Tall upper ball joints VS tall spindles?

[Dazze]

I,ve look at this forum, and try to read up, but i can't seem to find an answer to this question:

On a first Gen F-body (and other cars) when you get a taller spindle installed, as i understand it, they usually are about 1,25-1,5" taller than a stock spindle.

When you get a tall upper balljoint installed, why only use 0,5" taller balljoints?
Would it not be better if the balljoint were as tall as the "Tall spindle" = 1,25-1,5" to get the same result?
Not that i have seen any that tall around... but i've seen 0,9-1" taller balljoints avilable.

Am i missing something or what???

Just trying to figure out the most cost effective way to get my -69 F-bird to handle, without rebuilding everything.

[UMI Tech]

Good morning Dazze.

The best place to get 1st gen suspension advice is from David Pozzi. He's a moderator on here and has this on his website: http://www.pozziracing.com/first_gen_suspension.htm

UMI has released 1/2" taller ball joints as an option on our upper control arms for A- and G-bodies. The reason we do this at 1/2" is it's a good basic upgrade that makes a real difference on both daily drivers and Pro-Tour cars. The 1/2" allows us to put together a good bolt-on package which is affordable and tunable for 80% of our customers.

For the other 20% going to autocross events, Pro-Tour events, and track days, we routinely receive questions on how to use alternative products such as those taller ones you mention. Here is a common source for 1" taller ball joints: http://www.howeracing.com/c-560-howe...ll-joints.aspx

This forum is a great place to learn and I'm sure you'll be pleased with the help provided by the good group of Pro-Tour folks on here...

ramey

[Marcus SC&C]

Tall ball joints and tall spindles both move the suspension pickup points to a more desirable location for better geometry/performance. When working with a taller ball joint you need to be conscious of the materials, stresses and loads imparted not only on the ball joints but also on the antique spindles. In our packages we really beef up the ball joints to handle the extra strain but God only knows what that old spindle has been through? This is one reason we`re only comfortable doing them in certain height increases.
You`ll also note that taller spindles and tall ball joints are often sold with matching upper A arms. This is not an effort to cheat you out of more money but a necessary part of properly re-engineering the front end. It`s pretty much impossible to get a good modern performance alignment out of a stock 1st Gen front end to begin with. Lowering the car with springs/bags etc., and/or adding taller ball joints or spindles makes it hopeless. Revising the geometry without being able to achieve the proper alignment is like replacing a 283 with a 540 but putting the little 2bbl from the 283 back on the 540. It`s got all kinds of potential but it can`t USE IT so while the performance may be a little better than it was it`s still poor. If you make only a small change in geometry, like +.5" ball joints you may still be able to get a usable (if compromised) alignment out of the car and still get some gain. Make a much larger change and the net result after trying to align it will probably be disappointing. Lastly,when new geometry tall spindles are designed they can be beefed up as well to handle the loads we expect them to have to cope with on a modern ProTouring car and we can safely make some massive geometry changes. That is not to say that all taller than stock spindles ARE designed that way, but the better ones are. ;) I hope this helps explain the issues at least a little. There`s nothing wrong with trying to save money but it`s better to save it some places that others. If you`d like to know more about tall ball joints,how they`re used to correct geometry issues etc. you may want to pick up a copy of my book (shameless plug) "How to Make your Muscle Car Handle". Mark SC&C

[jamesinark]

On a similar note I have a question but it concerns second gen. camaro upgrades.I have read about using older Impala heavy duty spindles (like from a station wagon or something similar) with the 12" rotors and/or newer caprice or impala ('94-'98 I think).Now is this a better way to go than the taller ball joint?I can't help ,but agree about the old spindles and their questionable load handling ability.Also would a 10 degree ball joint plate on the upper control arm be about the right angle for the new geometry?Don't mean to hijack the thread,just some of the same concerns as the person starting this thread.

[BMR Tech]

During our recent A-arm revision, we plotted the camber curve of the first gen arms with various combinations - the Guldstrand mod vs. a .5" taller upper ball joint vs. a tall AFX spindle. I assumed that the G-mod and the tall spindle would produce very similar results but was pleasantly surprised to see that the tall ball joint produced slightly better results than the G-mod. The common general goal is typically around 1 degree per inch of bump travel. Keep in mind that this is a very subjective target. We averaged a .7 degree gain in negative camber per inch of bump with the Guldstrand mod and .93 degree gain with the tall ball joint. The AFX spindle produced a 1.13 degree average over 3" of travel. The curves looked very similar in all three scenarios. As you can see, the tall ball joint did not provide as much gain as the tall spindle but it wasn't bad and is a very inexpensive alternative...

