Tall ball joints?
 

Have purchased a set of Global West front upper control arms. Plan to, for now, use stock lower control arms, but also purchase the global west steering knuckle to help eliminate bump steer.

My question is, would .5” or .9” taller upper ball joints be beneficial with this setup?

I’m working toward more of a resto-mod/pro-touring style car with my 70 GTO. Looking at (hopefully) putting larger (18”) wheels on it later this year. Also looking into lowering the car somewhere around 1” to 1-1/2”.

Thoughts on taller ball joints?

I am running UMI tubular uppers with .5" taller ball joints, stock lowers with new moog rubber bushings and stock height lower ball joint, and 1" lowering springs on my 1971 Cutlass. The car is very responsive and not harsh. No complaints here.

The rear also has UMI parts with both upper and lower using Roto joints, upper being adjustable. I am using UMI front and rear sway bars and a Grand Cherokee steering box. The overall ride is very controlled, my only complaint if I had to do it again would be to go with 17" wheels and a little more sidewall over my 18's.

You can almost always benefit from a .5" tall upper ball joint on the GM short long arm front suspensions. You start getting into issues with the .9" tall ball joint due to ball joint angles and binding. Most often they are added along side a set of lowering springs. The reduction in the bump travel moves the upper arm upward at ride height, increasing the angle on the ball joint. Adding another .9" of effective knuckle height moves that upper arm up further. In a lot of cases, the ball joint on factory designed arms will be near it's bind point just sitting on the ground.

As Scarebird mentioned, you should contact global west and see if they reconfigured the ball joint angles specifically for lowered cars. If that's the case, I'd do a .9" tall ball joint. If not, I'd opt for the .5" tall joint.

On the A-body you may also opt for a .5" tall lower ball joint. This will further help the camber curve. Keep in mind that by adding the lower ball joint you will lower the car half of the effective height gain...or around 1/4".

Edit, the tall lower joint will lower the car by the full amount of the lower joint, so .5".

I spoke with someone at Global West, who stated that, while the control arm can use the tall ball joint, it would provide little to no benefit. The design of the arms supposedly takes care of whatever benefit you may see from the tall ball joint.

Guess I’ll stick with the standard joint instead of a tall ball joint in my Global West CTA-42A control arms.

Hmmm, not sure I'm on board with that assessment.

If I read things correctly, it sounds like he is indeed planning to use GW tubular upper control arms. What I'm curious about is the claim that a 0.5" taller upper ball joint will provide little or no benefit to them.

This is incorrect. no control arm design can alter the camber curve in bump and droop.

Only physically changing the pickup locations for the upper and lower control arms, or changing knuckle height can accomplish that.

What most altered geometry arms do is add in a bit (typically 2 degrees) of static positive caster, or are designed to allow higher levels of caster adjustment.

Caster does create negative camber gain, but requires steering input to achieve it. In auto-x settings where you have a lot of wheel input, the effect is more pronounced. During shallow cornering maneuvers that you see on the street, or perhaps at an open road race during a high speed sweeper, you don't have enough steering input to create enough negative camber gain from the caster to overcome the lousy camber curve in bump travel.

The net result is you don't have enough grip and you start to plow because you've rolled over the sidewall of the tire.

If the global west arm hasn't had the ball joint socket repositioned for lowered cars, go with a .5" tall upper ball joint. It won't completely fix the camber curve, but it does help and with the additional caster you'll be able to get from the upper arms, it's much better than not having it.

Not sure anyone would use a TALLER lower joint But if they did...you are correct.

Each body has a different problem I know F-body's benefit from a 1" tall upper and the A and G bodys have an entire different issue with bump steer.

The A body wants more spindle height than an F body due to where the control arm pickup points are. You can only really achieve that with the use of a tall lower ball joint.

Do it right, do it once. No free lunch.

https://speedtechperformance.com/pro...evelle-a-body/

I don't understand why people still muck with tall joints and crap.


.

Leave it alone, save, and do the upgrade when you have the parts/money. Or just leave it stock and live with the level of performance.

If you're going to upgrade, don't screw around. The waste is exponential the more intermediate steps you add.

