PDA

View Full Version : Tubular K-Member



fastsc92
01-25-2009, 01:39 PM
no message

ricardoa1
01-25-2009, 05:05 PM
Id be down, but I dont fit the criteria.

94-95 and stock motor mounts :(

getblown
01-25-2009, 05:24 PM
If you could make that for $300-$400... and keep producing them... youd make a killing.

fastsc92
01-25-2009, 05:26 PM
no message

XxSlowpokexX
01-25-2009, 05:44 PM
Id like to see how it cmes out however I have a 94....Also curious how the different strut rod will effect things

fastsc92
01-25-2009, 06:14 PM
no message

XR7 Dave
01-25-2009, 07:46 PM
I'd like one.

Mikessupercoupe
01-25-2009, 09:54 PM
What would be needed to make them for 94-95

Mike:D

fastsc92
01-25-2009, 10:32 PM
no message

ricardoa1
01-25-2009, 11:02 PM
I Love my Chuck's motormounts. And Id like to keep them. But again 94-95 is the key with me.

Not sure if someone can send you one for measurements. I could take mine down. If you are willing to do stock motormounts. I still dont understand what will be done about the strut rod. Why cant it be incorporated into your design??

nwnsc
01-25-2009, 11:09 PM
93 k member is the same as a 90;) i dont know about the 94-95 though

fastsc92
01-25-2009, 11:10 PM
no message

ricardoa1
01-25-2009, 11:47 PM
93 k member is the same as a 90;) i dont know about the 94-95 though

It should not be. The change is motormounts is due to the different braking system and I think 93-95 are the same.

XR7 Dave
01-26-2009, 12:11 AM
If you are replacing the K-member then the year is irrelevant.

The change in the K-members occurred in late 92. Check the Ford part #'s if you don't believe me. Anyway like I said, if you are changing the K-member then it doesn't matter what year you have now.

fastsc92
01-26-2009, 12:13 AM
no message

XR7 Dave
01-26-2009, 12:16 AM
I was under the impression that the mounting points for the motor mounts were in different locations (on the k-member). Or is it just the mounts themselves that are different between the years?

Well yes, but think about it. The motor is the same. If you are changing the K-member and the mounts, then who cares what year it is?

{edit} I just realized, some people have thought that the motor actually sits in a different location (height) in the later model cars. This is not so. The mounts are different only because the K-member is different. The only reason the K-member is different is because the mounting pads were widened in anticipation of the 4.6L motor. I believe that the Mark VIII uses the exact same K-member and so to make it fit the 93 Mark VIII they changed it for 93. But as far as the physical location of the motor from all years, it is the same in relation to the MN12 unibody.

fastsc92
01-26-2009, 12:19 AM
Well yes, but think about it. The motor is the same. If you are changing the K-member and the mounts, then who cares what year it is?

Well I haven't ruled out using a stock style mount, perhaps from Chuck. A little on the pricey side for me, and I have the flexabilty to choose whatever I want at this point.

Thank's for clearing that up Dave.

XR7 Dave
01-26-2009, 12:46 AM
For Ricardo, that might be a bit of an issue because he already has the expensive 93/5 mounts. He could probably have Chuck make a new lower bracket pretty reasonable though since the lower bracket is the only part that is different.

VicRattlehead
01-26-2009, 06:02 AM
when your done with your jig you can throw it away in my garage.

id need one for a 4.6 so id have to modify more.

ricardoa1
01-26-2009, 11:35 AM
Well yes, but think about it. The motor is the same. If you are changing the K-member and the mounts, then who cares what year it is?

{edit} I just realized, some people have thought that the motor actually sits in a different location (height) in the later model cars. This is not so. The mounts are different only because the K-member is different. The only reason the K-member is different is because the mounting pads were widened in anticipation of the 4.6L motor. I believe that the Mark VIII uses the exact same K-member and so to make it fit the 93 Mark VIII they changed it for 93. But as far as the physical location of the motor from all years, it is the same in relation to the MN12 unibody.

That could be so, but I remember reading some time ago that the earlier engines sit more to the right to allow the big brakes some room. And the later ones are more centered since the extra space does not create any issues.

We will have to call mythbusters on this one. This is another reason why my MAC headers always have rubbing issues in the steering shaft. Where others that have tried them in earlier cars have no issues. After bangin them and grinding them.

Come to think of it I would like to go earlier style since it will clear my rubbing issues. :D

XR7 Dave
01-26-2009, 12:02 PM
That could be so, but I remember reading some time ago that the earlier engines sit more to the right to allow the big brakes some room. And the later ones are more centered since the extra space does not create any issues.

