I hate cars...

Topic: I hate cars... (Read 6183 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: I hate cars...

Reply #15 – September 12, 2005, 04:38:18 PM

Hey Eric, I got some info from you from Maximum Motorsports...

94+ cars got (STOCK) a metric outer tie rod, so you couldn't use the fox outers on them. 79-93 Mustangs got the standard we have on ours :rolleyes:

Aftermarket replacements (ie Autozone ) is all Standard. You go to the parts store and order any inner tie rod for any year mustang, it's all the same thread. Which is the same as fox's stuff.

Which is why I took the Maximum Motorsports kit to Autozone and pulled both the fox and SN-95 inners and it didn't thread onto either.

I thought I was going :hick: (crazy, not hick)

Re: I hate cars...

Reply #16 – September 12, 2005, 07:00:49 PM

Quote from: David

Aftermarket replacements (ie Autozone ) is all Standard. You go to the parts store and order any inner tie rod for any year mustang, it's all the same thread. Which is the same as fox's stuff.

Not sure where you went, but all parts stores carry different inner tie-rods for Fox/SN95 cars. You must have gotten a defective parts person. ;)

So...to clear things up.

Rack to inner tie-rod interface: Same for all power racks (SN95/Fox)
------------------------------Manual racks are different than power racks

Inner tie-rod to outer tie-rod threads: SN95 is metric
-------------------------------------Fox is SAE

Re: I hate cars...

Reply #17 – September 13, 2005, 12:07:54 AM

No... really, the threads are the same... I'm not defective, I'm the parts person. I ordered them myself.... Aftermarket replacements of Sn95 inner tie rods have STANDARD threads, they are 2" longer, but have standard threads.

Re: I hate cars...

Reply #18 – September 18, 2005, 08:43:51 PM

It lives!!! Drives and runs by itself. MM finally sent me the right parts.

Re: I hate cars...

Reply #19 – September 21, 2005, 05:38:25 PM

congrats. the wheels sit out any more?

Re: I hate cars...

Reply #20 – September 21, 2005, 06:38:19 PM

Quote from: Haystack

congrats. the wheels sit out any more?

They sit out a bit, but not as much as I thought they would. It actually like the look and I'm not a fan of any wheels that stick out of the wheel wells.

I'll have some pictures when I get my camera back.

I hate cars...

Reply #21 – March 31, 2007, 01:00:25 AM

Quote from: David;44107

Aftermarket replacements of Sn95 inner tie rods have STANDARD threads, they are 2" longer, but have standard threads.

I finally completed my SN95 rack conversion and can say with full confidence - that is NOT true.

I was unsure of which tie-rods would work, so I ordered a Fox TRE, and Taurus TRE, a SN95 TRE, and a FOX inner. All were TRW brand.

The Taurus and SN95 tie rods were metric, and the Fox tie rods were SAE. Neither would screw onto the other...I found this out by accident when I tried to put a Fox TRE onto the SN95 rack.

As an aside, if you want to swap a SN95 rack into your car while using stock spindles, you'll need '86-'95 Taurus TREs. The SN95 TREs are too long, not enough adjustment inwards. Else you will have to remove the stock inners and slap on a set of Fox inners/outers. I've yet to put the SN95 spindles on, but when I do I'll see if the Taurus TREs have enough threads engaged to be safe.

As an aside, I measured the track width to be 58 10/16" during my garage alignment.

I hate cars...

Reply #22 – March 31, 2007, 11:07:08 AM

Jeremy, you got pics?

I hate cars...

Reply #23 – March 31, 2007, 11:43:38 AM

I've got some, but can take more. What would you like pictures of?

I hate cars...

Reply #24 – April 01, 2007, 11:43:50 AM

I was interested in the TRE differences......Maybe something with all of them side by side?

I hate cars...

Reply #25 – June 29, 2007, 06:04:36 PM

I forgot about this post.

