I just put my upper and lower Speed Tech arms on this morning. Please excuse the nasty rough subframe in the pictures. I figured I'd test fit everything before I had the subframe blasted and painted it. I did the Guldstrand mod to the upper arm mounts also this morning. In the following pictures I'm going to try and show an interference with the upper arm mounting cross bar and the radius where the upper subframe mount curls inboard. You'll see the two 1/8 inch shims on both mounting bolts. Without those shims the cross bar will not sit flat against the subframe ears. It hits/interferes with the radius at the bottom of that mounting ear. Is this the way they always are and I need to modify that beautiful stainless crossbar or cut some material out of the subframe mounting ear?

The next problem I ran into is that the tire and rim in the picture is a 235-60r15 on a factory 7 inch rally. At full steering lock it hits the upper arm! Does this mean that there's no chance of running anything wider than a 235 with these aftermarket super special A arms? I can't move/space the tire outboard anymore or it will hit the fender lip. I think there was actually more clearance on the factory arm! If anything I was hoping to move a larger rim and a larger tire inboard. Am I doing something stupid here........I can't believe that the arms will only support clearance for a 235 tire..............

Is there another brand of upper A arm that will support a wider tire? Ultimately I want to run a 275-40r17 tire on a 17 x 9 rim. I know I will have to notch the subframe. I have a plan for that but it all goes out the window if I don't have clearance at the A arm for the tire/rim.

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00271.JPG

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00277.JPG

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00276.JPG

Very frustrated, Lance

The rear bolt problem is common with any Camaro with Guldstrand mod. Since you have the subframe bare, I'd warm the offending area with a torch and beat it in a bit.

You will have more shims on the rear bolt when the car is aligned, probably more than 3 shims, so if the inboard shim is shortened, you won't have any issues with the shaft hitting as-is. But it is a good time to deal with it via the torch method and then you don't have to worry about always keeping the short shim against the bracket.

The turn angle test you did won't be accurate unless you have your toe set on both sides. In the photo, the RH side controls a RH turn limit of the left side. You will have more shims on the rear bolt of this setup if you set it at the desired 5+ caster. You probably have 3 deg as set in the photo.

The Speed Tech lower arms have adjustable turn stops in them, so you can limit turn angle with that adjustment and prevent any contact with the upper arms. A first gen Camaro has a bit more turn angle total than later cars. Limiting it a bit won't hurt manuverability as much as doing it to a later model car.

The next best option is the Global West upper arm. I have a lot of fabrication experience and tools, so I wouldn't hesitate in modifying the arms if I were having that problem, but I understand why you wound't want to do it. I would do a bit more checking on your mockup and if it still isn't going to clear, you might see if Speed Tech can change the design and trade you for a redesigned set.

It is a good idea to carefully check for clearance in all aspects of travel. It's a lot easier to deal with issues now than later.
David

Will do the torch fix. That's not a big deal.

I also have already thought about modding the arms. Just seems very wrong. They're beautiful the way they come from Speedtech. It's gonna be a crime to cut and hack them :) Plus it's not like they were cheap :( I'm also checking all this with the arms hanging down in a fully extended position sitting on the bump stop inside the upper arm. I realize that's worse case but what if that combination happens and it smacks the upper arm = not good. Bottom line it needs to clear thru-out the entire travel range.

If I put the 17x9 on it and adjust so that the outside face of the tire is in the appropriate place to clear the outer fender lip..the rim hits the arm before I get much turn radius at all. Far from a turning radius you could just live with. I'll go put that mock up back together and take a picture. You'll be surprised how little turn you get before it hits. It would take a major re-design of that front tube on the arm to get it to clear.

Contact at the rim. I think this would be about a 300 ft turning radius :D I'm going to space it an inch out like it was a 17x8 and see how far it will turn.

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00278.JPG


http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00279.JPG

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00280.JPG

unless you absolutely have to have the speed tech, these spc arms from sc&c are cheaper and will remedy at least most of your problem. no shims, either!
http://s175.photobucket.com/albums/w154/guccieng/?action=view&current=118_1827.jpg
http://s175.photobucket.com/albums/w154/guccieng/?action=view&current=118_1882.jpg

CarlC has those arms and has a 275X17 front tire on the car. Haven't heard of any problems like this. http://www.geocities.com/casanoc/
You aren't likely to see that much droop when driving unless you are cornering while airborne, :) but I agree you want to clear in any position.

