MM comments on SVO SN95 conversion

[TheViking]

Spoke with one of the techs at Maximum Motorsports today (Jason). He used to own an 84 SVO and is very familiar with the cars. I happened to mention my SN95 conversion and he commented that this was a step backwards, literally. He believes the SN95 control arms set the tires back 1/2 inch from stock SVO specs which causes a number of issues. In all my research on the SN95 conversion I'd never heard this one before.

Rather then trying to regurgitate his comments I asked if he'd send me an e-mail. Here's what he had to say:

Ron,

As I understand it, your goal is to install modern (1994+) Mustang brakes and spindles on your 1984-86 SVO. You do not want to change the original SVO K-member because then you would loose the important engine shocks (not important anymore if you make custom solid or urethane motor mounts).

To properly complete your task, the following components will be required:

Caster Camber Plates with a spherical bearing (Part# MMCC7989)
Tubular Front Control Arms for a 1994+ Mustang with ¾” forward offset geometry (MMFCA-10)
Coil-Over Conversion Kit for your Koni struts (Part# COP-2)
Bilstein, Tokico Illumina or Koni struts that will sufficiently dampen the selected spring rate

On an otherwise stock SVO, these 4 components are sufficient to properly complete the task of installing modern (1994+) Mustang brakes and spindles. It will retain the original SVO track width and move the front tires forward a quarter of an inch which will improve caster, the ackerman steering geometry and overall weight distribution. As a bonus you will have 5 inches of ride height adjustability and the new MM parts are lighter than stock.

For your particular combination I suggest 275 lb/in, 12” long, 2.5” ID springs for the front of the car. This recommendation is based on a stock weight SVO using Ford “B” spring in the rear without a Torque Arm.

The rumor that original 1994+ Mustang front control arms can be used for this application is false! Using these arms would result in the front tires being set back a half inch from their original location. This has many negative side effects other than just looking funny, such as: reduced caster, bad ackerman steering geometry, bad swaybar endlink geometry, bad bumpsteer (even if adjustable tie-rod ends are used), bad weight distribution, reduced wheel base and possible tire clearance issues.

Hope this helps.

[1fastII]

Interesting. Whenever I order my suspension parts from them, I'll ask for Jason.

[SVOeric]

I think the sn95 swap gets overdone these days--
The original reason for the SN95 swap was to keep cars on the road, because SVO control arms are no longer available.

I've never done the swap myself, but I have seen several cars with the sn95 swap. I could never tell any difference in wheel location, but 1/2 inch is hard to see by eye.

If this is true, (I have no reason to doubt it) it's certainly something you wouldn't want to do on a track car, but to keep a street car on the road, that has wore-out ball-joints, I think it's an acceptable trade-off.

[Gator]

As I understand it, your goal is to install modern (1994+) Mustang brakes and spindles on your 1984-86 SVO. You do not want to change the original SVO K-member because then you would loose the important engine shocks (not important anymore if you make custom solid or urethane motor mounts).

Maybee im a bit confused..

Why is there mention of changing the K-member ? Is that something you were looking to do for the A-Arm swap ?

[SVOeric]

I think he is saying to do the SN95 swap correctly, you would need the K-member, because the a-arms move the wheels 3/4 inch forward, which means you would still get 1/4 farther forward than the stock SVO arms --

[Ja50nSVT]

I think he is saying to do the SN95 swap correctly, you would need the K-member, because the a-arms move the wheels 3/4 inch forward, which means you would still get 1/4 farther forward than the stock SVO arms --

Using an OEM V8 FOX K-member and 1994+ front control arms would not move the front wheels fore or aft. The wheel base would remain virtually identical to an original SVO.

Edit: Corrected information

[Ja50nSVT]

Maybee im a bit confused..

Why is there mention of changing the K-member ? Is that something you were looking to do for the A-Arm swap ?

Sorry for the confusion.

Ron was not replacing the k-member. Since the k-member can be a variable, I wanted to make sure we were on the same page.

Edit: Corrected information

[SVOeric]

yea -- I do believe we have some confusion here -

the SVO K-member is the same width as a stock fox k-member, the only difference being the A-arm mounting holes in the SVO k-member are just slightly lower.

This is one of the reasons people use the sn95 control-arms. They are 1 inch shorter, and allow you to run sn95 wheels, without them sticking out.

so no, using the fox v8 k-member, and standard fox control arms on a SVO won't keep the width the same, it will make it the same width as a v8 mustang, which is narrower.