Don't cheap out. It ALWAYS costs more when you try to cheap out.

If you're daily driver needs a front end rebuild, and/or a trans or something, do you sweat over those costs to a point of pinching pennies?

As for 17+ wheels. Yeah. You WANT 17+ wheels. Vette brakes. Yeah. You WANT big brakes. Why is that not understood? It's not a drawback, it's what you really want anyway. It's the cost of doing biz/upgrades. Accept it. Once you're past all that crap and are able to enjoy the car you love it's all downhill. Just do it.


.

There's a bunch of cast wheels, like the US MAG and others, where 18x8s are under $200ea.

18" tires are cheaper, and better than almost all 15, 16, and 17" tires.

Parts are more affordable than ever these days.

Vette rotors, C5/C6 ones, are like $65-$85ea. Calipers are like $120 with the bracket. I just put some on the 442. It's cheaper than doing D52s and wheel bearings.

.

C5 powerstop rotors from rock auto: $35ea.

Loaded calipers, with brackets: $45ea.

You can't cry about the cost, period. AND you get big brakes!


.

There is no doubt that the AFX spindle is better in every way on these cars. It's lighter, stronger, has a much improved bearing pack, has better camber curve characteristics and much improved bump steer.

That said, the control arms don't know what's attached to them. Effective knuckle height is effective knuckle height and tall ball joints have been used a cost effective way to achieve that (along with the guldstrand mod on F-bodies) for decades without issue.

The same ball-joint binding issues that come into play with OEM, or OEM copy control arms are apparent also with the AFX spindle. It's a function of the upper control arm position, relative to ride height. As a result, the draw backs from using tall ball-joints really comes down to drawbacks of the factory short knuckle more than anything.

For a mildly updated street car, IMHO there's really nothing with doing tall ball-joints. These are wear items and when they're do for replacement, a good tall ball-joint is in the ball-park neighborhood for pricing. There's no drawback anywhere in these systems for adding some spindle height and caster. Do it where it's available.

If you're building a car and your aim is handling performance, I agree that going straight to the AFX spindle is in your best interest. I wish I had, but I was on a pretty tight budget and needed that extra budget elsewhere on the car.

The AFX spindle is a full blown ground up design, and addresses all the inherent issues of any previous designs.

"ATS Tall Spindles aren’t just another visual makeover of a C4 Corvette spindle, they’re a completely new design meant to maximize geometry and performance handling. Manufactured from light weight and super strong forged 7075 T73 aluminum, the upper ball joint mount is raised 2″ to optimize camber curve, making a much greater improvement than merely adding a slightly taller ball joint to stock spindles. The redesigned steering arm and relocated arm mount position greatly improves Ackerman and brings bump steer numbers down to nearly zero."

There is no bind with the spindle and/or control arms/joints. Period. It is not just some 'tall' joint setup. This I believe is the 3rd gen of the AFX, and has taken it multiple steps beyond. It is not some cobbled together solution.

There is an initial cost burden, but, deal with it. Once you get past that, there's no looking back. And even if you missed the boat at one point, you are still way better off taking the bite with some minor loss.

To give you an idea how cost effect these are, originally, they were about $2500 bare for the pair. You still needed control arms, steering arms, etc. Now, most have tubular arms, so in general the cost is less than half of what it originally was, and is better.

I was in contact with Tyler at ATS during the development of the originals, Doug at GW was also involved. Tyler's focus was on 1st gen F cars, and I was the driving force behind bringing these to market for 64-72 a bodies. Search it here and on pro-touring.

.

Agree with this sentiment. A large number of us, probably most, do not want to be forced into running large diameter wheels to fit the Corvette brakes the AFX spindles typically use. The pro-touring look is not for everyone.

Does the tall ball joint option provide more front end travel?

My understanding - the tall ball joint helps improve suspension geometry by acting like an extension of the spindle, improving angles between the upper and lower control arms. But, maybe I’m way off.

