My Ride Tech lower Strong arms are too narrow!

['71cutlasluvr]

Thanks for the good words, Matt!

Gus, be sure to let us know when you get a chance to work with the new Strong Arms.

Hey Josh,
Will do. Thanks for the followup.
When an eta is available, if you could pass it on to me, I would appreciate it.
atb

['71cutlasluvr]

Yep... Actually I moved the holes even further to help even them out side to side and improve the front geometry, then welded the washers in place. If you click that link in the post, we detailed pretty well what we did.

Very clever fix Lance. Kudos on your ingenuity. I'm afraid I'm not that talented and was hoping to just stick 'em in and bolt 'em up like the H arms. Oh well. Live and learn, ay? I'll bet dollars to donuts the new SA's slide right in like the H's.... problem solved.

I'll post pics when I get them in.
Thanks again to all who tried to help. Much appreciated.
atb
Gus

[ra11ysport]

For something called strong arm why do they look so weak! Looks like the "SA" could fit inside the hotchkis tubing..........

[Josh@Ridetech]

For something called strong arm why do they look so weak! Looks like the "SA" could fit inside the hotchkis tubing..........

Looks can be deceiving... They're 1.25" OD with a .188" wall thickness, it would take one heck of a hit to hurt the arms. Sadly, I've seen a couple of cars/trucks be put into wall or wrecked on the track and the arms fell back into the control arm jig with no issues. Just because they "look" like they could fit inside of something else doesn't mean they aren't a "Strongarm".

[Streetbu]

I had the same EXACT issue on my 78 Malibu. Measurement was off exactly 1/4" too narrow. I was told they are right and to modify my frame to make them fit. VERY disappointed that $1,300 control arms don't fit and obviously it's not just me. Sounds like they need to change their jig and make them correctly the first time. Took me a few hours, a torch and a BFH to get mine moved far enough for the arms to go in. The internal distance for each pocket was correct, in other words the bushings fit inside of the frame, but the distance between the front and rear bushing was wrong. I'm still not happy with how the rear bushings don't sit flush against the frame mount. The proper way would have been to cut the whole mount off the frame, bolt it to the arm, then weld them back onto the frame. Or better yet, make the control arms properly and this wouldn't be an issue.

[Josh@Ridetech]

I had the same EXACT issue on my 78 Malibu. Measurement was off exactly 1/4" too narrow. I was told they are right and to modify my frame to make them fit. VERY disappointed that $1,300 control arms don't fit and obviously it's not just me. Sounds like they need to change their jig and make them correctly the first time. Took me a few hours, a torch and a BFH to get mine moved far enough for the arms to go in. The internal distance for each pocket was correct, in other words the bushings fit inside of the frame, but the distance between the front and rear bushing was wrong. I'm still not happy with how the rear bushings don't sit flush against the frame mount. The proper way would have been to cut the whole mount off the frame, bolt it to the arm, then weld them back onto the frame. Or better yet, make the control arms properly and this wouldn't be an issue.

Just like the A body platform, the stock G body bushings will crush down more when tightened allowing the mounts to pull together. By switching to a delrin bushing, they are less forgiving and don't crush down when tightened. It's not uncommon to see one of these cars that have had the mounts over-tightened which can make an arm with solid bushings harder to squeeze in. The mounts can be spread back apart with a port-a-power...or an easier method, a piece of all thread, a couple washers, and nuts can spread the mount back out if they have been pulled in over time.

[Streetbu]

Maybe I'm not explaining it correctly. Each "pocket" in the frame fit the new arms perfectly so they are not crushed at all. It has nothing to do with rubber or Delrin bushings. The distance between the pockets is the problem. If they were crushed as you say, then the new arms wouldn't fit in each individual pocket perfectly with no slop.

