hey guys...
so...i know its been discussed before but i need to elaborate on a few things.
the 87-88 tbird k member vs a fox mustangs k member.
i know the mustang k member usually is used in place of the tbird unit to make use of fox mustang poly or solid engine mounts. what i dont know is weather or not the fox K member physically moves the engine foward, rearward, up, down, or to the side for that matter. also, weather or not it changes the suspensions geometry in any way from the tbird one. spacifically the spring purch location, control arm location and rack location.
more importantly, i need to know exactly what and how it mounts differently to the tbird.
this is why. im having a k member made up for my swap. they already make one for a dohc 4.6 swap into a fox mustang. i need to be able to tell them what they need to change to make it fit the tbird properly so i dont have to modify it to make it fit like a stock stang k into a tbird. i realy appreciate any help guys. it would be realy nice to get it right the first time. thanks again....john
oh, and pics would be pissah...thanks again....
From what I have read the only thing differene is the motor mount perches.You can put a Mustang K member it and use all your t-bird control arms and so fourth.
cool...thank you.
i know the fox stang k member works and im confidant the suspension points are similar if not the same but i know there are differances somewhere. if i remember correctly the rear bolt holes were somehow different. if they need to be moved, id rather have it moved directly on the new k member instead of hacking up an expensive new k member.
also, if the motor is physically re located somehow by switching between the k members in a tbird i need to know that.
Every swap I've heard about says the rearward mounting holes do not quite line up and do not fit to the chassis, so shims/spacers are needed..
my Qa1 bolted right in no problems .
okay but how dont they line up?...this is what id like to have fixed in the new k member instead of shimming and or elongating holes etc........thank you though....
shoot....can anybody thats done the fox mustang k member swap please chime in? i hate to be a pain in the @ss but i need hard info in it. its going to take a long time to get my k member made up and id like to get an order in early so i can have it before spring gets here..... i realy appreciate it...thanks again....john
Look into the Mark VII K members. I have two and they use the same mounts as the stang. As for fitment could not tell you but has to be about the same as the bird.
Sorry if this doesn't help but its my $0.02
thank you
well, i know the fox stang k member works. possibly the mark 7 one as well but what im looking for is basically if the fox stang k member moves the engine in any manner from its original position with the birk k member. also the rear bolt holes dont line up.
im ordering a tubular k member for my particular swap. id like to get it right or as close as possible the first time because that sucka is going to cost around 600 bucks.
the k member is spacifically for a fox stang chassis so it would have the same mounting problems. they can fix this while manufacturing the new k member so i dont have to shim, relocate or enlarge holes if i can tell them what i need. i dont want to be hacking up a brand new tubular k member as specially as there is no need when they can build the mod into it.
i also need to know if the engine will be moved at all because the tubular k member is spacificaly for swapping in a DOHC 4.6 . there is very little room for the engine and less for error.
if when swapping in the fox stang k member physically puts the 5.0 in a different spot then where the tbird k has it in the factory position i can use that info to place the 4.6 where i need it.
if for example though, the tubular 4.6 k is based on the factory fox stang k. if that factory k moves the 5.0 back any in a tbird ill be screwed when i go to put the 4.6 on the new k, if its made for a fox stang. there is only about 5/8 inch between the engine and the firewall on a fox stang/4.6 modular swap.
that can be corrected. of course, if the engine stays in the same exact place reguardless if you use a fox stang k or the stock tbird k than i should be all good. the only other thing too address would be to move the mounting holes in the rear to where they have to be. i still dont have that info though :(
its time to get all this stuff together. id realy like to be rolling with a modular engine under the hood by may.
thanks again...john
okay...so this is what i got so far...the rear bolt holes need to be elongated but i havnt found weather or not they move towards the rear or front of the car.
the same bolt locations in some cases need to be shimmed or spacers used as tom said. that realy annoys me though and seems "getto" using washers to mount something as critical as the engine cradle, tying the whole front of the car together.
also, sounds like the fox stang k will lower the engine some. no info on weather or not it physically moves it in the engine bay other than this.
finaly, sounds like the tbird k is actually narrower than the fox stangs k. this tends to push the wheels further outboard from the car. not too happy about that if its true. its only gonna be worse with the 03 cobra arms and 01 cobra spindles...
