Power Performance tall BJ’s – install w/pics [Archive]

View Full Version : Power Performance tall BJ’s – install w/pics

bochnak

01-06-2010, 04:46 AM

Power Performance (PP) has sent me tall upper & lower ball joints for free. In return, I agreed to install them and post install pics.

The car is a 70’ Chevelle with the following changes from stock:

SPC upper control arms with BJ spacer kit. Spacer kit is required when running stock height BJ’s. This will allow enough suspension droop.
600# circle track springs
Varishock single adjustable shocks
ZQ8 bumpstops
18” C6 wheels up front
Lowered – LCA level

My car still has drum brakes, therefore a tall lower BJ can not be used. I’ll show why later. I used a spare set of drum spindles less brakes for the install. I had 14” wheels on the car until I ran into an interference issue with the SPC UCA’s with BJ kit and wheel weight. I know that most people are probably past the 14” wheels and drums brakes, I just thought I’d mention it since we have different starting points.

I have bought some cheap stock replacement BJ’s from Autozone to illustrate the height differences. Both the upper and lower BJ studs are ½” longer on the Power Performance BJ’s.

Upper ball joint (Stocker is on the left, PP on the right)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6847JPG-1.jpg

Lower ball joint (Stocker is on the left, PP on the right)

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6846JPG-1.jpg

Here is a pic of spindles w/BJ’s sitting on top of my workbench. Stockers on left, PP on the right. Notice how the effective spindle height increases by an inch, steering arm is raised by ½”, and car will be lowered by ½”.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6843JPG-1.jpg

PP upper BJ installed

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6813JPG-1.jpg

PP lower BJ installed

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6852JPG-1.jpg

Some final pics:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6862JPG-1.jpg

Why drum brakes will not work:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6810JPG-1.jpg

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6856JPG-1.jpg

You can view more pics here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/mbochnak/TallBjS?feat=directlink

sebtarta

02-12-2010, 05:57 AM

WOW! great write up, and thanx for sharing. Now at least you have a chance to explain to the SO why you need disc brakes.

68Formula

02-12-2010, 08:24 AM

Do the F and A bodies use the same ball joints?

bochnak

02-12-2010, 09:35 AM

WOW! great write up, and thanx for sharing. Now at least you have a chance to explain to the SO why you need disc brakes.

Saving up for C5/C6 and plan to do the swap end of this year.

bochnak

02-12-2010, 09:36 AM

Do the F and A bodies use the same ball joints?

http://www.powerperformancemotorsports.com/category.sc;jsessionid=D11DE3845EAE9FF5AF9800FF9C0 FE11F.qscstrfrnt02?categoryId=29

John Wright

02-12-2010, 09:42 AM

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/01/DSC_6813JPG-1.jpg

Can you place the BJ flange underneath the SPC control arm, instead of being on top? If the BJ flange is flat, I see no reason why you couldn't and gain another 3/16" (or whatever that thickness is) from the tall BJ.

BrianP

02-12-2010, 10:16 AM

Can you place the BJ flange underneath the SPC control arm, instead of being on top? If the BJ flange is flat, I see no reason why you couldn't and gain another 3/16" (or whatever that thickness is) from the tall BJ.

It wouldn't make any difference: the distance between the centers of the ball joints would remain the same.

bochnak

02-12-2010, 10:17 AM

bochnak

02-12-2010, 10:18 AM

It wouldn't make any difference: the distance between the centers of the ball joints would remain the same.

You beat me to it....LOL.

bochnak

02-12-2010, 10:22 AM

I had the stock BJ mounted underneath along with three ¼” thick plates. This was needed to provide enough droop. The plan is to remove 2 plates, or .5”, and run the tall upper BJ without aligning the car. I think this will result in slightly more neg camber static. I’ll get it on the ground soon (other projects) and compare the untouched side vs. side with tall upper.

John Wright

02-12-2010, 10:22 AM

That change will not alter geometry. It will only give me more suspension droop.
Yup you're right...I wasn't thinking about the c/c's.

However on my 2gen Camaro that extra little bit of droop is a plus, isn't it?...arms hit the subframe pretty hard when the wheels are hanging.

bochnak

02-12-2010, 10:24 AM

Yup you're right...I wasn't thinking about the c/c's.

However on my 2gen Camaro that extra little bit of droop is a plus, isn't it?...arms hit the subframe pretty hard when the wheels are hanging.

The only thing you have to watch out for is overextending the shock.

John Wright

02-12-2010, 10:30 AM

The only thing you have to watch out for is overextending the shock.
LOL...hadn't thought of that either...:)

:idea: speaking of over extending the shock...ever notice what is holding the rear axle up when the rear suspension is drooping...LOL...I bet when I take my shocks loose, the rear drops another couple of inches.

bochnak

02-12-2010, 10:35 AM

LOL...hadn't thought of that either...:)

:idea: speaking of over extending the shock...ever notice what is holding the rear axle up when the rear suspension is drooping...LOL...I bet when I take my shocks loose, the rear drops another couple of inches.

That's true. The rear are of a different design and act as the stop in droop, the same does not apply for the front. Or at least for the varishocks that I run.

bochnak

08-20-2011, 06:23 PM

The car is now on the road with tall upper and lowers. Just finished the brake swap over the past winter.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2011/08/DSC_2941JPG-1.jpg

exwestracer

08-21-2011, 05:18 AM

Good looking car! Looks like JR is itching to go for a ride!

bochnak

08-21-2011, 10:39 AM

Good looking car! Looks like JR is itching to go for a ride!

Ya...tell me about it. He was kicking and screaming when I told him to get out...LOL.