New, custom, tubular upper A-arms
05-29-2009, 12:06 PM
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New, custom, tubular upper A-arms Well, I finally built my upper arms. I was only able to get -1.5* camber per side, even with lowering and slotting the K-member. I corded 2 sets of brand new slicks at the last 2 races in April. These should let me get all the camber I want. I will also be inserting rod-ends into the ends of my stock lower arms, plus using a low-friction ball joint. I used the following parts for the upper arms:
2 - Afco upper ball joint ring, 10-deg, screw-in type - part #19066 (right) and 19065 (left)
2 - Afco upper ball joints - part # 20034
4 - 4" swedged steel tubes
4 - XMR10 left-hand rod ends
4 - Grade-8 5/8", 4" long bolts
4 - 7/16" thick, 5/8" bore spacers
2 - 3/8" clevis ends, w/ 5/8" threaded end
Final price was just above $200 for everything. The arms are 12lbs, 4oz, compared to 11lbs, 8oz for stock (both including the mounting braket as assembled). However, the 5/8" bolts mounting the arms to the bracket weigh exactly 4oz more than the stock bolts (2oz vs 6oz). So, that's a difference of 8oz per assmebly, all not moving. I guess that means that these arms are only 4oz heavier than stock. And, I could always try out some aluminum tubes for weight savings (though I probably never will - I want strength).
I had to had to modify the upper mounts. Spacing was the same as stock, but I wanted the brackets to face the ball joint to minimize deflection under load. Please forgive the welds. I'm getting better, but I'll never be on par with pros. I've got a guy who will go over everything with a TIG to make sure it holds.
Oh, and to clarify - there is only a clevis on one side. The other side is a rigid threaded rod welded to the ball joint socket. I turned the arm over for the 2nd pic.
2 - Afco upper ball joint ring, 10-deg, screw-in type - part #19066 (right) and 19065 (left)
2 - Afco upper ball joints - part # 20034
4 - 4" swedged steel tubes
4 - XMR10 left-hand rod ends
4 - Grade-8 5/8", 4" long bolts
4 - 7/16" thick, 5/8" bore spacers
2 - 3/8" clevis ends, w/ 5/8" threaded end
Final price was just above $200 for everything. The arms are 12lbs, 4oz, compared to 11lbs, 8oz for stock (both including the mounting braket as assembled). However, the 5/8" bolts mounting the arms to the bracket weigh exactly 4oz more than the stock bolts (2oz vs 6oz). So, that's a difference of 8oz per assmebly, all not moving. I guess that means that these arms are only 4oz heavier than stock. And, I could always try out some aluminum tubes for weight savings (though I probably never will - I want strength).
I had to had to modify the upper mounts. Spacing was the same as stock, but I wanted the brackets to face the ball joint to minimize deflection under load. Please forgive the welds. I'm getting better, but I'll never be on par with pros. I've got a guy who will go over everything with a TIG to make sure it holds.
Oh, and to clarify - there is only a clevis on one side. The other side is a rigid threaded rod welded to the ball joint socket. I turned the arm over for the 2nd pic.
05-30-2009, 02:34 AM
#4
Nice looking UCAs!
Did you make sure your not going to lose any suspension travel?
I lost some suspension travel with tubular upper control arms because the upper control arms would contact the mount before the bumpstops were fully compressed.
That's why I went back to factory upper control arms with G.W. Delum bushings.
As you can see the factory arms alow more suspension travel.
Did you make sure your not going to lose any suspension travel?
I lost some suspension travel with tubular upper control arms because the upper control arms would contact the mount before the bumpstops were fully compressed.
That's why I went back to factory upper control arms with G.W. Delum bushings.
As you can see the factory arms alow more suspension travel.
05-30-2009, 09:23 AM
#5
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you can go that high in the suspension travel since the mount bolts flush to the chassis. I'd think the upper arm would run into the chassis before going that far up. Can't be sure though..
05-30-2009, 05:50 PM
#6
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that the ball joint will hit the fender liner before the arm travels that far. But, if I need more travel, I'll just cut the liner and mess with it a bit.
If I was doing drag or street, I'd have aluminum bars in there and save myself a few lbs. But, I need the steel.
If I was doing drag or street, I'd have aluminum bars in there and save myself a few lbs. But, I need the steel.
05-30-2009, 05:51 PM
#7
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 3,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected. I just looked in my wheel wells today while swapping tires. There is almost a molded clearance to allow the upper arm to travel to the highest that the mount will allow. It appears that Trans Ram's design might not go as far, but I don't even know if the car allows that much suspension movement anyway.
Trending Topics
06-01-2009, 12:12 PM
#8
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some probably do. I've seen one of the "flat mount, bolt-style, ball joints" that bent the mounting flange. Speculation was that it hit the fender liner.
I doubt that mine will do that, though. 700bs springs, flat-ish tracks, etc. don't lend themselves very well to lots of suspension travel.
I doubt that mine will do that, though. 700bs springs, flat-ish tracks, etc. don't lend themselves very well to lots of suspension travel.