We will have to call mythbusters on this one. This is another reason why my MAC headers always have rubbing issues in the steering shaft. Where others that have tried them in earlier cars have no issues. After bangin them and grinding them.

Come to think of it I would like to go earlier style since it will clear my rubbing issues. :D

It won't make any difference. I've worked in/on/and around more SC's than anyone and installed more headers in more different year models than anyone else either. The motor sits in the same location in all years. It's only the K-member that's different and which requires different motor mounts to fit it.

Mustang headers do not fit on any model SC.

ricardoa1
01-26-2009, 12:14 PM
If you are that sure we will roll with that. :)

fastsc92
01-26-2009, 12:20 PM
If you are that sure we will roll with that. :)

Well think about it...if the motor is shifted, then everything else downstream of that would be shifted as well, which is not the case.

ricardoa1
01-26-2009, 12:33 PM
I accepted what Dave is telling us, but when I did think that it was shifted :( I dont think its enough to even tell. Ive seen the steering shaft clearence to MAC headers on earlier cars and they sure have more clearence then mine for whatever reason it might be. :cool:

fastsc92
01-26-2009, 12:47 PM
I accepted what Dave is telling us, but when I did think that it was shifted :( I dont think its enough to even tell. Ive seen the steering shaft clearence to MAC headers on earlier cars and they sure have more clearence then mine for whatever reason it might be. :cool:

I had great clearance around my headers when I first made them. Somehow, a run-in with a pole drastically changed that distance. I wonder why...:confused:;)

ricardoa1
01-26-2009, 01:09 PM
I had great clearance around my headers when I first made them. Somehow, a run-in with a pole drastically changed that distance. I wonder why...:confused:;)

Hey my car has never had a date with a pole. :p

XR7 Dave
01-26-2009, 04:16 PM
Ive seen the steering shaft clearence to MAC headers on earlier cars and they sure have more clearence then mine for whatever reason it might be. :cool:

Things can be quite misleading. 1) SC motor mounts (the rubber parts) can vary as much as 3/4" in height which dramatically affects the intersection point with the steering shaft, 2) whether or not the plastic guard is in the proper location on the steering shaft is another, 3) how much someone might have beat on the headers or bent them compared to yours is very hard to determine just by looking at them, 4) I've installed those headers on early SC's and they don't fit well at all, 5) I've installed Kooks headers on both early and late model cars and they all have the same clearance issues on the passenger side (less than 1/4" clearance to the frame rail).

I could go outside and measure them to verify (I have both models sitting here) but I am pretty confident in what I've observed previously.

Toms-SC
01-26-2009, 06:10 PM
What is the advantage to such a system? Will this have the same problems as the AJE unit?

fastsc92
01-26-2009, 06:17 PM
What is the advantage to such a system? Will this have the same problems as the AJE unit?

Don't know...it isn't finished yet. The major savings are weight and more access from underneith.

I believe the issue with AJE was that they used hiem joints for the control arms, which really don't hold up with on the street. Also, their lower control arms were prone to bending.

sccrewzer
01-28-2009, 03:16 AM
Keep us posted any weight lost is good for these cars and for $300-$400 I'd be in.

ricardoa1
01-28-2009, 12:24 PM
Ill try to see if chuck wants to trade lower brackets or if he will sell me them.

With that.

There are two other things that hold me back. Id like to retaing the factory stut rods, Id like to have parts that are serviceable, and id we make them custom who know what the avail will be later on. It will be easy for you to modify them and put on whats avail over time. So is it possible to make mounting points just like the stocker.

Two I have LECB, I think you do too. Is it also possible to allow the installation of it.

If so I am down.....

fastsc92
01-28-2009, 01:23 PM
Ill try to see if chuck wants to trade lower brackets or if he will sell me them.

With that.

There are two other things that hold me back. Id like to retaing the factory stut rods, Id like to have parts that are serviceable, and id we make them custom who know what the avail will be later on. It will be easy for you to modify them and put on whats avail over time. So is it possible to make mounting points just like the stocker.

Two I have LECB, I think you do too. Is it also possible to allow the installation of it.

If so I am down.....


Well don't purchase anything additional right now until I get this one ironed out. School has been taking a toll on me and I've found little time to get it finished.

With the strut rod, the only servicable part would be the two hiem joints. They are just high-strength hiem joints available from many sources. They run roughly $14 each.

The mounting strategy is easier if I use hiem joints for that rod. I could work in a factory style mount for the strut-rod, but I'd like to avoid that.