so..i guess well see how it goes....any input is welcom and appreciated...thanks again, mmm k ...... john
87 and 88's have the longer 94-98 mustang style aarms. You should be able to jsut throw on mustang ones, or 83-86 cougar/bird ones.
yes but i allready ordered the cobra arms. im not realy interested in the older shorter style stang arms. i dont belive in regression to bandaid a certain problem. the turn radius will be affected and possibly some other suspension and clearance aspects as well. if its the only solution than fine but i dont want to create other problems.
i still think the best solution is to have a k made for my application as i need one anyway, and thats why im trying to put the info together to do. it would also be a solution for those who want a tubular k in their tbird or cougar and want to keep the better arms, reguardless of engine choice. obviously the motor mounts arent the only differance between the tbird k and stang k. i just cant seem to get hard numbers on it. i can see im gonna end up having to find a stang k. theres nothing like wasting money when you could be spending it somewhere else. thats how it goes i guess.
does anyone know how much wider the stangk k is and where the length is built in?
hears what it did for me... i can now use fox mustang mounts, it lowered my engine about an inch or so, also i think it went back a bit (seems closer to the firewall now) the rear most holes need to be elongated, thats even to strong a word... i'd say more like reamed out, and they dont get spacers... the spacer goes where the upper spring purch is so you can tighten down the k member without bending anything. i used a piece of 1/8" steel plate i cut to size. it also changes the front track width if your useing your stock control arms. i found that mine is now wider upfront than it was before. maybe about 3/4" each side. swap didnt take long, did the kmember engine and t5 in a weekend...
Awesome Nate..thanks!
how far do the wheels stick out past the fender on your car?
thats exactly where i ran into my problem lowering it... if i had the mustang arms on it i think it would be fine, but sence they stick out flush to 1/2" out depending on camber it was rubbing on the fender lip.
have you driven the car since? how is it working out?
I'm still a bit muddy on some of the k-member specifics...
What I know is 83-85 Cougar/T-birds used the same k-member as '79-'86 Mustangs. In '87, the Mustang k-member control arm mounting points moved outwards 1".
Now, on the coolcats website (http://"http://www.coolcats.net/tech/reference/specs.html"), it shows the same track width for all '83-'88 cars. Since all wheels use the same backspacing, this can't be. If '86-'88 cars use the same k-member, but '87-'88 cars use 3/4" wider control arms, the track must increase. Anyone have any info on this?
It is indeed possible.
If i remember correctly, the control arm mounting points are spaced farther apart on the mustang k-member, so with the shorter arms, the track width is the same
on the Tbird member, the control arm mounts are closer together, so the extra length in the arms will still give the same track width, that also give a more plush ride, and somewhat "softens" the spring rates
So '86 Cougars/T-birds use Mustang k-members?
Coolcats says our cars got a unique k-member in '85, but my '85 uses Mustang motor mounts. If the unique k-member didn’t appear until '87, then the track width would be the same (and everything would make sense).
Late 1985 cars have been known to sport the updated 1986-88 K-member. All the other 1983-85 cars, though, have the Mustang K-member from those respective model years. There were some very minor changes made to Mustang K-members between 1979-93 but in general, a Mustang K-member works on any 1983-88 Cougar or Thunderbird.
It is entirely possible that the front track is indeed wider than the published numbers on 1987-88 cars. The numbers are probably wrong. When you take the same wheel (say, for the sake of argument, a 15" turbine wheel) and put it on a 1986 and a 1987, you can easily see the difference in track width, as the 1986 will have the wheel tucked under the fender, and the 1987 will have the wheel flush or even sticking out from the fender. I have always felt that the published numbers for 1987-88 cars were not correct because of the real-world known differences in the suspension and A-arms. Shawn's point is valid and indeed, that could be very true. We'll never know until someone makes measurements between them. For the time being, though, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the published numbers.
Edit: One more thing about the track width published numbers...those may have been made using the standard 14" steel wheels (with or without the chrome spoke hubcaps). Those skinny ol' spokies are going to be tucked under the car, regardless of K-member. When you get to a wider rim, such as the 7"-wide turbines, the differences are very obvious.
I'll make some measurements (control arm mounting width) when I have the time. That is about the only thing I can measure accurately while the k-member is bolted up.
