I picked up a k member from a 93 t-bird for my 48 ford coupe and am starting to build the upper control arm mounts and ran into a snag.... I don't know where the spindle center is with relation to the k-member mounting holes, or where that center line is in relation to the upper control arm mounts. as I dont have the 93 t-bird to measure this poses a problem. can anyone help? if you know where the actual spindle center is with relation to the rear most 2 k-member mounting bolt holes and or, where that center line is in relation to the upper control arm mounts I would be most appreciative. A full set of technical drawings would rock, but those are not easy to come by. Gary
Problem with trying to do something like this with no experience and asking strangers to help you accomplish your goal is surely going to end up in a mess. Stick to proven stuff. The reason you are having problems finding information on your conversion is that no one does it. And for very good reasons.
I do believe that even if you do find a way to get this somewhat hacked into place you will find that your strut mounts will end up way above the fender line, not to mention a track width more suited to a monster truck... Not good. There honestly is a reason this front end isn't used under these cars. Do your self a favor and look very closely at Mustang II stuff.
well thanks for the advice. I built 2 mustang II suspensions and even had the cross member for this one welded in when I cut it out....dont like them. too much money for a 70's tech front end. Found I was spending alot of time to make it new..... I have seen this swap done on effys so thought i would give it a whirl. its no big deal, I will go to the bone yard and get the #'s I need when I get a chance.
Oh really? Just find it a bit strange for an experienced guy like yourself to be asking us questions like this. What about that old tech didn't you like, camber curve, instant center plot or the roll angle force distribution? I ask because other than plot points, the venerable MII front isn't much different than any other modern SLA front suspension. And more to the point, what about a 1993 Thunderbird is desirable to the point you want to use it. It's a variation on the MacPherson which dates back several decades before Ford broke out with the design in 1978 and has a few issues of it's own. I ask, because if it's tune-ability you are after, something as simple as a Mustang II type IFS would be much farther ahead of a strut front, even if you convert it to an SLA type IFS. And even more to the point, the track width on the T-bird is going to be far in excess of what you need on something like a 48 Ford.
So I got the K member mounted and the upper control arm mounts mocked up and just have to locate them. They are spaced and at the same height with relation to the K member as they were in the t-bird. so I am really close to having it done. I will put the castor/camber gauge on it and that will get me closer than I really need with all the alignment adjustment available with this set up.
Im very confused, because this is T Bird suspension... yet you are talking about upper control arms, which these dont have. Please post pictures, I'd like to see what you've got.
While anything is possible, some things are just not worth doing, especially when there are so many tried and true alternatives available. Don
This is out of a 93 t-bird. it has coil over shocks and upper control arms. (I have no pic for you sorry) I just wanted to do something different. this was super affordable and readily available. I can get parts at the local parts store (which after some checks, I cant get mustang II parts locally) and they are cheap in comparison. $53 for the upper control arm with the ball joint in it. it is a cast arm similar to the tubular style aftermarket mustang II's in appearance. I thought it would be fut to try.
Wow, just wow. I have been at the suspension game for a few decades since I took my paper. Even so, my knowledge and skill set is a fraction of that of El Polako. He's a giant in this. If you won't listen to HIS advice, you may be past the point of help. I wouldn't touch this one, either.
Just want to try something new. I have a cross member for the Mustang II stuff built and ready if this doesn't work out for me. Sometimes trying something for the sake of being different is what makes us individuals and our cars originals......whats the worst thing that could happen.....I hate it and cut it back out.....no big deal
Rookie...independent thinking and blending in newer components are some of the cornerstones of hotrodding and I'm giving you props here for that. But using 90's bits won't get you much love here on this traditional board. I used a `95 T-Bird IRS in my custom Jag Sedan project (this is the only time I've posted about it). I did section 4 inches out of it to keep the track under the fender skirts. I wonder what you will do about the overly wide track, though. I'd hate to see FWD offset wheels on a `48 Ford.
I'm sorry, but this is what hot roding is. Creativity. M2 stuff is flat out expensive and not very available at the bone yards. But t birds are. And those are not fox bodies like the stangs a ltds. What's the point of BUILDING your k member if you have to buy 1500. Worth of parts when you can try something for next to nothing. I am running a dare I say a s10 clip that I widened 6" in my truck and it rides a thousand times better than the ttb that was in it. And didn't cost me anything If none of us ever tried anything different we would all still be building " cal look vw's " How many different clips is everybody using these days? M2 S10 Camaro G body Crown Vic Jag Valore Why is he getting grief for trying something not so " cookie cutter" But if he was building a "A" on a duece frame and ask wher the best place mount something there would be a ass load of people walking him through it. Not that I ragging on anyone in particular, I just don't understand it here. One day it's cool to try something different or make something yourself. And then the next you get shit for not building what everybody else does.
