i want to buy a k-member for 13

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
13
Location
Tampa, FL
So, a local shop who was struggling with their installation of a UPR K-Member on a 2011+ GT, came today to pick up the BMR 2011+ K-Member (KM018)

Of course - I had to take the time to do a little comparing. Unfortunately, I was not able to compare to our original design, that they copied, due to it being at our other facility - but I was able to compare the current version on the shelf, to the UPR piece.

Looks to me like a 2.4lb weight savings. We will call it 2.5. The UPR has a gusset removed, from the installer trying to make clearance for a Turbo Kit (Hellion) As you will see, that was part of our redesign (replace the large tube gusset with a triangle plate)

Anyhow, here are some pics I snapped. Enjoy.







 
Last edited:

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
13
Location
Tampa, FL
I was actually looking to post this to show that the weight difference is very minimal, as well as point out some of the differences.

I wish I would have been able to compare the UPR version to our older version that they replicated. O-Well.

I found it interesting how they chose to provide clearance for the EPAS rack. We re-engineered the entire K-Member, they just whacked some material out of the front tube. lol
 

jayman33

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Posts
2,454
Reaction score
1
Looks like UPR needs to make some changes now, might look a little more similar in a few months!
 

skwerl

tree hugger
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Posts
16,349
Reaction score
1,337
Location
central Florida
Look on the bright side, Kelly. At least you know UPR will continue to be one of your best customers. They buy one of everything you make! :roflmao:
 

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
13
Location
Tampa, FL
That is because they did not do that at first (hack the front rack bar), they spaced up the rack I believe?

I can definitely tell you that EPAS issue has been big for them. If they would have only waited about 8 more months to copy us! lol
 

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
13
Location
Tampa, FL
Google NEVER, ever ever ever lets me down.

img_0352.jpg
 

wbt

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
That is because they did not do that at first (hack the front rack bar), they spaced up the rack I believe?

I can definitely tell you that EPAS issue has been big for them. If they would have only waited about 8 more months to copy us! lol

Has it. Maybe Sharad can place some insight into it. You know....horses mouth.

I haven't had a single issue with my k-member and it doesn't have a "tube hack".

Hmmmm.....
 

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
13
Location
Tampa, FL
Has it. Maybe Sharad can place some insight into it. You know....horses mouth.

I haven't had a single issue with my k-member and it doesn't have a "tube hack".

Hmmmm.....

I am not sure if Sharad would know?

If you read above, the customer brought their UPR K-Member to BMR, to compare....then buy a BMR piece. This was due to the EPAS issue of the UPR.

I compared them. He bought ours.

Then he sent me:



I have had no less than (5) people / shops mention EPAS issues with their UPR K-Member. I may not be the horses mouth, but since I know more about their part than they do, I know that there is NO WAY to retain the factory EPAS location, without raising the rack...or "hacking" the K.

What is interesting, indeed, is that yours fit....yet the hacked their K-Member for no apparent reason. Awesome!
 

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
13
Location
Tampa, FL
No, I was not.

I was implying that it definitely was not a one time deal, or something that the person who brought me the K-Member, did on their own.

In other words - YOU said yours wasnt hacked, nor is it on their site / I provided some data showing that they do indeed hack it.

That's all. ;)

I do find it funny how the guy in the pic I found, doesnt even have EPAS, but has the hacked bar. hmmm
 

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
13
Location
Tampa, FL
Hey wbt, you should go out and snap a quick picture of the clearance that you have there, where they hacked it on the ones I have pictured.
 

wbt

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Posts
2,323
Reaction score
2
No, I was not.

I was implying that it definitely was not a one time deal, or something that the person who brought me the K-Member, did on their own.

In other words - YOU said yours wasnt hacked, nor is it on their site / I provided some data showing that they do indeed hack it.

That's all. ;)

I do find it funny how the guy in the pic I found, doesnt even have EPAS, but has the hacked bar. hmmm

I see that. Doesn't make much sense. Maybe Sharad can explain.

Hey wbt, you should go out and snap a quick picture of the clearance that you have there, where they hacked it on the ones I have pictured.

I have the car in the garage...let me see if I can.

Pics below. I think we may have figured this out. On the passenger side there is a spacer that is installed between the rack and the k-member on the front mounting position. This allows it to clear. There is no spacer on the driver side.





Why they changed the design is another question. From what I can tell, if you use the lower setting for the motor mounts, the top of the EPAS will hit the front of the oil pan. This is not a problem for me as I am using the standard engine mounting height.
 
Last edited:

CPRsm

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Posts
3,043
Reaction score
1
That's normal w an epas on an older k-member. Same problem we had when they came out. I wonder if the silver k-member hit anywhere else. That notched section is not the only place the epas hits on the older k-members.
 

Sharad

Site Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Posts
2,403
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Myers, Florida
Here is a response from Mark Mainiero, my boss. He's not on the forum so I'm posting it for him.

Cliff's notes- there's something unusual going on with this situation Kelly posted about. We have quite a few UPR k-members out there on Coyote cars with no fitment issues whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all I want to say that at UPR, we do not bash our competitors. With that being said, it appears obvious to me that there is much more to this story, from vested interests to altered parts. Furthermore, any claim by someone outside of our company of UPR receiving numerous complaints is fabricated and ludicrous.

