Telling difference between tall spindles and standard??

[Jagarang]

I purchased a full set of Global West bits for the front and rear susp. of my 70 Chevelle, and installation went well until we tried to connect the tie rods. The rear of the spindle contacts the rear of the lower control arm prematurely. This will significantly limit turning radius. I haven't seen the problem in person yet, I'm going to shoot some pics tommorrow after work.
I suggested putting the suspension under load to the mechanic in order to see if this provided the required clearance and the issue was not improved. After contacting Global West they have no known clearance issues to offer.
As a last resort, perhaps the previous owner did a "tall spindle" conversion and I just don't know how to identify the differences.

The car is a factory SS396 with front power disk brakes and F41 suspension.....
1. Is there any easy way to tell what spindles are on my 70 Chevelle?
2. Would the "tall spindles" even affect to turning radius in such a way? i.e. are the physical differences between the spindles significant enough to cause this issue if the parts ordered were specified for stock 70 spindles
3. Any body have a set of "short" spindles laying around for a 70 A-body, if this is the problem?

[BADVELLE]

I purchased a full set of Global West bits for the front and rear susp. of my 70 Chevelle, and installation went well until we tried to connect the tie rods. The rear of the spindle contacts the rear of the lower control arm prematurely. This will significantly limit turning radius. I haven't seen the problem in person yet, I'm going to shoot some pics tommorrow after work.
I suggested putting the suspension under load to the mechanic in order to see if this provided the required clearance and the issue was not improved. After contacting Global West they have no known clearance issues to offer.
As a last resort, perhaps the previous owner did a "tall spindle" conversion and I just don't know how to identify the differences.

The car is a factory SS396 with front power disk brakes and F41 suspension.....
1. Is there any easy way to tell what spindles are on my 70 Chevelle?
2. Would the "tall spindles" even affect to turning radius in such a way? i.e. are the physical differences between the spindles significant enough to cause this issue if the parts ordered were specified for stock 70 spindles
3. Any body have a set of "short" spindles laying around for a 70 A-body, if this is the problem?

You original Chevelle spindles will be a 2 piece design, meaning that the actual steering arm or tie rod attachment is bolted to the spindle. Compared to a b-body spindle (which I am running), it is much smaller, I don't know the exact dimensions, but noticeable difference, plus the b-body is one piece. I may still have my stock spindles, I will have to check. If you want me to look, shoot me an email [email protected]. Also, I have not noticed a difference in the turning radius of cramp angle.

[dennis68]

The OE "A" body spindle has an overall height of 7" and a steering arm length of 5.75". The typical "tall" spindles are 8.25" and have integral 6.50" steering arms.

I am not sure exactly what condition you are describing, a pic would be helpful. The OE arms do have steering stops on them but changing arms shouldn't create any new stop location. Is your "mechanic" up on suspension upgrades. I find a lot of the time that otherwise good mechanics are bumbling idiots when it comes to something after market that requires some finesse or modification to fit/work properly.

Suspension travel and interference issues are very different when the suspension is in full droop (like on a rack) than when it's on the ground, maybe have him put it all together instead of jumping the gun and ASSuming there is a problem 1st.

[TonyHuntimer]

If you do have the 1-pc "tall" spindle already, you would be better off swapping the upper arms for ones that will work with them, than swapping back to the shorter spindle. Of course, time may not allow you that luxury. :(

Tony Huntimer
RaceHome.com

[Jagarang]

Thanks for the input everybody..

1. The current spindles are 2-piece...which leads me to believe "Short"...Thanks Craig!
2. I'll also double check via spindle height and the measurements youve given me. Thanks for the numbers Denny.
3. Time really isn't an issue, the car is supposed to be a daily driver but I can't bring myself to abuse it so much.


The mechanic suggests installing new spindles..oopphh. I'm not convinced of that yet. I decided to order this GW stuff to maintain the original equipment disk brakes and spindle explicitly.


1. Is it feasible to use the new GW arms and swap out the "short" spindles for the "taller" units? I'm grasping at straws here I know, but I'm just trying to weigh all my options and save myself any further finacial ruin!

