[Bigger is Better]

Hi Robert,

I think the bigger impala lower balljoint is exactly that, bigger, it won’t fit your lower spindle ball joint seat unless you ream it (stock car guys sell the reamers). They made two options of lower balljoints for the impalas, the "regular" size and the HD size. You can still get the impala spindles from GM relatively cheap with either lower ball joint seat if you want to swap the spindles (same height).

Hi Jay,

Most of the SPC installs I have seen need the mount clearance not so much for the bushing but the adjusting nuts. They look real close to your mounts, can you get full suspension travel without them hitting and adjust them with hitting? It might be more of a problem with more camber (or a shorter adjusted arm length).

[Z Code 400]

Thanks, Johnny...

I don't know where I collected these Impala LCA's and 'BIG' ball joints from, so I'm just trying to sell them and I just wanted to confirm the application. I thought we got them for a 1LE swap at one time?????

Right now I am working on whipping up a set of bronze sleeves for the AFCO steel LCA bushings. The idea is to press a bronze sleeve with figure 8 lubrication grooves into the steel outer bushing and then buzz down the inner sleeves until I get a nice slip fit. Kind of like a king pin setup, but with a full-length bronze sleeve bearing.

I don't have any mics here at the house, so I am just guessing by eye that the I.D. of the outer sleeve is about 3/4" or so. I'll measure them tomorrow...Robert

[Bl1tzw1ng]

Originally Posted by Bigger is Better

Hi Robert,

I think the bigger impala lower balljoint is exactly that, bigger, it won’t fit your lower spindle ball joint seat unless you ream it (stock car guys sell the reamers). They made two options of lower balljoints for the impalas, the "regular" size and the HD size. You can still get the impala spindles from GM relatively cheap with either lower ball joint seat if you want to swap the spindles (same height).

Hi Jay,

Most of the SPC installs I have seen need the mount clearance not so much for the bushing but the adjusting nuts. They look real close to your mounts, can you get full suspension travel without them hitting and adjust them with hitting? It might be more of a problem with more camber (or a shorter adjusted arm length).

Yea, at the nuts is the issue. I do have full travel. We decided to cut while the upper arms only were on, at full drop, to make sure we could have full travel while also allowing for jambnut adjustments.

I only mentioned bushing clearance because in the 1st pic the OP posted, they were hitting which is easily solved with a spacer.

[Bl1tzw1ng]

Originally Posted by Z Code 400

Probably none in your case...

IMHO, shimming them defeats the whole purpose. Mine wouldn't come anywhere near fitting on either side. Even with a full 1/2" of shims in the back and 1/8" in the front, I would still need to cut 1/2 way through the thickness of the perch so the threaded rod will clear!!!!!

These parts could have been made great, but, as is typical with Hi-Perf stuff, they lack attention to detail. Making the control arm shaft 1/4" longer would allow them to fit any 1970-1981 F-body without shims or grinding...Robert

Shimming them is actually a better way than going right to the mount mainly because the mount isn't a perfect surface on these cars. A longer cross-shaft would help. The real issue is the lack of consistant quality on 70-81 f bodies. Never had to modify my passenger side.

[pro-tour79]

Not trying to argue here but Jay I believe you are trying to push a product that you were able to make work, many people have had to remove a lot more material from their mounts to make them clear and get full travel the other thing is when you space the cross shaft you need to lengthen the A-arm reducing negative camber gains and what happens when you need/want to change the alignment and you run into clearance issues again?
One more thing "the mount is not a perfect surface on thes cars" so what car is? unless it is a machined surface? fact is the reason why the surface may not be flat is due to destortion from the mounting bolt holes and by simply adding spacers over the bolts you now have agravated the problem insted of allowing the cross shaft to be fully supported across the flat surface of the mount, this is also one reason on race cars they use full length spacer shims.
I also will aswer the question about "how much integrity do you think I compromised"? these cars were designed in the late 60's early 70's even before radial tires were standard on cars let alone the leaps and bounds made in tire technology, the mounts were never designed to handle the loads that todays suspension and tires can generate so the question is why would you compromise it at all?

[pro-tour79]

Robert, those lower A-arms can be made to work as Johnny mentioned, I also PMed you back a couple alternatives.

