Tubular Rear Control Arms

Would you be interested in Tubular Rear Control Arms?

  • Yes, if the Price was "Reasonable"

    Votes: 102 82.9%

  • Yes, at Almost any Price

    Votes: 6 4.9%

  • No Thanks, Stock is Good Enough

    Votes: 15 12.2%
  • Total voters
    123
No, because of the distance towards the outside, and the fact that it is 24-25" long, I believe there will be enough distance that will allow FULL suspension travel with no side effects what so ever. As long as I have it set up at least 1* below the centerline with the suspension at full compression, I think it will work well. There wont be enough travel of the suspension to make it work.

Chris
 
Pro Street Rich came up with a solution a couple of years ago on the movement of the tire going forward and backward.
 
Chris glad to hear your moving along with your car.
Keep me posted on how it turns out. Havent heard much
feed back from Dan Sly's suspension mods using a trailing
arm type setup to reduce wheel hop.

Nice talking with ya about this topic. I have had different
goals besides reducing wheel hop. My thoughts are more
along the lines of a two plus inch narrower rear tracking width.
And the use of adj. aluminum coil over shocks, I would of
really like to use two coil overs on each side with chrome
spring.mostly just for a custom bling factor.

I would like to hear more about the QA-1 aluminum adjustable
coil over shocks. From the people that bought this set-up.
I gave the Ph. number to Thomas for a guy that worked and
built custom QA-1 shock set ups.During the time I was kicking
around the idea of modding my rear suspension. After Thomas
got the deal together and rolling. I was tight for money at the
time the group buy, and did not buy any coil over shocks.
The only post that I have found and read on the use of the
QA-1 coil shocks over group buy was by a member named
Mercutio.In his post he said somthing about using QA-1 coil over
parts to fab a different setup to meet his needs of driving on
some twisties ,braking, etc.... I do not remember if he was
posting about the front or rear suspension or both.

Chris good luck with your drag chassis work. Maybe I will
be lucky enough to see ya burn down the track someday.
I think you fabbing some trailing arms will help ya out a lot.
Arent you also working on a blown V-8 mod motor setup?

Thanks Randy
 
HA...Blown mod motor...Now I have more money than time. I am sitting on a 4v setup with a turbo that needs TONS of work before I can even begin to fab up the exhaust for that car. The SC is going to cost way too much money for me to build (the way I want it) right now. I do not have a ton of cash to drop on a billet 4.5 crank. So I am going to pull out the 351 from my bronco and stick it in there as I will place the 6.9 Diesel with a blower in my bronco.

To stay on topic, there is one more thing I would like to point out. With my previous statement about the angle (front to back) on the car, I think I can almost see it working flawlessly since when you smoke the tires (most of the time) the rear is going to squat. I guess I should say on a launch it squats. With the trailing arm close to the 1* mark as I can get it, the pressure and twist will be bac on the rear of the car in essence using the moment arm as if it had a solid axle (sorta) as it pushes down on the rear of the car (as the solid axle lifts near the center of the car).

I hope to get the time to do the main mounts to this in the next week. I will get pix of it up.

Chris
 
I know this is an old thread resurrected but HELL YEAH!
Someone fill us in on the rear upper control arm mod!

Back when I had my first SC I thought this upper was an issue. No stabilization is an issue.

I was thinking a trail arm from the front to the UCA or from he UCA to the rear.

I think it would not put too much stress on it, "BUMP STEER"

Ok, correct my theories as you will...
2 things to think about... BUMP STEER or in the IRS case... BUMP CAMBER/CASTER

Consider all the following mounted as far out as possible on the UCA inside the wheel, the other mount discussed is WHERE on the body the inboard mounts.

1. IF mount the additional arm(AA) inboard at same level "zero degrees" with the stock UCA and close to stock mount are then normal range of motion, ZERO BUMP CASTER/CAMBER. Effect... not alot of wheel hop reduction...just a small upper wish bone type of UCA.

