Anyone ever use tall spindles (with no drop) together with tall upper ball joints?

Discussion in 'Race 400/430/455' started by BillyG, Jul 15, 2018.

  1. BillyG

    BillyG Well-Known Member

    I tried this question in another forum on this board, and didn't get more than one drag racer chiming in, so I'll try this again here.....

    I've heard some fellow drag racers speak of using taller UPPER ball joints, to increase the "droop" of the front upper control arms. I've also heard some say that a former aftermarket spindle manufacture used to sell taller spindles for that same purpose/result which were NOT drop spindles, and therefore did NOT cause any ride height drop.

    That supplier went belly-up at least several years ago, ( I believe it's name was "L&M") however, I just noticed that Chris Alston ChassisWorks now offers tall spindles for A,G, & X body cars with the option of zero drop. So I'm wondering if a little bit is good, ( a little bit meaning either the use of the xtra tall +0.9" UPPER ball joints, or 1.5" taller spindles) if MORE is better, ( MORE meaning the use of the 1.5" taller spindles in conjunction with the x-tra tall +0.9" UPPER ball joints).

    So my two questions are, have any drag racers here with GM A-body cars ever tried using both the tall spindles together with the tall upper ball joints at the same time? And also what pros and cons would you guys anticipate with such a practice of combining the two on the same car? Ofcourse this would be done with aftermarket upper arms, (Global West TLC-42 arms to be specific).

    Here's a link to the tall spindles in question:

    https://www.cachassisworks.com/p-29...all-spindle-billet-aluminum-stock-height.aspx
     
  2. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    There was a company H-O Racing SpeciLties that ran the 70s era trans am spindles on a bodies with there custom taper ball joints i think it was.
    Many use tall ball joints as they also help suspension geometry.
    But a problem is excessive front end travel which needs limiters then.
     
  3. BillyG

    BillyG Well-Known Member

    Thanks for your reply. Actually, increasing the front suspension travel is my goal, in order to take more advantage of the "stored energy" in the taller/lighter front coil springs that I'll be using since the drag car in question has a tall deck iron block and is very nose-heavy
     
  4. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    Then tall ball joints would work well.
    I use pro forge from jegs. I think 39 each.
    They help camber big time.
    You will have tremendous front end travel.
    I had like 6".
    I made stoppers for arms to like 3.5".
    Car drives well to 136.
     
  5. BillyG

    BillyG Well-Known Member

    Your point is well taken. In fact, I have already bought the Pro-Forged +0.9" x-tra tall upper ball joints. But I'm going to try using them together with the 1.5" taller Chassis Works spindles. I should end up having even more front travel, (perhaps 7" or maybe even 8"). That together with the tall front drag springs from Santhuff will hopefully be the ultimate set-up for great launches off the starting line at the strip.
     
    300sbb_overkill likes this.
  6. BillyG

    BillyG Well-Known Member

    ...oh, and let me add that as many people know, the instant center of the rear suspension needs to be in the right place too, (which is something I also will have covered on my car).
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
  7. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    That's a lot of front end travel you are planning.
    Will go like a gasser, hope you can find shocks that have that much travel. And springs with that much energy.
    I have not seen shocks w that much.
    I limmited my travel and gone my best 60 so far that way. Limited with tall ball joints.
     
  8. BillyG

    BillyG Well-Known Member

    First let me say that I welcome your feedback and your views, because I sure am not a know-it-all, which of course is why I started this thread in the first place. As far as your comparison to Gasser cars, the 18" tall Santhuff front springs I have for the car are very light with merely a 225 lb rate, so they will compress quite a bit under the weight of the car, (hence the greater amount of stored energy than you have with shorter/heavier factory stock weight coil springs). I'm guessing that the front end will not stay propped up in the air during hard acceleration, especially after the wheel stand when the front end comes back down to earth. But I suppose the proof is in the puting as they say. But I know three other Chevelle owners who have these same Santhuff brand 18" tall front springs, and their cars sit at normal ride heaight, and the front end of their cars are NOT propped up like a gasser during hard acceleration either. But time will tell when I get the car to the track.

