View Full Version : Ridetech Camaro A-arm, stock spindle with Gmod
juggernaut
10-02-2016, 08:38 AM
Hi,
Would anyone know if 1st gen Camaro Ridetech UCA will work with a stock spindle?
Also, do the crosshafts clear the frame when lowered to the Gmod mounting point?
I'm looking to achieve an autocross alignment by using tubular A-arms and gmod. I like the ridetech arms because they have built in caster + caster slugs and I could upgrade to coilovers/Truturn in the future.
Also, I like the low commitment Gmod with tube arms because the UCA mounts don't need to be trimmed.
Hi,
Would anyone know if 1st gen Camaro Ridetech UCA will work with a stock spindle?
yes
Also, do the crosshafts clear the frame when lowered to the Gmod mounting point?
yes
but even with the Guldstrand the camber curve isnt enough to offset the short spindle, you will need at least a .500 tall upper balljoint
Seems like the only affordable alternative would be to use the CPP C5 tall spindles, from what I understand they are not a drop spindle or at least not enough of a drop to cause issues with the tie-rod.
Seems like the only affordable alternative would be to use the CPP C5 tall spindles, from what I understand they are not a drop spindle or at least not enough of a drop to cause issues with the tie-rod.
alternative for what? and the CPP spindles still aren't less expensive than drilling 4 holes and two tall ball joints, I did a lot of comparision and test fitting and track work on several spindles the CPP still isnt tall enough it must be combined with the gmod
here you can see the steering arm hole on the stock and the CPP are in the same location the Fatman/Ridetech spindle the steering arm is dropped some to reduce bump steer, all three at sitting inline on the lower ball joint surface
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0560a_zpsvoifrz6l-1.jpg
CPP vs Stock
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0555_zpsogvd11e1-1.jpg
stock spindle height
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0565_zpsaxxkydkp-1.jpg
CPP height
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0563_zps2z7h01r0-1.jpg
the CPP is a nice peice its a little heavy but preformed well and I do like using a bearing pack, its a cast part and surface rust easly even after it was painted a cast grey
alternative for what? and the CPP spindles still aren't less expensive than drilling 4 holes and two tall ball joints, I did a lot of comparision and test fitting and track work on several spindles the CPP still isnt tall enough it must be combined with the gmod
here you can see the steering arm hole on the stock and the CPP are in the same location the Fatman/Ridetech spindle the steering arm is dropped some to reduce bump steer, all three at sitting inline on the lower ball joint surface
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0560a_zpsvoifrz6l-1.jpg
CPP vs Stock
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0555_zpsogvd11e1-1.jpg
stock spindle height
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0565_zpsaxxkydkp-1.jpg
CPP height
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2016/10/GEDC0563_zps2z7h01r0-1.jpg
the CPP is a nice peice its a little heavy but preformed well and I do like using a bearing pack, its a cast part and surface rust easly even after it was painted a cast grey
You said "but even with the Guldstrand the camber curve isnt enough to offset the short spindle, you will need at least a .500 tall upper balljoint"
If he needs more than a tall ball joint and the Guldstrand mod can give him then the most affordable option would be the CPP tall spindle as opposed to a ATS tall spindle or the Ridetech drop spindles. From what I understand you need to run the tru-turn with Ridetech spindles otherwise you have to run a very narrow front tire due to tie-rod to wheel/tire clearance.
You said "but even with the Guldstrand the camber curve isnt enough to offset the short spindle, you will need at least a .500 tall upper balljoint"
Correct, the guldstrad moves the car from a no camber/positive gain to a netrual/negative gain, and is good for a 225-235 tire, but the wider the foot print the more camber gain the tire needs, and at that point, a 245-255 starts to need more dynamic camber gain, and that can not be gained with static camber settings ....so ...tall balljoints become needed...and so as it goes when moving up to a 265-275 and up....the cycle is repeated the need more dynamic camber gain, and that still can not be gained with static camber settings so now tall spindles come into play, (without the tall ball joints)
So what's better?
Guldstand mod + Tall upper ball joints.
Guldstand mod + CPP C5 tall spindles.
Guldstand mod + CPP C5 tall spindles + Tall upper ball joints.
I have wondered if you could do all three without causing any issues but haven't looked into it.
So what's better?
Guldstand mod + Tall upper ball joints.
Guldstand mod + CPP C5 tall spindles.
Guldstand mod + CPP C5 tall spindles + Tall upper ball joints.
I have wondered if you could do all three without causing any issues but haven't looked into it.
there is no better...its dependent on what youre building, I have tested all of those, the Guldstand mod + CPP C5 tall spindles + Tall upper ball joints wasnt tested because the tall ball joint with the tall CPP spindle wouldnt allow a 17x10 or 18x10 inch rim to fit the upper ball joint hit the rim because there wasnt a drop in the spindle, I could have probably fit a 19 on there but I dont use that diameter wheel
Good info, thanks.
When I asked which is better I was referring to which setup would give you the most dynamic camber gain without causing any issues but you answered that. I realize there's only so much you can do with the stock subframe since the upper and lower control arm pivot points are too far from each other.
juggernaut
10-05-2016, 12:05 PM
@Rod
Thanks for the info Rod.
I've looked at the CPP spindles but, to be honest my car is a cruiser and occasional Autox. So, i can't justify the cost of upgrading to C5 spindles and corvette brakes. Maybe... after I've outgrown the wilwood dynalites or hit the lottery! I'll look into upgrading.
Right now my car is aligned to stock (no shims) and I can see that it's ripping the outer edge of the tire off. I'd like to get the car functional for Autox without eating front tires.
Right now my car is aligned to stock (no shims) and I can see that it's ripping the outer edge of the tire off. I'd like to get the car functional for Autox without eating front tires.
do you have stock arms? if so I would add tall upper ball joints, then get it realigned = 50 bucks each plus alignment
if you have tube arms do the guldstrand = free plus alignment
like I was talking about before the arms inboard pivot point is too far apart for the stock spindle, you wouldn't notice as much if the car still had the factory E70-15 tires on that 6 inch wide rim, but you probably have a 7-8 inch wide rim and now you add a 60-50 or 40 series tires and the flaws show
juggernaut
10-05-2016, 06:50 PM
do you have stock arms? if so I would add tall upper ball joints, then get it realigned = 50 bucks each plus alignment
if you have tube arms do the guldstrand = free plus alignment
like I was talking about before the arms inboard pivot point is too far apart for the stock spindle, you wouldn't notice as much if the car still had the factory E70-15 tires on that 6 inch wide rim, but you probably have a 7-8 inch wide rim and now you add a 60-50 or 40 series tires and the flaws show
I currently have stock arms, 235 tires on 8x19 wheels and Hotchkis TVS kit. Do you think the ridetech arms would be overkill?
I currently have stock arms, 235 tires on 8x19 wheels and Hotchkis TVS kit. Do you think the ridetech arms would be overkill?
the TVS stuff works well you just need the tall upper ball joints for you cruiser and it will help a lot and cost a lot less....
Powered by vBulletin®