UB Machine Tubular A-Arms

Originally posted by Mac in SD
Jim, the super-accurate bathroom scale results indicate that the two stock UCAs add up to 19 lbs combined - so 9.5 lbs each.

My semi-calibrated memory says that the UB's are roughly equivalent in weight, maybe a little bit lighter...

The biggest positives for the UB's are, IMHO, the reduction in mass (lots more room between the headers and the arms), and the steel bushings that just won't melt away. They don't seem to affect ride quality at all. As far as handling...well, I've been without a front swaybar, and running skinnies, for some time now. So somebody else would have to give you hard-cornering opinions. :D HTH.

Thanks for the feedback Mac. I know what you mean about the hard cornering ;)

Jim
 
Originally posted by Brian Verson
Got my UB Arms today. They look great, I will install them as soon as I get it back from the trans shop. :D :D :D :D :cool:

WAIT!!!!!!!

Weigh them first please :)
 
Can someone compile a comprehensive parts list for everything needed to do the 12" upgrade?:D
 
OK, I finally decided to get the answer everyone has been waiting for. I called UB Machine today and the weight of the direct replacement UCA w/ ball joint (p/n in Mac's post above) is....drum roll please....4.42 lbs!! Based on Mac's scientific measurement of the stockers it looks like a 5# savings per side.

While I was talking to UB it came up that I was looking at these for a drag car as opposed to circle track. He mentioned that I'd have to be careful with these arms since they are "flat" and could hit the frame at full rebound with the front tires off the ground. The stock arms have a "drop" to them that reaches around the frame at full rebound. Does anyone know if this is a real problem?

Thanks,

Jim
 
I called them last week and they said the part # listed on this thread is not recommended for my stock spindle setup due to there arm is straight and they couldn't garrenty the alignment would be right after install.
I just installed new bushings and painted my old Arms.
 
Originally posted by boostedLC2
OK, I finally decided to get the answer everyone has been waiting for. I called UB Machine today and the weight of the direct replacement UCA w/ ball joint (p/n in Mac's post above) is....drum roll please....4.42 lbs!! Based on Mac's scientific measurement of the stockers it looks like a 5# savings per side.

SOLD!!!! :eek: :D :D :D

I kept waiting and praying to get some numbers like that. 10 lbs off the nose of the car, for $150, for something I have to replace ANYWAY?

SWEET!!!! :D
 
Jim LC2, I wondered about that same problem. It may not be a problem if someone is using the taller B-body spindles and I dont know if they would bottom out with the stock spindle in a wheelstanding drag car. Take a look at this picture of one of my cars. Its has stock suspension with Hotchkis springs and with out any weight on the springs there is maybe one inch more of travel before the stops hit the frame in this picture.
http://www.msnusers.com/turbofish38/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=4

Eric Fisher
 
Originally posted by turbofish38
Jim LC2, I wondered about that same problem. It may not be a problem if someone is using the taller B-body spindles and I dont know if they would bottom out with the stock spindle in a wheelstanding drag car. Take a look at this picture of one of my cars. Its has stock suspension with Hotchkis springs and with out any weight on the springs there is maybe one inch more of travel before the stops hit the frame in this picture.
http://www.msnusers.com/turbofish38/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=4

Eric Fisher

I think you're right regarding the B-body spindles providing more real estate Eric. Thinking about this more I think the real issue is that the stock arms have a built in bump stop which limits their travel to the frame and prevents hard contact. Every drag car that is wheels up is using these bump stops. The UB (and most other) tubular arms don't have this built in stop and therefore can make hard contact with the frame at some point. I suppose the shock may eventually limit the travel but I'm not sure you'd want this either.

Jim
 
Yup. They hit the frame at full extension. No bump-stop, either. I read on the MonteSS board that Hotchkis has a bumpstop kit that looks like it could be made to fit.

I'd agree that if you're doing a lot of wheels-up launches, you'd have to consider this. Then again, looking at the Hotchkis arms, you're dealing with the same issue. They're "flat" and don't have a bumpstop, either.
 
For wheels up launches just make some suspension limiters.Metal cable bolted to the lower arm and frame.We run these on Drag racing Mustangs with tubular K-members.I've seen the ball joints seperate during launches:eek:
 
Here's a picture of Global West arms and B-car spindles on a G-body. These arms have stops to prevent the arms from reaching full droop. I'm not expecting any wheels-up launches, though.
There are less expensive arms for this swap, but I really wanted the Del-A-Lum bushings.
15964722.jpg
 
Hot glue gun and a Tennis ball should fix you right up:eek: :rolleyes:
 
SO:

If using stock spindles, it is not recommended to use 14-0809 as they can not garuantee alignment and there is no bump stop?

I am looking for some stock replacment tubular a-arms.
 
Originally posted by jsta6
SO:
If using stock spindles, it is not recommended to use 14-0809 as they can not garuantee alignment and there is no bump stop?

No. 14-0809 is the right part for stock spindles. A couple Monte guys used 14-0809 with B-Body spindles and had to shim the poo out of them to get the alignment right.

The lack of a bump stop is only a concern if your car picks the front wheels up when it launches. The arm can slam the frame and the ball joint will break. If your front wheels don't regularly leave the ground you should be fine.
 
Top