Tall ball joint part #???

[HYBRIDT]

Can anyone tell me the part # for the taller ball joints I keep hearing about, or at least the vehicle it's for? I've done the search stuff, but I could read forever and just see them refered to as "taller ball joints" I've got my front suspension completely apart right now and need new ball joints all the way around. I'd prefer the Moog part # if anyone's got it.

Thanks

Adam

 

[maineSS]

What you're looking for is a Howe Racing product that is available for both upper and lower BJ's. They're available in .100" taller sizes up to 1/2". The .5" taller LBJ gives the most bang for the buck, as it corrects bumpsteer and raises the front roll center simultaneously. The stud and the housing are seperately available parts- the complete unit sells for around $70. The handling gain is well worth the price of admission. Using both the tall upper and lower BJ's partially corrects the low spindle height problem of the G-body chassis, and works better overall than the B-body spindle swap for less money. Installing a solid bushing (UHMW plastic works well) at the #1 Rad crossmember position also makes a very perceptible difference. To use Moog parts, you'll have to cut the BJ pressfits out of the LCA's and weld in adapters for 6117 truck LBJ's, then ream the spindle for the thicker stud. For the top, you'll have to use another truck BJ, modify the UCA for a different bolt pattern, and ream again. The Howe BJ's are a huge step forward here- just bolt them up! Marcus at SC&C also carries them.

 

[HYBRIDT]

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

Adam

 

[maineSS]

You'll need different alignment specs- I'll try to dig up the ones I use on my SS. Performance Friction street pads for the front rotors also seem to work well. On a heavy street car you need 1 or two max effort stops in the shortest possible distance, especially when following today's lighter vehicles. The 12" rotors will give more fade resistance, but will likely increase stopping distances.

 

[HYBRIDT]

I'm in the process of putting in SSBC 13" six piston fronts and 11" single piston rear disk conversion brakes. That's part of why I've got the whole front apart at the moment. I just didn't realize how jacked all of the front bushings and ball joints were 'till I took it apart. Still seemed to drive fine. I had Eibach springs in the front but the SSBC stuff comes pre-loaded on a 2" drop spindle, so I'll be switching out the springs too. Man-o-man it just doesn't ever seem to stop $$$$$$$$$$$!

Adam

 

[Turbo6inKY]

The howes are the "right" way to do it.

However, you can swap the upper ball joints for a 1983 1/2 2WD Chevy Truck. They have the same bolt spacing as the factory UBJ's, but here's concern that they won't fit into the recess stamped int he stock upper control arms. I don't know anybody that's used them with the stock arms. Everybody that's made this swap has gone with Pole Position or UBMachine upper arms.

There's concern that the truck ball joints don't fit perfectly in the spindle. Don't take it off road, and they probably won't break.

 

[maineSS]

HybridT- The alignment specs I used for my Tall LBJ are +4 deg caster, -.5 deg camber, and 1/16" toe. The shop had to use a huge shim pack on the rear pass side of the stock UCA. So far there's been no weird tire wear after about 6000 miles of street driving. I've heard drop spindles can negatively affect handling- they would change scrub radius slightly, but whether it would be noticible is something I don't have direct experience with. My experience with the Tall LBJ with the stock SS 15" wheels and tires was very positive. If you can get your brakes with a stock spindle I would stick with that.
The June '05 issue of Popular Hot Rodding has a table on pp 50 detailing changes made on the G/28 76 Camaro in search of shorter stopping distances.
Swapping out the stock tires for a set of Falken FK-451's cut 53 ft for a cost of $674, while a set of $2200 Baer brakes cut 24.8 ft. The tires were about 7 times cheaper per ft ($12.90/ft vs $89.51), and also upgrade cornering. If you are road racing, you need both big-buck tires and brakes, but on a budget, tires are the place to start, especially on a car that's not a daily driver.

 

[maineSS]

PS- Whomever PM'd me- apparently the administrator has disabled the PM function- you'll have to contact me on the board.

 

[HYBRIDT]

Well,
1)the brakes only come on the spindles and they've told me that the stock ones won't work.

2)it is my daily driver.

3)i've got 20" wheels.

