I see some folks using the Howe tall upper ball joints with aftermarket upper arms with the stock spindle and stock lower A arms. It seems to me a good approach to improve the front suspension geometry and handling without a complete redo. What do you guys think? Heres a link to one vender selling a kit for our cars: http://www.scandc.com/suspensions.htm - Bill
That is exactly what I bought almost 4 years ago. Mind you, you will have to cut part of the extra long frame bracket where the upper arm mounts to clear the arm. In addition, the limit bumper no longer is of any value. When I lift the front end, there is nothing to keep the arm from contacting the frame. With the tall ball joint you gain about an inch, maybe a hair less, so it acts like a taller spindle. I was able to adjust mine so that on the hard left the left wheel leans out at the top away from the car and the right wheel leans into the fender well. That is pretty much the opposite of how the factory arrangement works. I think I've pretty much dialed out all of the understeer (or oversteer, it goes both ways!) unless the throttle is inducing it. The biggest caveat I have is at stock height, it may be close to binding the arm to the frame. A lowered car is supposed to be much better but I can't do that. I have a few pics I took when I was starting it that may help you decide. The first one shows the proximity to the frame and the area I had to trim. The second and third contrast the lengths of the lengths.
Thanks for the response. What do you mean by binding the arm to the frame? Is your car on the road? How is it holding up? - Bill
Hi Bill, I think Greg is talking about his UCAs contacting the frame when the suspension is in full droop (Wheelies at launch)? I'm not positive but I think Greg and I might be discussing this same question starting at Post #16 of this thread? http://v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=193048
davisca455 is correct. The arms do not have the droop of a factory arm. They are straight out from the pivot point. Even with an inch higher arm because of the taller ball joint, it will hit the frame when on jack stands. I've been driving it for about 3 seasons without any issues. I am going to work out something for a bump stop yet, though.
It is partly the caster that creates the different camber change. Though the changing of the control arm angles, caster will have a bigger effect. With the factory geometry, the caster is apparently negative, which is fine for ride and stability, including wander. The problem with that set-up is what was described; the inside wheel goes to negative camber, or tilts in, and the outside wheel leans out, or positive camber, which induces understeer, and wears tires at a prodigious rate. With positive caster, the inside wheel tilts out, or positive camber, and the outside wheel tilts in, or negative camber, allowing the front to do more work, which reduces understeer. I have gone to as high as 1 degree of negative camber in alignment adjustments, which makes the tires appear to lean in slightly, and makes the car a BLAST to drive, without wearing the tires excessively. It is still a heavy car, and the tire wear will be obvious under any conditions, but at least the tire wear is not aggravated, and you are getting more than tire squeal in a turn. I love corner-carving, especially when chasing rice rockets! A V8 will always clean a rocket's clock, but, now, when I turn behind them, they still see my grille in their rear-view mirror. I love it! Ray
Are these ball joints that you can add to stock arms? Perhaps 15 or 20 years ago I read a story in Car Craft about using tall ball joints instead of drop spindles to alter the suspension exactly as you've mentioned Ray. Since reading that article I've lost track of the manufacturer of this stuff.
Yes, they would add height to the stock control arms as well. They are not as tall as the "tall" b-body arm swap but it is a lot less work and a good bang for the buck on a stock front end.
