Metric front end help

[dexleo2]

Hello everyone, I'm looking for some idea's on the front end of a Imca hobbystock. I have fixed the alignment of the lower arm mounts and have the lower a-arm bolted in. No bidding and all moves free so I pressed in a low friction lower stock ball joint and bolted the spindle up. Bolted up the upper Arm, Tubular of course and installed the low friction upper ball joint that is longer than stock. Bolted it all together, with out the shock or spring and ran it throu its range of motion and the ball joint bottoms out on the downward motion on the drivers side. Have not moved to the passanger side yet. What have you guys done to prevent this from happening I could see where this would bend the ball joint. I don't know what to expect on the passanger side of the car yet since I have not got to that side. I thought maybe the shock would prevent the ball joint from bottoming out but it don't.

Also with the aftermarket Centerlink/drag link that corrects or helps correct the bump steer in these cars I was wondering since the idler arm and pittman arm are off center with this part how much turning radius does it take out of the steering box since it not centered. Thanks for the help in advanced.

[moving violation]

I dont race imca but i've had the same problem bottoming the balljoint on its side in compression, I just added 2 washers to the inside bolts of the balljoint to level it.
The AFCO center link is an 1- 1/8" longer than the stock metric. When I put mine in and centered the inner tie rod holes to the lower conrol arm bolts the idler arm was parallel with the frame but the pitman was turned to the left quite a bit so I cut and re-welded the centerlink an 1-1/8" between the drivers side inner tie rod hole and the pitman stud to keep my idler and pitman arms parallel to each other. If your not a good welder have someone who is weld it.

[Dirt Knife]

WOW

You need to order a new drag link.

http://static.speedwaymotors.com/pdf/10630271.pdf

No cutting grinding or re welding required.

[falsracer]

dont buy the afco centerlink ...autozone has the same one off of a 91 camaro for $32.00.

[Steve_Voisinet]

I see in the AFCO installation instructions it says:

"Upon installation of the Afco 30271 drag link, you will notice that the angles of the idler and pitman arms have changed; this is okay."


Are they saying that the link is longer than the stock one?

[moving violation]

Yes. What there selling you is the Camaro link that is a little over an inch longer

[dirtman45]

Here is what you need to do. Buy a tapered spacer here.
http://medievalmetalwerx.com/medievaluppera-armshockmount-1.aspx

You will only need one on the left side as the left side is the only one that really drops down while cornering. I never put a spacer on my RF and it has worked fine for two seasons. I'm using the same ball joints you are.

I have one of those camaro center links but never ended up using it. If you do use one you have to cut a lot off of the tie rods to make it work. Technically where I race they are not legal but I doubt anyone would catch it. I talked to the main guy at afco that gave me a long song and dance about how they had worked really hard on developing this custom center link. Yeah right... they come with a moog number still on them.

[dirtman45]

As stock car driver said... they didn't drop that much when they came from the factory but I like the additional drop on the LF to allow the car to roll more.

You could always jack under the control arm to change a tire.

[dexleo2]

Thanks for the replies everyone... Lots of good information... I really appericate it.. Looks like I will be ordering a spacer for the left side.. Is their anything else I should be doing to get this car competitive? Thanks again everyone..

[speedbuggy]

I would use that shim on the RF upper control arm, not the LF.

If you run a lot of UCA angle with stock control arms to raise roll center, the problem is the RF upper ball joint binding on suspension compression.

I was going to make my own out of aluminum pretty much exactly like the shim that's in the above link. $20 is pretty steep for a little piece of metal, but I may order one just to see what it's like. Doesn't say whether it's aluminum or steel.

[speedbuggy]

Oh, they definitely bind. I run the 1" longer upper and lower ball joints, so there is quite a bit of angle in the upper arm when the lower is bottomed against the frame (I shorten the spring pocket lip, too).

Actually, what I've been doing, up to this point, is grind away enough of the ball joint socket on one side to let the stud rotate over more without binding. Not the safest or cleanest solution, for sure, but I never had one fail from doing that. Had a couple of ball joint studs bent before I started doing it though. This does fun things to caster and camber when you turn the wheels.

[dirtman45]

Doesn't say whether it's aluminum or steel.

They are aluminum.

[fast_crew]

I would use that shim on the RF upper control arm, not the LF.

If you run a lot of UCA angle with stock control arms to raise roll center, the problem is the RF upper ball joint binding on suspension compression.

I was going to make my own out of aluminum pretty much exactly like the shim that's in the above link. $20 is pretty steep for a little piece of metal, but I may order one just to see what it's like. Doesn't say whether it's aluminum or steel.


That spacer is backwards from what you would want on the RF to allow more compression.

