Are these for real? - Ebay item - Tubular A-arms

[whytry]

I was looking to get upper tubular control arms for my 68 Camaro and I ran across this on EBAY... I was not sure where to post it, so I thought this would be the best place...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33583&item=7952010184&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

What do you guys think? Please give me some feedback. I was looking into the ones from Global West

[baz67]

I would say no. The add states nothing about how geometry is affected. I does mention different lengths for camber gain, but it states nothing about caster. The picture is bad, but it looks like it may add negative caster by moving the UBJ forward on the control arm. That is the wrong direction. It does not look that strong by the picture thay show. Steel bushings = harsh ride.

Brian

[dennis68]

A couple of things....lots of guys get easily confused, upper control arms themselves HAVE NO IMPACT ON CAMBER CURVE. Companies like GW and Hotchkis prey on the uniformed to sell their product. Use of the "tall" spindles or the Guilstrand mod increases negative camber gain and does not require the use of aftermarket arms.

Factory arms are offset on "A" bodies, are "F" bodies different? Straightening the arm as most circle track arms are will gain caster.

Steel bushings are no more harsher than Teflon or Del-a-lum bushings. I run them on my daily driver with what most would consider "too stiff" of a spring and have comments from passengers about how well it rides for an older car.

[baz67]

Dennis, I would have to dissagree with you and the UCA have no impact on camber curve. The testing I am doing on the first gen control arms shows that they do.

How does straightening the arm increase caster without moving the UCA mounting location? Straightening the arm effectivly moves the UBJ forward, reducing caster, if you retain the same UCA mounting location. Maybe I am thinking to much on this.

Brian

[wendell]

2c
regardless of build quality, these arms are for stock cars. That means they are for a 2nd gen camaro. I'm not very familiar with the 2nd gens but any improvements in geometry for a 1st gen would be purely by chance.

Untill you know where you want your pick up points to be and why, you're stuck shopping companies like GW, hotchkiss... and hoping they'll stear you right.

[Salt Racer]

Length of UCA (or LCA for that matter) changes camber curve, but this should not be the primary determination for setting the arm length.

Also, by changing caster angle, effective height of spindle changes. As caster is increased, spindle gets shorter. This changes FVSA length, thereby affecting camber curve.

Both of these effects are not significant like G-mod, unless you make UCAs so freakin short that you have -5* static camber w/o any shim. If you do something like this, you'll create whole other problems.

A-body's OE UCA has reverse offset, meaning UBJ centerline is ahead of the middle point of front/rear cross shaft pivot points. It's the opposite of F-body UCA. This is what Denny meant.

[dennis68]

Brian, you're going to have to better in explaning to me how making no other changes other than UCA's, will change camber curve. Camber curve is dependent on many factors including spindle height and UCA/LCA pivot heights, UCA/LCA heights have very little if any significant impact on neg camber gain.

As previuosly stated, on an "A" body removing the offset will increase caster quite a bit as the OE arms are offset to the front (brings the UBJ rearward with the new arms). I haven't looked at an "F" body in a long time so I don't recall the UCA configuration.

on edit I saw Katz post, I guess with a large enough change in LCA/UCA length that camber gain could be changed. To get up over 1* of change is going to require more than the 1/2" of UCA length difference being discussed here.

[wally8]

Maybe I'm reading too much into what everyone is saying here but there seems to be a confusing point.

Straight arms, curved arms, or arms that curly que like a pretzel make no difference as long as they don't collide with the frame or something else. All they are doing is fixing the UBJ pivot point with coordinates X,Y,Z to a fixed fixed radius of rotation about the UCA inner pivots with some other coordinate X,Y,Z. If it maintains the same coordinates as stock, it doesn't matter if they're curved or straight they're the same to the suspension kinematics.

We circle track guys use straight arms because we can. The cars have been lowered and thus the a-arms won't hit on the frame anymore. This also makes them stronger.

Just a minor point before anyone gets too confused.

Might as well throw my 2 cents in on the arms too. Why buy from some no name on ebay when you can have AFCO's any length or offset you want from Speedway for less?


Wally

[[email protected]]

I was looking to get upper tubular control arms for my 68 Camaro and I ran across this on EBAY... I was not sure where to post it, so I thought this would be the best place...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=33583&item=7952010184&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW

What do you guys think? Please give me some feedback. I was looking into the ones from Global West

you know if you guys want. i can put together a GP for global west.

[whytry]

Hey Wally - what's the website addy for Afco?


Ron jr - GP on the control arms - interesting, can you get me a quote on uppers?

[whytry]

Next question regarding upper control arms, I noticed that you can also get some from Chassisworks but there is no connecting bar and they seem to have heim joints for adusting the camber and caster, are these just another option or what? Right now the connecting bar on my stock UCA's the bolts and nuts for alignment are hitting my headers and causing a small ding, not worried about it, but it the other UCA's get rid of these bolts doesn't that seem like a good option as well?

[dennis68]

www.afcoracing.com

Pole Position also has arms that don't use shims for adjustment, I think they run about 350/pair.

