Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register




    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
    Results 1 to 20 of 22
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Sesser, Il
      Posts
      490

      G-body front upper a-arm ???'s

      I've decided to stay with my stock g-body spindle instead of the b-body spindle swap. I have questions on which a-arms to use. I currently have both setups.

      #1 I have the CTA-88A Global West front upper a-arms. These were ordered for a "b-body spindle swap" but GW sent me the wrong arms (Ordered years ago, sent me the wrong arms, and apparently won't exchange for the correct ones). It lists this on the GW website:

      "G-PLUS arms bolt directly to stock spindles or 2 inch drop spindles. The arms have additional caster built into the them and a improved camber curve. The combination keeps the tire contact patch flatter on the pavement verses stock."

      #2 I have a set of stock upper and lower g-body a-arms with the GW bushings in them.

      Should I use the tall ball joints in either of these arms in the upper, the lower, or both upper and lower arms?

      I'm looking for "spirited street driving" and highway use. It will probably end up as close to a daily driver.

      Thoughts and ideas welcome.

      Thanks

      Doug Gulley

      66 C10 383, AFR 190, Accel SuperRam, Hyd Roller 230*/236* 280XFI, aftermarket T56, *under construction*


    2. #2
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Washington, MO
      Posts
      2,363
      DO NOT waste your time with a tubular upper A arm. They are heavy and you'll probably end up with a fat stack of shims.

      Get with Marcus for a Stage I kit at least. The SPC arms are great.. no shims and they let you dial in the exact alignment settings. Very lightweight too.

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Sesser, Il
      Posts
      490
      If I don't use the Global West a-arms I have then I'll probably just reuse my stock arms that have the Del-A-Lum bushings in them.
      Doug Gulley

      66 C10 383, AFR 190, Accel SuperRam, Hyd Roller 230*/236* 280XFI, aftermarket T56, *under construction*

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Sep 2006
      Location
      Southern Indiana
      Posts
      4,709
      Country Flag: United States
      Agreed call Marcus at SC&C and get his uppers, and go for the tall ball joints.

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Washington, MO
      Posts
      2,363
      Quote Originally Posted by 86Cutlass383SR View Post
      If I don't use the Global West a-arms I have then I'll probably just reuse my stock arms that have the Del-A-Lum bushings in them.
      Don't waste your time with either of those arms. You'll never be able to dial in the alignment specs needed with those setups.

      Been there done that... Learn from my mistakes. Sell what you have on ebay, and do it right the first time.

      I run stock spindles with LS1 brakes and a Stage I (tall uppers) with the SPC uppers (Stage I kit). The difference btw stock specs and from the ones that Marcus supplied with the kit were night and day. For street duty the Stage I results were amazing compared to what I was running before.

      It's one of those things where you don't think that the correct castor/camber will ever make a difference until you drive it and see how great it is. And you'll never get that with the stockers. You might with the tubulars, but they are heavy and might need an inch of shims.

      Good luck!

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      Posts
      952
      why would he need a huge stack of shims with the GW arms he has?
      he says the arms they sent him are the arms for the stock spindles.
      is the GW design just that bad?

    7. #7
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Washington, MO
      Posts
      2,363
      If the arms are for the short stock spindles, they should be designed to run the stock alignment specs, which suck! If he wants to dial in more ideal castor and camber settings, stock arms won't allow for it.

      The stock geometry on G-bodies are worse than horrible. Running factory arms OR tubular arms that a copies of the factory ones are pointless.

    8. #8
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Sesser, Il
      Posts
      490
      Quote Originally Posted by Tony_SS View Post
      If the arms are for the short stock spindles, they should be designed to run the stock alignment specs, which suck! If he wants to dial in more ideal castor and camber settings, stock arms won't allow for it.

      The stock geometry on G-bodies are worse than horrible. Running factory arms OR tubular arms that a copies of the factory ones are pointless.
      Please don't take anything as arguing. I'm just trying to get the best setup I can. I don't have hordes of cash to throw at this project. This is all just friendly discussion.