Is the upper ball joint stock height?
David

CarlC has those arms and has a 275X17 front tire on the car. Haven't heard of any problems like this. http://www.geocities.com/casanoc/
You aren't likely to see that much droop when driving unless you are cornering while airborne, :) but I agree you want to clear in any position.

Is the upper ball joint stock height?
David

the picture shows the extra tall howe precision ball joint without the g-mod, but i belive you can put any stock ball joint in there as well, but you will lose some droop.

He has done the G mod. It's in his first post.
I don't see a need for the tall balljoints if you have done the G mod.
To be fair to Speed Tech, those balljoints were not in production when the arms first came out.
There are also now three lengths of upper balljoints:
1. Stock
2. 1/2" taller
3. 3/4" or 1" taller, I don't know the exact height.
David

I think the whole problem comes from the fact that you are doing all these test with the suspension at full droop
if you set the suspension at ride height you will have tons of clearance (well at least on the upper arm, not at the frame)

Agree with all above.

The shim thing is normal with the g/s mod. another fix option would be to permanently tack the shortened shim to the bracket. I actually used a washer with one side trimmed down.

The SC&C arms will give a LOT more clearance, plus it's really nice not to have to use shims to align.

You do NOT want both the tall joint and the G/S mod. Standard ball joints will give you more clearance.

You don't even want to be looking at this stuff at full droop. Take the springs out, and use a jack to hold her at normal ride ht for clearance checking, raise and lower the jack to simulate jounce and rebound.

A first gen Camaro with G mod will have more neg camber gain than a Second gen, OR a new vette. Adding a taller UBJ in addition to the G mod is going to increase it even more.
David

The problem you are having is that you are hanging the suspension!! the car will only be in that position if the front end is in the air and if that is the case and your wheels are turned i will assume that you have WAYYYYYY bigger problems to contend with than the rim touching the upper arm. like the landing!
if you have any other issues please feel free to call me directly
1-888-467-1625
Blake Foster
president
Speed Tech

I think the whole problem comes from the fact that you are doing all these test with the suspension at full droop
if you set the suspension at ride height you will have tons of clearance (well at least on the upper arm, not at the frame)

Yes sir,
I understand your point that at full droop it will maximize the problem. I understand that it will only rarely be in this position. Consider that you are turning right into a steep driveway when entering a parking lot,etc and the right wheel is already on the driveway ramp and the left one is hanging into the gutter. Right there you have full droop with the wheel cranked well on it's way to full lock. My goal is to have a fully functional front end while at the same time maximizing the handling characteristics that 40 years of suspension design have made available to me. At this point I'm not really ready to compromise and have a somewhat functional front end (I might end up there, but I haven't given up on the goal yet).

Lance

Agree with all above.

You do NOT want both the tall joint and the G/S mod. Standard ball joints will give you more clearance.

You don't even want to be looking at this stuff at full droop. Take the springs out, and use a jack to hold her at normal ride ht for clearance checking, raise and lower the jack to simulate jounce and rebound.

I looked closely at the ball joints that came with the arms and they sure look like standard ball joints to me.

The spring is out. I figured it would be much easier that way to test fit and cycle it through it's range.

Also something I haven't mentioned yet is that I have only taken one side of the car apart so I still have the other "stock" side controlling the "lock to lock" measurement. I have the sub-frame sitting on four jackstand on the floor of my garage (the best way I could think of mocking it up since the body is on a rotisserie next to it).

The problem you are having is that you are hanging the suspension!! the car will only be in that position if the front end is in the air and if that is the case and your wheels are turned i will assume that you have WAYYYYYY bigger problems to contend with than the rim touching the upper arm. like the landing!
if you have any other issues please feel free to call me directly
1-888-467-1625
Blake Foster
president
Speed Tech

Yes sir,

400Bird had the same response above with respect to the full droop. I answered with a scenario that would cause it without jumping the car :D.
I would just suck to have the A arm tube get smacked and beat up. I've only just begun (one day so far) to experiment with all these parts and maybe I'll figure out a way to get the combo of parts to work together. I'm going to try to get out there later today and look and experiment with different positions and achieve a greater understanding of my problem and ways to fix it or resign myself to what I can't fix.