4)the brakes are sponsored, so it's hard to turn down free.

So..with all those combined issues I will have to stick with the spindles, but I figured if I had the stuff all apart and needed ball joints anyway I would see what was the right thing to do. Is the idea to get the wheel centerline higher relative to the pivot points (control arm bushings), or is it to get the upper control arm ball joint further from the lower control arm ball joint (taller spindle)? Would you get any similar results from replacing the upper ball joint with a taller one which wouldn't relocate the spindle higher relative to the lower spring perch (lowering the car that 1/2" or so)? Thanks for all the help.

Adam

 

[maineSS]

The idea is to make a "taller" spindle relative to the upper/lower BJ centers- how tall is the SSBC spindle compared to the stock G-body spindle? If it's the same height, doing a .5" taller UBJ/LBJ would be the way to go- you'd end up 1/8" shorter than the B-body spindle, with none of the bumpsteer and roll center movement issues. The Howes also require a special boot (~$5 ea), and probably would have to be tightened periodically for wear- they're not spring loaded like regular BJ's. If you can do only one BJ, the lower one is the one to do 1st.

 

[Ormand]

Two questions for MaineSS. First, why would bigger discs give longer stopping distances? Second, why do you say do the lower ball joint before the upper? Lower one affects ride height, lowering the CG, is that the reason?

 

[maineSS]

Braking is kinda the reverse of launching- but the same goals of maximizing your tire contact patch apply. During braking, you need as much contact patch on the ground as possible- this means using all 4 wheels just short of locking up the brakes for the shortest stopping distance. Since 60%+ of your car's weight shifts forward, the brake system is set up (biased) to apply more stopping power up front to avoid locking up the rear and looping the car. Even though the rear contact patch gets very small, you still need it for max stopping power. If you simply switch to big rotors without changing the stock bias, your rear wheels will be braked less than they should be, and at some point all the load will be on the front tires, and they'll break loose and slide. Since the stopping ability of a tire is greatest just before it slides, you end up with more stopping distance (about 19 ft in one 60-0 test) if the brakes aren't biased properly- which is almost never done in homebrew big brake swaps. You'd need to use a proportioning valve on the front brakes to cut back clamping force, and use a G-meter to compare max decel G's to stock. Your braking "feel" would be very close to stock, as would your stopping distance, but you would gain noticeable fade resistance- which is the big advantage of big discs. On a road course, big 4 wheel dics are absolutely necessary, but on the street, you usually need 1 emergency stop in the shortest possible distance. Sticky tires will give twice the reduction in stopping distance for way less money than a quality 4 disc setup, and help your cornering too.
The bottom LBJ helps raise front Roll Center height, improves bumpsteer about 200% over stock, and improves camber curve of the stock spindle. The UBJ raises the R/C less, and also helps camber. You'll get the best results doing both, but the most return on investment with the bottom. Just lowering the car for looks can get you into trouble, since suspension geometry changes. If you don't work this out with a suspension program, you can wind up with an evil-handeling car. One of my friends combined a 1.5" drop with B-body spindles and wound up with almost undriveable bumpsteer.

 

[Ormand]

I'm not sure the incredible hulk could lock the front brakes on my car- on dry pavement, at least. The 10-1/2" discs just don't have the leverage to handle that heavy car. Of course, I could get some more "aggressive" pads, I guess, and that would cut the stopping distances, as well as being cheaper. But I see your point about the balance being thrown off. I would have the same concern if I used the bigger rear wheel cylinders, but lots of others don't share my concern.

 

[maineSS]

There's no direct relationship between pedal effort and stopping distance- it's possible to have brakes that "feel" awful but actually stop well, and vice-versa. The thing to remember is that while brakes stop the wheels, it's the friction between tires and the road that actually stops the car- it's easy to stop all 4 wheels on ice and still go for a trip. You're absolutely right about being careful with component switching- something that's borderline on dry pavement could be big trouble in the rain. Car manufacturers extensively test brake systems under different conditions, and high end aftermarket suppliers like Baer do fairly well too. I've never had any experience with the Powermaster system- mine are vacuum assist, but rotor size is the same, and the Monte is probably a little heavier, but the Perfomance Friction carbon pad works pretty well.

