[goatman65]

Any thoughts on these? Do they do any good? Cause any unwanted side-effects?

[Craig Hendrickson]

Are you talking about an actual spacer on the ball joint on the A-arm or one of those "C" extenders between the ball joint end and the spindle to allow more front end lift without pulling the front tire off the ground?

[mjm421]

Not trying to hijack this thread, but I've been wondering the same thing. I have a 63 LeMans that has very little front end travel. Could something like this help? Thanks again , sorry for the hijack. Mike McCarty

[Hooter]

Originally Posted by mjm421

Not trying to hijack this thread, but I've been wondering the same thing. I have a 63 LeMans that has very little front end travel. Could something like this help? Thanks again , sorry for the hijack. Mike McCarty

I've seen where guys are running taller ball joints to accomplish this. Can you get them for your 63?

[mjm421]

I don't know Brad. I only have about 2 1/2 inches of travel. How are your projects coming along? Mike

[Hooter]

Originally Posted by mjm421

I don't know Brad. I only have about 2 1/2 inches of travel. How are your projects coming along? Mike

Bullet shipping 63 cam tomorrow after grinding last one wrong. Slow but sure on the other.

[goatman65]

The aluminum spacer that allows the front end to lift. Do they really help with traction or are they a waste of money?

[60man]

I put a set on my 60. I had concerns about "side load" stress on the long 1/4x20 bolts securing spacer/BJ to control arm. I passed and thought I gained just as much extra travel by pulling the rubber bump stops off frame under the upper control arm. I glued a flat rubber piece in it's place..A lesson in geometry..

[Todd1035]

They are outlawed in my class. Guys used to break them years ago. They are not safe for dragracing

The better alternitive is to buy a longer ball joint. The reason for doing this is not for extra front end travel, but to correct bumpsteer coming off the launch when the front end fully extends out of the chassis and you get an extreme amount of toe in and negitive camber, compaired to when the car is at sitting ride hight. This can slow the car down as much as .04 in E.T. When you extend the ball joint, and have to install a larger upper snubber to reduce the travel some to see this benefit.

[60man]

Originally Posted by Todd1035

They are outlawed in my class. Guys used to break them years ago. They are not safe for dragracing

The better alternitive is to buy a longer ball joint. The reason for doing this is not for extra front end travel, but to correct bumpsteer coming off the launch when the front end fully extends out of the chassis and you get an extreme amount of toe in and negitive camber, compaired to when the car is at sitting ride hight. This can slow the car down as much as .04 in E.T. When you extend the ball joint, and have to install a larger upper snubber to reduce the travel some to see this benefit.

That may be the reason for them now. But when they first came out it was all about front end lift/travel for weight transfer....bump steer....what's was that??
I'm considering tube A-arms in future...

[Goat-Racer]

A small tire car with decent/moderate power needs all the FE travel it can get. Howe makes a variety of upper ball joint lengths. Nice quality, and much safer than the spacer deal.
The .500" tall units actually measured more like 3/4" longer than the Moog BJs that were in my car. At the power level mine is at, it was a good add.

[shotgun]

To add to the above.

A spacer simply move the A-arm up. This will get you more droop since the distance from the upper bump stop is greater. Since the bump stop contacts in the middle of the arm , you get about 1/2 the droop of the spacer thickness, 1" spacer= about 1/2" more droop.

Downside is it pushes the top of the spindle out causing more positive camber. It may take offset cross shafts (MOOG problem solver) to get it where you want it.

It does not help handling , as in turning on the street, and may hurt. This would could not be an issue on a strip only car.

Tall balljoints do the same for droop but are much "better". TBJ move the balljoint pivot points further apart making the A-arms more parallel. This reduces the camber changes the wheel goes threw during its travel. Good thing for handling.

You still may need offset cross shafts if there is not enough room in the shim pack to get it aligned.

I will be running TBJ on my current project. Nice thing I also found a 3 degree shim to go under the balljoint to keep its travel the same.

Don't know if the shim exists for A and F bodys, I am working on the Metric Gbody.

[TCSGTO]

I'm seriously thinking about trying these

http://www.umiperformance.com/catalo...roducts_id=608

A bit pricey but with the delrin bushings and revised ball joint location for more positive caster they seem like a nice setup. And USA made!