We ran Impala/caprice spindles with stock arms and b/j's, this results in a ton of bumpsteer. I would modify stock metric center links, moving the inner tierod pivots down and outward, by adding donated pivot points and about 4" of link from another center link. We were able to get the bumpsteer to almost zero on one side and about 1/16th on the other, plenty close for a dirt car.

[dirtman45]

The tapered spacer does nothing more than correct the ball joint angle. When used on the left front it allows the full range of motion of the ball joint. Which in turn allows the LF upper arm to drop down in the corner without binding the ball joint. The bonus is that it drops more so that corner of the car can raise up. Why you need this is to keep from ruining the ball joint.

[fast_crew]

u flip it over it will work on either side just the same

Why would you have to flip it over to fit the other side?? It wouldn't matter which way you had the spacer as the bolt pattern is the same, but this won't change the angle of the wedge.

Reread SpeedBuggy's post and then mine, and take another look at the picture. That particular spacer will not allow for more compression on the RF, before binding, it would bind even sooner.

[fast_crew]

back at ya, maybe you can copy past the pic and flip it over so you can see how it will work on the rf, lol.


I was just figuring you may have misread one of our posts. But by your S/A comment are you saying that it will allow for more compression on the RF by flipping it, or that it will fit on the RF by flipping it, (or you could just spin it and it would fit, lol, since there is no top or bottom no matter which side it's on. lol ) ?? Big Differance. The spacer gives the balljoint more (+) angle, somewhat simulating what would happen with more UCA angle, making the RF bind sooner. The spacer would have to be thicker on the inner portion of it to level out the b/j somewhat and gain more compression on the RF before binding.

[fast_crew]

Actually I didnt say it would give more compression, compression is limited by the frame not the upper bj binding as far as Im concerned.

When its bolted in the rf its going to take angle out of the upper bj, making it more parallel to the ground, but whatever. Im not on here to figure anything out, my junk works great, no binds, no bending of a arms, bjs, upper a arms etc.

Far as I can figure the rf would bind on a ill built car on the inside of the bj, maybe your going the opposite direction around the track than the rest of us and thats why shimming the rf is opposite for you.


I am not here to learn or argue either, havn't worked on a SS in 2 years. Your cars RF may be limited by the lower hitting the frame, as all stock metric's are, but in Speedbuggy's case where he has tried to improve the camber gain ( I could care less about R/C ) by running longer b/j's. This gives the UCA abit of up hill angle, plus he cut the frame alittle to allow even more compression by the sounds of it. This is what causes the b/j to run out of travel, and would require a shim in the opposite direction as what was shown... I know your no dummy Jeff, but sometimes you make me scratch my head, thus the reason I suggested you reread both of the posts before cause I figured you must have misunderstood or misread. The car I work on know has a solid front axle, and requires about 9-14"s of stagger to get through the corners.

[dexleo2]

Okay I have another question on this, I made my own shim and that has corrected the ball joint from holding up the suspension drop. So that appears fixed. So I have spent two days now working on this next problem which is camber and caster loss/gain when I cycle the suspension again on the drivers side. Here is an example these are NOT my race setups just an example: At ride height Caster: +1 1/4 Camber +3 now I drop the suspension down to bottom of travel and have Caster: +4 1/4 and Camber +1 1/4 is this Normal or is something a miss. I have been playing with this and what to know if I'm overthinking this and its normal or if I have screwed something up, again its a metric monte carlo. Thanks in advanced again. Great information on this site...

[fast_crew]

Okay I have another question on this, I made my own shim and that has corrected the ball joint from holding up the suspension drop. So that appears fixed. So I have spent two days now working on this next problem which is camber and caster loss/gain when I cycle the suspension again on the drivers side. Here is an example these are NOT my race setups just an example: At ride height Caster: +1 1/4 Camber +3 now I drop the suspension down to bottom of travel and have Caster: +4 1/4 and Camber +1 1/4 is this Normal or is something a miss. I have been playing with this and what to know if I'm overthinking this and its normal or if I have screwed something up, again its a metric monte carlo. Thanks in advanced again. Great information on this site...

Why would you be concerned with what the RF does during droop? I would be more concerned with camber gain in the RF during compression.

[dexleo2]

Why would you be concerned with what the RF does during droop? I would be more concerned with camber gain in the RF during compression.

sorry I was working of the Left front...

[Steve_Voisinet]

Why would you be concerned with what the RF does during droop? I would be more concerned with camber gain in the RF during compression.

He said he is working on the drivers side = LF

[dexleo2]

How much droop are you messing with? And where are you measuring it? if your car is together just jack the frame up and lift the lf a few inches and then see what you have at a reasonable amount of droop.

