PPM/Proforged tall ball joints for 2nd gen Camaro

[David Pozzi]

I just finished a test of .5" taller upper and lower ball joints. These are made by Power Performance Motorsports for 2nd gen Camaro/Firebird.

They make impressive gains in neg camber, the upper being the most beneficial with very low impact on bumpsteer. The tall lowers add a little more, but bumpsteer is worse. The 2nd gen steering linkage can be moved around quite a bit to improve bumpteer and even with tall upper and lower balljoints our early runs with the test car do not produce any noticeable steering feel problems.
David
Link:
http://www.pozziracing.com/second_gen_camaro_tall_bal.htm

Chart:
https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/10/1971_camaro_data-1.jpg

[Rod]

Funny that you posted this, I just ordered a set of upper ball joints from them on Wednesday. any suspension recommendations for alignment settings? (1968 camaro) I have the Qa1 front shock (set at 4) hotchkis front SB coil, global west G-PLUS arms (uppers) with stock lowers, Hotchkis front sway bar, I will have the car at Pleasanton in november if you want to drive those ball joints real world
(rear hotchkis leafs 1.5 drop, Qa1 rear shock set at 3, no sway bar) I am building a watts link hope to have in place for goodguys

[David Pozzi]

Rod,
On a first gen a tall upper with Tubular upper arm is the best bang for the buck.
My test of 1st gen Camaro tall ball joints is here: https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?52891-New-option-for-tall-balljoints-Power-Performance

[firebob]

David,
I can see the taller BJs making a difference but is there a reason to swap to the tubular UCAs(other than looks)?

Robert

[Proforged]

David,
I can see the taller BJs making a difference but is there a reason to swap to the tubular UCAs(other than looks)?

Robert

Increased positive caster.

[srh3trinity]

Increased positive caster.

That is what I have understood. Is there any benefit to tubular lowers on a second gen?

[zbugger]

That is what I have understood. Is there any benefit to tubular lowers on a second gen?
Some, not all, 2nd gen lowers add about a degree of caster. This is to help move the wheel forward in the wheel well so it doesn't rub the backside of the well. It's a common problem when adding caster to a 2nd gen. Wider wheels and tires will amplify the issue.

[firebob]

I'll start a new thread.

Robert

[Lowend]

If I remember right; you guys were already running a tall Howe upper balljoint in the car. Are these significantly different?

[rentedmule]

This is nit-picking but I have Howe tall uppers and PP tall lowers on my truck and for an all weather application I like the PP ones better. The boot on the Howe seems like an afterthought and doesn't look like it seals as well as the PP setup. To be fair though, the Howe was probably never meant to be on a daily driver.

[David Pozzi]

Just got back home, sorry to post this thread and run out on you.

The Howe ball joints are rebuildable. We ran the Howe .5" tall uppers on Mary's 2nd gen for some time now. The PP boots are outstanding, with wire retainers and great fit. Howe uses a poly boot that is just a shell, it doesn't have any corrugations like PP ball joint does.
David

[Marcus SC&C]

The PP 1/2" taller UBG is the same height and geometry as the Howe 1/2" taller UBJ that`s been on Mary`s car for several years now. The PP just isn`t as smooth or strong. The polyurethane boots on our Howe`s seal better than folks think, we have some that have been through 5 PA. winters and over 120,000 miles and the insides of the ball joints still look like new. We`ll see how well the Taiwanese rubber boots hold up after that long. ;) We ran the 2nd gen geometry with tall upper and lower ball joints of several height quite a few years ago on a fixtured test subframe and 2 different cars. Our camber gain numbers were all more aggressive than Davids but every car tests a little differently. Our bumpsteer numbers were also worse with the tall lowers, even ones only +.30" yielded an undesirable increase, which is why we don`t sell them in our 2nd gen packages. For those who would like more aggressive camber gain than a +1/2" taller ball joint can provide we can do it without the increase in bumpsteer. We`ve been here and done this several different ways on the 2nd gens over the years. David if you`re interested give a call, you can swap the components into your existing Howe upper housings. Buyers be aware though that on some cars other factors like the length of the FVSA can get a little dicey if we get too aggressive with camber gain. RC location and migration are also affected, it`s not all just about camber gain so like David do your homework before you get too carried away. Mary`s car has proven that with just +1/2" Howe tall upper ball joints for geometry improvement and other simple bolt ons the 2nd gen is capable of impressive performance...at least with a driver as talented as Mary at the wheel. :) Mark SC&C

[Proforged]

The PP 1/2" taller UBG is the same height and geometry as the Howe 1/2" taller UBJ that`s been on Mary`s car for several years now. The PP just isn`t as smooth or strong.

Mark,

I have to take issue with you saying that it's not as strong.