It’s hard to make myself spend $1300 on AFX spindles. Then I’d have to buy the corresponding control arms. Then the brakes. Shocks and springs next I guess? Ironically, I’m already looking into buying 18” wheels… and was considering lowering the car an inch or 2, so shocks and springs were already on the shopping list. But I JUST bought a set of Global West upper arms, which couldn’t be used with the AFX spindle. Argh. Decisions.

The upper GW arms can be used with the AFX spindles, not sure why you thought no. There are 2 arms GW offers, either with or without the offset shaft, then you have bushing options. If by chance you need/want a different upper, it is very easy to sell the ones you have, and you can recoup almost the entire cost of whichever you already purchased.

You can buy the knock-off lower control arms, a set is like $300, and you can sell the uppers. Many are getting in the $180-$220 range for just the uppers. There is no geometry advantages built into the lower arms.

Brakes are less expensive than replacing the OE D52 rotors, calipers, and wheel bearings. (Look at the postings I provided). And, down the road, you have many upgrade options if you want to add larger rotors, aftermarket calipers, etc, they bolt right on.

You can hash out the cost, but if you are totaling the $ spent for the upgrade, you are really only about $600 additional cost for the upgrade, which is a total bargain.

Get the GW springs, they are like $150 for the set, and there are a few options on rates/drop. The AFX spindles provide a drop right off the bat, since the location of the pin is slightly higher. (@ 1.25").

If you already have planned on getting 18s, then technically that cost is not a factor. The US Bandits give you a very close to stock-looking arrangement. You can even adapt the OE center caps.

Once you go that route, you will look back and ask yourself why they heck you waited so long to do the upgrade. It is that big of a difference. You will never regret the decision.

You can sell part you have to offset the total cost as well.

Talk to Tobin and Kore3, he can provide multiple options for brakes, as well as providing a rear disc solution.

There is no downside going with this upgrade, period. You will have just about the finest handling config available for the 64-72 A-body. The only way to get better is to buy an aftermarket chassis, and the improvement over the AFX is nominal.

.

If this is your aim, HWY is right and you'll be money ahead to use the AFX knuckle. Especially if you haven't purchased your brakes, shocks, springs and wheels.

I would get everything at the same time, don't try putting something together temporarily to get it on the road. Going that route usually causes issues with mismatched parts.

The AFX spindle height will drop the car, so you don't want to also put a 2" lowering spring in it. The drop spindle height doesn't work against your bump travel, but it does work against your ground clearance.

Decide what brake package you want to run, then order the wheels after you've measured with the brake package installed. a C5 rotor/caliper on the AFX spindle will be closer in hub to hub distance to a drum brake car than it will be to a disk brake car. I also think the c6 Z51 rotor and caliper combination is a really great compromise in cost effectiveness and looks.

To add a little to comments.

You can't really go by the number of inch drop, too many variables, so any vendor that says '2" drop' or whatever, is only guessing.

On the tubular lower control arms, they use a 'pad' that the spring rides on. There are spacers available to dial your ride height in, so there's always a way to sneak up on the desire ride height.

( https://piratejack.net/1964-1972-che...-shim-spacers/ )

Spring rate can be confusing. NEVER go by 'factory specs', or anything like that, because they are NEVER right. (And I can debate that with anyone that wants to have that conversation on a separate thread or phone call).

One example: You want a free articulating suspension, period. The spring rate gets you to where the weight of the car is controlled within the range of suspension travel. The SHOCK is what dials it all in.

Add to example: OE control arm bushings have 'teeth' in the inner sleeve, and that sleeve is 'captured' in the rubber casting. (must be tightened while car is at ride height). It is used in addition to the spring/shock to provide an overall 'experience'. If you go to a free-articulating bushing, like a solid or poly, you immediately need to add more spring rate.

Most good vendors have a range of travel/rate that thru experience can recommend. Talk to them. Tell them what you expect, and take their' advice. Most will allow at least one spring swap out to get you to where you want. But at like $150 a pair, it's not that critical. Once you you get it dialed to where you like it, you 9 times out of 10 will never change it again.

