Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

Suspension Tuning, Troubleshooting, Design and Discussion

Moderators: David Lemmond, Dave Morgan

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
oldskooloutlaw
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:26 pm
Location: Resume Speed, Oklahoma

Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#1 Post by oldskooloutlaw » Sun Mar 21, 2010 4:46 pm

This will probably sound like a dumbA$$ question but I am building a '41 Ford coupe and didn't want to use the Mustang II suspension. So I got a good deal on the complete tube K member from a '98 GT, I like the struts and it has aftermarket arms and struts. Problem is its about 10 inches too wide but it has plenty enough adjustment on the tie rods and I won't be using the stock motor mounts I am using a front and mid plate, will I run into geometry problems? I am one of those guys that likes to be different but I don't want to kill myself in the process. My buddy at the local frame shop told me this was the dumbest idea he had ever heard, is he right?
"If it ain't got 3 pedals it's not a hot rod "

tigwelder
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:54 pm
Location: wichita ks
Contact:

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#2 Post by tigwelder » Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:16 pm

seems to me that it would work since the upper mounting point of the struts does not attach to the K member. if you shorten the lower control arms on each side to get the track width that you want, the rack tierod ends need to be shortened the same amount, to avoid bumpsteer then the upper mounting point will be located after you position the struts upright with a tilt back to the firewall of 6 to 10 degrees max, and 90 degrees on the side you should be fine. if you put in a cage or inner fender strut mount it will work. if you us a motor plate then I would cage it and attch acordingly. I would make that work in my shop if you needed it done. the only thing might be an issue is the stock struts a very long so you will be close to the hood and they will be narrow at the top so header and valve cover clearance could be an issue.

sc racing
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Sahuartia Az

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#3 Post by sc racing » Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:20 pm

Do you think you can narrow the control arms 5" each? I wouldnt think thats possible maybe 2" each side then take out some in the k-member and narrow the rack itself plus the tie rod ends. I put mustang II front ends in a 38 ford and a 39 ford also a 56 ford pick up just street rods but very easy compared to what you want to do IMO.

User avatar
oldskooloutlaw
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:26 pm
Location: Resume Speed, Oklahoma

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#4 Post by oldskooloutlaw » Mon Mar 22, 2010 10:08 am

I was thinking to shorten the K member and tie rods would be the best and easiest way and air struts may be used. I am having a full cage that has tubes tied to front frame rails. This is the heap I'm working with. http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab77 ... 1269270271
"If it ain't got 3 pedals it's not a hot rod "

sc racing
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Sahuartia Az

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#5 Post by sc racing » Tue Mar 23, 2010 10:07 pm

You building a race car or street rod? With the x frame the tranny area is a bit tight. What kind of rear suspension you plan on using? It might be better to just build a 2x3 frame and sell off the stock one.The cars I built were just street rods no more that 330 hp with OD trans but if your putting some power to it I dont really like the stock frames.I thought I had more pics but I cant find them heres a few.
Attachments
IMG_1046 (Medium).JPG
IMG_1045 (Small).JPG
IMG_2004 (Small).JPG

User avatar
oldskooloutlaw
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:26 pm
Location: Resume Speed, Oklahoma

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#6 Post by oldskooloutlaw » Wed Mar 24, 2010 11:11 pm

I will be adding a full cage and the x member will go away and I will be using it as a race car. I have plans to run a FE 390 block stroked to 410 cu.in. na and hoping for 550-600 hp. The more I think about this a straight tube straight axle is sounding like it would be more practical but I have zero knowledge about that setup either. I am not a high roller so I'm trying to use as much parts that I already have, this is my first drag car build after wanting one for 30 some odd years and I'm finding out there is a whole lot I don't know so I really appreciate help from you guys that have been there and give guys like me help. Thanks
"If it ain't got 3 pedals it's not a hot rod "

HAULIN' IT
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:29 pm

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#7 Post by HAULIN' IT » Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:28 pm

There's more to it than cutting down the craddle width & cutting off the tie rods. Doing it that way, you will have a lot of bumpsteer...you need the pivots of the lower control arms & the pivot of the inner tie rods to be very close to the same width so the arc travel is nearly the same.
Cutting down the craddle to a "known width" rack (say Pinto, Chevette, ect.) & use that rack could work.
One that I looked at more than once & never could figure why it didn't catch on for big fender cars is the old Aerostar van front suspension...Good size brakes (4 1/2" bolt pattern) rack & pinion, bolt-in craddle on square rails, fairly well suited for the weight, ect. Another one could be the early Dakota...seemed like a possibility to be right for many of the same reasons.
Looked to me that on the older rails these things could sit in the dirt & fit well. Lorne

sc racing
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: Sahuartia Az

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#8 Post by sc racing » Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:25 am

A staight axle like an old gasser looks cool if your doing a nastalgia type car but I dont think its very safe or will work very good. the stock type I beam probably is a bit safer but still not good for a drag car.Did you ever think a just doing a front clip from a different car like Haulin' said or just do a full 2x3 chassis if your going to go through all the work to redo your stock frame. I guess its about how fast,and how much $$$ you want to spend.

User avatar
oldskooloutlaw
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:26 pm
Location: Resume Speed, Oklahoma

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#9 Post by oldskooloutlaw » Sun Mar 28, 2010 1:10 pm

Yeah haulin's thoughts are probably a lot more realistic for guys like me that have to work out of their front pockets. I guess I'm like the other dreamers wanting cool ass rides for junkyard money, but just getting it to drive and not kill me ain't a bad thing. So I guess I should be happy with what I got,But dreams do die way too slow.
"If it ain't got 3 pedals it's not a hot rod "

tallwelder
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 7:42 am
Contact:

Re: Narrowing '98 Mustang front K member

#10 Post by tallwelder » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:20 am

HAULIN' IT wrote:There's more to it than cutting down the craddle width & cutting off the tie rods. Doing it that way, you will have a lot of bumpsteer...you need the pivots of the lower control arms & the pivot of the inner tie rods to be very close to the same width so the arc travel is nearly the same.
Cutting down the craddle to a "known width" rack (say Pinto, Chevette, ect.) & use that rack could work.
One that I looked at more than once & never could figure why it didn't catch on for big fender cars is the old Aerostar van front suspension...Good size brakes (4 1/2" bolt pattern) rack & pinion, bolt-in craddle on square rails, fairly well suited for the weight, ect. Another one could be the early Dakota...seemed like a possibility to be right for many of the same reasons.
Looked to me that on the older rails these things could sit in the dirt & fit well. Lorne

To the original poster...^^^this is the only reply so far You should consider, lots of safety issues will arise with some of the "other suggestions". Please talk to Your local chassis shop! Oh SCracing was also on track with his suggestions! Maybe You could call Him.

I'm really surprised Dave Lemmonds hasn't seen this and made a suggestion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests