Sanity check: Worth switching to Tubular Front Lower Control Arms?

[ironman16nc]

Do most builders go with the FF tubular lower control arms?

I currently have '97 donor front lower control arms. These limit (I believe) the front wheel width to 7". That becomes a problem because I'd like to go with at least 9" wheels in back. I'd like to put 17x9" wheels all the way around so I can rotate tires and also get the best deal on a 4x wheel/tire package. For the cost of the lower control arms, I'm figuring I'd save at least half the price initially on having the ability to get a 4x wheel deal rather than two 2x sets. Plus the added advantage of rotating tires. Make sense?

Is there also a significant benefit in the handling?

[skullandbones]

I think the lower control arms are included in the winter special. I know they were when I got my kit many moons ago. Even if you are unable to take advantage of that deal, it is well worth it. I could not see using the donor arms (clunky and bulky) when you consider how clean looking the rest of the chassis looks. There might be some improved geometry but I decided basically on the clean elegant racing look. I guess that's a little shallow but if you can utilize a better assortment of wheels there's a real practical reason to support your decision. WEK.

[CapeCoralCobra]

While researching for my order 2 1/2 years ago, I couldn't find any postings - other forum - that proclaimed any performance advantages of the front tubular LCAs vs. Mustang LCAs. I went with donor '88 Fox LCAs due to the budget, but do agree the FFR LCAs look much nicer. I originally had 17x9 Bullits with 245/45/17 tires on the front and 10.5 wide on rear. No problems at all with them fitting. I recently changed to FFR Halibrands, 15x8 on the front and 15x9 on the rear, because I like the look - wheel type and 15" size. No clearance problems with them, either. With the body and wheels on, you can't see much of the LCAs. I don't know if '97 LCAs are significantly different from the '88s, but the 17" Bullits I put on the Mk3.1 were listed for '94 - '04 Mustangs. I understand your reasoning for using the same size front & back, but I like the staggered look with more dish in the rear. HTH

[riptide motorsport]

Cape Coral is spot on.

[Avalanche325]

I would think that you would have to be an autocross or track-hound to actually get to the point of finding a handling differance. But, I have just received my kit a few weeks ago and they do look sweeeeet mounted up. They were part of the winter special. There were a couple of "gotta have its" for me, and that was one.

[AC Bill]

I never heard of roadster builders actually rotating the tires before? Makes sense, but I think the desire for larger rears, as part of "the look", over-rides that aspect.
The donor arms are certainly a lot stronger than the tubular ones. Adding new poly bushings probably wouldn't be a bad idea.
If there is no rubbing issue with the 8" wide rims, you could get a set of four, so you can still rotate them, and they will still look pretty good on the car.

[ironman16nc]

Thanks for the good thoughts. I have gotten conflicting information on what will fit (manual says 7" max width on the front but Cape Coral notes that 17x9" worked, and online wheel/tire vendors fit 17x9s to '97 Mustangs). Maybe the best plan is to go with the existing LCAs and if I run into fit issues, then I can always go to the tubular LCAs. Thanks all!

[CraigS]

The usual 9s will be fine
http://www.americanmuscle.com/buwh1-9404.html#tab1
if... you bang or cut the front of the mustang lca's. The interference is at the inner edge of the wheel on the front side of the lca.If you used tape-on weights and have them real close to the inner edge, they will be peeled off in a parking lot turn. Just get the wheels,mount them up and turn the steering full lock while in the garage. You will see the obvious point of contact. You can either bang the control arm w/ a big sledge hammer (it's tougher metal than you think) or grind out a small half moon clearance.Did this on my MkI and my MkII and finally got tube lca's on one of FFR's sales.

[AJ Roadster NJ]

What I find staggering in the responses here is that almost everyone talks about the looks of the tubular LCAs compared to the looks of stock or stock-appearing. Who cares? These are functional components, and you should consider functional issues in your decision. Looks, shmooks.

The overriding question is whether you're building a primarily track-day car or a primarily street cruiser. If my car were a track car or dedicated race car, I would not have ANYTHING but poly bushings in tubular LCAs, period, end of story. The exactness of the track and feel of the car obviously trumps ride quality when you're talking about a race car. In my case, I was building a cruiser that will see occasional track days and autocross at best, and spend most of its life cruising around on the street.

So -- I chose to not go with the tubulars, but I didn't go with donor or stock, either. I went with brand new Ford Racing lowers, which have rubber bushings, but the rubber bushings are twice as stiff as the original stock units. I bought the same corresponding Ford Racing stiff-rubber-bushing upper LCAs for out back on my 4-link rear. Why? Well, find a buddy that has a car (any car, whether a Roadster or a rebuilt muscle car) with all poly bushings and large (17" or better) wheels. Get a ride in it for more than a few miles. It will rattle the fillings out of your teeth. Poly bushings give any car a harsh bite to the ride, regardless of what the rest of the suspension is set up like.

I didn't buy those front lower LCAs to save money, and in fact I don't think I did save any money. The Ford Racing pieces are not cheap. I was targeting a certain suspension feel for my car. That feel was to have the extremely stiff spring/shock combo that comes from FFR's fully adjustable Koni coilovers, but with the stiff-rubber-bushing'd suspension front and rear just to take a bit of the edge off the teeth of the resulting ride. That's the way I designed the feel of my suspension.

And...how one looked vs. the other never occured to me during my planning.

Craig (above), by the way, is exactly spot-on about how to go about relieving the leading edge of the stock or FR front lower LCAs to clear 15" wheels. I used an angle grinder on mine, piece of cake. There is a ton of extra material there, no worries.

AJ

[Someday I Suppose]

Just to tack on, I wouldn't make the decision based on wheel size, and I wouldn't plan to rotate tires. a 10.5 inch wheel in the back with 315's just looks so right on these cars. In the front I think I am running an 8 inch wheel with 245's on it. Besides looking right, you are going to find that a lot of the performance tires in these sizes are directional as well, so rotating them left to right is not an option.

-Scott

[ironman16nc]

Thanks. As usual all the great input has made me do an about face! Cape Coral sent me a great link to a staggered set. This will be a street car - not a racer or a show car. This is for the fun of building one and it truly has been just that - FUN! I have high confidence now that I won't end up selling a staggered set of 17x9 and 17x10.5 on e-bay because I ran into fitment issues. THanks all! I'll stay with my existing donor LCA for ride, cost, and yup - nobody is going to see them. I did clean them up and paint them just for that guy that will get down on the ground and look!

[gtaroger]

I run the Ford Racing LCA's. Not sure if there better or worst than the FFR LCA's. I could'nt pass up the price. Free! Roger