Stock car Driver,

I'm just messing around with how the front suspension works and how it relates to the car, I don't have it all together yet. What I have been doing is raising the spindle up to where I have about 4 degree angle going up to the upper ball joint, and assuming this will be around the ride height and that is where I took the measurements with my caster/camber gauge. Then I let the suspension all the way down (bottomed out) and then took the readings again and compared them. Its not the most scientific way of doing this, and I don't think the suspension will ever drop that far on the Drivers side during a race, but I'm just trying to understand what the front end is doing when its rebounding or compressing. I'm not really sure what I will have for drop on the drivers side yet its a medium bank track I plan to run at. What would be the typical drop or any idea's on how far the suspension will move. Thanks again...

[moving violation]

Josh just sent you a PM

[dexleo2]

a good ride height would be lower level, center of inner bolt to center of lower bj
droop if you measured from top of frame to the tube a arm 1.5 would be plenty

Thats what I will set it up for then... Thank you again Stock Car Driver

[fast_crew]

sorry I was working of the Left front...

My bad thought I seen RF there somewhere. Brain fart, atleast I can admit when I have one of them... When measuring camber at ride height with an up hill angle in UCA you should gain + camber untill UCA is level, then you start to lose camber with continiued droop. How much droop do you have before you start losing camber? If this droop seems adequate you could set the shock up to limit the droop, maybe add an extra inch for insurance if it seems needed.

[fast_crew]

Dude, your wrong. U need to re read and THINK about the shim and upper bj angle on the RF... or re read what Ive already told you previously, its really very simple.

So your saying put this shim under the RF b/j, between the UCA and the b/j and you gain compression before binding??? Again it doesn't matter how many times you flip this shim it's still thicker on the outer edge, and will put the RF b/j at more angle and cause binding earlier.... I suppose you could mount the balljoint on the bottom of the UCA with the shim between them and this wouuld work, may require some grinding on UCA and shim. You will figure it out eventually Jeff.

[fast_crew]

Man I hope nobodys listening to you who is new to this sport, shocks cost way too much money to use like that and ruin them.

What part of "if this droop seems adequate" do you not understand, "what part of add an extra inch if it seems needed". get over yourself. While I don't like the shocks topping out, do you think we should put chains on the front axle of the sprint car so we don't damage the $$$ gas charged Bilstein shocks we run???

[dexleo2]

My bad thought I seen RF there somewhere. Brain fart, atleast I can admit when I have one of them... When measuring camber at ride height with an up hill angle in UCA you should gain + camber untill UCA is level, then you start to lose camber with continiued droop. How much droop do you have before you start losing camber? If this droop seems adequate you could set the shock up to limit the droop, maybe add an extra inch for insurance if it seems needed.

That makes sense... That has to be what I have been seeing with my caster camber gauge... Since I have been just setting it up for a general ride height and then letting the suspension drop to where its bottomed out and then taking another reading at the bottom of the travel. I missed the level and just caught the bottom and the ball park ride height. Makes perfect sense.... Thank you Josh K.

[fast_crew]

Wow you finally got it, congrats! I figured you would get it eventually, it really isnt that hard. There would be no grinding needed on the a arms people in this thread are talking about.

Wow what a life saver I was to give you this idea... where did you ever say to mount under the UCA. You simply stated flip the shim...

[fast_crew]

I said lots of things to try and get you to understand how it works all for not obviously since you dont work on street stocks you work on something like a monster truck that needs 9-14 of stagger to turn, lol.. Is your other user name Ego?

If I did need it I would be mounting it underneath on BOTH sides for it to work in its intended method which is to put the bj more parallel to the ground, thats completely obvious to everyone but you for whatever reason.

Yeah you didn't... leave it at that.

[speedbuggy]

Well, I think you're both right about what affect that shim will have on the ball joint angle. I should have looked at it closer.

I don't want to mount the ball joint under the UCA, so I may have to make my own after all.

There's $40 down the drain...

[fast_crew]

I tack weld my upper bj to the arms.

A lot of guys around here run the bj under the arm, they think it changes the angle of the upper arm for the better, lol..


When we ran PS and had to slot the LF UCA to slid the b/j out, we always tacked ours aswell.

A few guys where mounting theres under the UCA out this way, I laughed at that aswell. They couldn't comprehend that the b/j pivot was still in the same place. Ive never tried to mount them under the UCA.

[dirtman45]

I laughed at that aswell. They couldn't comprehend that the b/j pivot was still in the same place. Ive never tried to mount them under the UCA.

It's to do with the angle of the arm. Draw it on a piece of paper if you don't understand it. On the LF more upward angle to the outside allows some camber gain the correct way, as it drops down.

[Steve_Voisinet]

Dirtman,

When you draw the line you are referring to - the line goes through the a-arm inner pivot points and the upper ball joint PIVOT POINT. It make no difference if the control arm is above or below the ball joint, the line you draw will still be in the same place.