[BADVELLE]

Kevin -

I am using a b-body spindle on my Chevelle (w/Hotchkis UCA's). You can use this taller spindle with the GW UCA's, which would put you in a better spot than with the stock spindles. The only drawback with the spindles I have are the overall weight, they are Bell Tech pieces and are a considerable weight increase over the stock pieces. Go back to GW's website and look at what they offer, they do offer a tall spindle application for the a-body. I believe that they will then supply you with the proper lower ball joint (turned down) for that application (b-body bigger than a-body lower ball joint).

I am not an expert, all my input is from hands on experience.

[dennis68]

Kevin, don't go the "B" spindle route which is what GW will offer. The small camber gains are not worth all the negative trade-offs [/I told you so from Marcus].

The GW arms will work with whatever spindles you want to run.

I am still not convinced you actually have a problem.

Get some pics of what is happening so we can take a look at the problem.

[BADVELLE]

Just curious what all the negative effects are??

[Jagarang]

I've heard of many negatives as well, Ackerman being one, but when I did my research the pro's just didn't seem to be strong enough for me to make the change. I would like to keep all mods to strickly revearsable items. The taller spindles can be changed back to the stock as well, but the advantages didn't seem significant enough to warrant the work and cost. I really redid the front susp. because when I bought the car I knew it needed all new bushings and a suspension tune-up. While at it of course I couldn't just change the bushings, I might as well change the control arms while in there, then the sway bar, and the shocks, hmmmm then why not the rear control arms while it up on the lift anyway..you get the idea.
I'd be interested in a more specific(detailed) list of cons associated with the taller spindles, just to clarify and refresh what I read when I made these decisions.

[dennis68]

Poor ackerman, reduces turning circle drastically, increases steering ratio, very poor FVSA geometry, increases bumpsteer, adds mucho weight to start with...ask me how I know.

[383chevelle]

I may be reaching here but I seem to remember someone on the board selling tall ball joints to be used with the stock spindles. Seems like these offered the pros of the b-spindle and cut out some of the negatives.

damn I am changing the subject

[Marcus SC&C]

I`d love to see some pics of the spindle/LCA issue also. I can`t see how it could be a problem but I never rule anything out when it comes to automobiles! ;)

We`re the ones (www.SCandC.com) offering the tall stud modular ball joints. They may or may not work with the GW UCAs. I`d need some measurments to be sure. We generally include the BJs with adj. tubular UCAs . They do indeed yield the same geometry improvements as the tall spindle conversion,but with much less weight AND rather than doubling the stock bumpsteer as the B spindle swap does the Street Comp Stg.2 package with tall upper and lower BJs actually fixes the factory bumpsteer. It`s one of those rare win/win mods. But enough about that...

Jagarang if the clearance issue you`re having would be solved by the steering knuckle being raised in relation to the LCA our tall LBJs much just fix the problem for you. It seems to me these must be a more pedestrian explanation though. We need pics. Marcus SC&C

[Jagarang]

The distance from the center of the rear lower control arm mounting bolt to the leading edge of the steering stop is 14.0 inches, when at full lock.
The tie rods are in full "compression" and nearly touching in the adjustment sleeve, at this setting the center link mounting hole for the tie-rod "almost" looks like it will bolt in, but will leave no room for adjustment. The steering is at full lock to the right.

Gotta do some work but I'll be back to add more info soon

[dennis68]

Trim the factory steering stop off the arms.

Trim an inch off the inner and outer tie rods, short of going to rod ends and a swedged tube I don't know of another way to correct the tie rod length....unless maybe someone knows of a factory tie rod that has the same taper but is shorter.

[Jagarang]

If I take the steering wheel out of full lock and just install the inner tie rod, what issues might it cause?

[dennis68]

If the tie rods are too long then setting the total is going to be tough, if it is like that only because the spindle steering stop is hitting before the box runs out of travel then you will just lose some turning radius. While the later doesn't sound like a problem, take it from someone with a tall spindle on an "A" body...losing turning radius SUCKS BIG TIME.

[USAZR1]

Jag,have you tried reversing the a-arms from side to side? You might have the lefts on the right,,and vice versa. That could cause the problems you're experiencing. My GW a-arms went on without a hitch.

[Jagarang]

I forgot you were a regular here as well...I replied to your E-mail this evening. The lowers are in the correct orientation since the front sway bar is mounted and proper. If revearsed the sway bar mountings would be to the rear of the car and the bar wouldn't hook up..I don't think. Perhaps I'll take a look.