[marolf101x]

What you are experiencing is the tolerance to which the frames were built. Since the OE setup used rubber bushings the tolerances were "yeah, that's close enough", as the rubber bushings moved to where ever they fit when pressed into the frame. The Delrin bushings don't move, so you notice it when trying to install.
We see it A LOT of this on the metric chassis, but we also see some tolerance issues with the A-Body frame, but mostly tabs that have been crushed or have moved on that application. I've even had the same issues on the commercial side with frames from the 70's through the 90's. The newer cars are a lot better about this.

Unfortunately there's no great solution. . .if we change the jigs to fit your car there'll be another customer on here next week saying it doesn't fit his car. The OE frames are just that far off from each other.

[Streetbu]

Once again your talking about the "crush". That would only be on each pocket, not the distance between them. On top of that, why would every person that has installed g-body Tru-turn setup had to bend their frame? That would mean there wasnt a single frame that was straight. That's impossible and even if that was the case, you should make them to the majority. I've owned at least 1 g-body since 1992, the current one since 1994. I know my way around them, i've owned many. The "tolerance" your talking about means that factory control arms wouldn't bolt in without things being bent either. Yet they, yet other brand as stated above bolt in fine too. If a factory arm works, an aftermarket arm fits, then these are NOT built correctly. Tell you what, get the inside to inside measurement on aftermarket and factory control arms and I bet Ridetechs are closer together.

[70camaro406]

Any update on Gus's car?

[bret]

What you are experiencing is the tolerance to which the frames were built. Since the OE setup used rubber bushings the tolerances were "yeah, that's close enough", as the rubber bushings moved to where ever they fit when pressed into the frame. The Delrin bushings don't move, so you notice it when trying to install.
We see it A LOT of this on the metric chassis, but we also see some tolerance issues with the A-Body frame, but mostly tabs that have been crushed or have moved on that application. I've even had the same issues on the commercial side with frames from the 70's through the 90's. The newer cars are a lot better about this.

Unfortunately there's no great solution. . .if we change the jigs to fit your car there'll be another customer on here next week saying it doesn't fit his car. The OE frames are just that far off from each other.

Every suspension manufacturer who is reading this is now quietly nodding their head in agreement. Everyone who has been the victim of your experience is now nodding their head in sympathy with your situation. As Britt said...the "perfect" solution does not exist. I will tell you that possibly another manufacturer has selected a different mount-to mount measurement that more closely mirrors yours...I have no proof of that, it is only theoretically possible. If you can determine that another manufacturers arms would fit better, I would certainly offer you a full refund on ours. It is more important to us that you end up happy with your hotrod than it is to sell an individual set of control arms.

OR...if you really want to optimize your suspension, AND solve your problem at the same time, Do as SSLance indicated above...take the time to plot your suspension measurements [finding out along the way that they will likely vary considerably even from side to side on the same car] contact Ron Sutton to help you optimize the precise locations for the control arms mounts and other suspension components, make whatever modifications necessary to achieve optimized geometry [and fitment of your control arms] and enjoy the benefits of a truly mapped and optimized suspension.
This is a fair amount of work, no doubt. Would I do it for a street car? Probably not, unless I intended to compete seriously in autocross or road course events. BUT, since your are trying to coincidently resolve a related fitment problem, the amount of extra work required to truly optimize the suspension points would not be huge.

I am not trying to defend our products or procedures, just trying to offer relevant information and a wider range of potential solutions. We will help in any way feasible.

[70camaro406]

Every suspension manufacturer who is reading this is now quietly nodding their head in agreement. Everyone who has been the victim of your experience is now nodding their head in sympathy with your situation. As Britt said...the "perfect" solution does not exist. I will tell you that possibly another manufacturer has selected a different mount-to mount measurement that more closely mirrors yours...I have no proof of that, it is only theoretically possible. If you can determine that another manufacturers arms would fit better, I would certainly offer you a full refund on ours. It is more important to us that you end up happy with your hotrod than it is to sell an individual set of control arms.