Thank you very much for the offer to call you directly. Right now I don't really understand the problem myself well enough to get the most value out of a conversation with someone like yourself. Maybe after I study the problem more and have a greater understanding of it's dynamics I will give you a call.

Lance

One other thing I have noticed........ Is the bump stop on the bottom arm supposed to be on the opposite side of the arm compared to a factory arm for a reason? When you look at the spot it is supposed to contact on the factory sub-frame it's on the wrong side?

your talking the lower arm now?

It depends on what year the sub frame is the 67 68 and 69 all had the bump stop in different locations. we have to standardize the location or produce 3 different arms and that would not make any sense.

we have talked about adding a second bump stop location to address this issue but since this is so new to us ( we at killer customs ) just purchased speed tech 2 weeks ago there are many little issues to deal with and this one is down the list.

your talking the lower arm now?

It depends on what year the sub frame is the 67 68 and 69 all had the bump stop in different locations. we have to standardize the location or produce 3 different arms and that would not make any sense.

we have talked about adding a second bump stop location to address this issue but since this is so new to us ( we at killer customs ) just purchased speed tech 2 weeks ago there are many little issues to deal with and this one is down the list.

Yes sir. the lower arm. It's on the same side on the Speed Tech arm as the turning stop. The 69 sub-frame has the corresponding "flat" spot on the front side opposite the turning stop adjustment bolt. It's not that big of a deal I'll just drill and tap a hole in the right location and move it.

Another simple little improvement would be to make the nut that gets welded on to the lower arm for the adjustable turning stop a "self-locking nut" so that when you adjusted the steering travel it would stay where you put it without using Loctite or double nutting it or something....

Would you by chance know what type of steel is used in the tube for the top arm? I'm starting to seriously consider notching the top arm where I'm having trouble. I'm not there yet as I definately want to make sure that there isn't a way to overcome this another way but if it comes down to it I'll notch the arm.

Lance

Yes sir,
I understand your point that at full droop it will maximize the problem. I understand that it will only rarely be in this position. Consider that you are turning right into a steep driveway when entering a parking lot,etc and the right wheel is already on the driveway ramp and the left one is hanging into the gutter. Right there you have full droop with the wheel cranked well on it's way to full lock. My goal is to have a fully functional front end while at the same time maximizing the handling characteristics that 40 years of suspension design have made available to me. At this point I'm not really ready to compromise and have a somewhat functional front end (I might end up there, but I haven't given up on the goal yet).

Lance


unless you plan on having no front or rear sway bar, I dont think you will ever get one side a full droop without the other being close to full droop, the scenario you described would have one side of the suspension pretty well compressed (I think I would have to be all the way compressed to fully unload the other side). Here the sway bar would be working to even out the height between left and right sides

But, I hope you can find a way around this problem, I dont think I would be too happy with it either, but you might be stuck with it. I would look into a taller upper bump stop, then the suspension will not droop down as far

unless you plan on having no front or rear sway bar, I dont think you will ever get one side a full droop without the other being close to full droop, the scenario you described would have one side of the suspension pretty well compressed (I think I would have to be all the way compressed to fully unload the other side). Here the sway bar would be working to even out the height between left and right sides

But, I hope you can find a way around this problem, I dont think I would be too happy with it either, but you might be stuck with it. I would look into a taller upper bump stop, then the suspension will not droop down as far

Yep thought about that . welding a couple of shims under the upper bump stop....

The material is A513-3 DOM x 1.25 od .120 wall thickness. i think if you take your time and wait till your car is together you will find that there is nothing to be concerned about, there are many many set out there and many with wider wheels than you are running. once again if you have concerns call me, i would not start notching the arms!