2. IF mount the AA FORWARD, like a trail arm, could make forward mount adjustable for racing type. like a 4 link
a. Zero degrees (matched travel arc)... no camber/caster change
b. mount higher (higher travel arc)... when car squats on Drag Launch or weight transfer on outside wheel in a hard corner, the travel arc would cause it to GAIN + Camber thus keeping the whole tire planted flat on the ground. This has another affect... pushs UCA back as well as out...adding -Caster. Not alot but could help keep her straight on launch while hanging hoops. a 3rd order effect... force transferred FORWARD through the AA to the body while slowing/stopping wheel hop.
c. Mount lower (lower travel arc)... it has opposite effect... as it squats the AA would PULL on the UCA causing negative camber and positive caster, makes it squirlie.

Now THAT all depends on how STRAIGHT forward it is mounted or how far IN it is mounted. Straight forward would work caster more. Mounted further in and it would pull/push on camber.

looks like perfect would be same level as the stock inboard mount. Travel arc equal/matched up and down, no adverse camber effect.
Then forward or back at a 45 degree angle between UCA and wheel centerline, Caster effected equal through travel arc.

Ok beat me up?
But I am looking to do something about tis when I get home!
 
I found little support from the major producers when I looked into it several years ago, and never followed it up further. If they are deemed something that would be helpful, maybe DLF would be willing to tackle them or know's someone that would be.

Thomas
 
Thomas A said:
I found little support from the major producers when I looked into it several years ago, and never followed it up further. If they are deemed something that would be helpful, maybe DLF would be willing to tackle them or know's someone that would be.

Thomas
Click to expand...

Unless you use coilover shocks (and I'm not sure that the body would support that without at least some reinforcement), I don't see any particular advantage to tubular LCA's vs. the aluminum Mark VIII LCA's.
 
I'm going to make sure it works' for sure first' before claiming it's a must have. I'm also thinking of videoing the set up while in motion. I'd like to see if it also eliminates any vibration as well, or, transfers it back through the frame. Any more information you can remenber, or think of, you be sure to chime in. I could certainly use it.
 
DLF said:
Unless you use coilover shocks (and I'm not sure that the body would support that without at least some reinforcement), I don't see any particular advantage to tubular LCA's vs. the aluminum Mark VIII LCA's.
Click to expand...

Upper arms, not lowers ;)

Thomas
 
HEY! I'm going to have to re-read this entire thread. It's a very old thread, as of course you would know that. If that's true, I'm going to have to revisit my initial hypothesis. Are you suggesting I should be looking up instead and stabilizing this arm? That would be a different method I've not considered. going to look now
 
NOPE! couldn't see anything that would help our cause. And by the looks of it, neither did FORD. The upper arm is only a stamped channel out of sheet metal. Not a cast member or even tubular, just a stamped, open ended channel.
Making that arm stronger wouldn't be that expensive or time consuming. In fact, you could weld in a couple of flat plates in certain locations to increase it's load capacity as well as twisting.... if it ever did. (WEB stiffening).
To me, at first glance it seems to be dimensionally stable.
I'm still betting on the LCA and it's hinged connection being responsible.
Your thoughts please!
 
Thomas A said:
Upper arms, not lowers ;)

Thomas
Click to expand...

There's no reason to do anything about the UCA's. They exist only to provide camber control and are not designed nor needed for lateral support.

The reason that the knuckles attach via two points to the LCA's is to provide that lateral support, which works well, once the compliance is removed from the LCA and knuckle bushings.
 
I would agree! But, you still never know if that guy has some ingenious way of circumventing the entire assembly through the use of the UCA back through the LCA and connecting it to some other mount.... And, I still don't. I've thought of 3 different methods myself. But, none for 175.00 bucks and ease of installation. If I felt the LCA casting was strong enough I'd drill a hole through that. But, whose going to want to do that anyways. It's got to be a simple and easy install for cheap or no one is going to fix the problem. Then again, I'm preaching to the choir. you would already know that. :)
 
The reason the UCA is a C shape is that the half shaft runs inside of it when the suspension compresses enough. That design requirement, and the curved shape to the piece, is going to make designing a new UCA pretty difficult.
 
Next Monday is as soon as I can verify all the testing. I'm now changing the shear pin to a stainless bolt. pull factor isn't that high so the ss bolt should suffice and not bend at all. Also the spacer modification not previously shown is lighter tubing to cut down on weight and the brass 3/4" bushing is now a two piece.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top