Below is a Fox TRE with a SN95 TRE. I didn't get a picture of the Taurus TRE. It has exactly the same construction as the SN95 rod, but it is 1.4" shorter.

The Fox TRE is on top.

Notice that the Fox TRE has an open inner portion, which allows the inner tie rod to adjust almost all the way in to the ball joint (yes, it isn't the ball joint, but it is a ball joint).
The SN95 TRE is closed and doesn't have nearly as much adjustment range.

Maximum Thread Engagement:

Fox - 3.25"
SN95 - 1.9375"
Taurus - 2.0625"

Ball-Ball Width: Width from TRE ball-joint to TRE ball-joint. Minimum width is with TREs adjusted to maximum limit inwards. Maximum width is with 1" of thread engagement.

Fox - 48" minimum / 53.75" maximum
Taurus - 52.25" minimum / 54.5" maximum
SN95 - 55.75" minimum / 57.375 maximum

The Ball-Ball Width for my '87 Thunderbird was 54"

The first thing you'll notice is that that my Ball-Ball width if wider than the maximum limit for a Fox.
Let me explain:

The Fox min/max widths are theoretical, using current aftermarket replacement racks. It is known that SN95 racks with inners are 48.5", and that Fox inners are 2" shorter than SN95 inners. I used these two facts, combined with the Fox TRE measurements I recorded to find the Fox Min/Max widths. My TREs currently are 54" in width and have ~1.75" of thread engagement left. The discrepancy may be due to the fact that OEM T-bird inners were longer. I will take off my outers on my old rack and measure it directly to confirm/deny this.

Also, these measurements for minimum width will vary depending on the manufacturer you use. I bought TRW parts, the Advance house brand. You can see in this post that Motorcraft TREs have slightly different measurements than my TRW pieces. The biggest difference was the amount of thread engagement available in the TRE.

SN95:
TRW - 1 15/16"
Motorcraft - 2 3/4"

Taurus:
TRW - 2 1/16"
Motorcraft - 2 1/2"

Bottom line. If you use SN95 inners in our cars with stock spindles, you need to use Taurus TREs. The SN95 TREs are too long.

I hate cars...

Reply #26 – July 13, 2007, 05:17:30 PM

Quote from: JeremyB;157611

The discrepancy may be due to the fact that OEM T-bird inners were longer. I will take off my outers on my old rack and measure it directly to confirm/deny this.

any more info on this possibility?
i have 94 spindles, sn95 length LCAs, mustang tubular k-member, and the factory 15:1 rack(87 TC). with this combo of parts my situation should be near identical to a fox mustang GT w/sn95 arms and the same spindles. i am probly gonna order a bumpsteer kit from MM to correct for my toe and tie rod angle issues. MMTR-7

unless the stock tbird inners are indeed longer.....then that kit from MM may be too long.

I hate cars...

Reply #27 – July 13, 2007, 05:23:23 PM

I measured the rack. It was 45.5" from tip-to-tip. I compared an aftermarket outer and the lengths were the same. The OEM inners aren't longer.

My math for the Fox rack (since I didn't measure it directly) must be incorrect. The Taurus/Sn95 combinations were measured directly.

I hate cars...

Reply #28 – July 13, 2007, 05:31:24 PM

thanks for the additional info. i should be fine with that MM kit then.

I hate cars...

Reply #29 – July 13, 2007, 06:19:07 PM

Quote from: gumby;160603

any more info on this possibility?
i have 94 spindles, sn95 length LCAs, mustang tubular k-member, and the factory 15:1 rack(87 TC). with this combo of parts my situation should be near identical to a fox mustang GT w/sn95 arms and the same spindles. i am probly gonna order a bumpsteer kit from MM to correct for my toe and tie rod angle issues.

Or find someone with a Fox who has 96+ spindles and swap them for your 94-95. I suppose the extra few mm width difference might cause you clearance issues, but then again maybe not.

You'll need about 1" to make up for the rack being lower on the KB K-member.