[CP86SVO]

From William Mathis' book "Mustang Performance Handbook 2"

pre 88 crossmember with 13" long control arms (stock)
30.125" back, 22.75" front, 16.5* angle, 51.37" ball joint to ball joint

88-93 crossmember with 13" long control arms (stock)
31.125" back, 23.75" front, 16.5* angle, 52.37 ball joint to ball joint

SVO crossmember with SVO 14" control arms (stock)
29.5" back, 23" front, 14.5* angle, 53.36" ball joint to ball joint.

From my own measurements, the SVO arms and the SN95 arms are virtually the same, within and 1/8' or so.

As a little aside, when I used SN95 arms/brakes and coil overs on my SVO, it appeared that the wheel was a bit further back in the wheel well, hence MM recommendation for the 3/4" front offset SN95 arms when converting over to SN95 spindles/brakes.

For an at length discussion, check this out:

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7037&highlight=sn95+svo+spindles

HTH WS

[Ja50nSVT]

yea -- I do believe we have some confusion here -

the SVO K-member is the same width as a stock fox k-member, the only difference being the A-arm mounting holes in the SVO k-member are just slightly lower.

This is one of the reasons people use the sn95 control-arms. They are 1 inch shorter, and allow you to run sn95 wheels, without them sticking out.

so no, using the fox v8 k-member, and standard fox control arms on a SVO won't keep the width the same, it will make it the same width as a v8 mustang, which is narrower.

SN95 control arms are not 1 inch shorter than the SVO arms. SN95 and SVO arms are almost identical in length. The 1979-1993 FOX arms are 3/4" shorter than SVO & SN95 arms.

Edit: Corrected information

[svoman2300]

I've got oem Fox arms in my SVO K member and I'm satisified with it. I'm not trying to win some road racing championship, just wanted to be able to use Cobra brakes and 17x9 Konig's. I have never been on a road course with the stock SVO suspension but do plan to do some open track soon. Also my engine "shocks" have been off for 15 years, I didn't notice any difference.

[Ken Potter]

Here is my 90 LX 5.0 with complete SVO Konis, LCAs, blue Eibachs, spindles, rotors, calipers, and obviously wheels. It is the original 5.0 K member and rack. I fabbed up some longer outer ends and had to modify the opening in the shock tower for the shock / onion head to fit properly but otherwise everything fits well. I had it checked at my local front end shop and everything is correct for an SVO alignment. I wish I had some better pics from straight onto the side to show wheel placement but this is all I have for now. I've run it at Road Atlanta and the Talladega Gran Prix tracks and it handles as well as any of my SVOs except for the extra weight from the 5.0 hanging off the front. I had performed this swap many years ago prior to the new popularity of the SN95 stuff. I may do it some time in the future after I finish some of my other stuff...

[Ja50nSVT]

Here is my 90 LX 5.0 with complete SVO Konis, LCAs, blue Eibachs, spindles, rotors, calipers, and obviously wheels. It is the original 5.0 K member and rack. I fabbed up some longer outer ends and had to modify the opening in the shock tower for the shock / onion head to fit properly but otherwise everything fits well. I had it checked at my local front end shop and everything is correct for an SVO alignment. I wish I had some better pics from straight onto the side to show wheel placement but this is all I have for now. I've run it at Road Atlanta and the Talladega Gran Prix tracks and it handles as well as any of my SVOs except for the extra weight from the 5.0 hanging off the front. I had performed this swap many years ago prior to the new popularity of the SN95 stuff. I may do it some time in the future after I finish some of my other stuff...

This is a good example. The ball joint location on your 1990 is now about 3/4" farther outboard but the deep backspacing on the SVO wheels makes it work.

New information proves that the 1994-2004 Mustang front control arms will not significantly change the wheel location. The "forward-offset" version of the MM tubular front control arms will shift the wheels forward about 3/4" for improved handling but may cause interference between the tire and bodywork. This contradicts the information I sent Ron in the first post.

Edit: Corrected information

[Henson]

Here is mine. This is without the extra ¾” A- arm.
I have the late SN spindle.

I have the works. Coil overs, k-member, torque arm, etc.

Love it!

[Pat_in_L.A.]

Hi Jason. Thanks for stopping in to chat about your products.

If I wanted to retain the stock SVO spindles, can the Tubular Front Control Arms for a 1994+ Mustang with ¾" offset (MMFCA-10) be ordered with the correct ball joint for an SVO? I already have the CC plates and realize that this rould require swapping to coil overs.