Factory Five Racing Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Senior Charter Member
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am planning to use SN95 spindles on the front.
Does that mean I need to use stock SN95 front lower control arms? Are they different from pre-94?
Thanks!
 

·
What's in a name
Joined
·
369 Posts
You'll still use the Fox lowers. The SN95 lowers will widen the track defeating the purpose of running the 94/95 spindles.

You will need a couple washers (spacer) for the ball joint retaining nut or you can install SN ball joints on the fox lowers and avoid the spacer.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,895 Posts
Originally posted by Homealone:
You'll still use the Fox lowers. The SN95 lowers will widen the track defeating the purpose of running the 94/95 spindles.

You will need a couple washers (spacer) for the ball joint retaining nut or you can install SN ball joints on the fox lowers and avoid the spacer.
I'm quite confused now; was told the opposite before :confused:
 

·
What's in a name
Joined
·
369 Posts
Originally posted by EFNFAST:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I'm quite confused now; was told the opposite before :confused: [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]SN95 lower control arms are around 1/2" wider than Fox lower control arms.

Here is what most people are trying to do.

If you use 94/95 spindles with Fox LCA's, you will keep the Fox track width.

96+ spindles with Fox LCA's will be 8mm wider per side.

If you use Sn95 spindles and SN95 LCA's you will be about 1/2" to 3/4" wider per side than a Fox.
 

·
What's in a name
Joined
·
369 Posts
Originally posted by BostonBuster:
Fox lowers , Breeze ball joint spacers.
This is true also. I didn't think of the tapered bushings. Forte's has them also.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,825 Posts
Originally posted by Homealone:
You'll still use the Fox lowers. The SN95 lowers will widen the track defeating the purpose of running the 94/95 spindles.
Sorry Homealone, this is not true.

Mk III frame has two mounting positions for the lower control arms. The outer hole is for the Fox width (donor or FFR tubular style). The inner holes are for the SN95 (94-up) style donor arms.

It's in the manual, but it's easy to overlook the paragraph about mounting the SN95 donor LCA's.

Because they mount to holes that are 3/4" inboard, they maintain the Fox track width.

buildit,

Yes you can use the 94-up donor lower control arms if you wish.

Sean
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,895 Posts
Originally posted by canuck1:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Homealone:
You'll still use the Fox lowers. The SN95 lowers will widen the track defeating the purpose of running the 94/95 spindles.
Sorry Homealone, this is not true.

Mk III frame has two mounting positions for the lower control arms. The outer hole is for the Fox width (donor or FFR tubular style). The inner holes are for the SN95 (94-up) style donor arms.

It's in the manual, but it's easy to overlook the paragraph about mounting the SN95 donor LCA's.

Because they mount to holes that are 3/4" inboard, they maintain the Fox track width.
</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for clarifying that; I was stating to get really confused!
 

·
What's in a name
Joined
·
369 Posts
My apologies if I misled you. I am building a coupe and it does not have multiple mounting points so I did not even think of that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,825 Posts
cobrastang,

You are correct, the spindles are different (Fox, early SN95, late SN95 etc.).

I thought(?) buildit was originally asking about the donor style lower control arms.

Sean
 

·
Senior Charter Member
Joined
·
1,861 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Really appreciate it....and yes, it was the LCA's I was wondering about. But that's the best comparison of spindles that I've seen!
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top