    I like that you've shared with me what brought on the best 60 foot times with your Buick, (when you've actually limited the front end travel). That sure is some food for thought right there. But here's my take on that: correct me if I'm all wrong on this....going by your post signature, your 70 Buick GS, (the 70 and 71 are my favorite years for those cars by the way) is a mid 12 second car, with a typical short time of 1.7 seconds, correct? Now if that is the car you say 60 foots the best with a limited front end travel, then that is all well and good for you, however that does NOT apply to my set up, since my car will be in the high 9's with an 800 HP naturally aspirated pump gas motor under the hood, and my goal is 1.3 second 60 foot times. My last car was a 4,200 LB Mercury Marauder that ran 12.0 to 12.2 second ET's on pump gas with 1.6 second 60 foot times consistently, and I accomplished that with nothing but the factory stock front and rear suspension, and drag radial tires aired down to 17 PSI.

    My point here is that running 1.7 second or even 1.6 second short times is relatively easy with the right air pressure in the right choice of rear tires, but that's a far cry from running consistent 1.3 second short times. As far as having enough travel in the front shocks, that certainly is a good point you've brought up there, and one that I have been considering for the past two weeks. The front shocks I have for the car are the AFCO "BNC" double adjustable ones which are specifically for nose heavy cars that do wheel stands off the starting line, and they have 4" of travel at the shaft, which likely will translate to maybe 6" at the spindle tip (???). BTW, these AFCO BNC shocks do not limit the wheel stand, they simply eliminate all the bouncing up and down that usually occurs after the front tires come back down on the asphalt, and they slow down the dive too, which prevents oil pans, header collectors and trans pans from being crunched. But I digress....

    My plan for the shocks is to check if they provide enough travel when I mock up the front end in my garage with the car up on jack stands, WITHOUT the front coil springs installed. I will take the front end manually through it's full range of motion with the new tall spindles installed, along with the +0.9" X-tra tall UPPER ball joints, and of course the Global West TLC-42 upper and lower control arms that I have installed too. This is when I will check for things like ball joint binding, and front shock travel. If I find that the taller upper ball joints bind up, then I'll go back to the standard height upper ball joints. And If I find that the AFCO BNC front shocks won't offer enough travel, then I'll purchase another set of their BNC shocks which happen to offer 5" of travel at the shock shaft.

    Here are some pics one of the new Chassis Works tall spindles that I just took delivery of yesterday. They are 1.5" taller than the factory spindles with ZERO drop... ( my wife has so many beauty creams cluttering up our downstairs bathroom, that I just had to take some pics with the spindles there just to make it look like a guy's house again LOL)...
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
  9. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    I have a 9 second Chevelle also.
    I tried the global west drag arms in front.
    Lowers are heavier than our stock ones.
    Uppers 1 pound lighter.
    Uppers have a built in stopper on bottom that will bump into the stock one on frame of car.
    I had the santuff 225 springs and they were to low for my heavy nose chevelle.
    I have gm springs now.
    You will have to measure the compression and revound as you are looking for alot of travel.
    Many quick cars look for good balance of camber and toe thru the articulation of suspension travel and limit bump steer.
    I spent a lot on it myself.
    I now have stock upper and lower arms w del a lum bushings.
    Wish i got upper offset bars but thank good ness my alignment came out alright and i got by without them.
    Shocks that fit thru bottom and have enough travel you will have to research.
    I have gone thru a couple sets and still not sure i have right ones for application.
    You have some work ahead. All our cars are similar w different tweaks as they are like 50 years old.
    Have fun is most important.
     