OR...if you really want to optimize your suspension, AND solve your problem at the same time, Do as SSLance indicated above...take the time to plot your suspension measurements [finding out along the way that they will likely vary considerably even from side to side on the same car] contact Ron Sutton to help you optimize the precise locations for the control arms mounts and other suspension components, make whatever modifications necessary to achieve optimized geometry [and fitment of your control arms] and enjoy the benefits of a truly mapped and optimized suspension.
This is a fair amount of work, no doubt. Would I do it for a street car? Probably not, unless I intended to compete seriously in autocross or road course events. BUT, since your are trying to coincidently resolve a related fitment problem, the amount of extra work required to truly optimize the suspension points would not be huge.

I am not trying to defend our products or procedures, just trying to offer relevant information and a wider range of potential solutions. We will help in any way feasible.

Where's the "LIKE" button? Nice post Bret.

[Streetbu]

So how are the frame mounting points crushed together when there are 2 bolts and 2 pockets? If there was one long bolt I could understand it....unless of course you are saying that the lower control arms are all bad from the factory too.

[marolf101x]

I apologize if my previous post was confusing. . . I grew up dirt track racing where we call the GM G-Body (1978-88 Chevy Monte Carlo, Buick Regal, Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Cutlass) the "metric" chassis. I've seen hundreds of these front ends on race cars, and have cut up dozens in an effort to make things fit, to make geometry better, to make things stronger (they don't last long when you hit a wall).

I am saying on the G-Body that the actual location in which the lower control arm mounts are welded to the frame changes from vehicle to vehicle, not necessarily that they crush. (The crush statement was directed more toward the A-Body chassis; Chevelle and the like).
For example, if you found a "new old stock" chassis that had never been used, the mounts may be straight and perfect but they might still be 1/4" different than your car.

[Streetbu]

I understand what you're saying but I think somehow my point is not coming across. If the frame mounts are welded in the wrong position, then how do factory control arms fit properly? It has NOTHING to do with rubber crushing down. If the mounts were "off" by 1/4" like mine the factory control arm wouldn't fit in place either...

[marolf101x]

Actually the OE arms will fit in mounts as far off as 1/4" (sometimes more); which is part of the reason no one ever notices the mount tolerances when using OE style bushings.

The main steel part of the OE control arm is quite a bit narrower than the mounts. The rubber bushings stick out of the mounts a bit and have a steel sleeve inside.
The steel sleeve is not quite as wide as the OE mounts so they’ll slide into the mount.
The mounts are not just square and flat. They have a radius to them leading into the bolt hole. So when you push the arm into the mounts, the steel sleeves can be forced forward and backward in the relation to the vehicle, by the mounts.
If the steel sleeves were welded directly to the OE steel arm it would not go into the mount. Does this make sense?

We appreciate your feedback and strive to provide not only the best parts we can make, but also the best customer service of anyone in any industry.
As such we are investigating this issue as thoroughly as possible. Should we find that a change in width is required we will do so forthwith.

[bret]

Forthwith...is that even a word anymore?

One of the tings we have always done here on an ongoing basis is evaluate our jigs and fixtures to make sure nothing has changed...or even to change them if we find the need. By doing this on a rotating basis, every control arm jig gets examined and re-evaluated about every year or so. [actually we do this will all jigs and fixtures, not just control arms]. Mostly we do this to discover easier/better ways to refine manufacturing, but once in a great while we will find a jig that has moved, worn, or been otherwise damaged. OR [more often]...we will refine the geometry based on our ongoing racing and suspension testing results. [but that doesn't have any relevance to the specific fitment issue that we are talking about here] Since the G body has come up we will move that one to the top of the list for examination. [Forthwith!]

What Britt was saying above about the rubber bushings is quite true..the same characteristics that we all hate about them...unwanted and uncontrolled flex of the suspension points...is the same characteristic that allows the ease of installation with a mating component that may or may not be accurately located. That is why you will find a fairly large range of alignment adjustment available in these old cars. If you take a look at many [most?] newer cars, you will find that there is little or NO alignment adjustment. Three reasons for this: 1. CNC manufacturing has made components and jigs much more accurate. 2. no adjustment means more efficient assembly...no alignment adjustments required. 3. no adjustments keeps the customer from mis-adjusting things. Ask any body shop / frame repair shop how they have to "adjust" alignment on a crashed newer vehicle. [hint: lots of hydraulic power]

Streetbu, I am not directing this at you...I am putting this out there for all the others who are lurking on this thread and are trying to understand the whole issue.