Personally, I only use, and recommend Global West. Main reason? They use a spring vendor that has tight tolerances. Many 'wire companies' base rates on wire thickness, free height, etc, and allow for a 7-15% tolerance. Think about it. If it's 10%, and you order a 500 lbs spring, that's a 50 lbs swing in either direction that's allowed. That can be from srping to spring, like, if you buy a pair, they can be 100 lbs off between the two. And now you understand why people talk about 'lean'.


.

Doug at Global West says the UCA’s I have (CTA-42A) won’t work with the “tall spindle conversion” - which I assume would be the AFX spindle?

Listen from the 1:30 - 1:50 mark in this video:
https://youtu.be/7F23DVxZiDc

As for everything else, I’m definitely leaning toward going the route of the AFX spindles, proper UCA’s, whatever affordable brake package goes with the spindle, cheap tubular lower CA’s, and a decent shock/spring combo to get ride height where I want it.

I didn’t plan to spend that much all at once and hoped to do a little at a time. But such is life…

So, I guess tall ball joints have a place, but modern technology in control arms and the AFX spindle has provided a better option.

The 'tall spindle upgrade' usually implies using a 2nd gen F spindle.

.

I would also not be so quick to go with a "cheap" lower control arm.

Part of correcting the GM SLA suspension is the ability to add additional positive caster. While many upper control arms do have the ability to make this possible, without a corresponding altered geometry lower control arm, you end up moving the wheel and tire aft in it's wheel house. Especially when using a wider wheel and tire package, rubbing of the inner wheel house and in some cars, the outer fender lip becomes an issue.

Lower control arms that come in a set with upper control arms that are advertised as geometry correcting typically add 1-2 degrees of positive caster in the lower arm. What this does is re-centers the spindle in the wheel house where it's supposed to be. If the arm still uses shim stacks for alignment changes, it also means that you need less actual adjustment in the upper arm to reach higher levels of positive caster (typically 5-6 degrees for a street application).

The tall knuckle corrects the camber curve in bump and droop. Positive caster increases straight light tracking and stability and importantly adds another layer of negative camber gain as wheel angle increases.

Yeah I hear what you're saying, but I specifically asked Doug regarding the lower arms, and he acknowledged there is no additional geometry advantage built into the lower arms. It's all in the uppers.

I spoke to Speedtech when I purchased the AFX for the 442, also acknowledged, there is no geometry built into their' (EDIT: bolt-on) lower arms.

The camber recommendations for the new gen AFX is different than the originals, they are less, and in the 4-5.5 range max. I personally run 4.75.

On the 442, I run the knock-off lowers, with the new gen spindes.

The Speedtech extreme chassis calls for 7-9.25 camber. There are specific reason they are like that, but I forget, it's been a while since I talked to them about it.

My GTO has 1st generation AFX spindles, which has the specifically created/designed lower control arms by GW. The change to using a common, standard lower control arm was made to prevent potential mismatch of parts. I will be switching over soon.
.

I went with the SPC upper/lower arms with tall upper/lower Howe ball joints. The Savitske stage 3? Also went with SPC lowering springs and bilsteins. Im very happy with the setup. Kept the stock drum spindles, and luckily my (stock) tie rods ended up parallel to the ground, so my bump steer seems good.

I also went with the C5 Vette brakes front and rear and they are awesome, even without power assist. I know you’re already looking at doing 18s, but wilwood makes a disc conversion kit that allows you to go back to 15s, if you or the next owner would like to go back to a more traditional look.

Personally, I I think the AFX spindles are a tough purchase, unless you’re flush with cash. But they are trick. I think you’d get more bang for your buck if you put that money into sway bars f/r.

HWY, out of curiosity, what springs are you running? Since the AFX has a built in drop, I would imagine you have to run stock height springs?

When the car was in the 'MUT8SHN' config, a 71 LeMans, I ran lowered springs, think they were 575lbs rate.

When I went to the endura nose, I had to up it to like 650lbs, and a slightly taller spring. Mostly to prevent bottoming the suspension out.

Keep in mind I have free-articulating suspension, all del-alum, so requires a higher rate than factory type control arm bushings. Also have solid body bushings.

