FYI - Howe lower control arms

[exwestracer]

Just want to share some info from a recent experience. One of my students is building a 2nd gen Camaro that incorporates IRS, a full rect. tube chassis, and aftermarket front suspension components. I have dealt with Howe racing products a lot over the years, and have some respect for their reputation. In this instance, I was disappointed.

We ordered Howe's "OEM Replacement" tubular coilover lower control arms for the Camaro. http://www.howeracing.com/p-7573-tubular-coilover-oem-replacement.aspx
Howe advertises these as being available in 15.5" or 17" lengths. We measured the stock 79 Camaro arms the student had, and they are 15.5" from pivot line to center of ball joint...sooo, he ordered the 15.5" arms. When they arrived (late), we discovered that they were shorter than the stock arms by 1". The Howe arms don't measure 15.5" at any sort of reference point I can think of. We hadn't built the front crossmember yet, so that wasn't a huge deal, but it gets better...

The 2 arms that arrived weren't even the same as each other. The dimensions were fairly close, but 1 arm has a swaybar mount, the other doesn't The arm with no swaybar mount has a brace for the coilover bracket, the other one doesn't. One arm has a full height ball joint sleeve, the other side is cut away. Now the best part...keep in mind these are "OEM Replacement" arms... Camaro ball joints do not fit in the ball joint sleeves! They drop right through. The student had to work with a parts guy at NAPA going through various ball joint types until they figured out the sleeve fit an Impala ball joint. Which uses a different taper than the Camaro spindle...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Howe might just have worked with 1 or 2 Chevy Camaros over the years... I can't understand why they would advertise these arms as OEM Replacements when there are obvious differences and changes that have been made.

No, we didn't return them due to time constraints with the class. The car is going together fine, but the LCA issues cost valuable hours. There is nothing wrong with the quality of the components, and the price is very reasonable; just make sure you know exactly what you are getting when ordering from Howe.

[TitoJones]

Not to be a total d*ck about it, but what did Howe say about the issue? I'd venture to guess they mis-boxed the parts completely and would have replaced them with the correct items. Sounds like you guys made the LCA into a Frankenstein monster that will be even harder to replace if something were to fail down the road. Time constraints aside, I think you made a poor decision to move forward. (Coming from a former Wyo-tech Laramie graduate)

Tyler

[exwestracer]

I'd venture to guess they mis-boxed the parts completely and would have replaced them with the correct items.

That thought had crossed my mind, but this is the only LCA of that type that Howe sells, and the only application is for the 70-81 Camaro...sooo...??? My frustration for the student comes from the fact that Howe ads this part as "OEM Replacement", and they have a vast experience with this type of suspension. Nowhere are any of the design differences mentioned. The ad even states that the arms come with Camaro type ball joints, which the student deleted as he had a brand new set already.

And the time constraint was a major issue since the arms were almost a week late in getting here. I agree it wasn't the preferred solution, but nothing was going to get done on the front if we'd sent them back...

[Randy67]

That thought had crossed my mind, but this is the only LCA of that type that Howe sells, and the only application is for the 70-81 Camaro...sooo...??? My frustration for the student comes from the fact that Howe ads this part as "OEM Replacement", and they have a vast experience with this type of suspension. Nowhere are any of the design differences mentioned. The ad even states that the arms come with Camaro type ball joints, which the student deleted as he had a brand new set already.

I am looking at these arms and the ones sold without ball joints do not use stock ball joints, they use screw-in style, which is probably why the ball joints he had didn't fit. That is if they sent the correct arms. Did the arms have any threads inside the sleeves?

I measured my original a-arms and I came up with a 17" measurement, not 15.5". Since I sold the stock arms already, I can't go back and verify that measurement.

[exwestracer]

I am looking at these arms and the ones sold without ball joints do not use stock ball joints, they use screw-in style, which is probably why the ball joints he had didn't fit. That is if they sent the correct arms. Did the arms have any threads inside the sleeves?

I measured my original a-arms and I came up with a 17" measurement, not 15.5". Since I sold the stock arms already, I can't go back and verify that measurement.

Howe offers them both ways. The ones he ordered were for stock Camaro type ball joints, they were not threaded. The stock arms on this car were 15 1/2" from ball joint to bushing centerline.

[Randy67]

Interesting, looking here:
http://www.howeracing.com/p-7572-oem-style-camaro.aspx
They list the reman stock arms at 17" long. But yours are 15.5", now you got me wondering, need to check some stock arms again.

[exwestracer]

To clarify how we measured the stock LCAs on the Camaro... I ran a 9/16 all-thread rod through the mounting holes on the A-arm, and measured square from the center of that rod out to the grease fitting for the lower ball joint. This distance was within 1/16" of 15 1/2". As I see it, this is the effective length of the A-arm. I've always measured them this way, and this seems to agree with most manufacturer's dimensions... Have I been missing something?

[Randy67]

I believe that is the correct way to measure, and I that is similar to how I did it. I had already removed the ball joints so I eyeballed the center of the ball joint hole. Still shouldn't account for an 1.5" difference you would think.

