Subframe differences... Scratch that... K-Member Koncerns
- Thread starter 996stang
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Got hit with some snow this morning of course.There are differences in the 88-93 4cyl k-members vs the V8. The 4cyl are narrower.
You can tell by the spring perch cups which one you have. Do you have a pic? It’s hard to describe but visually easy to tell.
More info here
Fox - k member differences
Ok! I have a 1989 4 cyl. donor car. Is it true that the control arm mounting points are narrower? I would like to run longer control arms from the sn95 chassis on my fox and this I think would help me. My fox already has sn95 spindles paired with 2000 cobra r brakes. I am attempting a...stangnet.com
Sorry for being late to the discussion. I think the OP and others are over thinking it. Here's my take...
I believe a Windsor based V8 should fit the OPs stock 3.8 k-member. Why. First - the 3.8 is a Windsor based motor, same bellhousing pattern. Second - the 83-86 3.8 V6 k-members could take a Windsor V8 without modifications (I did this swap in the 90's). The 94-95 3.8 and 5.0 k-members were the same, again Windsor V8's. 96-04 V6 and V8 k-members are different because the V8 is no longer Windsor based. So unless the 3.8 changed drastically in how and where it mounted by 99, I would think a Windsor V8 should drop right on the 3.8 k-member mounts - no need to swap k-members. This way your stock steering and suspension setups are unaffected. The steering rack will sit lower relative to other factory Windsor V8 installations, but that will just give more clearance at the front of the oil pan.
How it sits in the engine bay. The rear face of both V6 and V8 should sit in the same place, as their transmissions are the same size and mount in the same place. It will be the front cover that would move forward, but that's just because the V8 engine is longer.
Wait if “96-04 V6 and V8 k-members are different because the V8 is no longer Windsor based.” and his car is a ‘99 and a V6 how will it work again?
This is an extreme swap but very complete and it’s a 99 V6.
Not sure what you mean.
I believe (based on V6 to V8 swaps on Foxbodies) that the motor mount saddle on the 99 k-member could accommodate a Windsor V8 (mount bolt holes should line up). As far as how to make it run - that's a whole other ball game and not the question here.
I have not tried installing a Windsor V8 on a 99 V6 k-member, but like I said above, unless Ford redesigned the exterior shape, its mount points or overall size of the 3.8 block it should be very similar (if not the same) as its 83-86 cousins that were in Foxbodies. If it is the same, the mount saddles on the k-member should be very close if not the same. If stock V8 motor mounts don't fit, you could always make some custom motor mounts to position where you want it.
There is only one K-member for the 96+ cars, just like there’s one 94-95 k-member (excluding small diffferences that do not impact how an engine mounts.
The engine mounts are different for then 96+ cars, and ford redesigned the engine mounts for the 3.8L to work with the mod motor k-member.
I’ve heard rumors that flipping the 302engine mounts side to side will work on a 96+ k-member, but I believe there are concessions such as hight and fore/aft position. The 302 sits further forward on the k-member than a 4.6L
I’ll admit, short of having both k-members in hand and playing with mounts and such, I have limited experience in this.
Figured I find a decent thread on a GM board regarding k-member differences
The engine mounts are different for then 96+ cars, and ford redesigned the engine mounts for the 3.8L to work with the mod motor k-member.
I’ve heard rumors that flipping the 302engine mounts side to side will work on a 96+ k-member, but I believe there are concessions such as hight and fore/aft position. The 302 sits further forward on the k-member than a 4.6L
I’ll admit, short of having both k-members in hand and playing with mounts and such, I have limited experience in this.
Figured I find a decent thread on a GM board regarding k-member differences
4.6 motor mounts on 5.0 K-member? - LS1TECH - Camaro and Firebird Forum Discussion
Conversions & Swaps - 4.6 motor mounts on 5.0 K-member? - im going to use the UPR LS1 adapter plates with 4.6 mustang motor mounts...what im wondering is this: can i use my 5.0 K-member? would i have to elongate the mounting holes in the K member? i was going to ask on corral.net but questions...
ls1tech.com
Just do this and quit worrying about it.
www.americanmuscle.com
BMR Mustang Coil-Over K-Member; Standard Version; Red BMR-KM741R (96-04 Mustang) - Free Shipping
FREE SHIPPING! Improved Drag Performance. Set your Mustang up for aggressive street or drag racing performance with this Red BMR Coil-Over K-Member, Standard Ve
www.americanmuscle.com
Here is a very good write up on this for anyone interested. answered most of my questions.
After looking at both k members today i can tell you the mounting location on the 99 3,8 is very different from that of the fox k member as far as engine mounting location, we decided to do some more research as far as the bumpsteer and suspension geometry and essentially to run the k frame i would either need fox or 94 95 spindles, and fox or sn 95 control arms, this would factor in the steering rack drop on the 96-04 k frame and any further alignment issues. (slightly different between fox and 94-95 but no enough to be an issue an alignment couldnt take care of.
Engine location fore/aft differs as well. The 302 sits further forward so not sure that alignment would work out ideally. You might run into issues with shifter alignment? Crossmember and exhaust fitament and driveshaft lenght.
But I’ve never done this so I can’t comment for sure so I could be over blowing the risks.
Questions I’d be asking that guy who did it is if the engine was in the right spot so that trans lined up perfectly. The exhaust fit right, and other parts fit where they would normally sit on a 302 car. Just hate to see going that route turn into more work down the road.
But I’ve never done this so I can’t comment for sure so I could be over blowing the risks.
Questions I’d be asking that guy who did it is if the engine was in the right spot so that trans lined up perfectly. The exhaust fit right, and other parts fit where they would normally sit on a 302 car. Just hate to see going that route turn into more work down the road.
Last edited:
Yea still trying to get more info, but after reading some of the threads in here i figure why not try and some testing along the way. I just removed the engine mount bolts, trans was already previously removed, exhaust is removed, and me and my buddies spent some of saturday picking at it. basically short of the fuel lines its ready to pull, but before i do i want to measure exactly that. Got any thoughts? i was thinking of measuring between the crossmember and the back of the bell as it is still bolted to the engine with a brand new clutch, either that or i was considering using a string, (i know ill have to have the engine level or where it would be with transmission mounted)
It also seems if i need to go backwards a little it would be doable however if it needs to go forward it may be an issue.
Got word from the guy who did it, says he used an adjustable transmission crossmember from lmr, because it did move it back slightly but not much just couldnt get the holes to line up just right. also says he used the same driveshaft so im assuming it cant be too much. But i intened to find out. i just pulled a measurement from the center of the front of the bell to the center of the front of the crossmember and came up with 14 3/4. Well see when i moch up my old 5.0 block with bell tomorrow and re measure!
Similar threads