I have LECB's and the front suspension braces. I don't think that the front suspension brace will be needed, but the LECB should be able to mount up to the area under the control-arm mount. I have my doubts that these two "braces" even do anything other than just add weight...:rolleyes: Which makes me reluctant to even put them back on my car.

ricardoa1
01-28-2009, 01:36 PM
I notice a difference, not when driving though. When jacking up the car from only one point the door used to misalign to the point that I was unable to shut it. But with the braces it reduces this misaligment by alot. So they do keep the car from flexing like a noodle.

fastsc92
01-28-2009, 01:48 PM
no message

J dot Miller
01-28-2009, 08:29 PM
... I've installed those headers on early SC's and they don't fit well at all, 5) I've installed Kooks headers on both early and late model cars and they all have the same clearance issues on the passenger side (less than 1/4" clearance to the frame rail).

I have always solved my clearance issues on that side with a few whacks of my hammer on the frame rail. :eek:

ricardoa1
01-28-2009, 08:34 PM
The LECB will most likely be able to be retained, but I don't think the front suspension support will be able to be used. I don't see the need for it in this application because the control arm mounting point will be braced by the whole k-member. It appears that the only function of the front brace was to reduce flex from the mounting location of the control arm, by tieing it in up front.

The red bar is showning where a tube would be, tieing in the front section with the control arm mounting point.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/fastsc92/thumbBuilder.jpg

I agree about the brace that goes on the actual Kmember would be redundant if the New Kmember is make in a box style. And that was the purpose of it to box it up for strenght. But the other brace that ties it to the frame rail I think helps with strengh by tying the Kmember and the frame as one unit.

XxSlowpokexX
01-28-2009, 09:24 PM
Gusseting the tubes would help as well.

And about the Strut rod. Heim joint on one end and factory bushing on the other..WOnder how that would work out

fastsc92
01-28-2009, 09:59 PM
no message

fastsc92
02-02-2009, 11:00 PM
no message

XR7 Dave
02-03-2009, 09:55 AM
I'm sure you understand that the strut rod is subject to perhaps the highest levels of stress found in any part of the front suspension. The poly bushings that were (are) sold at many places for the stock strut rod don't hold up even under normal use, let alone track use. You have to remember when the car generates over 1 g of braking that the entire weight of the car is hanging off the strut rod not to mention any shock loads from when you hit a pothole or bump into a curb.

My concern would be the design being able to withstand that kind of stress. I am also concerned about the angles which the arm rotates through. Something tells me that it is not a perfect circle meaning that the bushings may need to handle deflection as well as rotate.

fastsc92
02-03-2009, 10:26 AM
no message

Chuck W
02-03-2009, 05:19 PM
I saw my name tossed around a bit in this thread, so I figured I'd chime in. The only change in my mounts between the years is the lower brackets. They are all the same where they bolt to the engine, as are the bushings.

So, if you design around stock mounts, folks can use mine if they have them or decide to in the future. Seeing as you're only talking about a couple units, I guess it's really not that important.

As far as cost goes, you'll be surprised how much things cost once you start to add it all up.

ricardoa1, if you need different lower brackets, you'll be able to get them.

ricardoa1
02-03-2009, 05:38 PM
Thank you. I will let you know if and when I will need them.

Jay
I will keep my reservations of the strut rod. You know how I feel, I hope whatever you decide works well, Its an important component in the suspension and getting wrong can be catastrophic.
Hard to explain but the when talking on the phone I mentioned that there will be fore and aft movement if the rod is a fixed length. When arm its on its upper most position or its lowermost position the arm will get pulled forward with the rod since its it cannot compensate for the fixed lenght of the rod. The big rubber bushing is what will compensate the extra length of the rod when this happens.
Just my opinion.

CurtisPaulfrey
02-03-2009, 06:19 PM
I was talking to a few people today, I head that QA1 is coming out with a similar item.......

that being said I'd be interested in one...PM me if you are making them any time soon

fastsc92
02-03-2009, 07:00 PM
no message

XR7 Dave
02-03-2009, 11:40 PM
Ricardo, the tension supplied by the stock bushings to the strut rod will push and pull the control arm as it moves through suspension travel. Having a solid rod will not change this.

The only concern with strength is centered around the fact that the large rubber bushing at the K-member end absorbs a LOT of shock load which will have to be carried by the joints. Having said all that and from looking at the other parts, if you can verify that the strut rod moves in a single plane then I think the solid poly bushing might be best. If it doesn't, then I'd go with a solid hiem joint. I don't know if I like the look strengthwise of the last joint. Can you get any engineering specs for them as far as what loads they are rated for?

