TeamZ LS to Foxbody Swap K Member Users
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
I didn't think of the angle difference when I made the previous post.
However, that is the reason why I posted both the distance and relative angle measurements originally. If you find the angle of the lower subframe surfaces where the k member mounts, and the angle of the valley cover, then you can set the engine back at the relative angle which you want and then see if the fit gets better or worse. This can be done on jackstands, my car is on stands right now also.
For example, if your measurement from the center of the motor mount bolt to the pinch weld itself is 18", then every 1 degree of angle change moves the engine about .314" at the firewall measurement. So 1 degree can be significant over that span.
However, that is the reason why I posted both the distance and relative angle measurements originally. If you find the angle of the lower subframe surfaces where the k member mounts, and the angle of the valley cover, then you can set the engine back at the relative angle which you want and then see if the fit gets better or worse. This can be done on jackstands, my car is on stands right now also.
For example, if your measurement from the center of the motor mount bolt to the pinch weld itself is 18", then every 1 degree of angle change moves the engine about .314" at the firewall measurement. So 1 degree can be significant over that span.
Deff sitting high. I think you are going to have to start over on the mounts.
If someone with a aje can get you the centerline and hang the engine and build from there. You might be better off cutting the pan back 1" so you can move the engine fwd a little
Tim
If someone with a aje can get you the centerline and hang the engine and build from there. You might be better off cutting the pan back 1" so you can move the engine fwd a little
Tim
I think I can get away without cutting the pan, just drop the engine enough so the driveline is level. I have been slammed this week and buddy helping has been busy too so maybe next week on the mounts.
Surely Im not the only one that has had this issue with this k member and mounts. I should have shown you the air pan pic a long time ago. I wonder how difficult it would be to lower the actual mounts on the K member?
I would move the engine fwd a little to make it easier to work on. dumBeing that tight is a oil pan and Jack accident waiting to happen
I would make new mounts first. Once you get a location building them should not take more than a hour or so.
I would make new mounts first. Once you get a location building them should not take more than a hour or so.
If I get the engine down to where the pan is even with the bottom of the k member, the engine will be level and there will be closer to 1/2" btwn pan and k.
Last edited by SSSTANG#1; Sep 25, 2014 at 08:49 PM.
I understand the point with the spacers dropping the k member and engine and headers and getting less ground clearance. However, if you drop just the engine without spacers, you also end up with less header and engine ground clearance. The engine clearance isn't really an issue, it's the header clearance that could be a problem. Granted, you won't know if you have header clearance problems until you spend $600 on headers, and then, you already spent the $600. This is pretty much why I began down the path of building my own headers (which is on temporary hold to expedite the project).
From the side view in your pics, it looks like you will hit the oil pan on the k member much sooner than the oil pan will hit the steering rack? Can the problem be solved by swapping pans and moving the engine forward to retain the ground clearance? Granted, then header fitment is affected fore and aft even though the engine remains in the same spot vertically.
I would tell you to notch the pan and weld it, but given the fact that I notched my fbody pan and wrecked it and then bought the 302-2 to replace it, maybe I shouldn't give advice.
Is the Team Z the old design or the new design? They changed it a while back to make everything fit better (or maybe just fit to begin with)?
The other thing is that, 2.3L auto chassis fox cars have a smaller trans tunnel than the T5 cars and the 5.0 auto cars. At least this is true with the aero cars from 87-93. Maybe you should look into which tunnel your car actually has? An 81 Cobra should have been a Canada car and I have no idea what they came with OEM, was it originally a 2.3L turbo? Or what am I missing here?
Based on the pinch weld measurement, your engine is about 1.375" higher than mine, and mine fits but is farther back at the same time (less clearance that way). You appear to have done all the same things I did to mine to get it fit, cut tabs, hammered tunnel. The only difference appears to be engine height?
From the side view in your pics, it looks like you will hit the oil pan on the k member much sooner than the oil pan will hit the steering rack? Can the problem be solved by swapping pans and moving the engine forward to retain the ground clearance? Granted, then header fitment is affected fore and aft even though the engine remains in the same spot vertically.
I would tell you to notch the pan and weld it, but given the fact that I notched my fbody pan and wrecked it and then bought the 302-2 to replace it, maybe I shouldn't give advice.
Is the Team Z the old design or the new design? They changed it a while back to make everything fit better (or maybe just fit to begin with)?
The other thing is that, 2.3L auto chassis fox cars have a smaller trans tunnel than the T5 cars and the 5.0 auto cars. At least this is true with the aero cars from 87-93. Maybe you should look into which tunnel your car actually has? An 81 Cobra should have been a Canada car and I have no idea what they came with OEM, was it originally a 2.3L turbo? Or what am I missing here?
Based on the pinch weld measurement, your engine is about 1.375" higher than mine, and mine fits but is farther back at the same time (less clearance that way). You appear to have done all the same things I did to mine to get it fit, cut tabs, hammered tunnel. The only difference appears to be engine height?
Last edited by 64post; Sep 26, 2014 at 08:25 PM.
No reason to apologize, I was just suggesting something for your issue. Try a front motor plate, abandon the motor mounts all together. Connect the plate to the frame rails then you can put the motor at what ever height you want. Or, cut the tunnel out of the car and reattach it at a higher level with fasteners and mounts so it can be removed at any time.
Last edited by 64post; Sep 26, 2014 at 08:50 PM.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
If you put aluminum flat stock between the K member and the body it raises the body which creates a bit more room in the tunnel. How can it lower the K member if you are using the same front springs and front tire wheel combination? It can't. when 4x4 trucks get a lift kit, the body is raised, not the other way around, your K member's low point is determined by front spring preload and tire height assuming the weight stays the same, I know that is hard for some to wrap their head around . When I did it, I did not lose 1mm of header to ground clearance
If you put aluminum flat stock between the K member and the body it raises the body which creates a bit more room in the tunnel. How can it lower the K member if you are using the same front springs and front tire wheel combination? It can't. when 4x4 trucks get a lift kit, the body is raised, not the other way around, your K member's low point is determined by front spring preload and tire height assuming the weight stays the same, I know that is hard for some to wrap their head around . When I did it, I did not lose 1mm of header to ground clearance
What you have said isn't making sense. Your spring and shock can expand and contract easily. I am only telling you from actual experience, not theory and guesstamation, I didn't lose any ground clearance and that was a concern at first. I did gain enough extra room to get the T56 in the tunnel of a `94 GT without bashing it with a hammer though.
What you have said isn't making sense. Your spring and shock can expand and contract easily. I am only telling you from actual experience, not theory and guesstamation, I didn't lose any ground clearance and that was a concern at first. I did gain enough extra room to get the T56 in the tunnel of a `94 GT without bashing it with a hammer though.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 625
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
What you have said isn't making sense. Your spring and shock can expand and contract easily. I am only telling you from actual experience, not theory and guesstamation, I didn't lose any ground clearance and that was a concern at first. I did gain enough extra room to get the T56 in the tunnel of a `94 GT without bashing it with a hammer though.
It sounds to me like you have OEM style springs and you do not understand what coil overs are or how coil overs work. I'm not working from theory or guestimation either, but I do understand the differences between OEM springs and coil overs.
OEM springs mount between the front control arms and the k member. When you put spacers between the k member, and the chassis with OEM style springs, the engine stays where it is and the chassis ride height moves up. You can easily google pictures of this.
Coil over springs mount on the front strut, and set the ride height of the chassis by spacing the spindle relative to the strut towers. When a spacer is placed between the k member and the chassis, the distance between the spindle and the strut towers is unchanged, the ride height remains the same, and the k member and engine move towards the ground. In order to show a visual, I am linking an image of my actual car and actual coil over and struts. You can clearly see the spring on the struts which sets the ride height between the spindle and the strut tower.
Also, you had referenced Maximum Motorsports at one point, and if you actually look at their site, you will see they agree with me:
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/K-...ick-P1268.aspx
Installing spacers between the k-member and the chassis creates more clearance between the top of the engine and the underside of the hood. The increased clearance to the hood aids with some engine swaps, such as when putting a 5.4L Triton truck engine into an SN95 Mustang.
When installed on a Mustang that also has a front coil-over kit these spacers have no effect on ride height. The spacers move the k-member downwards from the chassis, towards the ground.
When installed with a stock k-member, and with the springs still in the stock location, the ride height will change. The chassis will move upwards by the thickness of the spacers, and the k-member will remain the same distance from the ground.
When installed on a Mustang that also has a front coil-over kit these spacers have no effect on ride height. The spacers move the k-member downwards from the chassis, towards the ground.
When installed with a stock k-member, and with the springs still in the stock location, the ride height will change. The chassis will move upwards by the thickness of the spacers, and the k-member will remain the same distance from the ground.
Why don't you go take the same measurements as posted above and put them up as a point of reference for other users in the future.
With the first design the height of the engine was exactly the same as the aje. I would not space the k member. You start moving suspension mount points around you create more issues.
The reason I went from the alum pan to the steel one is the clearance issue. I was not willing to redo that many things to make it fit. Imo you have the engine too far back. Change the pan make new mounts and move it fwd and then down so it sits where the aje mounts put it.
You are going to end up needing weight on the front of the car anyway once you hook it.
Tim
The reason I went from the alum pan to the steel one is the clearance issue. I was not willing to redo that many things to make it fit. Imo you have the engine too far back. Change the pan make new mounts and move it fwd and then down so it sits where the aje mounts put it.
You are going to end up needing weight on the front of the car anyway once you hook it.
Tim
Do you have coil overs on your car, or do you have OEM style springs?
It sounds to me like you have OEM style springs and you do not understand what coil overs are or how coil overs work. I'm not working from theory or guestimation either, but I do understand the differences between OEM springs and coil overs.
OEM springs mount between the front control arms and the k member. When you put spacers between the k member, and the chassis with OEM style springs, the engine stays where it is and the chassis ride height moves up. You can easily google pictures of this.
Coil over springs mount on the front strut, and set the ride height of the chassis by spacing the spindle relative to the strut towers. When a spacer is placed between the k member and the chassis, the distance between the spindle and the strut towers is unchanged, the ride height remains the same, and the k member and engine move towards the ground. In order to show a visual, I am linking an image of my actual car and actual coil over and struts. You can clearly see the spring on the struts which sets the ride height between the spindle and the strut tower.
Also, you had referenced Maximum Motorsports at one point, and if you actually look at their site, you will see they agree with me:
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/K-...ick-P1268.aspx
Now, If I had moved the engine forward in my chassis and set it back at a larger angle, then I would not have had to hammer the tunnel or firewall either. However, since I wanted the 650 lbs of drive train back as far as possible, and it is about 3.75" behind where a SBF would have been, I was willing to hammer the required areas. Not to mention the SN95 trans tunnels are different than the Fox trans tunnels, so there may just be more clearance in an SN95 tunnel.
Why don't you go take the same measurements as posted above and put them up as a point of reference for other users in the future.
It sounds to me like you have OEM style springs and you do not understand what coil overs are or how coil overs work. I'm not working from theory or guestimation either, but I do understand the differences between OEM springs and coil overs.
OEM springs mount between the front control arms and the k member. When you put spacers between the k member, and the chassis with OEM style springs, the engine stays where it is and the chassis ride height moves up. You can easily google pictures of this.
Coil over springs mount on the front strut, and set the ride height of the chassis by spacing the spindle relative to the strut towers. When a spacer is placed between the k member and the chassis, the distance between the spindle and the strut towers is unchanged, the ride height remains the same, and the k member and engine move towards the ground. In order to show a visual, I am linking an image of my actual car and actual coil over and struts. You can clearly see the spring on the struts which sets the ride height between the spindle and the strut tower.
Also, you had referenced Maximum Motorsports at one point, and if you actually look at their site, you will see they agree with me:
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/K-...ick-P1268.aspx
Now, If I had moved the engine forward in my chassis and set it back at a larger angle, then I would not have had to hammer the tunnel or firewall either. However, since I wanted the 650 lbs of drive train back as far as possible, and it is about 3.75" behind where a SBF would have been, I was willing to hammer the required areas. Not to mention the SN95 trans tunnels are different than the Fox trans tunnels, so there may just be more clearance in an SN95 tunnel.
Why don't you go take the same measurements as posted above and put them up as a point of reference for other users in the future.
With the first design the height of the engine was exactly the same as the aje. I would not space the k member. You start moving suspension mount points around you create more issues.
The reason I went from the alum pan to the steel one is the clearance issue. I was not willing to redo that many things to make it fit. Imo you have the engine too far back. Change the pan make new mounts and move it fwd and then down so it sits where the aje mounts put it.
You are going to end up needing weight on the front of the car anyway once you hook it.
Tim
The reason I went from the alum pan to the steel one is the clearance issue. I was not willing to redo that many things to make it fit. Imo you have the engine too far back. Change the pan make new mounts and move it fwd and then down so it sits where the aje mounts put it.
You are going to end up needing weight on the front of the car anyway once you hook it.
Tim
When you had the first design k, did you use their two piece mounts or is that when you built your own mounts?
So you spaced the body up 3/4" which increased the space between the front tire and fender. Then you adjusted coil over to lower the body to return to the desired ride height. When you dropped the front end 3/4" by adjusting the coil overs, the k member was also lowered.