      It lists this on the GW website:

      "G-PLUS arms bolt directly to stock spindles or 2 inch drop spindles. The arms have additional caster built into the them and a improved camber curve. The combination keeps the tire contact patch flatter on the pavement verses stock."

      Okay, if the stock upper arms are so bad, I won't use them. But with the additional caster and improved camber would they be anything close to what the SPC arms have to offer? The alignment specs GW recommends on the instruction sheet for the GW arms is: Caster 4.5*+ driver side - 5*+ passenger side, Camber .25* - .5* neg both sides, toe in 1/32" both sides. Taken right off the instruction sheet.

      I have about $560. tied up in the GW arms. Would they at least be worth a try? Would you use the tall ball joints with them, and if so in the upper the lower or both. I'm just looking for ideas as I am by far a suspension guru. I'm just asking for opinions and guidance from those more knowing than I am.

      Thanks
      Doug Gulley

      66 C10 383, AFR 190, Accel SuperRam, Hyd Roller 230*/236* 280XFI, aftermarket T56, *under construction*

    9. #9
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Washington, MO
      Posts
      2,363
      You trust the product description of a company who sent you the wrong parts? I digress.

      Yes, they'll claim to have better geometry, and if that's the case it'll only cost you time and money for an alignment to try them out if you install them yourself. But I wouldn't be surprised that even if you get those specs listed, you'll end up with a fat stack of shims.

      If you have $560 in the arms you should be able to get $300 to put toward a Stage I.

      Not arguing Doug, just saying the tubular arms I tried made the exact same claims and that's where I ended up. Good thing I got the arms in trade for work. But I wasted my time and a $150 alignment to figure out they were worthless.

      But I'm not a guru either, maybe Marcus will chime in. At the least give him a call and tell him your situation. He won't sell on anything, he'll just give you expert advice though.

    10. #10
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Sesser, Il
      Posts
      490
      Ya know Tony, You got a point there! LOL.

      Anybody want to buy some a-arms?

      I know you wasn't arguing either, I just wanted you to know we wasn't. All I wanted is good info, and I got it!

      Hello, Marcus....What's your thought on this.... hmmmm where'd he go...
      Doug Gulley

      66 C10 383, AFR 190, Accel SuperRam, Hyd Roller 230*/236* 280XFI, aftermarket T56, *under construction*

    11. #11
      Join Date
      Oct 2006
      Location
      Chicago
      Posts
      295
      since you are using the stock spindles with these GW arms, you have done nothing to raise the roll center or fix any bump steer.
      Luke
      '63 Chevy II wagon - project

    12. #12
      Join Date
      Aug 2006
      Location
      Cibolo, TX
      Posts
      189
      86 Cutlass383,

      Here are a couple of pics of the arms Tony is talking about:





      Rob
      87 Turbo T: Precision 5857 Billet Wheel turbo, PTE Turbosaver, Razor's Progressive Alky, Red's XP fuel pump hotwired, Accufab AFPR, TurboTweak 93/94 chip, Scanmaster 2.1, 9 inch K&N filter, aluminum driveshaft, 160 thermostat, 3 inch Terry Houston downpipe with dump, DMH electric exhaust cut-out, TH 2.5 inch exhaust with Magnaflows, RJC powerplate, torque strap, Dutt neck stock intercooler, LT1 MAF, Translator Plus, Digi-Tails LED sequential tail lights, Eaton posi, TA Performance rear end girdle

      Simmons wheels: 17x8.5 front (4.32" backspacing) with 235/45/17s Vredestein Sessentas, 17x9 rear (4.75 backspacing) with 275/40/17s, SC&C Street Comp Stage 2 kit (adjustable upper control arms, Howe tall upper and lower ball joints, S10 Xtreme lower control arm bump stops), 13 inch Baer front brakes, S10 rear wheel cylinders

    13. #13
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Sesser, Il
      Posts
      490

      I've seen the light!

      Ok Ok... LOL ... You guys have convinced me already!!!

      Tony - Thanks for standing firm on your experience.

      Rob - Thanks for the pics. So that's the Stage 2 kit, huh. Nice!

      Could both you guys PM me with your front and rear spring setup, rear suspension setup and if you'd change anything about your setups please.