I'm not sure I agree with this statement, "I don't think that it travels in an ideal fashion." I have a lot of respect for the engineering that went into the stock system and I have my doubts that any of us could improve on it's geometry. I have a feeling that you'd be doing excellent if you can maintain the OE geometry with your design.

fastsc92
02-04-2009, 12:29 AM
no message

XxSlowpokexX
02-04-2009, 02:35 AM
Well only time will tell. If you allow the design to accept all of the above option perhaps people that pick up a kmember would be interested in testing out the various options.

I'd be interested in a Kmember BTW

XR7 Dave
02-04-2009, 10:00 AM
This is a Johnny joint, forged and greasable. Looks like a solid unit.

http://www.currieenterprises.com/cestore/images/product//Currie/ce9112sp.jpg

Currie parts have a very good reputation. I didn't realize that is where you were sourcing that stuff. It looks like they use those types of joints in the type of applications that we are looking at them for so that makes me feel like they will probably be fine for our use.

fastsc92
02-04-2009, 10:26 AM
no message

fastsc92
02-18-2009, 06:20 PM
no message.

fastsc92
03-16-2009, 12:36 AM
no message

XR7 Dave
03-16-2009, 08:49 AM
Excellent. For my project weight is a secondary issue. I'm more excited about having more room in there. :D Stock suspension parts are ok in my book because mine will be 99% a street car and I don't want all the maintenance issues with rod ends etc. I also like the idea of keeping all the stock bushings and geometry for street use.

XxSlowpokexX
03-16-2009, 09:28 AM
I also like the idea of keeping all the stock bushings and geometry for street use.


I agree 100% . If a tubular design can be made stronger even better.

ricardoa1
03-16-2009, 10:23 AM
Update in case anyone was wondering...

I have decided to make the k-member with stock-style mounts and also use the stock strut rod. I've gotten a bunch of requests to keep that configuration, so I've gone down that road now. It will also make adjustments much easier than using a threaded bushing.

I'm making the second k-member now using these modifications. I'll snap some pics as soon as I can. Stock weight of the K-member measured 49lb's on my scale. The latest design weighs in at 25.6lb's.

Is that second one going to be mine :D There must be a reason for the second one right. ;)
25lbs is important to me. Thats alot of weight from one item.

rzimmerl
03-16-2009, 11:07 AM
I'm starting to get more interested in one of these, can't wait to see how it works out.

fastsc92
03-16-2009, 11:52 AM
no message

fastsc92
03-16-2009, 11:57 AM
no message

ricardoa1
03-16-2009, 12:04 PM
So the first one is Junk :(

Yeah, i only want the the connecting braces that go the cabin rails, deleting the ones that "box the factory Kmember".

fastsc92
03-16-2009, 12:08 PM
So the first one is Junk :(

I wouldn't say junk...but selective peices were "sacrificed" in the making of the current one.

I only have about 8 feet left of pipe from the original 22 feet. If I make more...it'll have to get done before June comes around. Then my access to the plasma cutter is cut off until Sept. No pun intended...

ricardoa1
03-16-2009, 12:16 PM
Well I did not know if its salvageble or not. It would have been nice to grab that while I am waiting on the final pieces of the S/C.
I am interested in one still. Ill have to work OT to pay for it but If you can make it happen I am still down.

XR7 Dave
03-16-2009, 02:57 PM
I'll take the junk one for the drag car. I'll figure out the problems on my own. How much?

fastsc92
03-16-2009, 03:10 PM
no message

Belisarius
03-24-2009, 11:55 PM
Are those square pieces above the mounting brackets for the sway bar where the sway bar is supposed to mount? If so, are they going to be strong enough? On my old Volvo the bar bolted right into the frame. That seemed like a good idea. On my BMW I replaced the brackets with ones that were welded directly onto the frame when I upped the bar to 25mm. If someone wanted to run a 1 3/8 bar on our 3750 lb cars, it would seem like that bracket, if that's where the front bar mounts to, would not be strong enough.

fastsc92
03-25-2009, 08:51 AM
no message

XR7 Dave
03-25-2009, 09:55 AM
Jason is correct, the sway bar mounts carry minimal load in the vertical plane as it is primarily a torsion bar.

old_coot
03-25-2009, 11:14 AM
For the $300-400 range, I'm thinking you are going to need to make several of those....I would like one ....................Dan

Duffy Floyd
03-25-2009, 02:34 PM
Hmmmmm....I wonder why some are having issues with the sway bar brackets breaking when they upsize to some of the larger Addco bars if they load primarily in torsion???????

fastsc92
03-25-2009, 03:28 PM
no message

Duffy Floyd
03-25-2009, 03:53 PM
The reports have been on the rear sway bar brackets...but a sway bar is a sway bar and does the same thing in essentially the same way regardless of what end of the car it is mounted.

fastsc92
03-25-2009, 03:57 PM
The reports have been on the rear sway bar brackets...but a sway bar is a sway bar and does the same thing in essentially the same way regardless of what end of the car it is mounted.