Just a few things. I`d like to see a lot more clearance than that,even in droop. What back spacing are your wheels?
As for the tall ball joints,the ones in those pics aren`t. The G mod is worth doing but it`s only enough to make poor geometry mediocre. We`ve done the measuring and crunched the numbers on a bunch of 1st gens. On the average they`ll loose the + camber gain and pick up just a little - gain in bump. C5/C6 Corvettes still have more and they use very mild camber curves. Then again they`re front mid engined cars that are much wider and lower than a 1st gen and they have totally different requirements. 2nd gens also respond well to more camber gain and a slightly raised roll center. Mods to that effect were even recomended by GM for SCCA TransAm racing. Our 2nd gen Stage 1 is based on their geometry.
Tall ball joints can be used in a number of different ways. We currently have 7 different tall upper ball joints available for the 1st gen so we can tailor them to specific applications. A moderately taller upper ball joint combined with the most common form of the G mod will yield camber gain very similar to a `93-`02 4th Gen Z-28 and a roll center between 2"-3" above ground. That`s quite good,even by modern standards. I would not recomend running our X-tall Sever DUty ball joints with the G Mod. They`re tall enough to stand on their own (they don`t need no stinkin G Mod :p ) and provide better than G Mod geometry with no drilling,cutting etc. Hope you get your problem straightened out Lance. Mark SC&C

Mark,
Thanks for your input on this thread. I was mistaken that he was using the tall balljoints. I had just looked at another thread that had pics of them in use and thought they were on this car.

I think it's the C4 that has a very poor neg camber gain, I guess I should stop calling them "new".:o
David

David,to me anything with a 3rd brake light is a "new car". :thumbsup: C4s didn`t have much - camber gain either,even after they changed the UCA pickups and UCAs to get a little more. We have a Stage 1 for those too.
Come to think of it none of the Vettes ever had much. They still manage to work pretty well,and the newer ones very well but like I said they also have MUCH different dynamics and requirements than most muscle cars. :yes: Mark SC&C

Some more pictures in a relatively nominal position suspension wise. I have a friend who's car I looked at to figure out at what position the arms would be at with an engine and body on the car. This is pretty close to what I beleive it would be with the suspension loaded and NOT at full droop. 17 x 9's just aren't going to work for me :( It will work with a 17 x 8 but that not exactly the ideal rim for a 275. I know people are running 275's on a 8 inch rim but......... The rim in the picture has an "adjusted" backspace of 5.75. I know where the outside of the tire must be to clear the fender lip so I adjusted the position of the rim by using spacers between it and the rotor face to put that outside face of the tire where I need it to be to work with the fender lip.

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC04044.JPG

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC04045.JPG

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC4056.JPG

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC4057.JPG

Lance

I don't believe there is anyway a 5.75" backspace will work on the front of a stock subframe without major interference, especially on a 9" rim, I would be suprised if an 8" would even work. I had 18X8 with a 4.75"BS and a 235 tire and at full lock they would ever so slightly touch the subframe.

I don't believe there is anyway a 5.75" backspace will work on the front of a stock subframe without major interference, especially on a 9" rim, I would be suprised if an 8" would even work. I had 18X8 with a 4.75"BS and a 235 tire and at full lock they would ever so slightly touch the subframe.

Agreed. I already accepted that I will have to notch the sub-frame for tire clearance. It never even reaches the sub-frame as it hits the upper arm first.

Agreed. I already accepted that I will have to notch the sub-frame for tire clearance. It never even reaches the sub-frame as it hits the upper arm first.

Ahh, hence your issue....I had DSE arms, and no interference. I hope you get it solved.:)

I sure hope I don't have this problem. Mine are installed but I do not have the tires on yet. I am still setting the rear end and suspension in. I do not have the gulstrand mod. Prior to installing the A-arm both the front tires on this '67 touched the front sub frame in the back (235-60R-15).

I will say this is the first thread I have seen in nearly a year of being a member here (and many, many searches), that have had an issue with Speed Tech products.

I sure hope I don't have this problem. Mine are installed but I do not have the tires on yet. I am still setting the rear end and suspension in. I do not have the gulstrand mod. Prior to installing the A-arm both the front tires on this '67 touched the front sub frame in the back (235-60R-15).

I will say this is the first thread I have seen in nearly a year of being a member here (and many, many searches), that have had an issue with Speed Tech products.

I agree. I searched also. I did my homework before buying. Carl_C http://www.geocities.com/casanoc/ runs the same setup as I am trying to run according to his website. I talked to Blake Foster (the new owner of Speed Tech) and I have to say he was a nice person and very honest. I think the problem is I'm just trying to push the envelope here a bit to hard.

I have a few options as I see it.

A: Return the arms and shop for something else.