[billy5]

you could put a 1 inch spacer between the balljoint and the upper control arm and you still have the pivot points in the same place.....it just adds alot of angle to the a-arm but does nothing but makes it bind sooner......you need to raise the pivot point up.

[dirtman45]

Dirtman,

When you draw the line you are referring to - the line goes through the a-arm inner pivot points and the upper ball joint PIVOT POINT. It make no difference if the control arm is above or below the ball joint, the line you draw will still be in the same place.

I know the pivot point is in the same place, I'm not arguing that. If you have a flat upper arm that sits flat with the ball joint on top, then the arm will sit angled upward with the ball joint on the bottom of the arm. Is everyone following along here?

When that corner drops (LF) the one with the flat arm will start to pull the top of the tire inward as the arm begins to now aim downward. The one with the arm already angled upward will try to flatten out as the tire drops. As it flattens out it pushes the top of the tire outward. Can't you understand this?

[billy5]

but in the other range of motion it creates a sooner bind..and thats worse ..

[dirtman45]

That's why you use the tapered spacer to get the ball joint angle back where it should be.

I know,.... way to much put into this thread already. I'll leave it go away.

[fast_crew]

I know the pivot point is in the same place, I'm not arguing that. If you have a flat upper arm that sits flat with the ball joint on top, then the arm will sit angled upward with the ball joint on the bottom of the arm. Is everyone following along here?

When that corner drops (LF) the one with the flat arm will start to pull the top of the tire inward as the arm begins to now aim downward. The one with the arm already angled upward will try to flatten out as the tire drops. As it flattens out it pushes the top of the tire outward. Can't you understand this?


Your theory or logic is correct, but you need to reference your camber changes to the pivot points not the angle of the arm holding the b/j, look at a stock UCA for instance. Example, You could put 4" of spacer in there, and it won't change the camber gain even alittle. You could make and UCA shaped like a upside down "U" using 2' of tubing and it would still have the same camber change. To gain anything a pivot point has to be moved, which means taller spindle, longer b/j's, or moving the C/A mounts.

[speedbuggy]

Your theory or logic is correct, but you need to reference your camber changes to the pivot points not the angle of the arm holding the b/j, look at a stock UCA for instance. Example, You could put 4" of spacer in there, and it won't change the camber gain even alittle. You could make and UCA shaped like a upside down "U" using 2' of tubing and it would still have the same camber change. To gain anything a pivot point has to be moved, which means taller spindle, longer b/j's, or moving the C/A mounts.

What he said...

I actually had begun typing up a paragraph about tire contact patch and spindle movement, but then decided....naahhhh.....I'm not dragging this thread out another three pages worth.

[TeamTerminator]

I mount the ball joint under the control arm for the simple fact of changing a bent control arm with out having to beat on the spindle to get the ball joint out. As long as the ball joint isnt bent which usually werent in my cases cuz of the junk IMCA upper a arm is junk this works out pretty good. Ball joint plate on the control arm isnt thick enough for the abuse we put them under.

[C10]

All components and mounts must be steel, unaltered OEM, in OEM location and match frame. OEM rubber A-frame bushings only. OEM or OEM replacement ball joints allowed. No rebuildable ball joints. No sway bars, spring spacers, chains or cables. Exceptions are: for 1978-1987 GM mid-sized metric frame, OEM upper A-frame may be replaced using aftermarket upper A-frame (steel or aluminum cross shaft allowed), must display “IMCA approved” decal on top of rear tube of A-frame; bolt on spindle savers allowed. Upper A-frame mount must remain OEM and cannot be moved.


Right from my Officials IMCA rule book. Just sayin

[stockcar5]

All components and mounts must be steel, unaltered OEM, in OEM location and match frame. OEM rubber A-frame bushings only. OEM or OEM replacement ball joints allowed. No rebuildable ball joints. No sway bars, spring spacers, chains or cables. Exceptions are: for 1978-1987 GM mid-sized metric frame, OEM upper A-frame may be replaced using aftermarket upper A-frame (steel or aluminum cross shaft allowed), must display “IMCA approved” decal on top of rear tube of A-frame; bolt on spindle savers allowed. Upper A-frame mount must remain OEM and cannot be moved.


Right from my Officials IMCA rule book. Just sayin

those are hobby stock rules not stockcar.
either way, i'm sure imca would have no problem with a racer reinforcing a weak spec part to make it last longer and save some money right? after all they are "the home of affordable racing"

[C10]

That is correct, but the OP is inquiring on a hobby stock.

[streetstockguru]

Would the shims from Metalwerx still be needed if running aftermarket UCA with camaro spindles on stock metric LCA?