[Tony@AirRideTech]

I too dissagree..... changes in upper control arm length or ball joint relationship ( centerline to the lower ball joint ) will change caster gain.... in most cases, the changes are so minor they are insignificant but it does make changes....If you look at it in the most simplest form that you have two "eventually" converging arcs and any alteration to the length or location of pivot is going to change the path of the arc........... I think...... :)

[wally8]

Looks like everyone is in violent agreement on the relationship of arms to pivot points :-) We all seem to be saying the same thing in different ways.

Here's another link for the AFCO arms besides Denny's

http://www.speedwaymotors.com

You'll find the AFCO's and a pole position type arm in there for about 43 and 76 respectively.


Wally

[baz67]

As previuosly stated, on an "A" body removing the offset will increase caster quite a bit as the OE arms are offset to the front (brings the UBJ rearward with the new arms). I haven't looked at an "F" body in a long time so I don't recall the UCA configuration.

You are correct. I scanned over you post and should have read it more closely reguarding the "A" body. I stand corrected for the "A" body. It still holds true on an "F" body.

Brian

[whytry]

Wally and Dennis,

Call me slow, but I can't find either one on the websites. I called Speedway and they told me they only carry UCA's for Cirlce Track racing, and not for street use. Is there something I was forgetting to tell them?

I really like the idea of having the adjustment for alignment on the arms and not the crossshaft. I have had bad luck with the crossshafts so far, shims fall out, bolt losens, etc....

[dennis68]

Speedway, AFCO, Howe, SCP and all the others will never tell you that the products they sell are intended for street use. They also do not sell anything that is intended for drop in use. You have to figure out what bolt spacing you have and what lenth arms you need and either find an arm that matches aor weld new mounts to your frame...it is much cheaper but more work to run the circle track stuff. Of course once you get it figured out you can easliy and cheaply change arm lengths to as needed for future modifications.

Pole Position (http://www.polepositionrp.com/PRO%20RACING%20SERIES-FULLY%20ADJUSTABLE%20CONTROL%20ARMS.htm) sells a drop in replacement with adjustable arms.

[whytry]

OK now I get it. I will make some measurements and go from there. Thanks Dennis!!!

[Larry Callahan]

I just got off the phone with the gentlemen that has the arms for sale in his e-bay store. He sounds like a nice guy and will be piping in soon. Also, I have something to say on his behalf but I am at work and don't have time. I too will post more regarding this thread later tonight.

[zuess4u]

www.afcoracing.com

Pole Position also has arms that don't use shims for adjustment, I think they run about 350/pair.

Those are the ones we will be using. Not sure how strong they are, but there are a few 1st gen SCCA guys running them.

[Zefhix]

Those are the ones we will be using. Not sure how strong they are, but there are a few 1st gen SCCA guys running them.

I just put them on a 67 Camaro conv. using the Street Comp Stage 1 pakage form Marcus at SC&C. They are very strong and actually have a bit of weight to them. You can also get a pro-lite version, too, that'll shave some pounds off. I was very impressed with the setup and would strongly recommend them. Cleared the stock frame fine BTW

[Larry Callahan]

Earlier today I received an e-mail from the gentleman (Jeff Parish) regarding some questions on his control arms that are on e-bay. Below is some of his e-mail. Basically he just wants people to know that he can be reached for questions and wants to eliminate any possible false assumptions about his products. I did suggest he register on the forum and pop in here and say hello and start a dialog. I believe he will soon. In the mean time if you have any questions Jeff can be reached at (810) 223-7112 or you can e-mail him at [email protected]


Anyway here is some of Jeff's e-mail.


Recently got a number of hits to my E-bay store from your site. I looked into what the commotion was about and it was in regard to an ad that I had placed for tubular upper control arms.
It was pointed out to me that the ad in question was non specific for the years that the arms fit. I have since edited these ads to show they are intended to be used for the 75 to 82 model year Camaros.
We own a race shop and do professional modifications for people running race cars and street machines as the focus of our business. I have installed and used these arms on vehicles for the street when performance was the priority over ride quality. The steel bushings perform flawlessly and have a long service life if properly lubricated.

I have written about 150 ads in the last couple weeks. I made a mistake when I did not list the model year in this ad. It was not ever my intention to mislead or talk someone into buying a product that would not fit their vehicle. I have a positive feedback rating of 100% and am an E-bay power seller.

I am not a fly by night operation, I can discuss camber and caster gains with anyone who has an interest in the subject and provide advice about the benefits and draw backs of each.

We are professional people not scammers. I would never do that ever to sell a part. It is not worth it. We make our money from repeat business, not from scams that run on the internet.


I thank you very much for your time and if you have any questions please call me at (810) 223- 7112. Jeff Parish Owner Racing Part Sales

[79T/Aman]

if they are for a 2nd gen they should fit 70-81 as 82 is 3rd gen and yes UCA can change camber gains as the length of the UCA affects how quick it reacts

[dennis68]

if they are for a 2nd gen they should fit 70-81 as 82 is 3rd gen and yes UCA can change camber gains as the length of the UCA affects how quick it reacts
But not even close to the same gains as changing spindle height or mounting points. I think the point was more that upper control arms are not typically used to correct poor geometry. The geometry should be fixed and then arm length be determined after to fit the rest of the chassis.

[79T/Aman]

Denny,agree 100% on this issue that the UCA is not to be used as a quick fix for a poor geometry I'm just coming out with an UCA that is based on stock car UCA but incorporates improved caster as well as better camber gain (minimal but better non the less).