[66sprint6]

Originally Posted by 64speed

Thanks just ordered some from summit. Gonna send the station wagon coils back

Remember that '67 and up springs have the little pigtails where earlier ones do not.

[64speed]

Originally Posted by 66sprint6

Remember that '67 and up springs have the little pigtails where earlier ones do not.

What does that mean?

[64speed]

I ordered some of the global west knockoffs after finding out that Summit was selling the same knockoffs under their brand name at the halfway point between the eBay ones and the global west ones. I already have Moog ball joints that it's past return time on so I am going to install them in the arms for added security and let it ride. The welds look good and they are heavy and seem ok. I have no doubt that they all come from the same plant in china. I will let you know how they ride in about a year when my cars back together LOL

[64speed]

Can I use the pigtailed springs on a 64 rearend

[66sprint6]

See the pictures below. The 64-66 springs have a pigtail at one end. The 67 springs have pigtails at both ends. Both are designed to fit into their respective spring pockets in the frame.

[64speed]

So I can't use the springs

[66sprint6]

If it's a spring for the '67 and up frame, then no.

[wovenweb]

Have you considered the tall ball joints as replacements for the ones that came with these control arms? I'm not sure on the 64-67s, but these are supposed to be the more important change for 68-72 to improve handling.

I've been considering all this for my Skylark. Not looking to do a track car, just a better handling weekend cruiser.

[64speed]

I don't know anything really about the tall ball joints! Do they work with your original slindle and control arm? What is the original application? What is gained by doing such?

[JLMounce]

A tall ball joint lowers the effective upper control arm pickup point, reducing the positive camber gain prevalent in 60's era GM double wishbone suspensions. It also raises the roll center up a bit which flattens the car through the corners without going with crazy stiff springs and huge sway bars.

Early GM suspensions lack a couple critical things that can be reduced or solved thorugh aftermarket parts. Because many models came off the line with both manual and power steering, the suspensions were designed to be light in a non-power situation. As a result you can't get much positive caster from the setup as it makes turning harder without power assist. Secondly the pickup points for the upper control arm are too high and the arm is too short. This means that as the wheel goes through it's travel, it gains positive camber. This is opposite of what you want to happen in a performance driving situation.

It's almost precisely what you want when you have a big heavy, powerful rwd car that you want to err on the side of understeer instead of oversteer.

The A body cars have stuff in the way so you can't do the guldstrand mod like the F-body guys do, which is basically free. If you are going with some aftermarket arms though, you can reduce some of this. You want to make sure the arms you select have updated caster geometry. This will allow you to dial in more caster which increases high speed stability and enhances negative camber gain through suspension travel. The key is to look for "geometry corrected" wording on the product. There are some tubular arms on the market that are just tubular versions of the factory pieces and will not provide that extra positive caster potential. Don't assume it's geometry corrected, ask or look for specific wording. IMHO there's zero point in going to a tubular arm for a street driver if you aren't aiming to correct the geometry.

If you add a tall ball joint to this arm, you also change the effective pickup points of the arm and reduce positive camber gain, which when combined with added caster potential starts working more in your favor for cornering grip.

If you are doing aftermarket upper and lower control arms, I would go with a .9" tall ball joint. If you are keeping the factory lowers, or keeping both factory control arms, binding can occur at certain ride heights and as such you want to keep the tall joint at .5" over stock. Stick quality bushings in the arms, quality springs in the pockets, then give it a modern alignment and you'd be surprised at how well the car will handle.

[wovenweb]

Originally Posted by JLMounce

or keeping both factory control arms, binding can occur at certain ride heights and as such you want to keep the tall joint at .5" over stock. Stick quality bushings in the arms, quality springs in the pockets, then give it a modern alignment and you'd be surprised at how well the car will handle.

Thanks for the well written explanation. I'm headed this way, 0.5" for both uppers and lowers.

[JLMounce]

Don't put lower tall ball joints on an f-body. This really messes with roll center and creates even more bump steer than what's already in there from the factory.

With an F body the guldstrand mod, is still the way to go. You can go online and get the template for free.

The guldstrand mod relocates the pickup points lower and aft increasing positive caster and negative camber gain. It'll be far more effective than the .5" tall upper.

If you run geometry corrected upper control arms, take the guldtrand template and locate the new mounting points simple straight down, without the shift towards the rear of the car.

For A bodies, the suspension setup is such that you can do the lower tall ball joint as well. Ride height will lower a bit and the tall lower seems to help the roll center on A bodies.

[wovenweb]

Yes, no changes to my Firebirds. This would be on my Skylark and GS 455.

[FrankieT/A]

Originally Posted by JLMounce

With an F body the guldstrand mod, is still the way to go. You can go online and get the template for free.

But this only works in first generation, correct?

[JLMounce]

Originally Posted by FrankieT/A

But this only works in first generation, correct?

Front end geometry was slightly revised for 2nd generation cars. The control arms still limit caster and there are still camber curve issues, but not like what you see in the first generation cars.

The suspension can be made better through altering the upper control arm pickup points, but it's my understanding that the way the chassis and mounts are designed on the 2nd gen's that there's a bit of modification that needs to occur.

Mark at SC&C recommends tall ball joints with geometry corrected upper control arms on 2nd gen's.

[64speed]

Where do you get the taller ball joints? I have the global west knockoffs but I already replaced the ball joints with Moog

[wovenweb]

Summit has them. Just search for proforged ball joints at their site.

[JLMounce]

I have the Proforged .5" tall joints on my '69. They are of good quality and I've been beating on them for 2+ years at this point without issue.

[64speed]

Do you have to replace the uppers and the lowers?

[wovenweb]

That is up to you. Keep in mind that this is supposed to replace needing to get tall spindles, which can cost twice as much ($400) when compared to replacing the ball joints. Everything I've read indicates that even just 0.5" taller uppers is an improvement.