From my experience (car stereo installer for over five years while going to school) Dynomat and the likes of it work best if it sticks to prepped metal. They need the direct contact with the metal in order to deaden vibrations. If you already used something like a spray in bed liner or rubberized under coating then it will dampen sound too just not as well when you compare them in the same thicknesses. There are also spray on versions of sound deadeners but they require metal prep but sure do make it easy to get into corners and inside cavities like the rear quarters and doors.
I would definitely agree with Watchdevil on the molded carpet with the backing. I did that on my Coupe and it was super easy to install and looked great compared to the old stuff.
What I did find interesting is that the 235005 will fit all of the Mustangs 86 and down but only the four cylinder Mustangs from 87-93. I am pretty sure this has to do with the spindle mounting geometry...yeah I know, Captain Obvious. With that I would say that the Fox Mustang and Fox Bird/Cougar strut rod & body lengths are the same. This would also tell me that the SN95 struts would most likely work if the car was full height but not lowered as the strut is a longer unit and would bottom out hence Jack Hidley's comments in post #21. I think I pretty much stated what others have said but I had never researched it myself.
Here is a really good read on recommended struts/differences/applications of Fox/SN95/S197 struts.
What I took from all this conversation was that the SN95 units are physically longer than the Fox units (I think most were aware of this). Using Maximum Motorsports CC plates will give you one more inch of bump travel which I verified by call MM. So my take on all of this is that if you have a lowered Cougar or T-Bird the use of Fox Mustang struts and MM CC plates will give you the better setup for bump travel. As always, match your dampers to the spring rates to get the maximum performance out of the money you spend.
From what I remember the 4 cylinder Mustang K-members are narrower than the 5.0 Mustang K-members and the lower control arms are the same. The only variation in Fox Mustang lower control arms are the SVO units but they are basically the same as the TC and SN95 units.
Basically what everyone gets at is the motor will make 302W power (300 to 350 range) and about 50- 75 ft-lb more torque than a 302W but it will do it all under 5500 or so rpm. All that and a 100 lbs more over the nose of the car.
Now the one advantage I see here is if you are getting the P heads dirt cheap and are going to swap out heads and cam at a later date then this could be worth the work. Either way it sounds like a fun project as a day in the garage turning wrenches beats mowing the lawn.
What kind of power are you making or do you have any trap times and speeds? Also, have you checked your AF ratio? Sorry for the questions but I ran out of injector on my Coupe with 24 lb/hr injectors the 306. I swapped the 24 lb/hr units out to 42 lb/hr injectors and made 20 more rwhp and it also solved the idle issues due to the injectors being maxed out.
I would have to say that sbftech.com is a wealth of knowledge and great guys on there that will answer all kinds of questions. Granted a question like that has most likely been beat to death but that is why they made the search button.
I reread what I wrote above and hopefully I have not come off wrong as I do not mean to offend anyone. I am just asking questions and posting up what I experienced as it was a lesson that cost me a little money to learn.
Remember, the wheel openings on these older cars were not sized for the 16" wheels like the 90-93 Mustangs were. If the front wheel is moved too far forward you might get into issues with the front wheel coming into contact with the front fender lip when turning the wheel. Did you ask the guys at QA1 to see if they offered a lower control arm that would move the wheel back or if they could offer some advice on how to alter the K-member to change the mounting points of the LCA to get it back to where you need it?
I kinda figured you were aware of the heads being the limiting factor with a larger displacement motor. What kind of power are you wanting to build? The guys on sbftech will definitely steer you in the right direction.
GT40P heads??? You may want to buiild a smaller displacement motor with those heads. With some work they would be nice on a 302W based stroker like a 331 but I would not go any larger. I realize you could run them on a stroked 351W but with the limited air flow of those heads the larger displacement motor would not achieve what it could with a set of heads suited to it. I have a set of AFR 185 on my 0.030" over 351W and if it ever gets stroked to a 390+ inch motor then I will move up to the AFR 225's.
