19Cutlass94 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 You mean upwards. My control arm points towards the sky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Ah, yeah, that's it. Been a while since I've been under a W. My Firebird points slightly downwards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted December 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 So the ball joint doesn't have to be MOVED, you just have to correct the angle? Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Cutlass94 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 The location really cant be moved, per say, but the angle needs to be corrected. Whether its the location of the ball joint up/down compared to the control arm, or the angle it sits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted December 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 So we would just need a correctly tapered sleeve, weld it into the new arm in the correct orientation. hmmmmm..... Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWeb80 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 I took my stock ball joints off at $127k miles after 20k of those being lowered and never driving the car soft and they were still in great shape....I didn't 'Need' to take them off, but I did because everything else was off when I was rebuilding the trans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 I took my stock ball joints off at $127k miles after 20k of those being lowered and never driving the car soft and they were still in great shape....I didn't 'Need' to take them off, but I did because everything else was off when I was rebuilding the trans. Exactly as I would have responded. My ball joints are also perfectly fine and its been more thousands of miles than I can count. Here's the kicker. Who here is willing to spend $350-$500 on control arms to correct a ball joint angle that causes insignificantly greater wear on your ball joints, which can be bought retail for $30 or less? Isn't the slight increase in length a good thing? Wider wheelbase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted December 12, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't the slight increase in length a good thing? Wider wheelbase? See that's what I was thinking too. Chomoly tubing can be bought for $10 a foot, lets say we need 6 feet. A shop could form it for, lets say $70 an hour, probably form a set in less than one hour. A properly equipped shop could weld them up in a few sets an hour. I know the guy on my shop floor could probably weld 4 or 5 sets in 1 hour. Steel - $60 Labour - $140 $200 + 30% mark up (just what we mark up) your looking at a full set (minus bushings) for $260 Canadian Only problem with chromoly is after you weld it you have to normalize it, means your paying for another shop to heat the shit out of it. DOM tube is less expensive, doesn't have to be normalized and is plenty strong enough. Or you could go the billet route. To do it properly, you would need 2 blocks lets say 16" x 14" x 1.25" thick (an 18x18x1.25" block is roughly $300 at http://www.onlinemetals.com probably not the best quote I can get, but I had to find something online because my contacts for metal supply don't work weekends) Our machinist would need at least a few hours to do it and charges $80 an hour Lets say my machinist can do them in 2 hours... that's still over $700 So I have to ask Mark again, What is the point of going to plate over tube? Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWeb80 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 I machine DOM tubing....it's nice stuff. Machines very nicely and is very dense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Isn't the slight increase in length a good thing? Wider wheelbase? See that's what I was thinking too. The only thing I can possibly think of that would cause it to be a negative thing would be the added axle length and its proportional added stress on the transmission. Even so, I hardly doubt its much of a real issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slick Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 I paid $350 for just the lowers on my Firebird. Saved me about 5lbs of weight on an already heavy car, looks good, and a slightly corrected balljoint angle as well (I would really notice the corrected angle if I lowered the car). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Cutlass94 Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 I paid $350 for just the lowers on my Firebird. Saved me about 5lbs of weight on an already heavy car, looks good, and a slightly corrected balljoint angle as well (I would really notice the corrected angle if I lowered the car). That corrected angle also fixes the geometry of the front suspension as well. Making it handle and perform better. Which is why we need that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 THe control arm needs to stay level on a lowered car not just for balljoint angle, but also has to do with scrub radius and other factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jman093 Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 THe control arm needs to stay level on a lowered car not just for balljoint angle' date=' but also has to do with scrub radius and other factors. [/quote'] x2. This is what I was thinking was the reason for modifying it for lower cars, it screws with the camber curve by having the angle like it is. Ball joints don't really seem to be an issue for anyone. My car is has been lowered about 4 inches for probably about 60,000 miles and mine are fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 THe control arm needs to stay level on a lowered car not just for balljoint angle' date=' but also has to do with scrub radius and other factors. [/quote'] The angle of the balljoint is a somewhat moot point when talking suspension geometry, as long as your balljoint is not limiting travel of the suspension. The reason there needs to be any correction is fairly simple. With the MacPhearson strut setup, when you lower it, essentially your suspension geometry is running in a "compressed" state all the time. The suspension was not designed for this. This isnt a problem structurally, but the angle of the line from the axis or rotation of the control arm (control arm bolts on the subframe) to the point of fixation of the strut to the control arm (center of the balljoint) is not setup for proper cornering. In a lowered setup, the control arm will pull the strut in toward the engine during cornering and thus making your tire angled with the top pointed away from the car not in towards it, as it should be in a typical cornering scenario Longer control arms might abate this issue, but it will also give you new kinds of camber curves, basically straying further from a stock setup. What I have proposed many times to try to fix this issue is balljoint spacers. I actually have the drawings for them already. basically space the balljoint downward from the strut housing. This essentially takes the length of the strut that you removed from the top by lowering and puts it on the bottom. I dont know if some people can get the spacing they would need to correct for the amount of lowering they have done, but it should be a start. Lowering in conjunction with balljoint spacers (given the amount you lowered is equal to the height of the balljoint spacer) would have the same effect as raising where your hub mounts on your strut housing, thus making no change to the suspension geometry (as long as the balljoint doesnt bind) I will give the drawings to whoever wants it and you can probably have a set made for your car for ~$30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Balljoint spacers sound like an excellent idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy K Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Balljoint spacers sound like an excellent idea. if a spacer is made, it has to "key" into the strut and balljoint both, wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Balljoint spacers sound like an excellent idea. if a spacer is made, it has to "key" into the strut and balljoint both, wouldn't it? Good question. I'm really not sure where you would put them or how long you'd need. A balljoint is not something I'm willing to take chances with if you know what I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galaxie500XL Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Theoretically, a properly tapered sleeve WOULD correct the problem. However, you just described the engineering solution Dodge used in their Ram pickups...and while the theory is good, the results for Dodge has been frequent ball joint failures. That's what makes dropped spindles so attractive, they allow you to lower the car, and leave suspension travel and geometry unchanged from stock. So we would just need a correctly tapered sleeve, weld it into the new arm in the correct orientation. hmmmmm..... Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 the spacer i see would just go between the strut housing and balljoint itself. It would essentially be a chunk of aluminum with holes for the bolts and either a hole or a pocket for the little bump on the top of the ball joint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 I'm seeing a potential problem with using longer bolts and lateral loads on those bolts. Would there be much of a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy K Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 I'm seeing a potential problem with using longer bolts and lateral loads on those bolts. Would there be much of a problem? x2147657124560246185947 the balljoints on our cars are held in place by the bolts, but the balljoint is keyed to fit in place..... without that keying there would be a shear load applied to the balljoint retainers/bolts.... ALSO>>>> good-bye to most rims on our cars. the balljoint would interfere with all factory rims, except dinky rims that don't reach the balljoint. if you have some 18s it might be fine... but........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremerevolution Posted December 13, 2009 Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Right on Ken. I can see it happening if you replicate the keying on the knuckle and the balljoint, but the thickness of your spacer would be very limited due to the lateral loads. The thicker the spacer, the exponentially greater the load from the lateral force. I can see you getting away with half an inch with grade 10.9 bolts, but anything more is pushing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted December 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2009 Call me crazy, but I think tubular with bushing and BJ in the stock location will be just fine. Like Adam said, he has been lowered for quite some time with zero ball join issue. The same goes for many other people. Its not like lowering these cars is new, but suddenly in the last year, discussion of a moved BJ has come up. jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mra32 Posted December 14, 2009 Report Share Posted December 14, 2009 Call me crazy, but I think tubular with bushing and BJ in the stock location will be just fine. Like Adam said, he has been lowered for quite some time with zero ball join issue. The same goes for many other people. Its not like lowering these cars is new, but suddenly in the last year, discussion of a moved BJ has come up. I think the reason it was brought up was more on the basis of suspension geometry than wear. At least thats the way I've always seen it. Ken I know what you're talking about with the balljoint keying with the strut housing now. I did consider that, but I've always considred that like a last ditch safety feature that if you had broken one of your balljoint bolts then it might help the others from breaking since it doesnt really have a nice fit. Its just sorta there. And yeah you'd have to make sure the bolts are strong enough. I dont think it would be too bad though. I figure you could squeeze an inch to an inch and a half out of these with stock wheels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.