[Z Code 400]

Thanks, Pro-Tour....

I'm done wasting money with other F-body suppliers. It's PTFB from now on. All your stuff fits and works without grinding and the BFH treatment....'Nuff said...Robert

[Bl1tzw1ng]

Originally Posted by pro-tour79

Not trying to argue here but Jay I believe you are trying to push a product that you were able to make work, many people have had to remove a lot more material from their mounts to make them clear and get full travel the other thing is when you space the cross shaft you need to lengthen the A-arm reducing negative camber gains and what happens when you need/want to change the alignment and you run into clearance issues again?
One more thing "the mount is not a perfect surface on thes cars" so what car is? unless it is a machined surface? fact is the reason why the surface may not be flat is due to destortion from the mounting bolt holes and by simply adding spacers over the bolts you now have agravated the problem insted of allowing the cross shaft to be fully supported across the flat surface of the mount, this is also one reason on race cars they use full length spacer shims.
I also will aswer the question about "how much integrity do you think I compromised"? these cars were designed in the late 60's early 70's even before radial tires were standard on cars let alone the leaps and bounds made in tire technology, the mounts were never designed to handle the loads that todays suspension and tires can generate so the question is why would you compromise it at all?

It's the mountain/molehill thing. I had the same reservations as the OP at one point. After research and months or gathering info and opinions, the SPC arms had proven themselves. The OP has some great equipment and I was offering solutions that me and 1000's of others have used. I don't have a product to sell.

I am not concerned with the integrity of the mod. Anyone who takes a look at the spotty, at best, welds that are on an original subframe and can live with that, shouldn't be concerned with what I have done. I took steps to correct both issues.

As for the spacers, alignment issues, etc, doing homework and working with professionals that have forgotten more than most of us will ever know, works wonders. Some people are up to the task, others aren't. To each his own. I have more thoughts, but not for now.

[pro-tour79]

Jay here is my beef , the original thread was asking about MY product so to highlight the "I" in "I don't have a product to sell" as to make it sound as if I was pushing a product indiscriminatly is clearly out of line, Robert already spent money on the other A-arms , I just reaffirmed what we had talked about in the past and the differences between the products, but even after the problem you've had to correct it sounds as if you suffer from "it's the best because I use it" syndrome

[Bl1tzw1ng]

Hardly. The " I " was bold to accentuate the fact that I have no dog in the race at all and I gain nothing but you insinuated I did. I don't care if you do. You are a vendor, you should sell. As you know, I have used your products as well as 100's of other vendors. I have yet to have a beef with any of them. If you remember correctly, even when I had issues, I did not make a deal of it. SPC are kick ass arms. You have gotten in spats over them before on other forums. What can I say? Maybe what you sell is best?

[pro-tour79]

Thanks for agreeing with me on the "I" part, this thread is about my product, and as far as getting in spats well to this day NO ONE can give me the advantages of those "kick ass arm" as far as I'm conserned using cliche statements such as that reinforces the lack of facts from anyone making the arguments, it is as silly as it gets, here let me be the one to make the best argument for the SPC arms,they do work well they do everything to improve the geometry but if spending almost twice and have to cut and grind just to make them fit let alone the extra charges some have had to pay in labor to set the alignment call me stupid but I don't see it.

[Z Code 400]

Bottom line...less moving parts, less potential for problems. The PTFB arms are superior...I spent $500.00 to figure that out...Robert

[Bl1tzw1ng]

My 1st thought earlier in the thread was " Man I should buy those..." But, with Christmas right around the corner, bad timing. Good luck on the auction !

[Z Code 400]

LOL!!!

I know the feeling, man....:-)

[myckee]

I used the PTFB arms on my 1980 firebird. They are an awesome arm and require no mods to fit. They fit perfectly out of the box.

The SPC arms are a nice thing to have if you are going to be changing the alingment specs often back and forth for track to street use etc. Totally unecessary if you are planning on setting the alignment and then forgetting about it...like most people I would expect. Thats why I chose to save money and just get the PTFBs. If you are concerned with the 'bling factor' or the 'high tech' look, then get the SPCs otherwise the PTFBs look very nice and are fully functional.