Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,344 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've got an 83 Capri that I am wanting to upgrade the brakes and convert to 5-lug. I have a set of SN95 Spindles and Front control arms. Will they work on a Fox chassis? If they do can I use 94-04 front Struts. Or do I have to stay with 87-93? The car currently has 87-93 front control arms and spindles. I also have a set of 01 Cobra front rotors and calipers. Can I use them? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Arms and spindles, Yes. The arms are longer and will add neg camber, so you'll need to have cc plates for sure. Struts and brake stuff I'm not sure about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
The arms will work, but check the offset of the wheels for both brake clearance, and fender clearance. You'll also want to be aware that depending on your steering rack, you may end up running out of threads or come dangerously close to running out of threads on your tie rod ends. By going to the SN-95 arms, you'll be widening your track. Go with the fox body struts. The SN-95 ones aren't going to work because of the travel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,344 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Thanks guys... would I be better off just using the 87-93 A-arms? Or will be a big benefit using the SN95 Arms? I am building this Ex Drag car into an Auto Cross car... so braking and handleing are my biggest concerns!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Isn't that K member narrower in the 83 like an 87-93 4cyl car k member?

Just something to think about.

I don't know for sure but if it is it may be benificial to use the SN 95 control arms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
571 Posts
1BadFlamed93LX said:
Thanks guys... would I be better off just using the 87-93 A-arms? Or will be a big benefit using the SN95 Arms? I am building this Ex Drag car into an Auto Cross car... so braking and handleing are my biggest concerns!!
No, I would still try to run the SN-95 arms if your fenders and tires will let you. This is one of the few times when "longer is better". Don't tell my wife.

K-members did change slightly but that was in 91 with the 5.0 models. F.Y.I. If someone lives close and wants a 91 K-member that has had the pickup points raised for lowered cars, let me know. I have no desire to ship this thing, but I also don't want it in my garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
453 Posts
Frank, I had 01 arms on my SVO with the 17x8 99 Cobra's but had to go with 87-93 Fox arms to put on 17x9 Konig's. I haven't driven the car with the new combo yet so I can't tell you if there is a difference. I believe you can use the SN95 struts if your car isn't lowered .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I have 03 control arms on my 87gt and cobra 13" brakes. Everyting you listed will work. As for track width it's wide but it diffently will help check my gallary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,344 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Thanks guys for the help...

now come over and help put this damn thing together... LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
I did this same swap to my 82 GT with a lot of time invested in researching the differences not only between Fox and SN95 parts but also early Fox vs. late Fox.

I started out building the car with Fox length control arms, SN95 spindles, Cobra rotors / calipers, and 2000 Cobra R Bilstein struts. Goes together fine except you won't be able to achieve much more that - 1.5 deg camber. This is because the older Fox k-members are ½" per side narrower for a total of 1" narrower track width vs the later model Fox. I believe the change happened in 87? I'd have to dig out my notes.

Next phase of the build was to add the mysterious 87-88 Turbo T-Bird arms said to be ¾" longer to add additional neg camber adjustability. Thought this would be the hot ticket, not. Laying a set of T-Bird arms next to SN95 arms they come out to be the same length. Many people also believe the SN95 arms to be ¾" longer than the Fox arms, wrong again. If true, we should be able to put the SN95, or T-Bird arms, on our cars with 1/2" per side further inboard lower control arm mounting holes and only gain ¼ " per side in track width over a stock late model Fox. The SN95 arms are actually 1.33" longer than the Fox parts. This creates major fender clearance issues and more neg camber than desired.

So.....what I did was to find another k-member and move the control arm mounting holes inboard to allow for SN95 arms. ½" for old fox k-members, 1" for newer fox k-members, net gain in track width = .33" per side compared to a late model Fox. Much more manageable from a clearance and camber adjustment standpoint.

While I was at it, I moved the mounting holes up .80" to improve camber gain and roll center height. I believe I now have ¾ degrees of neg camber gain through compressive travel, would have to check the notes again for exact numbers.


Hope this helps....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
AWSOME, I really needed this info. Doing a SN95 front suspension under my 90Lincoln markVII. Since it is both t-bird and SVO crap, it is really hard to get any upgrades.

I really needed to hear the SN95 arms were longer than FOX and JUST AS LONG AS T_BIRD. Since that is what I am dealing with.
COOL!!!!!

Few questions:
1)Should I use MarkVII struts? Fox Struts? SN95 Struts? 96+ Struts??? I would assume since SN95 does have the "longer arms" that SN95 Strust would work out best, but not calibrated for 4000lbs of car. I am not sure if MarkVII strust will bolt on, but that will be easy to find out.

2)I have bad bumpsteer due to lowering my car, after the swap, will I eliminate this by just upgrading the spindals? Or will I still require 91-93 tie rod ends or bumpsteer kit?

3) SHould I use the SN95 Spindals - or should I invest in 96+ spindals? I only want to so this ONCE!!!! If so..........

4) Are 96+ lower control arms still adaptable to a fox body? (ie...are they still as long as SN95 stuff) What year ca's are best.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top