And no, before anyone asks, it rode fine, and not like a 'truck' like so many comments. Setup properly, it rides better than stock. Shocked all who rode in it, because it crushed the internet parroting narrative.

EDIT: To be more specific, I use Global West spring exclusively.


.

The 442 also has Global West springs, the slightly taller ones, since for my daughter, I didn't want it in the weeds.


.

I just did brakes on the 442, front & rear, rotors, calipers, pads, and SS lines, and it was less than $650.

EDIT: That's C5 fronts, Right Stuff rear, disc/disc.


.

I’ve never thought about that, makes sense. Rubber always has resistance. I went with delrin bushings up front, it is very smooth. Thanks for the reply.


To OP: Another idea if you’re trying to save some coin is reuse your factory lower control arms, and replace the rubber bushings with Global West del alums. But you really wanna make sure that your LCAs aren’t cracked or damaged. Also, be aware that removing 50 year old rubber suspension bushings is not a good time.

Reviving this thread.

Believe I’m ready to pull the trigger on the Speedtech AFX spindle. Here’s, I think, what the setup will consist of (for now?):

-Global West CTA-42A upper control arms (sitting on shelf waiting to be installed)
-Speedtech AFX Spindle (need to purchase)
-Stock Lower Control arm with Global West Del-Alum bushings (currently on car, newer replacement - not 50 year old originals)
-Global West steering arm to correct bump steer (purchased, uninstalled)
-reuse the springs currently on the car, and dial in with new springs if necessary.
-installed 18” US Mag Bandits earlier this year, so (hopefully) plenty of room inside the wheels for brakes.

I need help on selecting a *cost effective* front brake setup. Saw somewhere it was mentioned C6 “J55”/Z51 brakes are a good option? I did some brief checking and got lost trying to nail down the right part numbers, so some guidance there would be appreciated.

And, anything else I’m missing?

On the lower control arms, you would be better off buying the knock-off tubulars and selling the uppers to offset cost. Just make sure you get the ones that have the cross brace and change the ball joint and you're good. You might be able to find the lowers separately.

Like these:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/14541151464...3ABFBMxNyBvIFj

The steering arms are specific to the spindles, you would be better off buying the ones that Speedtech offer. I haven't seen the ones GW sells, didn't realize they made one for the AFX spindle. Do you have a link?

Speedtech offers 4 different steering arms, one is for 'enhanced' ackerman. I didn't opt for the tuning one, I use the one that's for standard tie rods, but it's up to you if you want to go that route.

Just to say, the GW 42A, AFX spindle, knockoff lower control arms, is the same setup as I run on the 442, and it works very well.

I have the Kore3 setup on the GTO & 442 as well, it's tough to find as good a deal for front brakes as they have: (the GTO has US Bandit 18s)

https://kore3.com/proddetail.php?prod=10336-01

Obviously, if you change to the drilled or slotted rotors, there's an upcharge. I recently replaced the rotors on both cars and used Powerstop ones, which are fine. Not sure on the pricing at the moment, but if they are less than Kore3, you can buy just the caliper setup from Kore3, they sell individual parts.

For $100 more, you can move up to the Z51 setup with slightly larger rotors, will still work with 18" I believe. Moving up to the Z06 size brakes I am not clear if they work with the bandits, but it's almost double the other 2 setups.

Honestly, unless you are doing serious track or autocross, going to the bigger Z06 brakes really won't give you much more. Replacement rotors also jump in price.

It's commented that the AFX spindles give you @ 1" drop, but I found it was less than that, and didn't have a problem with the springs I had on either car, but they are GW springs that are lower. I think trying the springs you have to start is a good idea.


.

Breakdown on Speedtech ackerman & bumpsteer kits:

https://speedtechperformance.com/pro...mp-steer-kits/

Interestingly enough, when using the one kit, you actually swap side of the steering arms so the ends point outwards.

.

Oh, I wasn’t aware a standard steering arm wouldn’t work with the AFX spindle? Thought I read somewhere that a factory spindle would bolt to the AFX spindle. No? If not, that’s a kick in the nutz, as that adds another $500 to this deal.

