Global West Suspension Kit

[Roger Poirier]

I was informed when ordering upper and lower control arms for my 1969 GTO that I will be running very limited neg. camber beacuse of lowering the car 3 inchs. They actually changed the order for a different upper ball joint to help in this matter. Has any one had this concern or problem? All you guys can't be show and no go. Please help!https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

[dennis68]

Sometimes I wish the vendors would check in and explain things sometimes. If I get this straight the control arms are limiting the amount of negative camber you can run because you are lowered and changing the upper ball joints will correct this problem???

Where is the BS smiley, running lowered ride height always you to run more negative camber as that is where the curve wants to go anyway...most A bodies run into problems with not being able to get enough positive camber thus the invention of devices like offset control arm shafts.

I am really having trouble with how adding a taller or shorter ball joint is going to help correct static camber, perhaps a half degree in either direction but not enough to really be concerned with. A longer or shorter control arm I could definitely see dictating where static camber would sit.

Sorry this post has been of no help to you.

[MrQuick]

oh Den, its right here------> :bsjerk:
we wish you had asked for more info on that,who knows it maybe legit? Im sure those guys know what they are doing?

[Blown353]

I think what GW is saying is that with the tall spindles and their increased negative camber curve, the more you drop the car the more negative camber you'll have. The problem is that at some point you have so much negative camber to dial out at your static ride height you'll run out of shims and can't get a correct static alignment. The lower you go, the more of a problem this becomes. Once you run out of shims, you have a few options to get them back: offset cross shafts (which GW already provides), moving the upper mounts on the frame outwards (a lot of cutting and welding), or a longer upper arm to give you more shims for adjustment.

I have no idea what GW changed for you. By shortening or lengthening the upper balljoint length, you can alter what point the UCA is in it's operating arc and change the camber a bit; perhaps this is what they did.

I ran into this problem on my car, even with the frame in spec I ran out of shims while trying to align the car with offset cross shafts. My fix was to put the car on a frame rack and "roll" the frame out 5/8", giving me some shims back.

Troy

[Roger Poirier]

Being a novice that I'm when it comes to suspensions. I will call Global West early next week and get a more define explanation. My concern is spending all this $$$. The reason for this purchase is to utilize the performance parts, not for having bragging rights. However making the car look good (lowered) and run properly are both on top of my list. I appreciate the responses. R.P.

[dennis68]

I kind of figured that Troy however he stated the problem was going to be not enough negative camber, not vice-versa.

[Roger Poirier]

All right guys. The following should clear up the issue. Because I'm using tall spindles and lowering the car 3-3 3/4 inchs the negative camber decreases to a slight positive camber. Thats why a special ball joint is installed to help restore the negitive camber . This will help its operating arc and change the camber. (Blown 353 is correct on this issue.) I have been told that after adjustments the negitive camber will still be minimal. However, it is fine for street use. If I were to take the car on a road course to maximize my handling I would have to reset the mounting of the upper control arms. Thats a lot of cutting and welding which I dont want to get into. That is the next stage and $30,000 dollars more, when someday I take the car to pro-touring extreme. I hope this helps others.