If memory serves me correctly, the stock rear brackets are unique in that they hinge down, and aren't bolted like the fronts. I would have to guess the failure is in that area. I'd have to get more details of how and where the brackets broke to give you a better answer. There is loading in the vertical plane, but those force are minimal.

Duffy Floyd
03-25-2009, 03:57 PM
Skid pad results indicate .92 G's are possible with pretty much a stock suspension and to add a fudge factor for conservative design I would probably use at least 1.5 G lateral.

Duffy Floyd
03-25-2009, 04:01 PM
Here is one post about it...............

http://www.sccoa.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94221&highlight=broken+sway+bar

fastsc92
03-25-2009, 04:03 PM
no message

ScrapSC
03-25-2009, 04:42 PM
I am definately interested in one as well. I know I would probably be up for one on Sally's car also. The idea of all the room to be had underneath would be great!

EvilMooseofDoom
02-10-2010, 04:13 AM
Are there any updates on this crossmember?

fastsc92
02-10-2010, 08:00 PM
No major updates on this.

I started a new job and I've been working about 45hr/week. I haven't had much/any time for these. There are 4 units on vehicles or will be on vehicles shortly. Two more units are sitting waiting to get finish-welded when I find some time. Perhaps Dave, Brian or Ricardo can comment on the fitment of their units.

sinhumane
02-12-2010, 05:04 PM
still waiting patiently in line :)

SCrazy
02-12-2010, 09:26 PM
Waiting for a little warmer weather to install mine

birdlessmuz
02-23-2010, 11:37 PM
how much i got 89

95badbird
07-07-2010, 09:55 AM
How goes it with making these?

ironworker
07-07-2010, 03:24 PM
i still want one

95badbird
07-19-2010, 03:41 PM
Okay, after a few attempts here and PM's, I can't get a hold of this guy.
Is he okay?
Did he disapear?
Is he stuck in his jig?

XxSlowpokexX
07-19-2010, 05:45 PM
I think he said he wont be making any more for the time being so its really moot at this point. Im sure youll here from him when he deciedes to if ever build some more

fastsc92
07-19-2010, 06:44 PM
Okay, after a few attempts here and PM's, I can't get a hold of this guy.
Is he okay?
Did he disapear?
Is he stuck in his jig?

I'm still around.... but hardly. Swamped with work, totally lost interest in these cars, bought another street bike, looking into buying a house,ect ect.

I wasn't getting notifications about getting new PM's, so I applologize for the delay.

No more units will be made unless I get back into the mood or get bored and want to pick this back up again...and the earliest that may happen is in the fall.

Damon, we should talk about your unit....

SCrazy
07-20-2010, 09:02 AM
Damon, we should talk about your unit....


I really didn't need to know about this!!!

XxSlowpokexX
07-20-2010, 10:00 AM
Shhuuddduuppppp hahahaa:eek:

ironworker
07-20-2010, 11:57 AM
ill buy they jig off of u so i can make one. i need one for my turbo set up

SHEPP
07-20-2010, 01:26 PM
^^^^^^^ same here^^^^^^^^^^:D

Dirtyd0g
07-20-2010, 03:26 PM
I offered to buy parts and was going to make my own jig and was told I am not smart enoguh to do it, don't count on it guys.
Alan

95badbird
07-21-2010, 03:39 PM
I think he said he wont be making any more for the time being so its really moot at this point. Im sure youll here from him when he deciedes to if ever build some more

ugh, thanks I guess...:rolleyes:

95badbird
07-21-2010, 03:40 PM
I'm still around.... but hardly. Swamped with work, totally lost interest in these cars, bought another street bike, looking into buying a house,ect ect.

I wasn't getting notifications about getting new PM's, so I applologize for the delay.

No more units will be made unless I get back into the mood or get bored and want to pick this back up again...and the earliest that may happen is in the fall.

Damon, we should talk about your unit....

please let me know if you decide to do this.....or if you want to sell the jig.

95badbird
07-21-2010, 03:41 PM
I offered to buy parts and was going to make my own jig and was told I am not smart enoguh to do it, don't count on it guys.
Alan

who told you that?