Would anybody be willing to give me an old stock k-member? I'd pay for shipping. It'd be nice to actually know the differences rather than having vague recollections.
awesome info guys...thank you!...all i have available is my stock tbird k. ill measure it up tonight if i can get it in the garage. im not entirely sure they will be able to move the a arm mounting points in for me. im going to be running a 17X8" rim and i would like it to fit just inside the fender the fender if at all possible whyle using the cobra arms i have on the way. i could have the fenders rolled as an option but outside of that ill be stuck. sticking out something like an inch wouldnt be any good...ive also got bullit springs on the way so the car will be lowered as well. hopefully everything works okay together...thanks again guys....
Well I did just that on my '88 'Bird and they certainly do not stick out flush or past the fenders, in fact they tuck just as nice as the stock 14" steelies. In fact, the only time I've seen 7" wide rims stick out flush or past the fender was with the fox mustang k-member and t-bird control arms. I AM NOT trying to burn you...just not sure whether you meant measurements with tubular k or standard t-bird/coug k member.
I am assuming you're referring to the measurements of stock components. If not, then ignore a large part of this post.
yeah. the tubular k member is originally made for a fox mustang, not a tbird. they will tweak one for me but im not sure how much. if they were desighned for a tbird id have no worries...im going to be running 17X8 with 03 cobra (same length as a tbird arm)a arms. im thinking if i can get them to bring them in to where the tbird ones are ill be alright. im sure thats going to be pretty involved. its not like moving a hole or motor mount or something....well see i guess...
When I swapped to the Mustang K-member, All I had to do is ream the outer rear holes of the body mount location towards the outsides of the car when useing the Mustang bolt plate and didnt require any shims @ the spring perch. I used the T-bird control arms and find that the 16' Turbocoupe wheels sit flush if not out a hair from the fender lip. (I will probably swap in the Mustang contol arms next summer....just too bad i replaced the bushings and ball joints in the Bird arms)
As for engine location...No Idea as Bird was a Turbo 4cyl....BUT i can tell you the 5.0 sits exactly in the Bird as it did in the Mustang in reguards to spacing. As for height, it depends on which mounts you use.....I used new rubber GT mounts and find that the engine sits high (I am hoping they will settle a little).....you can goto the convertable mounts to lower the position if you like.
In Short, if you are able You can go look @ a 5.0 Mustang and take all the measurements you like to verify the spacing from the firewall and the radiator to the engine as well as any other concerns you may have.
Hope something in all that is of some help
Good luck
John
i should still have my cars old k member behind the shed. its yours if ya want.
well...i ordered the k member. its going too be a month though before i see it. that sucks a little. i was going too have them move the a arm mounting points inboared an inch on each side but it would have been way too much money for me because it would basically be a whole new custom unit. i figure ill roll the fenders, stay with a 245 on the 17-8 and see just how bad it ends up being. if i gotta go with the ghey fox mustang arms than such is life....
oh, and by eyeballing the front control arm pivot points with a tape measure it looks like they are about 23 1/4 ish inches appart center to center....stock 88 tbird arms/k....
Good threaD, thought I'd register and throw my two pennys in here for what its worth.
When I was swapping K-members on my 87 T/C to help facilitate the V8 and 5 lug swap I learned a few things, almost all of it the hard way meaning I actually did it. In any case heres what I got.
First, the 83-5 Bird/Cougar Kmember will bolt right into the later (87-8) cars but it WILL move the wheels outboard, ALOT. Especially using the longer 87-8 front A arms. Sooo, unless you like having your wheels stick out past the fenders or you plan on somehow widening or flaring the front fenders and doing something to make the rear match, dont do it. Also, the 87-8 Tbird (and 94-04 Mustang) A arms are 13 3/4" from the CL of the balljoint to the CL of the A arms mount swing axis (where it bolts to the K-member). The 93- older Mustangs (and 83-5 Tbirds) use a very similar appearing A arm but it is 13" from the same measurements described above.
Second, the 87-8 K-member has front control arm mount points that are about as narrow (width wise when viewed from the front of the car) as you are going to ever find in a Fox platform Kmember be it factory or aftermarket. I made this measurement off of 4 different factory Fox Kmembers, a 83-5 Tbird, a 92 Mustang GT, a 87 Tbird, and a 84 SVO Mustang and after calling almost every aftermarket Kmember manufacturer and tape measuring alot of them at Fun Ford Wknd events myself.