AFX Spindle: $1,400
Brake kit: ~$800, or ~$900 for z51
“Budget” lower control arms: ~$175
Replacement lower ball joints: $30
Speedtech Steering Arm: $450-$500

Looking at around $2,850, likely more like $3k by time it’s all said and done. Shew!

The gain is well worth it, and it's a heck of a lot less than a full frame/suspension kit.

At some point, you would want to do a brake upgrade, and the AFX spindle is one of the best ways to get it, most cost effective too.

Control arms you would want too, if you're goal were to improve handling/performance.

The only real issue is that a lot depends on going with the AFX setup, which is a little steep for a one-time shot in the wallet. But down the road, you could very well save by skipping the 'intermediate' setups.

Would you balk if your daily driver needed $1500 in struts or cats/exhaust to pass inspection (example)? You would look at the cost differently, wouldn't you?

Have you ever said "I should have done xyz from the start, would have saved alotta trouble". This is one of those things.



.

The SPC/SC&C stuff is good, but can be confusing to choose/config. I did the homework on it a while back, will give my 'opinion', but it may be a little dated.

You can choose a lower tall BJ up to a 1/2" without having to change out the lower control arm.

To get max benefit, you should use both the upper & lower BJs with the upper & lower control arm.

The setup uses stock spindles and steering arms, and the control arms are @ $1200 for uppers, $1700 for lowers:

https://www.spcalignment.com/compone...tion&pid=97110

https://www.spcalignment.com/compone...tion&pid=94344

They might be available from others for less, but those are the prices SPC lists.

You can use a tall spindle upper control arm from other vendors, but at your own risk.

The gain, when measured by amount of additional caster, is nominal (@ 3 degrees).

The original spindles may be a weak point under hard use, 'seasoned' spindles can be compromised (bearing & seal area wear, structural integrity)

In order to do some types of big brake kits, you have to mod the spindles. Also, going to big brakes can push the wheel out making it more difficult to source wheels. (You may even have to change existing wheels, depending on the brake kit, but usually almost all kits require larger diameter wheels)

The bump steer is still archaic and could be improved with a bump steer kit from other vendors.

There is no to little ackerman gains.

The end results is still nowhere near as good as the AFX setups.

You still have to pack wheel bearings, and still have the maintenance, more so in hard use.

My opinion is the GW spindle would be a better option, but it still uses legacy wheel bearings:

https://www.globalwest.net/kit423-ne...1-spindle.html

Not to mention, it's $6500-$7700.

When you look at all the options available, the AFX setup is the most cost effective, and has the best performance gains, without going to a full frame kit. Full frame kits are $12-$15k+.

All new AFX uprights come with the upgraded 'vette bearing, and those are race-ready.



.

Looking into the same thing, and I'm trying to find the gotchas in the SPC/AFX setup.

What steering arms should be used with the AFX spindle? In doing research, several posters on GM websites (mostly camaro/Nova builds) struggle to find steering arms that clear 17 or 18" wheels, 5-5.5" backspace and the AFX spindle.

What about wheel selection for the AFX spindle? Does the AFX spindle/vette rotor push the wheel mounting flange inward? What backspace is typically required to properly locate a 17 or 18" wheel in the wheelhouse?

What springs should be used with the SPC/AFX? By the time you add the .5 ball joint drop, the 2" A-arm drop, the 1" AFX spindle drop, the 1" SPC spring drop, the headers will drag the street. The SPC spacers aren't going to offset all the drops. Can you use other brands of spring with the SPC arms? The SPC lower doesn't require a special spring purchased from them, does it?

Is it necessary to use the SPC uppers and lowers together? Is there a downside to using less expensive LCAs? Other than how the SPC lowers allow the use of spring spacers?

Do the SPC lower control arms have the travel stops for the steering in A-bodies?

Does the corvette brakes require any changes to the brake hydraulic system? Will the 71-style GTO power disc brake setup work? (I've got later style combo valve below the master)

What steering box? I've got a borgenson 12.7:1 box coming for this build, seems to be well recommended.