  10. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    Wow
    Just saw spindles. Look sweet.
    I would use global west uppers and stock lowers.
    Use the associated ball joints gw provides and stock lowers or low restriction lowers.
    Global west uppers are supposed to help for more positive caster.
    I am talking the drag race arms.
    Lowers are heavy as heck.
    Also no provision for sway bar on lowers built for drag racing.
    I sold mine off like brand new like my santuff springs.
     
  11. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    Getting the nose down on our cars is another job.
    With all the front travel up, you need to get nose back down.
    Enjoy the work and testing and tuning.
     
  12. BillyG

    BillyG Well-Known Member

    Yes, you are right about the Global West arms. These are the TLC-42 which like you said are their drag race arms. The lowers are heavier than stock because they purposely designed them to take a pouinding on drag cars that do wheel stands, and I like that they did that, because cracking a lower arm would be a safety issue. I have also altered the lower arms where the shocks fit through so that the AFCO BNC front shocks which have a 2.4" diameter can fit through them. I shaved down the bump stops on the uppers a little bit to give them even more droop room.

    Again you are right. Thanks for the heads up on that my friend. But I don't care to run any front sway bar, since that tends to bind up the front suspension travel anyway. Furthermore, I have a huge 1 3/8" diameter bolt-on anti-roll bar in the rear that is so stiff, it will prevent body roll as well as having a front and rear standard sway bar would. It's from BMR Fabrication. I know of other guys who have used the same rear bar, and that's what they told me. It keeps the entire car flat around turns while street driving. So the weight gain with the GW lower arms is offset by the weight saving of not using a front sway bar.

    Thanks for all your advice and input. I always welcome these things, so that I never overlook the details.

    Here's some pics of the lower arm modification that I did to fit the AFCO BNC shocks through them. In the pics of the shocks, you'll see the weld ring that the shocks came with which is specifically for this alteration....
     

    Attached Files:

  13. BillyG

    BillyG Well-Known Member

    Here's the 1 3/8" diameter bolt-in anti-roll bar I have in the car. With this huge bar I won't even need a front sway bar even for street driving..... Oh, and as far as the front ride height being too low due to the Santhuff 225 LB springs, if I find that to be the case, then I'll go with a set of the 250 lb Santhuff springs.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
  14. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    Glad to see your having better luck than I.
    Car looks great.
     
  15. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    I have the complete HR Parts rear suspension.
    Gm springs I think 5379? Maybe they are.
     
  16. capsgs

    capsgs Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't get too hung up on a whole lot of front end travel. Especially since you will most likely end up limiting it any way. Generally A bodies work well with 4 to 6 in of travel. My car has stock a arms with good bushings and the same 225 lb Santuff springs. I have 5 and half in of travel. The car 60s in the 1.32 range usually triggering lights with the rear tires. Wheel stands are fun but the car suffers in consistancy. You can control the wheel stand with shocks. I have actually dialed the wheel stand completely out of my car with shock adjustment. I found that I could tie the car down so tight that it actually bogged the motor on launch. I'm using Viking shocks with AM valving. When I adjust some of the wheel stand out of it by either loosening the extension in rear or tightening extension in front the car becomes way more consistent and the 60 doesn't suffer at all. I too put the .9 upper ball joints in mine but that was to correct a geometry problem not more travel.
     
  17. 70 GMuscle

    70 GMuscle Plan B

    Caps
    That is why I used the tall ball joints to correct my camber problems.
    Dont even need the tie rod upgrades.
    I use gm front springs. The santuff either too tall or short for me.
    My car goes 1.35 off foot brake best.
    Avg 1.37-8.
    I have adjustable stops thru upper arms now since I had 6" travel. Car leaves about 1/2 foot off ground n goes.
    I would think tall spindles and tall ball joints would really change geometry pointing upper arms way up.
    I also used stock upper cross shafts when I installed the del a lum bushings.
    Should have used offsets.
    Would use less shims then.
    But it is working fine.
    You definitely need a good guy who indwrstands to make correct alignment adjustments.
    Or experiment yourself w the alignment plates.
     

Share This Page