Third, since I was converting to 94-up Mustang 5 lug and brakes, and using 18x9 wheels that are fairly wide, and swapping to a V8, I knew that I was going to need a Kmember that kept the track width as narrow as possible. If i didnt, the front wheels were going to stick out of the fenders (unacceptable). The 94-up Mustang brake swap mandates using the newer spindles which also slightly increase the track width. It also requires using either the 94-up Mustang style ball joint or a spacer on the older 87-8 Tbird/Stang balljoint. Since my TurboCoupe was going to be lowered with the new suspension, I had to try to make sure that there was no contact between the tires and front fenders even on bumps (in other words, keep the wheels tucked inside the fenders with some room to spare)
Heres what I used:
1. Stock 87 Tbird Kmember modified as follows: Engine mount
perches cut off flush with K-member and replaced with engine
mount perches from a 92 Mustang Kmember so that the much
stronger 92-3 Mustang engine mounts could be used. The Stang
engine mount perches were welded in the same place as the now
removed Tbird perches. On the side of the K-member where the
upper spring perch is located (nearest to where the strut is, when
on the vehicle) there is a lip of fairly thick metal that will need to
be ground off. It is not structual or needed in any way and must
be removed to make clearance for the strut if you are doing what
I am. Nothing fun about grinding metal but its much easier off the
car the doing it after you have reinstalled the K in the car. No
other modifications to the K-member.
2. 92 Mustang A-arms with 94-up Mustang balljoints installed. ( I
used Moog balljoints available from NAPA) Using the shorter
Mustang A arms cut 3/4" of track width from each side. Doesnt
sound like much but its everything when you are putting 9" wide
SN95 wheels on the front of the 87 Tbird. Doing this will radically
change your camber. As in positive camber where the top of the
wheel will stick out and the bottom of the wheel will be tucked in.
The solution isnt a whole lot of fun but the payoff of having a
much wider front tire is worth it. I'll detail it later.
3. Maximum Motorsports caster/camber plates. 92 Mustang GT rack
and pinion with Baer racing tie rod ends. Russel braided stainless
front flex brake lines. Koni adjustable front struts (no longer using
factory adjustable suspension)
Hope this helps those people that are looking to swap engines or update their wheels/brakes to the 94-up Mustang GT/Cobra setups and the better wheel choices that such an upgrade allows. Remember the wider you go with on your front wheels the harder it will be to keep them from sticking out so you may or may not have to do some of the mods I listed above. Just my experience in having done it. Good luck.
I put a D&D tubular k-member and a-arms in my 84 tbird and everything lined up just like factory. you will be glad you made the switch to tubular after the first time you pick it up and notice how light it is.
sumthin nuu....nice post, thanks and welcome! id be alright if it was a 5.0 i was swapping in but im not sure exactly how much room im gonna need down there for the 4.6. the sway bar may even be in the way. not sure till everything comes together.
your 84 basically has a mustang width k member unlike the 87-88 k. i cant wait till it gets here though. hopefully the wheels dont stick out too far with the arms i have. ill deal with it if they do but im still crossing my fingers...
That is the problem I am having. I am trying to decide which parts to use for my conversion. I already have '88 Stang k member and a arms. I have Stang 11"rotor spindles, and Mark 7 rotors. I am wanting to upgrade to SN95 spindles and brakes. I also have a pair of fairly new 94-04 stang a arms. I don't know whether to get 94-95 spindles, or 96-98 spindles, or what a arms to use. I would like to be able to figure this out pretty soon, becuase I need to get the car back on the road. I am tired of it sitting in my driveway for the past 2 years.
*Edit* I forgot to mention that it is not done now, but I would like to lower the car 1 -1.5" in the future. Also, when I swapped in my stang k member and stang urethane mounts, my ac bracket popped a dent in my hood, which suggests the block was raised. Cant figure this one out either.
so whats the deal with the 86 k member? is it like the 83-85 or the 87-88?
slowfoxbird - use the 94-95 spindles
fordguy - the 86 is like the 87-88
Thanks for the reply Chuck, but would you mind explaining to me why? I am trying to figure out why for my own personal knowledge, so that I can understand the way that the suspension geometry works.
You want to use the 94-95 spindles primarily of the location of the tie rod attachment. IN 96 when they went to the 4.6, they had to drop the rack down 1" to allow for engine room. In turn, they dropped the outer tie rod attachment point at the spindle. You can run into weird bumpsteer issues if you use the others on a Fox car. Not all the time, but if you're going to go with a Mustang K-member, the 94-95 route is the best. I've used the 94-95 spindles on my 3 Fox cars I have converted to SN-95 brakes, and have had nil bumpsteer issues.