On an A-body with the AFX spindle, you want to use SpeedTech's steering arm. It corrects bumpsteer and adds a good amount of akerman. You "can" use a factory arm, but you end up with some wonky bump steer on the A-body platform.

The AFX spindle has about 1" of drop built in to it, so if you're targeting a 2" drop, you want to go after springs that are a 1" lower drop. You can use any conventional spring here, it doesn't have to be the SPC spring.

In regards to using both the upper and lowers, you don't absolutely need the lower control arm, however it's beneficial to have. The SPC lower has about 2* of positive caster built into it. This does two things. It first allows you to run more positive caster without setting the adjustable uppers at a point where you're starting to lose threads in the adjusters. The second thing it does is recenters the wheel in the wheel well. By moving the ball joint position forward, you are counteracting the rearward movement of the wheel by adding positive caster in the upper control arm.

It's still possible to achieve about 5* of positive caster with just the SPC upper, but depending on the wheel and tire size, this may create rub as the tire is moved towards the rear of the car.

The lowers on my car do have a travel stop integrated into the lower arms.

Your steering box choice is fine and the corvette brakes if you go with an AFX spindle would need a 15/16" master for manual or a 1" master for power assist brakes. The disc/disc combination valve is fine for most instances.

What he said! Heheh! Didn't get a notification for the other post, but was going to respond.

What I will add is this, that the SPC uppers do not have a cross brace, and there can be deflection in them. You get the same benefits from the GW 42A or the Speedtech upper, both are less than the SPC offerings.

I suggested the knock-off lowers over using the factory one, deflection on the factory arms are ridiculous. You don't get as much camber advantage, but in most cases you may not notice anyway. I believe the GWs and the knock-offs have 1 degree built into them, but I would have to go back and look to be sure of that.

There's no significant advantage to running tall ball joints with the AFX spindles, just to say it out loud. Never thought of doing that, but if you have questions, call Speedtech and ask. It may not even be supported.

With the GW uppers and lowers, AFX spindle, at 4-4.5 degrees caster, the wheel is not noticeably not-centered in the wheel opening in my config.

Another thing, I have no issues with the steering arm (contact) with 18x9s and 5.31 backspacing. There's even room for more when it comes to the steering arm.


.

Oh, on the drop, the control arms don't provide any drop that I'm aware of.


.

The SPC lower arms have a dropped spring base. Without the use of their shim kit, the lower arm will drop a stock car roughly 1". If you are going to some sort of coil-over where the mount would exist on the flat of the spring base, this would drop the car about 2" as the spiral spring perch is removed completely.

The standard shim kit comes with 2, 1/4" spacers that will adjust ride height up to the factory ride height. You can add additional spacers to the lower or upper pocket if you need, or run a combination to dial in ride height to .5" increments.

This is one area of the SPC arms, that can be a bit challenging. You have a lot of options to dial the ride height, but when dealing with conventional springs, it does add time in labor and guessing to get it right. Especially when taking a car from an antiquated and likely sagging suspension system, to new and modernized.

I don't really like to spend other people's money, but if the budget could handle it, I'd spec a true coil-over from SpeedTech as well, using their Chicane mount.

https://speedtechperformance.com/pro...arrior-shocks/

The Chicane brackets tie directly to the upper control arm mount and adds strength there while providing a double sheer mount for a control arm that is actually stronger than the factory upper spring perch. This is unlike the RideTech and other coilover conversions that use the factory shock mount to hold the weight of the car. That piece is fairly robust on GM cars but it wasn't really designed to hold the weight of the car itself as a stamped steel piece.

Oh, I get it now. Well, all the tubular lowers have that, even the knock-offs, and accept the 'shims' for adjustment. Pirate Jack has a set that some of the most affordable I have found:

https://piratejack.net/1964-1972-che...-shim-spacers/

Keep in mind that the amount of height increase is double the thickness of the shim/spacer.


.

Correct, the motion ratio of the factory GM short/long arm suspension is just about 2:1. It's not quite, but near as makes no difference. 1" of motion at the spring is equal to 2" of motion at the wheel.

And yes, even the china copies typically have the lowered spring pocket. The ones we used on my wife's chevelle did.