[Dazze]

Tall ball joints and tall spindles both move the suspension pickup points to a more desirable location for better geometry/performance. When working with a taller ball joint you need to be conscious of the materials, stresses and loads imparted not only on the ball joints but also on the antique spindles. In our packages we really beef up the ball joints to handle the extra strain but God only knows what that old spindle has been through? This is one reason we`re only comfortable doing them in certain height increases.
You`ll also note that taller spindles and tall ball joints are often sold with matching upper A arms. This is not an effort to cheat you out of more money but a necessary part of properly re-engineering the front end. It`s pretty much impossible to get a good modern performance alignment out of a stock 1st Gen front end to begin with. Lowering the car with springs/bags etc., and/or adding taller ball joints or spindles makes it hopeless. Revising the geometry without being able to achieve the proper alignment is like replacing a 283 with a 540 but putting the little 2bbl from the 283 back on the 540. It`s got all kinds of potential but it can`t USE IT so while the performance may be a little better than it was it`s still poor. If you make only a small change in geometry, like +.5" ball joints you may still be able to get a usable (if compromised) alignment out of the car and still get some gain. Make a much larger change and the net result after trying to align it will probably be disappointing. Lastly,when new geometry tall spindles are designed they can be beefed up as well to handle the loads we expect them to have to cope with on a modern ProTouring car and we can safely make some massive geometry changes. That is not to say that all taller than stock spindles ARE designed that way, but the better ones are. ;) I hope this helps explain the issues at least a little. There`s nothing wrong with trying to save money but it`s better to save it some places that others. If you`d like to know more about tall ball joints,how they`re used to correct geometry issues etc. you may want to pick up a copy of my book (shameless plug) "How to Make your Muscle Car Handle". Mark SC&C

I have your book, and have read it!
I understand that old parts may fail if fatigued, and i'm conscious of materials and loads(I have an engineering degree )

I was speaking theoreticaly, wouldn't you get the same result from a 1.5" taller ball joint (if you could find one, and had the control arms to use it) as you would from a 1,5" taller spindle, all things else beeing equal? Wouldn't both move the suspension pickup points to the same location?

I'm not saying that you couldn't engineer a lot of other neat things into your tall spindles, and have a stronger design, that would make it worth the extra money... thats propably the road i'll be going, later on.
But for now i want to get the most "bang for your buck."

I think i'll go with your "Street-Comp Stage 2-Plus" package, and have been in contact with you about shipping to SWEDEN!
Just trying to understand the theory behind things...

[Dazze]

During our recent A-arm revision, we plotted the camber curve of the first gen arms with various combinations - the Guldstrand mod vs. a .5" taller upper ball joint vs. a tall AFX spindle. I assumed that the G-mod and the tall spindle would produce very similar results but was pleasantly surprised to see that the tall ball joint produced slightly better results than the G-mod. The common general goal is typically around 1 degree per inch of bump travel. Keep in mind that this is a very subjective target. We averaged a .7 degree gain in negative camber per inch of bump with the Guldstrand mod and .93 degree gain with the tall ball joint. The AFX spindle produced a 1.13 degree average over 3" of travel. The curves looked very similar in all three scenarios. As you can see, the tall ball joint did not provide as much gain as the tall spindle but it wasn't bad and is a very inexpensive alternative...

It shows you would get a serious gain in Neg Camber bump travel, from a realy cheap upgrade!
And you don't have to cut your car up either... (hrrrrm, hrrrrm)

Some nice upper control arms, tall balljoints & bind free bushings..... your in business!

That's realy good news!

[jamesinark]

Has any one got any info on the same mods (Besides maybe the Gmod) on a second generation camaro?I am aware that GM corrected some of the diffiencies of the first gen when they designed the second gen suspension,but it still can use some help.Where would be the best starting point?

[jay72nova]

Has any one got any info on the same mods (Besides maybe the Gmod) on a second generation camaro?I am aware that GM corrected some of the diffiencies of the first gen when they designed the second gen suspension,but it still can use some help.Where would be the best starting point?

I know people are using tall upper balljoints and aftermarket control arms on them. look up Mary Pozzi's car and use it as a blue print.

[jamesinark]

I know people are using tall upper balljoints and aftermarket control arms on them. look up Mary Pozzi's car and use it as a blue print.

Thanks for the info.I'll see what her car has as far as mods go,I've seen her car perform a while back and was duly impressed with it.I'll see if I can duplicate it's geometry,but I may run into some difficulties since I will be running longer than stock control arms,but if I keep everything else the same (pickup points,spindle height,and a few of the other major dimensions)I should be able to come close.