IFS Question

[Charles Fuller]

Regards to all. Recently a post about the IFS bracket and pin drives sparked my interest. Several responses from very learned individuals led to viewing the front suspension in my Mark 3. As I recall the answer was to use IFS holes 2 and 4 for pin drive and 1 and 3 for pre-1995 without pin drive. Looking at the IFS, the upper control arms are attached to the IFS and can be moved up and down. Where the lower control arms are connected to the hub in a fixed position. I can find no mention of the differences or correct holes to use in the build manual. Therefore, my question. What are the differences? Alignment, travel or what? Thanks to all especially Jeff K.

[Jeff Kleiner]

It’s due to the donor Mustang spindle height. Fox go into the top and 3rd hole down on the spindle adapters and SN95 use the second and 4th holes from the top.

Jeff

[Mike.Bray]

It’s due to the donor Mustang spindle height. Fox go into the top and 3rd hole down on the spindle adapters and SN95 use the second and 4th holes from the top.

Jeff

Hey Jeff,
I'm told I have 94 SN95 spindles. I'm far from an expert but I'm learning a lot everyday trying to get this put together. When I used the bottom two holes on the adapters the UCA was at an extreme angle and the ball joint was almost in a bind at ride height. Dropping the bracket down seemed to bring everything where it should be although it does look like if the upper ball joint was installed from the other side it would be better.

How does this look?

https://www.imagecoast.com/images/MichaelBray1/20220714160732.jpg

This is with the adapters in the other holes.

https://www.imagecoast.com/images/MichaelBray1/20220709114304mediumrotated.jpg

[CraigS]

Go w/ your first picture.

[Mike.Bray]

Go w/ your first picture.

What do you think about flipping the ball joint housing over to get a better alignment with the spindle adapter?

[Jeff Kleiner]

What do you think about flipping the ball joint housing over to get a better alignment with the spindle adapter?

I think that sounds reasonable. When using the FFR Spindles or donor spindles at standard width the joint angles outward as you have it but with the narrower pin drive width having it angled inward (or possibly even using a zero degree ball joint plate) may result in better geometry. Mock it up and see how it looks.

Jeff

[rich grsc]

Just so you know, that is the WRONG spindle adapter for pin-drive wheels. It will be almost impossible to get a correct alignment using it. The pin-drive adaptor is shorter, moving the ball joint down and closer to the spindle.

[Mike.Bray]

Just so you know, that is the WRONG spindle adapter for pin-drive wheels. It will be almost impossible to get a correct alignment using it. The pin-drive adaptor is shorter, moving the ball joint down and closer to the spindle.

This is what FFR says they shipped me. https://www.factoryfiveparts.com/12507-pin-drive-width-spindle-adapter-bracket/

Are you saying I have this one? https://www.factoryfiveparts.com/13819-1987-2004-spindle-adapter-bracket/

It does look really tall and would explain why I'm having such fits.

[Chopper]

I don't have pin drive, but I think you do need the other spindle bracket. I think your geometry should look closer to this once you get the correct adapter. I know you're using the higher holes, etc, but I think the relation of the UCA to the LCA should look like this (closer to parallel).

https://photos.smugmug.com/Cars/Cobra/n-PLTRn/i-wwMrgpT/0/04d9eef2/XL/i-wwMrgpT-XL.jpg

[rich grsc]

This is what FFR says they shipped me. https://www.factoryfiveparts.com/12507-pin-drive-width-spindle-adapter-bracket/

Are you saying I have this one? https://www.factoryfiveparts.com/13819-1987-2004-spindle-adapter-bracket/

It does look really tall and would explain why I'm having such fits.

Looking at the picture it's hard to say, but that looks nothing at all like my adapter. The one I have only has one set of holes, so FFR must have changes design at some point. I'll try to get a picture

169462169463

[Mike.Bray]

Looking at the picture it's hard to say, but that looks nothing at all like my adapter. The one I have only has one set of holes, so FFR must have changes design at some point. I'll try to get a picture

169462169463

I talked to FFR and sent them some pictures and rough dimensions. They are going to confirm if I have the correct bracket or not. Looking at it I don't see how it could go much lower.

From your pictures the distance from the top hole to the tapered hole looks pretty close to what I have.

[rich grsc]

Yes, it's hard to tell for sure. What threw me off was the change in design. As you can see, nothing like mine. The pin drive moves the tapered hole low and closer to the spindle. Hopefully it's correct, if it is the upper and lower arms should be close to parallel

[Charles Fuller]

Back from changing the bolt holes. As I asked last time, I have a Mark III and noticed the difference in the IFS hoes used for the pin drive, SN95 and std 1992 Fox spindles. That said I decided to remove the bolts and move the IFS from holes 2 and 4 to 1 and 3. Well "now I know why I used holes 2 and 4. The IFS bracket hits the spindle (92 Fox) below the fourth hole. And unless I grind the snot out of the IFS I will not be able to align and insert the bolt into hole #3. Therefore, I ask? What am I missing? Or what have I done wrong? Bear in mind this FF is probably one of the oldest non completed Mark III. And I respect all of your opinions more than you will ever realize.

[rich grsc]

If you have a fox body spindles, you are correct 2 & 4. One set of holes for sn-95, the other set for the fox body

[Mike.Bray]

Back from changing the bolt holes. As I asked last time, I have a Mark III and noticed the difference in the IFS hoes used for the pin drive, SN95 and std 1992 Fox spindles. That said I decided to remove the bolts and move the IFS from holes 2 and 4 to 1 and 3. Well "now I know why I used holes 2 and 4. The IFS bracket hits the spindle (92 Fox) below the fourth hole. And unless I grind the snot out of the IFS I will not be able to align and insert the bolt into hole #3. Therefore, I ask? What am I missing? Or what have I done wrong? Bear in mind this FF is probably one of the oldest non completed Mark III. And I respect all of your opinions more than you will ever realize.

I am far far from an expert on anything Ford but I'm learning a lot as I go. It just seems to me like Ford changed things with the weather. I found three different timing marks for the 351W. Why??

I know I have 94-95 SN95 spindles. And FFR did come back and confirm I have the correct adapters for my spindles and pin drive front suspensions. So all is good there.

As my picture above shows if I use holes 2 & 4 the upper ball joint is too high, the angle on the UCA is extreme, and the upper ball joint is in a bind. So I'm going to say those holes are not correct.

Like you when I tried to move the adapters down to holes #1 & 3 I had interference between the adapter and spindle. Since I'm 99.8% sure that's the position I need to be in I modified the adapters by cutting some off the bottom.

My feeling is FFR has tried to make a universal design for the adapter and it doesn't fit all of the variations of spindles.