I agree with Chuck. The only downside to using 1994-95 spindles is if you're going to also run the 13" Cobra brakes...the spindles need ground down to allow those larger calipers to bolt up. Otherwise, for stock 10" or 11" brakes, they are the perfect solution for a Fox car. If you are going to run caster/camber plates then most of the issues with the 1996+ spindles can be negated, but you also have to have the rest of the suspension in order too. Best to stick with 1994-95 spindles.
I forgot to mention the grinding part. It's just a little bit around the mounting ears for the caliper brackets, nothing major. You also have to do the grinding if you're going to use the 99-04 GT 11" PBRs as well. I just did a set on the front of my '80 Zephyr Z7
Sorry to beat a dead horse but if I am going to be running a 99+ front brake system should I still use the 94-95 spindles then?I am going to be running 96-04 tubular a-arms or should I just get the 94-95 a-arms in the tubular k-member kit?
Thanks,
Chris
Is the Kmember set up for a 5.0 or 4.6?
For 5.0, use the 94-95, for 4.6 use 96+ spindles.
The arms won't matter really...do they even offer a different set of arms?
The k-member I am getting is for a 79-93 Mustang and the a-arms I was going to get for a 96-2004 GT due to the fact I wanted to use the 99+ PBRs.
The arms for 79-93 Mustang are shorter then the 94+, right?
Thanks,
Chris
Yes the Fox Mustang arms are shorter than the 94+.
You can use the SN-95 spindes on the Fox ball joints, you just need a spacer under the castle nut.
The longer arms "might" cause you fender clearance issues depending on your wheel/tire set-up.
So arent the 94+ arms the same as the Thunderbird ones? I thought that the 93 and down were to short for the birds.
Thanks,
Chris
Yes, they are the same length, but the balljoints are different. The 93> arms are shorter, BUT since you are going with a Fox K-member you
might want the shorter arms depending on wheels/tires. The 83-86 Tbirds used the shorter arms....like the Fox Mustangs.
Ok, should I just go with the 94-95 k-member then? This is way to confusing,lol.
I think the part your missing is the Cougar/Bird k member is narrower than any other fox k member.
You need to qualify that statement. That is not true for the 83-85's....
So I just need to get the 94-95 k-member along with the 94-95 a-rms then, right?
hope i can un confuse you a little. first off, by looking at your avitar i assumy your bird is an 87-88. so, all assuming that it sounds like you are going too use a fox mustang tubular k memeber. this k will be wider than your stock 86-88 k. if you want too keep the track width in the front close too stock than get arms from or for a fox mustang, tubular or stock. likely, your going coilovers because most of the tube arms out there have no spring purches. i have no idea how that will effect anything. anywhoo....spindles, well stick with the 94/95 spindles because they wont stick out as much as the 96 up spindles, although i previously thought all of the 94 up spindles were the same other than where the brakes mount and balljoint location. reguardless of what spindle you use the brakes, 94 up, 99 up pbr or 13" cobra pbr will work but the 94-95 need a little very minor grinding.
if you use your stock tbird arms or 94 up arms (same length) with a fox mustang k member the wheels are going too stick out likely more than youd want and likely hit the fender. i already know this and im gambaling on how it comes out. ill likely have to go too a fox mustang arm (because they are shorter) and sell my 03 cobra arms :(
OMG, I am totally confued now, lol.
Should I just get the 94-95 k-member and use the 79-93 a-arms or should I just get the 79-93 k-member with 79-93 a-arms?Or just tell me what k-member to use and what a-arms to use.I am going to be ordering this like today or tomorrow.
All of this is going in an 87 TurboCoupe.
Thanks,
Chris
order up a tubular k for a fox mustang (79-93) and order up tubuler arms for a fox (79-93) mustang. your track width should stay about the same as it is now.
the only reason i started the thread is i was going too have one made up (tubular) so i can swap the 4.6 in use my new 03 cobra a arms and keep the track width the same. turns out i could buy 3 tubular k members for the cost involved in scratchbuilding one....wich was no suprise. so i ended up ordering one for a fox mustang. im gonna hope and prey that the 17X8 rims will fit under the fender with a little fender lip rolling. MANSON (Nate) recently just did this and had a clearance issue so i wont be supprised (will be dissapointed though) when i have too go with fox mustang arms.
