Tubular K Member

Silver02Sport

Silver02Sport

Well-Known LVC Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
210
Reaction score
0
Location
Coral Springs
So my buddy's looking at my LS the other day and suggested a tubular k member like he's got in his Mark VIII, said it would remove a good deal of weight and stiffen up the feel but what was most interesting was the thought that it might just open up enough room for a turbo. What do you guys think.
 
Not sure my friend calmed about 150 lb. off his mark but since no one I knows just how much the stock member weights I got know idea
 
if you take the LS to that extreme, you are better off buying a late 80's to early 90's Mustang 5.0 for $2000 and modifying it and blowing away cars on the road.

That will ruin the car and what happens when the tube member cracks or falls apart? Not many shops will help you with that. More for race vehicles.
 
My friends had his in his mark for like 5 years now no problems.

f you take the LS to that extreme, you are better off buying a late 80's to early 90's Mustang 5.0 for $2000 and modifying it and blowing away cars on the road.
Click to expand...

Ya know I really would people stop saying if you want to make your car fast go buy something else but I don't want something else. If I wanted to make a mustang fast I would buy a mustang. I'm not interested on working on any other car right now then my LS. Ya I know I'm never going to hang with Cobra's, SRT8's, or V series but I couldn't care less. I just want to get them most I can out of what I got.
 
I understand, but the amount you will spend on that will probably not be very beneficial. At least the Marks have the Cobra motor going for them to get lots of power.
 
Would you find out who the manufacturer of the k-member in your friends mark is? Also, could you get some pics of it? Thanks.
 
02V8Sport said:
I understand, but the amount you will spend on that will probably not be very beneficial. At least the Marks have the Cobra motor going for them to get lots of power.
Click to expand...

To some people spending any amount on their car is beneficial... just because it is the one specific car they want to spend money on. Yeah, it is true that most of the time if someone has to ask about a more in depth modification on a message board they probably aren't going to do it, but you can't rule out that someone can't do it because you won't because you wouldn't spend the money on it.
 
Im not saying its not something that shouldnt be done, but seems like overkill. Hell, if it can be done right for $1200 count me in too. Im running out of mods to do to my car at this point. :D

Im getting bored with this car and it may be gone by December anyway.
 
I thought the LS handling wise was so great why would you need to improve? $1200 to shave a few lbs is alot, 150lbs sounds way off to me I bet its less than half that.


Hang in there 02V8Sport, hate to see you get rid of that thing. A terrific mod is in the works.
 
02LSE96LSC91SE84TC said:
Hang in there 02V8Sport, hate to see you get rid of that thing. A terrific mod is in the works.
Click to expand...

I know, Im trying but winter will only tell if I need to get rid of the car. If my new winter tire setup doesnt get my car through some good snow I will be forced to get a AWD car.

I have also gone the route of turboing a non-turbo car and it was a nightmare from hell to maintain. I dont think I would put myself through it again.

3 cars I have it narrowed down to after the LS

1. Audi S4
2. Mitsu EVO
3. WRX STI
 
IMHO the best bang for the buck would be the STI. But the Audi wins on refinement and looks alone. They are a little expensive to keep maintained. The audi has my vote the Evo to me is too expensive for what it is. And without using the ricer term its "young" looking and kind of plain in the interior.
 
No you didn't miss anything. I said IMO. It went from bolt on to something else along time ago IMO. Most likely won't be done again IMO. If it is done again it will be a slow process again as there could be no possible way all that fab work was documented. Its very limited for power based on the limitations of the car.

I find it odd that it hasn't been tested on a dyno or track. A simple 0-60 with tha SCT unit or the G-tech to give some idea of the power its putting down. I don't believe in those as TRUE numbers but just something to see the power potential. I'm thinking its been done...and disappointing.
 
I thought the LS handling wise was so great why would you need to improve? $1200 to shave a few lbs is alot, 150lbs sounds way off to me I bet its less than half that.
Click to expand...