BTW...if you guys don't hear from me and Britt for about a week...we are both going on the Cars N Cones Roadtour and will have limited access [iphones] to the forums.

Cheers!

[Streetbu]

I'm not taking this personally and apologize if that's how I'm coming across. After dealing with g-bodies for over 30 years myself, I know there are "tolerances" on them, but I also think many people exaggerate how bad they were/are. Many times you'll find it's more a case of items being worn out than factory tolerances being poor.

[ra11ysport]

Looks can be deceiving... They're 1.25" OD with a .188" wall thickness, it would take one heck of a hit to hurt the arms. Sadly, I've seen a couple of cars/trucks be put into wall or wrecked on the track and the arms fell back into the control arm jig with no issues. Just because they "look" like they could fit inside of something else doesn't mean they aren't a "Strongarm".

After holding these in hand you are correct these are stout for sho! I even bought a set with the HQ coilovers and they are a quality arm. I do have some what the same issue here with the pass side fitting and the driver side not so much. JMH but i think the tolerance is a touch too tight cause the hard bushing leaves no room/give what so ever. Another issue is the coilover clearance would have been nice to put the lower coilover mounting hole where the coilover is free from hitting the frame. Quality products but they just take more fudging than others!

[MonzaRacer]

OK so where the coil over is mounted in relation to the pivot point is set for optimum leverage, hence making framemod necessary. It's not to allow you to install with no mods. There is a method and design to the madness that they brew up. It's not a Chinese/etc designer with worn metric tape measure guessing. These guys will work their collection give backsides off to build parts as close to OEM designs WITH mods for performance upgrades. After attempting to install a set of aftermarket stock replacement control arms in a metric chassis (Monte Carlo), it was an old GM test pool car that had trans issues and only had 583 miles on it. An actual NEW SS that was never sold till GM filed bankruptcy and an old factory turned storage was cleaned out. A fragged 200/4r a fresh GM shipping title never issued to a GM dealer and nearly locked up 305(odd as we expected 307) but owner was happier in not having to swap in Chevy parts or build an Olds.
The car had also Sat in water as evidenced by bottom edge of rotors and drums were rotted off and wheels were in similar shape
But frame was still covered in that waxy black sealer GM should still be using.
Anyway some rust was in control arms so be pulled these off his rear ended current G body. IE they had already fit on car for about week before Freightliner relocated trunk lock.
To install these in NEW car took 6 hrs and lots of tweaking. 6 months later ridetech strongarms went in and took nearly same amount of time too fineness into place. New/aftermarket sheet metal arms were sold to .y old boss for his metric chassis dirt car,,,,, they fell in!
The OTHER new stock type arms he had installed before we gave him those had strength issues and ball joints loosened up and had to be beat into place. And tape measure confirmed at least 3/16 difference in mount measurements directly taken from 4 different cars and GM frame straightening specs. NONE were dead on and in 30 yrs of being an alignment tech taught me that none of the old cars are much closer than 1/8" at best over several thousand cars. Stock specs ARE loose and I can guarantee you stopping the line to verify jigs didnt happen unless something major showed up down the line. It's not ridetech it's them trying to build to a blueprint spec designed for a car designed and produced in 60/70/80s with 1/8 tolerances and they try to hit thousandths of an inch tolerances in their jigs. Learning to not get frustrated, and learning to work through , as some noted, with ingenuity is part of this hobby. Gooduck, wish me some as I am building a 77 Monza, ever wonder just how screwy THAT car will be? And I have to build most of my parts as few companies make H body parts for our hobby.