      I'll be calling Marcus.

      Thanks again guys.
      Doug Gulley

      66 C10 383, AFR 190, Accel SuperRam, Hyd Roller 230*/236* 280XFI, aftermarket T56, *under construction*

    14. #14
      Join Date
      Jul 2005
      Location
      Eastern Virginia
      Posts
      3,963
      Country Flag: United States
      Hey Tony, I already have these arms you are talking about & am ready to take the car in to have it aligned. Is your set to stock values or different & if different do you know what they are?

      Thanks.
      Scot
      Scot
      86 Monte SS


    15. #15
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Sesser, Il
      Posts
      490
      Scot, In post #7 Tony stated "to run the stock alignment specs, which suck! " So, by that statement, I'd say they are differant.
      Doug Gulley

      66 C10 383, AFR 190, Accel SuperRam, Hyd Roller 230*/236* 280XFI, aftermarket T56, *under construction*

    16. #16
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Washington, MO
      Posts
      2,363
      LoL.. Doug's right. I'm running 4.5 caster, -.5 camber and 1/16 toe.

      Doug, you'll be happy you did. The Stage I was plenty for my needs since the car is basically just a weekend street beater so from the sound of yours I think that'd suit you too.

    17. #17
      Join Date
      Feb 2008
      Location
      Sesser, Il
      Posts
      490
      You may be right Tony, and I have no reason to doubt you. I'll admit, it don't take me much to over-engineer anything. Afterall, I'm just wanting a daily-drivable street car with the best manners as reasonably possible. I know whats too radical for some is too soft for others. It's all about compromise.
      Doug Gulley

      66 C10 383, AFR 190, Accel SuperRam, Hyd Roller 230*/236* 280XFI, aftermarket T56, *under construction*

    18. #18
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by 86Cutlass383SR View Post
      The alignment specs GW recommends on the instruction sheet for the GW arms is: Caster 4.5*+ driver side - 5*+ passenger side, Camber .25* - .5* neg both sides, toe in 1/32" both sides. Taken right off the instruction sheet.
      They recommend those settings perhaps because it'd be difficult to impossible to obtain anything much more aggressive. In order to get about 1.5° more +caster than stock, you need something like 1/4" more shim on the rear packs. If you already are at -0.5° camber, that 1/4" of caster shimming eats up most of the remaining thread on the rear bolts. Shimming the front bolts will give you more -camber, but the +caster that you just got will be reduced. Like with the stock arms, you end up either compromising camber for caster or vice-versa. I could get a little more than -2° camber with stock arms as long as I held the caster down to about +3°, but I was just barely getting full thread engagement through the rear nuts and the right side control arm was dimpling a header tube when the engine torqued over on acceleration.


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    19. #19
      Join Date
      Mar 2005
      Location
      East Kern County, California
      Posts
      191
      Country Flag: United States
      I'll jump in a little late and tell 86cutlass383sr that I went the slow route from changing simple suspension parts (sway bars,trailing arms,shocks even tires/rim combo). All helped a little, but the biggest change came after speaking to marcus and going with the his stage two kit. The car handles so well on the street and track. Difference between night and day. It's what GM should have done, or I years ago after my first track day.
      Steven Patillo

    20. #20
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Washington, MO
      Posts
      2,363
      Norms right. I tried for those specs with my tubular arms, we ran out of threads. Don't go there Doug! lol

      Quote Originally Posted by 86Cutlass383SR View Post
      You may be right Tony, and I have no reason to doubt you. I'll admit, it don't take me much to over-engineer anything. Afterall, I'm just wanting a daily-drivable street car with the best manners as reasonably possible. I know whats too radical for some is too soft for others. It's all about compromise.
      I think one of the benefits with the Stage 2 kit is that the tall lower ball joint lowers the front end ~.75". In my case this wasn't needed so I went with the Stage I.

      Either way, my guy who was doing the alignment really loved the arms for their adjustability, not to mention they are really light and require no shims! I can't say enough about them (obviously) They along with those specs have made the best the mod to car. Handling wise and driving at high speeds its very solid and controllable.

    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast



    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com