Looking at it more for the space saving attributes then the handling improvements but as they say every little bit helps

anyways here are a few pics from under his 96 Mark

tubk1.jpg


tubk2.jpg


hedders.jpg
 
Please do not feel like I am stepping on anyones toes in here but I think there are MUCH better routes to use $1,200 for performance in an LS than a tubular K-member which will end up yielding minimal results. Tubular K-members have their purposes but those are few and highly specialized.
 
ILLS said:
Please do not feel like I am stepping on anyones toes in here but I think there are MUCH better routes to use $1,200 for performance in an LS than a tubular K-member which will end up yielding minimal results. Tubular K-members have their purposes but those are few and highly specialized.
Click to expand...

Please tell me like what, since as far as I can tell other then getting a 3500 stall converter and gears. I've done all the performance bolt-ons that there are and again the hope is that I would have enough room to fit the piping for a turbo with it but look a my sig and tell me other then NOS witch i have no interest in putting in a daily driver, what route would you take.
 
Silver02Sport said:
Please tell me like what, since as far as I can tell other then getting a 3500 stall converter and gears. I've done all the performance bolt-ons that there are and again the hope is that I would have enough room to fit the piping for a turbo with it but look a my sig and tell me other then NOS witch i have no interest in putting in a daily driver, what route would you take.
Click to expand...

Stall and gears. Good idea, both would improve the cars performance better than the K member. How do you intend to do them? Name someone who makes them. I'm assumming the stall would be a similar unit to the new Stangs. Gears aren't so easy, I'm looking into it now.

If you really have 1200bucks burning a hole in your pocket and really want to do it, go ahead. We are just pointing out the facts. If it were available for more the cost of a Fox body unit I'd consider one for the weight loss.
 
Silver02Sport said:
Please tell me like what, since as far as I can tell other then getting a 3500 stall converter and gears. I've done all the performance bolt-ons that there are and again the hope is that I would have enough room to fit the piping for a turbo with it but look a my sig and tell me other then NOS witch i have no interest in putting in a daily driver, what route would you take.
Click to expand...



Either put a portion of that $1,200 into a stall or keep saving for a turbo. There is no need to buy a tubular k member only to be able to locate a turbo a little closer to the engine underneath. Just do a full on remote mounted turbo and you will be just fine and be able to get it that much sooner without having to first pay for any kind of custom k member.

If it were priced more reasonably then I would say go for it if it did somehow save 150 lbs. However both of those are unlikely to ever happen.

Also if you plan to do a turbo for your car then I recommend to just stick with your stocker 3.31 gears instead of swapping to the Gen2 3.58's. Turbos need load to spool and the 3.31's will allow the engine to be loaded more than the 3.58's will.
 
02LSE96LSC91SE84TC said:
No you didn't miss anything. I said IMO. It went from bolt on to something else along time ago IMO. Most likely won't be done again IMO. If it is done again it will be a slow process again as there could be no possible way all that fab work was documented. Its very limited for power based on the limitations of the car.

I find it odd that it hasn't been tested on a dyno or track. A simple 0-60 with tha SCT unit or the G-tech to give some idea of the power its putting down. I don't believe in those as TRUE numbers but just something to see the power potential. I'm thinking its been done...and disappointing.
Click to expand...

quik has been testing it and has been to the track. he just doesnt want to post his numbers yet until he has time to back them up a few times(they're good). says his car is a torque monster. but i doubt that the kit will be duplicated, your probably right about that . there isnt enough demand for it to be put into production because obviously nobody is gonna produce it if they cant profit from it.
 
3 cars I have it narrowed down to after the LS

1. Audi S4
2. Mitsu EVO
3. WRX STI
Click to expand...
As much as I hate to say it... from that list id get the Audi. None of those are really great cars, but at least the Audi isn't made of plastic.
IMO, if you want a midsize car with some balls, get a Mercedes C55. Unless you want AWD, in which case... the S4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 151 (members: 0, guests: 151)
Back
Top