good one. Quote Selected
Tubular K-Member Input Needed! Reply #119 – December 20, 2007, 09:52:38 AM to the top for one last try Quote Selected
Topic: Tubular K-Member Input Needed! (Read 25835 times)
previous topic - next topic