 

[Ormand]

Don't think I mentioned any relationship between pedal force and stopping distance. At least I don't see it, when I reread my post. What I said was, "The incredible hulk" couldn't lock the front brakes on Buick, not with any pads it's ever had. Spelled out, in small words, that means there has never been much stopping FORCE from the front tires. The relationship between pedal force and stopping distance is fairly linear. Small force, huge stopping distances. Higher force, shorter distances, but still not close to more modern brakes. Or even other brakes of the same vintage, which are less undersized. As part of your "lecture", would you like to mention that braking distribution should vary, to match weight transfer? On my car, I think that the "shift" is much less than 60%. The static distribution is about 55/45, and because of the long wheelbase, I would expect that the max transfer is maybe 20% of total, for an effective distribution under max braking of about 75/25. But I haven't done any analysis to prove that, so I may be off a little.

 

[v6togo]

Do you guys have any part# for the LBJ and UBJ and all the required items to do the swap.Seems like howe racing products is the way to go. Will the howes bolt to the stock lower and UB upper arms.

 

[maineSS]

Howe part #'s from the online catalog (www.howeracing.com) are 22302 for the 4-bolt UBJ ($74.50), 22420 for the press in LBJ ($66.00), and 22399 for the boot. The .5" stud part # is 22365 for the upper and 22475 for the lower. If you're using an aftermarket UCA with a screw-in UBJ, the Chrysler UBJ housing will take the Chevy stud.
If you're planning to use the stock UCA's, look at the shim packs on both sides. The G-body has wide production variations- if you have a thick shim pack on one side, you may not get the caster you need. I have the thickest possible shim pack on the rear bolt of the pass UCA- no more threads after the nut is tight. The driver side is normal. I tried fitting a set of Robert Adams' B-body UCA's (~5/8" shorter than stock)- they were too short on the driver side. The adjustable Pole Position arms hit the pass side frame in rebound at my ride height. Slotted cross shafts for the stock arms would work, but nobody seems to make them. I'm looking at having a set made up that's stock length on the driver side and 3/8" shorter on the pass side. You can save time on the LBJ's if you can get a decent set of salvage yard LCA's. I went this route because I had to machine out the pressfit and weld in a sleeve- Howe's weren't available at the time. I also installed Del-a-Lum bushings- everything turned out well, and the car wasn't laid up for weeks.

George- If I understand the "Incredible Hulk" comment correctly, it takes superhuman strength to lock up your front brakes. If it takes more than 75-100 lbs pedal pressure something's wrong- you're not getting enough clamping force on the rotor, or the pads/rotor are glazed. Again, I haven't owned any cars with hydraulic-assist brakes, but I can't see them being less effective than vacuum-assist brakes. I can lock my front brakes with a strong pedal effort- but I'm not bending the steering wheel to do it.
You're correct about a "60%+ weight shift " being excesssive- I was thinking 60%+ vehicle weight ending up on the front tires, but didn't phrase it correctly. With respect to braking distribution matching weight transfer- this can be optimized for only one rate of deceleration. Racers have it easier compared to street cars- they just tune for the G level their tires can pull at max deceleration. Car manufacturers have to figure out what G level the average driver will experience with OEM tires on the average highway- then design for ~5% front bias- lots more variables. The Stop Tech site (wwwstoptech.com) has a good FAQ (Brake Bias & Performance, Physics of Brake Systems), and HP Books's "Brake Systems" by Mavrigan & Carley, and the "Brake Handbook" by Puhn (out of print, available via used book dealers) are good basic references.

 

[v6togo]

Thanks for all the good info SS

 

[maineSS]

Another note to those considering Tall BJ's- these raise the front Roll Center, thus decreasing body roll during cornering. You don't need really stiff springs up front if you go this route, especially if you do upper and lower BJ's. I noticed a difference with the LBJ's- my spring rate is ~420 lb/in for the SS. If you stiffen up the front too much, you'll eventually have oversteer in the rear, which you'll find unpleasant on the street. For the Stop Tech site, try www.stoptech.com - this should work.