In our Stud Pullout testing (granted, we only did it on one sample), the Howe lower ball joint broke at 16,929 lbs and our's broke at 19,649 lbs.

Not that either one will ever break during normal use anyways, but I just wanted to add this info in.

[firebob]

Is it absolutely neccesary that you install tubular control arms in order to run taller BJs? I'd like to try some out but I don't have the dough for the UCAs yet. I'll swap them over when I do but for now I'd like to give the taller BJs a try out, if I can, on the stock uppers.

Robert

[David Pozzi]

You can use them with stock A arms. You may gain a little bit of positive caster at the same time, which is a bonus.
David

[Marcus SC&C]

Mr. Suspension, pull out strength has nothing to do with upper ball joints, they`re not weight bearing. It`s bending strength and fatigue resistance we`re concerned with there.

Can you run taller UBJs with stock upper A arms? Yes. Should you run them with stock upper A arms? Not if you can help it. The stock upper A arms already make it a challenge to get a decent performance alignment on the car. Taller ball joints and or lowered ride height usually make it more so. A set of appropriate upper A arms will allow you to take advantage of both better geometry AND a much improved static alignment. This is sort of a 1+1=3 situation where having both dialed in well makes more than twice as much improvement as doing just one. That`s why savy 2nd gen owners use both at the same time. If you can`t afford both at the same time do the arms first and take advantage of the better alignment possibilities then upgrade with the tall ball joints later on to make it that much better. Mark SC&C

[David Pozzi]

Latest news.
Power Performance has changed it's name to Proforged L.L.C http://www.proforged.com/
They are coming out with .5" taller outer tie rod ends for 1st gen Camaros. Haven't heard about 2nd gen tie rods yet.

[Nessumsar]

David, when using the tall LBJ, how much of your steering arm contacts the steering stop on the LCA? I notice on mine that with the tall LBJ the steering arm only contacts the upper 1/4 of the steering stop; that is after my LCA relocation, which should make this issue better. I would imagine on a stock subframe that the steering arm may not contact the steering stop at all.

[David Pozzi]

I'll check it out.

[srh3trinity]

David,
Is Mary running these on the updated version of the Camaro? Any thoughts about them after the new car has come together? Would you recommend running the tall uppers and lowers. I am going to be using PTFB control arms for uppers and rebuilt stockers with upgraded bushings for the lowers.

[vintageracer]

How much of the information provided above concerning increase caster and the other benefits of using "1/2 inch taller upper ball joints" will transfer to other GM cars that use the same or very similar spindles? My particular interest would be a 73-77 A body GM car.

[David Pozzi]

We currently have the .5" taller Howe uppers only.

[srh3trinity]

So, I guess the follow up question would be, if you were putting together a second gen now and were looking at ball joints would you use these proforged units. There is a pretty big price difference between them and the Howe units from what I have found. 70/unit vs. 25/unit for the Proforged ball joints.

[Proforged]

So, I guess the follow up question would be, if you were putting together a second gen now and were looking at ball joints would you use these proforged units. There is a pretty big price difference between them and the Howe units from what I have found. 70/unit vs. 25/unit for the Proforged ball joints.

I'm sure David can shed some light on this but there are a few major differences between our ball joints and the Howe ball joints that I can point out for you:

1. Howe ball joints are rebuildable. Proforged ball joints are an integrated, sealed unit and can't be rebuilt. Rebuildability may be important to you if you are a hardcore racer who is replacing ball studs often due to physical damage (i.e. hitting a wall), or if you plan on changing the ball stud length often for the purpose of fine-tuning your suspension (most people find that a 0.5" taller upper, like our's, is right on the money unless you have some special requirements).

2. Proforged ball joints use a ring-retained, "permanently-attached" boot. Howe ball joints (to my knowledge, I could be wrong) use a plastic zip tie to secure the optional rubber boot. We feel that our method is more suitable to a street car that sees road-level dirt, grit, and grime, but I've never done any testing on their boot so it may work just fine.

Just to clarify, our Tall Ball Joints are $49.99 each:

http://www.proforged.com/parts/Proforged-Tall-Upper-Ball-Joint

[David Pozzi]

I put the Proforged tall upper & lower ball joints on Deanna's second gen early this year. So far the handling has been outstanding & no problems. I'll check them again this winter. Using the tall uppers alone has the most benefit and less worry about bumpsteer issues, however adding the taller lowers & pushing the center link up as far as possible still generates some toe in bumpsteer but it's not felt by the driver and we gained a little extra neg camber gain.
We saw the RF Howe loosen up after two years of running, did a quick adjustment and it's tight again now.
I'd be fine with either Mfr at this point. I guess it would depend on my spending "mood" at the time of order.
David