[exwestracer]

I believe that is the correct way to measure, and I that is similar to how I did it. I had already removed the ball joints so I eyeballed the center of the ball joint hole. Still shouldn't account for an 1.5" difference you would think.

No, it shouldn't. Howe does offer both lengths...but I'm not familiar enough with Camaro development to know if there were any track width changes along the way. Still, from 79-81? Doubtful. All I can tell you is his were shorter, and the Howe arms were shorter yet, so how much since does that make regardless?

[John Wright]

IIRC, 2 gens shared the same control arms from 70-81. There were some minor differences in the subframes, but that is another story altogether and has nothing to do with the location or the length of the control arms.

[JRouche]

I dont know but yer first communication should have been with Howe, that would have been my first thought.

Tossing around ideas here doesnt mean much without some info from Howe. Kinda like pushing the cart instead of finding out why the horse doesnt wanna pull it. Might be simpler than you thought.JR

[79T/Aman]

don't blame Howe, they build CIRCLE TRACK parts, for turning left, and they incorporate modifications that racers make to stock A-arms when they build the tubular ones, such as using larger B-body ball joints or even Chrysler screw ins, as for the sway bar mount it is only attached on one side and a "rest stop" on the other side, length may also vary from one side to the other.

[exwestracer]

don't blame Howe, they build CIRCLE TRACK parts, for turning left, and they incorporate modifications that racers make to stock A-arms when they build the tubular ones, such as using larger B-body ball joints or even Chrysler screw ins, as for the sway bar mount it is only attached on one side and a "rest stop" on the other side, length may also vary from one side to the other.

I fully understand that...thanks.

When you see the words "OEM replacement", what comes to mind?

I am not, and have not been, bashing Howe or the product. I understand buyer beware, but it still says in the ad that they are 15 1/2" and use Camaro ball joints, when in fact the ones the student received are 14 1/2" and use Impala ball joints. Please read previous posts before you reply that they were the wrong ones....

NOTE: THIS ENTIRE THREAD HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT TO CALL HOWE FOR IMFOMATION BEFORE PURCHASING THEIR "OEM REPLACEMENT" CAMARO TUBULAR LOWER CONTROL ARMS.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming... SHEESH!

[79T/Aman]

OEM in the circle track world means it fits the stock frame nothing more, also Howe does NOT say they use Camaro ball joints it says " OEM type" ball joints.

All I'm saying is that the buyer MUST know something about circle track racing and how parts are made to fit track rules.

[Randy67]

More info on these lower control arm which I just received Friday.

I purchased the 17" versions which are right on the money. I still have the stock uppers and with the lowers the spindle is sitting pretty much straight up per my eyeball level, not a lot of camber either. If I had my stock arms I could have compared them better. They do not come with ball joints anymore per Howe (I contacted them after receiving the arms) and use 71-76 Impala ball joints (2.19" OD) and require reaming the spindle to fit. Both sides have the coilover mount on them. Very light arms, mine came with the nylon bushings and the steel sleeves fit the 9/16" bolts that 80-81 F-bodies had. If you have a 70-79 F-body, you may have to drill your mounts out for the larger bolt, but check it first.

79T/Aman is right on the sway bars attachment points. The passenger side mounts up with a stock end link no problem. The drivers side does have a sway bar pad (rest stop). I guess they only want the sway bar to act in one direction, something to do with only turning left :jump:

[Marcus SC&C]

Guys, those arms are made specifically to fit and work on these...
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/09/ctrp_0711_01_zasphalt_modified_racingtwo-1.jpg
It even says "Use primarily on Modifieds..." in the description. Direct interchange with OE means it fits an unaltered subframe as per class rules and nothing more. Please don`t take any personal offense but I think you`d have much better luck buying arms intended for your actual application. Mark SC&C

[Randy67]

Point taken Mark. Parts do need to match the intended usage.

My suspension will be similar in design to a Modified except for being setup for autocross. Most of the lower control arms made for the 2nd gen have the coilover shock in the stock spring location. I'm putting the coilover outboard close to the spindle like a modified. I didn't think that adding a coilover mount to the stock lower arm by the balljoint was a good idea. Not sure if the arm would take it or not.

[79T/Aman]

Puting a coil over mount on a stock A-arm closer to the ball joint would actualy place less stress on the A-arm because the load points between the spring and ball joint is verry short.

[Randy67]

Thinking about it, it does make sense that the stock arms could have been used. Too bad I sold them already. Oh well, I'll use the Howe arms for now. Probably end up changing everything later, seems to be a trend with the CP group, always improving.

[David Pozzi]

exwestracer,
Thanks for the warning on these parts. I wish the descriptions of parts were more readable for us non-circle track guys.

[monteboy84]

They definitely don't describe it to the point where you'd see this when you ordered them. My guess is the left arm is shorter, to get more positive camber out of the LF tire.

-matt

[Randy67]

Matt, both arms I received were the same length (17") They do offer 15.5" arms, probably for the camber.

David, you are right, the descriptions either lack information, are vague or there is confusing info. They seem to assume that you know what you need or what you are doing so little or no info is needed.

[79T/Aman]

.

They seem to assume that you know what you need or what you are doing so little or no info is needed.

Yes they do assume that people buying what they sell will be used for their intended purpose.