As and example, my Coupe has a 306 with box stock Eledbrock Performer RPM 2.02 heads (sans the valve train) and it builds 320 rwhp / 330 ft-lbs torque. The short block is 10.5:1 with a Comp Cams 35-518-8 cam. The upper and lower are box stock Edelbrock RPM II's with a 70 mm TB and a 80mm MAF. The A9L has and SCT chip w/a custom tune. The heads are the limiting factor and need a port job to make any more power with the current combo according to Ed Curtis at FTI. I might have done better with a ported Cobra upper and lower but I sold them to get the current intakes as this motor will eventually be stroked to a 331 which the RPM II's will shine on.
You really need to talk to a cam guy and make sure you are spending your money wisely if those are the heads you are going to use.
A9L computer, Painless wiring harness, 90mm Lightning MAF, and an SCT chip w/custom tune. Ditch the MSD dizzy as they have been known to cause many an issue. Go to NAPA and get a dizzy for a truck with a 351W and injection but put Ford internals (hall affect sensor) and TFI on it. Same cost as the MSD and will not leave you stranded. You will need somewhere in the range of 42 lb/hr injectors for the 408 if it has any kind of power and if you super charge it then that is a whole different can of worms. Definitely go with the Lightning lower at a minimum and if you do send it to TMoss (user name on the Corral) and have him port it (about $150 with shipping).
When I installed my Griggs K-member the 87-88 T-Bird lower control arms (SN95 Mustang lowers) moved the wheels out too far. I used the correct 83-86 T-Bird lower control arms (87-93 Fox Mustang lowers) and the width issue was solved. Typically most K-members have some geometry changes in them to move the wheels forward to increase the wheel base on the car. The Griggs and Maximum Motorsports K-members both move it forward 3/4". MM offers two lower control arms which move it forward an additional 3/4" or 0". Griggs also offers two lower control arms of which one moves it forward 3/4" and the other is a severe duty unit which is adjustable from 0" up to an additional 3/4" forward movement. MM does have a new "street" K-member that does not alter the wheel base as some guys just wanted the other advantages of the tubular K-member without the change in wheel base.
My guess is your QA1 has the forward movement but how much I do not know and the lower control arms may also have additional forward movement. I would call them or do a search and see what you come up with on the forward movement and the lower control arms.
You will need to contact QA1 and see what spindle they set their K-member up for as the 94-95 spindle is different than the 96+ spindles. This has to do with bump steer which can make the car wonder and jerk when hitting bumps in the road. If they set it up for the 87-93 Fox spindles then use the 94-95 spindles. These are easily identified by the way the attachment point for the outer tie-rod drops compared to the 96+ units. You can see the difference here if you scroll down to "4. Modifying '94-95 spindles to accept the '99+ PBR calipers":
The issue you are going to run into is wheel fitment with the larger hub design of the Fox era brakes. I did the Mark VII rotor on my 93 Coupe and ran the 97 Cobra wheels as they would work. It has been upgraded to the SN95 setup and ABS a few years ago. The Bullet wheels will not work with the large hub design so SN95 brakes will be required for this style of OEM wheel.
The steering column is a collapsible unit and you should be able to get it to extend that much. I would research this a bit more but I ended up having to compress mine a little bit but I installed a SN95 rack and the Maximum Motorsports hybrid shaft with a Griggs K-member so its completely different than what you are doing.
http://www.car-parts.com is where I found my 96+ spindles for about $35 a pair. The 94-95 spindles typically sell for anywhere from $100 to $150 a pair due to the limited availability.
I believe the rear brake hard line on the 87-88 TC's and 87-93 5.0 Mustangs as well as the Mark VII's (not sure on the years) goes up the drive shaft tunnel and terminates just above the pumpkin on the rear end. It takes a banjo style soft line to go from where the hard line ends over to the rear end. My 83 Bird and the 93 Coupe (originally a 4 cylinder) both had soft lines on the right rear of the car. I kept it this way on the Coupe but I am going to switch to the center mounted line on the Bird as the 3" cat back is giving me issues with the right rear configuration. You can see what I am talking about here in the 4th and 10th pictures:
