Front Upper Control Arms

Thats what I am looking for. I forgot these cars even came with a front sway bar lol
 
f man said:
I thought that was th point of drop spindles that the steering pickup points stay in the same place and the spindle is moved 2 inches higher for rotor attachment. I knew that us ring B body spindles cause bump steer concerns. And couldnt you rectify the bending control arm by boxing it.
Click to expand...
You're correct but, it's a geometry issue. Once you move the shaft up then you need to move other parts in addition to the shaft to correct the bump steer. The metric chasis has bump steer built into it as a safety so that you can't drive more aggresively than the chassis, and in most cases, the driver, are capable of. If they built the perfect chassis for handling then an idiot get in it and wrecks then there would be a liable suit filed. Any changes to the front suspension will change each effect a designed imperfection in a different way. By moving the spindle shaft up you agrivate the bump steer and camber issues that the chassis already have.
 
Charlie, I think you may be confused as to what bump steer is. It is in no way designed as a safety. Bump steer is event of the wheels steering left or right as they travel through their length of vertical movement. This will be noticeable when the front wheels move at different rates of vertical travel. Does this really sound like something a company would design in for safety? A car that tries to steer itself off the road on irregular pavement. A dropped spindle doesn't effect bump steer as none of the steering geometry has been changed.

Now, a lousy camber curved was designed into the chassis to induce under steer. The camber curved is also not effected by a dropped spindle. The camber curve is effected by the height of the steering knuckle, not the placement of the spindle.
 
Duts87ss said:
Charlie, I think you may be confused as to what bump steer is. It is in no way designed as a safety. Bump steer is event of the wheels steering left or right as they travel through their length of vertical movement. This will be noticeable when the front wheels move at different rates of vertical travel. Does this really sound like something a company would design in for safety? A car that tries to steer itself off the road on irregular pavement. A dropped spindle doesn't effect bump steer as none of the steering geometry has been changed.

Now, a lousy camber curved was designed into the chassis to induce under steer. The camber curved is also not effected by a dropped spindle. The camber curve is effected by the height of the steering knuckle, not the placement of the spindle.
Click to expand...
Actually both are designed into the chasis on purpose. Even with the camber curve issues if you didn't have the bump steer issues you could control the car better. Just like the rear suspension is designed so that the car won't be able to get the best traction. Each car manufacturer puts design flaws in the chasis so that the average driver won't go further than they're capable of.

The actual camber curve itself nemerically won't change with a dropped spindle, which is correct, if the spindle is designed that way. Unfortunately the one you get today don't just move the shaft upwards but als add a slightly different ange to them which does change the camber curve. I've got a set on a chasis here that I've got to take off so I'll do a few pics of them compared to a stock one when I get the chance so you can see what I'm talking about.:)
 
I'll wait for your photos of the knuckles, but the angle of the spindle doesn't change the camber curve only the static camber.

I still have to disagree with you on bump steer. Bump steer is a safety issue not a safety feature (having a backwards camber curve will induce under steer on its own). Bump steer cannot be predictable unless the exact road/s that the car will be driven on is known.
 
Duts87ss said:
I still have to disagree with you on bump steer. Bump steer is a safety issue not a safety feature (having a backwards camber curve will induce under steer on its own). Bump steer cannot be predictable unless the exact road/s that the car will be driven on is known.
Click to expand...
Bump steer is a function of the angle from the steering member (inner tie rod) to knuckle. The angularity of it is what causes the bump steer issue. That's why there are bump steer correction kits on the market. If it was a function of the driven road then the correction kits wouldn't work. The angle from (in our case) the center link to the steering knuckle has to have a corresponding arc to the steering knuckles arc or the wheels will move in or out as the wheel moves up or down.

On a straight axle 4WD this is also done by using a dropped pitman arm.
 
Understood, but it is only an issue when one front wheel moves suddenly without the same movement from the other wheel. Thus the name BUMP steer. You may be thinking about Ackerman angle when referring to being designed into the system. The difference in arc of the tie rods vs the lower control arm is due to budget and packaging, not done as a safety measure.

The bump steer kits do not work on G-bodies because they lower the outer tie rod. The bump steer on the G-body chassis is because the outer tie rod is already too low from the factory.
 
Duts87ss said:
Understood, but it is only an issue when one front wheel moves suddenly without the same movement from the other wheel. Thus the name BUMP steer. You may be thinking about Ackerman angle when referring to being designed into the system. The difference in arc of the tie rods vs the lower control arm is due to budget and packaging, not done as a safety measure.