I guess I can't understand all the flaming.....I know this has been done. it is safe. the whole system is held into the factory car with 8 bolts in the K member and 4 in the upper arms. all into a sheetmetal unibody car. I am bolting into a steel boxed frame. I am not changing the K member at all.......whats dangerous? My original comments were that i have seen this done on effys.....why would a 48 coupe scare all of you so much?..... logic would dictate that the new system would be better than the old as technology evolves. I would no sooner run an 1850's engine than I would an 1850's suspension system. Its not saying that the t-bird is so much better.....its different, cost effective, readily available and i can get parts for it locally without waiting for the UPS guy. I particularly like the separation between the upper and lower control arms.....the whole reason I started to look for alternatives to the MII. so why all the flameing? is there one good reason for the objections other than its not what you would have done to your car......thing is....it isnt your car. Be constructive for a change. If you feel it is unsafe....how about a reason why so that it can be constructively addressed? There are things I don't know, (like where that silly center line was) but I don't think I have made any indication of being an expert. MII's have drawings readily available. anyone that can weld (and you dont even need to do that anymore with the bolt in kits) can make one......I doubt you can contest that....so building one is not anything to make one an expert....I am not. so lets address real issues and not the flame fest. If you have a real concern and not a general "its not safe" lets hear it....... the only person who addressed my reasoning for using this suspension was Elpolacko (made me think on that one) and I dont have a deep enough understanding of the topic to even address his comment. I do know I like the taller spindle and separation in the control arms, cost, and availability of parts.....
the track width from the spec sheets gave it about a half inch wider track than what I measured from the stock 48. It is nearly identical.....but that just from what I measured. thanks for the support, glad I am not the only one to try this
Let's see some pictures! Then we can all make a better judgement, Instead of these traditional line drawings! TP
The '93 'Bird (MN12) suspension has no whiff of Macstrut to it, but I'd tend to think it's less than optimal for adaptation to older cars. The tall spindle and very high UCA location is good for distributing the load around a unit-body structure, but it also means that in any body-on-frame retrofit you're going to need a tall and bulky structure to carry the UCAs. The subframe itself is also pretty bulky, it was made to bolt underneath a unit structure where the structural members it locates to are pretty high up inside the body. I can't see how it'd readily fit under an early frame, you'd basically be cutting it up to weld the pickup points from the K-member onto the frame. I've seen a couple adapted to '60s vehicles, it required cutting away and rebuilding most of the lower half of the front-body structure and in one case the resulting vehicle still ended up with around 4in of ground clearance to the front crossmember of the subframe. If you use it as is, you're looking at approx 64in over the hubs. If you try to narrow it, you'll have to deal with finding a narrower steering rack that'll work. The MN12/FN10 cars used wheels with a fair bit of positive offset. The rear suspension from those vehicles is also pretty bulky but it will fit under a frame if the 64in hub-to-hub width works, not particularly HAMB-friendly but this is my '64 Country Sedan in progress with the front mounts and rear crossmember tacked in place for trial fitting: To tuck the thing up under the frame properly I ended up making a jig to modify the front mounting legs of the subframe slightly. Fords have cast-iron LCAs and steel springs, Lincolns aluminum LCAs and air bags, this one's getting coilovers. The base 'Birds get a 7.5 axle, SC 'Birds and XR7 Cougars an iron-case 8.8, the Mark VIII an aluminum 8.8 but useless open 3.07 gears and the same fragile potmetal cover as the Mustang Cobras. This is an '02 Explorer cover, hanging on the subframe via a fabricated mount and some E38/E39 BMW diff isolators.
you will always get flamed when proposing something non-traditional on a Traditional Rod and Custom site. don't take it too hard This is interesting, and I would like to see how it turns out. But folks here like to see old school ways
How do the UCA attach to the frame? where are you strut/shock mounts going to end up? Do you have enough room inside the front fenders for the suspension to cycle? Are you okay with positive offset wheels on the front?
How do you toe the trad line when your dealing in a medium that had it's foundations in rebellious inovation? Well, OK you can keep your T-5 but that's it!
I'm using the Bird rear only (with bags). Sectioned pieces are laying on the floor under the subframe. More pics in my profile album. .
The Jalopy Journal
