jdlingle Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Easy on calling BS on Al on this one man. I was standing right there while we measured my car. Track width was 70 including the plates on each side (1/16 thick) so that puts it at 69 7/8. 27mm offset 17x9 MB Comp wheels with RA1's. Al measured the widest fender point (havent ever been modified) to get the 72 1/4 measurement. I was really surprised myself. More numbers can do nothing but help the discussion though so if you measure your car post it up. The measurements that had been taken for the old rule were on the SN99 chassis that has built in fender flares on the stock fenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlingle Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Another point to note is that he is not saying the sn95 is narrower than a stock fox body but that it is narrower than the allowed modified fox body track width in this years rulebook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMC#11 Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Another point to note is that he is not saying the sn95 is narrower than a stock fox body but that it is narrower than the allowed modified fox body track width in this years rulebook. Exactly John, this is the key point. Al is trying to say that if you spend $500 on aftermarket fender flares and cut up your quarter panels to install, that the Fox has the ability to be wider per the 72.75" max width. I have already done a small flare to my rear quarters by bending out the stock vertical bend to continue along the same angle as the stock flare. This has given me a max rear width of 70.75". The only way to get more than that is to start spending $$ and start hacking into the quarter panels and I am not ready to do that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nape1548534725 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Easy on calling BS on Al on this one man. I was standing right there while we measured my car. Track width was 70 including the plates on each side (1/16 thick) so that puts it at 69 7/8. 27mm offset 17x9 MB Comp wheels with RA1's. Al measured the widest fender point (havent ever been modified) to get the 72 1/4 measurement. I was really surprised myself. More numbers can do nothing but help the discussion though so if you measure your car post it up. The measurements that had been taken for the old rule were on the SN99 chassis that has built in fender flares on the stock fenders. Not trying to start drama, but is your rear end cambered to the limit? This will increase your measurement. No dog in this fight, but there are a lot of variables. Not to mention, factory build tolerances can be huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeK Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Not trying to start drama, but is your rear end cambered to the limit? This will increase your measurement. No dog in this fight, but there are a lot of variables. Not to mention, factory build tolerances can be huge. No drama.... This is a solid rear axle with no camber adjustment. The only camber we get is when one wheel is in the air, and the other side goes crazier than a gremlin eating after midnight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 This is a solid rear axle with no camber adjustment. Au contraire. CLICK HERE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Before this gets too far out of hand, taking a theoretical camber of 0 vs the allowed .6, the track width could be at most larger by .25" each side So if you take the largest number you can measure on a non camber rear end, adding .5" should give the largest legal number of a cambered rear that fit the old rules. *edit to clarify. Just putting some numbers to the theory. I've been in too many meetings where people get bent out of shape worrying about what could be without putting actual numbers to it. Once they do, they realize it isn't (or sometimes is) as big a deal as they thought. This at least gets it in the ballpark* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHISSTC Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I finished measuring my stock '96 Mustang Cobra and my '85 Mustang GT today. The cars were set on jackstands with the rear wheels off at normal ride hide. I used a plumb-bob to mark locations on a level concrete surface and a tape measure to measure the distance between the marks to the nearest 1/16". Rear fender measurement locations were taken at the wheel lip both on the outside of the body and on the inside of the unmodified wheel lips at a location in line with the rear axle centerline. Wheel mounting surfaces were measured on the fox on the faces of the brake drums where they contact the wheels, and on the faces of the brake rotors where they contact the wheels on the SN95. I did not measure track width as defined in the CMC rules since that will vary with different tires, wheels, tire pressures, and axle camber. Using your own wheel and tire dimensions, you can come up with your own track widths using what I have below. I checked each of these measurements at least 3 times to demonstrate repeatability, but I am also assuming there will be some small manufacturer allowed tolerance deviations from what I came up with if someone else cares to measure their own cars. Here are the results: '96 Cobra: 71 3/4" outside rear fender dimensions 69 3/4" inside rear fender dimensions 61 11/16" rear wheel mounting surface distance '85 Mustang GT 69 1/8" outside rear fender dimensions 67 11/16" inside rear fender dimensions 59 3/4" rear wheel mounting surface distance The only thing that surprised me was the difference in wheel mounting surface dimensions between the fox and the SN95. The popularly quoted figure on the Internet is 1.5" (3/4" per side) total difference between the fox and the SN95 axle width. I came up with a difference of 1 15/16". Some of that may be due to me measuring the distance on a drum vs. a disc car and the differences in thickness of each and not measuring the actual axle flange surfaces as the dimensions are usually quoted, and some of that may be due to the rounding of precise dimensions re-quoted a billion times on the Internet. Edit: The bottom line is I see some bodywork that needs to be done for folks who wish to maximize the rear track width on both the fox and the SN95 as the rules are currently written. As indicated previously, I also see some possible, albeit small, difference in the track width as measured at the top of the tire inside the fender vs. the bottom of the tire near the track surface, especially when using a 'cambered' rear axle. Car / Front Max Track Width (inches) / Rear Max Track Width (inches) 79-93 Ford / 72.75 / 72.75 94-96 Ford / 73.25 / 73.75 97-04 Ford / 73.25 / 73.75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted January 9, 2012 Author Members Share Posted January 9, 2012 Thanks for your patience on this, and again apologies for getting the track width numbers wrong on the SN-95s. After much measurement and discussion, the SN-95 1994-1998 track width numbers are changed to 73.25 front, 72.75 rear. The bodywork rule is edited to specifically allow these year SN-95s to pull out their rear quarters. These year cars should only need 1/4" of additional clearance on the rear quarters to hit this track. Nothing that a bit of time with a couple of pieces of wood and a jack cant solve. The front needs no changes to hit these numbers. I've just sent JWL a revised rulebook for publishing, and will note as such in the tech bulletin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichV Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Thanks for your patience on this, and again apologies for getting the track width numbers wrong on the SN-95s. After much measurement and discussion, the SN-95 1994-1998 track width numbers are changed to 73.25 front, 72.75 rear. The bodywork rule is edited to specifically allow these year SN-95s to pull out their rear quarters. These year cars should only need 1/4" of additional clearance on the rear quarters to hit this track. Nothing that a bit of time with a couple of pieces of wood and a jack cant solve. The front needs no changes to hit these numbers. I've just sent JWL a revised rulebook for publishing, and will note as such in the tech bulletin. 73.75? Or 72.75 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 72.75" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.