The bump steer kits do not work on G-bodies because they lower the outer tie rod. The bump steer on the G-body chassis is because the outer tie rod is already too low from the factory.
Click to expand...
This may help the understanding a little here

The intention of Ackermann geometry is to avoid the need for tyres to slip sideways when following the path around a curve. The geometrical solution to this is for all wheels to have their axles arranged as radii of a circle with a common centre point. As the rear wheels are fixed, this centre point must be on a line extended from the rear axle. Intersecting the axes of the front wheels on this line as well requires that the inside front wheel is turned, when steering, through a greater angle than the outside wheel.
　
Bump steer is the term for the tendency of the wheel of a car to steer as it moves upwards. It is typically measured in degrees of steer per metre of upwards motion or degrees per foot.
On modern cars the front of the tire moves outwards as the suspension is raised, a process known as the front wheels "toeing out". This gives roll understeer. The rear suspension is usually set up to minimise bump steer, where possible.
A typical value is two degrees per metre, or perhaps more, for the front wheels.
The linearity of the bump steer curve is important. If it is not straight then the length of the tie rod needs to be adjusted.
Bump steer can be made more toe out in bounce by lifting the rack or dropping the outer tie rod, if the rack is in front of the axle. The reverse applies if the rack is behind the axle. Usually only small adjustments (say 3mm) are required.
Click to expand...
 
So I haven't found the exact info here or other resources.

A-arms:
Stock= 8.5"
Tubular (Driverside) 8.5"
Tubular (pass side) 8"

Correct me if I'm wrong please.

So the question is if I'm going to install the tall upper and lower ball joints do I use the pass side 8" length?
 
I have zero info on the Hartline set, but the prices and stock photos match with the ones off the trz site.
 
Do Not use TRZ a-arms on a Downpipe Car...Will Not Work..

I went to TRZ's shop,it's 15 miles from me,They even looked my car over ,measured an said ,no problem,but they wouldn't do the job,had to take it somewhere else,That should of been a clue!!!......there arc's in the uppers contact the 3" RJC racing down pipe!!! TRZ bars are for Malabo an Montes, not for GN's unless your turbo dumped an only a 1/4 mile car.TRZ arms are worthless on the street due to there lack of material,that's why there so fast 1/4 miling. I since went BMR a-arms .

5290481429_9239000e8f_z.jpg




They did one GN at there shop an because GN's sit off on the core supports, they'll never work on another i found out.
 
This is the set up I'm leaning towards right now. Anybody have any experience with this setup.

UB Machine a-arms p/n 15-0739-6
(I might be off on the p/n I don't have my notes with me.) Basically what they are is g body tubular arms with C10 ball joint mount plates.
C10 stock upper ball joints $30 and available at any parts store. These are tall on our cars.
Proforged tall lower ball joints
98+ blazer spindles
Brakes up in the air. Might use the blazer setup, use the ls1 calipers I already have that match the rears I have, or C5/C6 since there are more parts available.
 
Hy82e said:
This is the set up I'm leaning towards right now. Anybody have any experience with this setup.

UB Machine a-arms p/n 15-0739-6
(I might be off on the p/n I don't have my notes with me.) Basically what they are is g body tubular arms with C10 ball joint mount plates.
C10 stock upper ball joints $30 and available at any parts store. These are tall on our cars.
Proforged tall lower ball joints
98+ blazer spindles
Brakes up in the air. Might use the blazer setup, use the ls1 calipers I already have that match the rears I have, or C5/C6 since there are more parts available.
Click to expand...
I called UB Machine today I confirmed the first part of my p/n 15-0739, but the last #6 is different from what some other people have used. The last #6 means the A-arms has a 1.5" offset, if I order them with the last # as a 5 they will have a 1.25" offset. Can any body tell me which is better and why?
The rest if the p/n breaks like this (15) is the size of the ball joint mount, this is the large to accept the C10 BJ, 14 would be for a stock size. (073) is a 7.75" length arm (9) is the metric car length shaft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
1" Taller Upper Ball Joint & 3" Down Pipe Clearance?
Replies
0
Views
417
~JM~
J
GNVYUS 1
Front Coilover Conversion And Arms For Street Hooking, Ridetech, QA1, UMI and BMR Users, Lets Get In The Ring
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
dynoman
dynoman
V6-Sauce
Front Upper Control arm bumper stops
Replies
1
Views
436
V6-Sauce
V6-Sauce
N2BUICK
Pistons,Upper control arms, Calipers
Replies
0
Views
435
N2BUICK
N2BUICK
B
Qa1 front suspension on blazer spindles
Replies
0
Views
442
B00stJunkie
B
Top