I have an '88 stang k member, and 88 stang a arms in my 88 Bird. My camber is now a little off, I have no alignment machine to check though. I will soon be upgrading to 94-95 stang spindles for the good brakes, and then going to have it aligned at a shop. Hopefully I will not need caster/camber plates to adjust the settings, as I dotn want to fork out the $200 for those right now.
yeah...forgot the CC plates...those are kinda a given but you "may" not need tham i suppose.....
Not sure why you'd be so disappointed to use the fox Mustang arms. Most fox Mustangs owners use them and get them to handle pretty well with that set up. While having the longer Tbird/SN95 arms slows the arc and a few other benefits, I dont see having to use narrower wheels/tires and fender clearance issues as something I'd wana go thru to make the longer ones work. Not to mention the look of having the wheels almost stuck out of the fenders in the front. Hope ur suspension swap goes well though. Good luck.
actually, mostly id be dissapointed cause i bought the cobra arms forever ago befor i realized there might be a broblem. supposedly they have updated bushings and balljoint. im sure you can still get the fox ones new though. i just hate to re buy parts. plus i dont know how the bushings are in those and theres no way im going all poly in those....
I assume by "narrower" or "wider" K member, the reference is to the distance between the A arm pivot mounting points?
One point not adequately addressed for my understanding, since I have an '86 TC. The K member for 86-88 is narrower than the 83-85, yet only the 87-88 models had longer A arms. Does the 86 use the same A arms as the previous models? Wouldn't that mean the 86 has a narrower front wheelbase than all other models? Or is some other means used to get the track back to the same width.
Can someone clarify the details for the 86 front end, K member and A arms? And anything else pertinent?
Thanks
yes
the 86 should have the 87-88 arms
its partly my fault for not being more clear on that...in alot of cases, whenever talking about tbirds i have a habbit of saying 87-88 when i should have incuded the 86 as well. sorry bout' that.....
with what Chuck is saying i'm going to assume the 86 is the same width as the 83-85's. the 86 does have the 87-88 style mounts in it. i have to go out and measure. i have an 86 and i have a 89 stang k member in my garage now.
I thought someone had said 83-86 used the same arms so my question is still on the table. Certainly if the 86,87,88 are the same arms then the quandry is solved.
well, i cant speak for sure about the 86 because ive never owned anything other than an 87 or 88. it makes more sense that as it has an 87-88 k member, it would have the same arms as well. im confident with that being so. obviously if it has the earliier arms and the later k member than this would be the only tbird/cougar with a unique track width.
Well, there are other oddities related to this that confuse me. Che (Energy Suspension) has different listings for the front LCA bushings, 83-86 and 87-88. As I don't have access to an 83-85 or 87-88, only the 86, I sure would like for someone with the knowledge to clear up this discrepency. Thanks.
The 86 Tbirds/Cougar has the shorter Mustang lower control arms. Most, if not all, of the 86's also have the hydraulic engine mounts and the resulting perches welded to the K-member to utilize the hydraulic mounts. Ford most likely did this as a run-up in antition of using the hydraulic mounts on all of the 87-8 Birds and Cougars.
The difference in K-member widths and control arm with the 87-8 cars stems partly from the added width of the cars rear track when the disc brakes were used on the 87-8 T/C's. But most of it was probably for ride quality and geometry concerns on the front suspension of the car as it relates to slowing down the arc and somewhat reducing camber loss when the car is loaded hard in turns.
As far as differences in Energy Suspensions part #'s for the front LCA's, I dont know for sure, but since the sizing is the same from the 87-8 arms to the older ones as far as bushings are concerned, I'd hafta guess that the difference is probably in the durometer or hardness of the bushings and not in their dimensions.
You can review some of my earlier posts in this thread as to what my reasons and methods were for modifying my stock 87 K-member but most of it was to keep an 18x9 wheel tucked nicely inside the front wheel well without any fear of rubbing when going over bumps or dips in the road.
Hope some of this nonsense I wrote helps.
Sorry to ressurrect an old thread. But I've had the opportunity to compare two '86 Turbo Coupe K members and A arms with an '88 TC. The '86s had wider K members and shorter A arms than the '88. I don't know if the '86s match up with '85 and earlier but it contradicts some of the information in this thread.