Most importantly, we want to share our own findings, as we investigate every concern that customers relate to us. Today (Friday), after speaking to this same individual whom Kelly spoke to, we removed the k-member from our 2011 5.0 Mustang (which fit fine with the EPAS system) and installed that same k-member in our 2013 5.0 Mustang. We used this approach to eliminate any claims that our production tolerances varied, although we use very secure welding jigs and check every finished k-member in yet another jig.

We found that the oil pan was just touching the steering rack. A quick fix would be to raise the engine 1/4 inch, but that created the potential for hood clearance issues and was not considered. We chose to machine the spacers that raise our rack down .200". That gave us adequate clearance and changed the rack angle by less than 1%. And, as has already been posted, the majority of installations are seamless.

As we have sold thousands of our chrome-moly k-members over the last 16 years, we have run into every possible scenario. Usually it is on a Fox Body that has been in an accident or has mixed year components. Very often it is a customer or even a shop that attempts an installation which they are not capable of doing. And there is no doubt that production variances or wear are factors too. But this is the first time we encountered production or assembly variances in an S197. Already, we have a great number of S197 k-members installed without problem, but we will implement the shorter rack spacers in future kits as this accommodates the variances.

We have been building and racing Mustangs since 1968. Our products have a Lifetime Guarantee. And we rely on our own in-house racers as well as our Team UPR racers & customers to develop and refine our parts. This is the first time we've seen someone mangle one of our parts and use that part in an attempt to discredit us. But we won't stoop to that level or engage in forum debates. Our Social Media Manager Sharad Raldiris and our Sales Manager Tony Whetstone are both always available to resolve any issue.

We remain very, very appreciative of all our great customers and racers. We will continue to provide the very best customer service possible at every opportunity. And we will let our products, not our keyboards, do our talking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For reference, here's a quick shot of the UPR k-member we installed on our 13 GT, and you can see the rack spacers which we changed from .500" to .300":

 

CPRsm

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Posts
3,043
Reaction score
1
Aren't you worried about changing the level of the front two mounts and not the third mount? It will put the bolt at an angle and third mount at an angle also, not mounted flat.

Maybe Mark, just maybe, people wouldn't "bash" as you call it if you guys actually made your own parts from scratch instead of copying others. Then you make people feel the need to differentiate your copy from the real thing. And in the process you some how think you're the victim. Your company brings it on itself. The copycat is saying someone else is "stooping." Now that's funny.

Just saw your pics wbt. Would be a little safer if your rack mounting bolts had the heads on top of the rack. Juuuuuust in case they loosen, you won't drop them out the bottom.
 
Last edited:

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,810
Reaction score
21
Location
Pacific Northwest
Here is a response from Mark Mainiero, my boss. He's not on the forum so I'm posting it for him.

Cliff's notes- there's something unusual going on with this situation Kelly posted about. We have quite a few UPR k-members out there on Coyote cars with no fitment issues whatsoever.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all I want to say that at UPR, we do not bash our competitors. With that being said, it appears obvious to me that there is much more to this story, from vested interests to altered parts. Furthermore, any claim by someone outside of our company of UPR receiving numerous complaints is fabricated and ludicrous.

Most importantly, we want to share our own findings, as we investigate every concern that customers relate to us. Today (Friday), after speaking to this same individual whom Kelly spoke to, we removed the k-member from our 2011 5.0 Mustang (which fit fine with the EPAS system) and installed that same k-member in our 2013 5.0 Mustang. We used this approach to eliminate any claims that our production tolerances varied, although we use very secure welding jigs and check every finished k-member in yet another jig.

We found that the oil pan was just touching the steering rack. A quick fix would be to raise the engine 1/4 inch, but that created the potential for hood clearance issues and was not considered. We chose to machine the spacers that raise our rack down .200". That gave us adequate clearance and changed the rack angle by less than 1%. And, as has already been posted, the majority of installations are seamless.

As we have sold thousands of our chrome-moly k-members over the last 16 years, we have run into every possible scenario. Usually it is on a Fox Body that has been in an accident or has mixed year components. Very often it is a customer or even a shop that attempts an installation which they are not capable of doing. And there is no doubt that production variances or wear are factors too. But this is the first time we encountered production or assembly variances in an S197. Already, we have a great number of S197 k-members installed without problem, but we will implement the shorter rack spacers in future kits as this accommodates the variances.

We have been building and racing Mustangs since 1968. Our products have a Lifetime Guarantee. And we rely on our own in-house racers as well as our Team UPR racers & customers to develop and refine our parts. This is the first time we've seen someone mangle one of our parts and use that part in an attempt to discredit us. But we won't stoop to that level or engage in forum debates. Our Social Media Manager Sharad Raldiris and our Sales Manager Tony Whetstone are both always available to resolve any issue.

We remain very, very appreciative of all our great customers and racers. We will continue to provide the very best customer service possible at every opportunity. And we will let our products, not our keyboards, do our talking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For reference, here's a quick shot of the UPR k-member we installed on our 13 GT, and you can see the rack spacers which we changed from .500" to .300":


The jist of this letter leads me to believe that UPR is claiming to never of clearanced a tube on a s197 k member.

Just so I have it right is it correct that UPR has never modified an s197 tube for clearance of the epas?
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Back
Top