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/medieva...ckmount-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...