B: Cut the arms and re-route that front tube. Lot's of work and re-powdercoating the arm when I'm done. Plus the arms are very nice peices of hardware and it'd suck to cut them.

C: Run a narrower rim so that portion that intereferes moves outboard. But a narrower rim will give me less tire patch on the ground....

It really isn't an option to run the 9 inch rim with less backspace as it'd just end up hitting on the fender lip.

Lance

Don't forget to allow for neg camber when figuring tire to fender clearance. .25 to .5 deg neg camber setting will tip the tire in at the top.
David

Don't forget to allow for neg camber when figuring tire to fender clearance. .25 to .5 deg neg camber setting will tip the tire in at the top.
David

How much will it move it out at the edge of the tire where it would be hitting the fender lip?

It moves the top of the tire in towards the vehicle centerline by about 3/16" for a 25" tire (1/2 degree camber).

My car is now on the ground, but no engine, trans, or radiator. I have ZERO clearance issues. I have PLENTY of room - upper and lower - inside and out. NO touching or binding that I can find.

Just thought I would let those who are following this thread know my findings. And once again I have Speed Tech upper and lower control arms in combination with the Hotchkis TVS suspension kit. I also installed AGR 12:1 billet steering box, new GM rag joint, and all new steering linkage (if any of that matters).

I too had the same problem. Cured it by putting in a longer spacer to limit the amount of suspension droop.

On a lowered car, there is way more droop travel than you really need. I don't see any problem in spacing the bumpstop.

I too had the same problem. Cured it by putting in a longer spacer to limit the amount of suspension droop.

Can you tell me how much backspacing your running on what width wheel?

The problem is almost as severe at the working range (not full droop) if you reference the second set of pictures I posted you can see that I've raised the arms to a more normal working position and still have problems.

Thanks, Lance

17 x 9.5 x 5.5bs. There's very little room to work with so rim envelope dimensions will come into play. There's info on my website.

A 5"bs MIGHT work but would likely require at least -1* camber and a reduced caster to clear the aft wheelwell.

Lance is trying to run a 02 Camaro wheel that has 6.75 back space on a 17" x 8"( i think) rim.with a 1" spacer, that is a lot of back space. has anyone else tried this fitment with the speed tech arms??? we have not run into this in the past.

Lance is trying to run a 02 Camaro wheel that has 6.75 back space on a 17" x 8"( i think) rim.with a 1" spacer, that is a lot of back space. has anyone else tried this fitment with the speed tech arms??? we have not run into this in the past.

Almost :) It's a 17" x 9" and yes with a 1" spacer. It not really what I want to run but it is something I have laying around that because it has tons of backspace I can play with different size spacers to put the outboard side where I want it to be and then check the inside clearances.

After thinking about CarlC's comments and thinking about his backspacing I think I'm going to have to move the wheel outboard a little and then put the car back together (Lot's of work at this point) and see how everything fits with outer wheel well lip.

I ordered my rims @ 5.75" BS so that I could have the option to tune the BS accordingly. A 1/4" spacer was needed, hence 5.5" BS.

Also, the Vintage Wheel Works V45 hoop is pretty thin and may fit a bit easier than a more square inner lip.

I ordered my rims @ 5.75" BS so that I could have the option to tune the BS accordingly. A 1/4" spacer was needed, hence 5.5" BS.

Also, the Vintage Wheel Works V45 hoop is pretty thin and may fit a bit easier than a more square inner lip.


Thanks for the details Carl, I think you're right that there's a very fine line of combination of parts where it would work. Unfortunately my car is completely apart right now so it's impossible to fine tune the combo to that precision without the fenders in place and the suspension fully loaded.

Lance

Well I found a solution :)

(Once again please excuse the filthy subframe. Now that everything fits it's time to make it pretty :) )

http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00284.JPG


http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00285.JPG


http://www.camaros.net/showroom/data/500/medium/DSC00286.JPG


Lance

Nice frame notches. Did you add any reinforcement to the structure around the steering box? That area of the sbframe is already pretty narrow-of coourse there are "crush sleeves" inside for each of the three mounting bolts.

Could you post up some "during" photos?

Nice frame notches. Did you add any reinforcement to the structure around the steering box? That area of the sbframe is already pretty narrow-of coourse there are "crush sleeves" inside for each of the three mounting bolts.

Could you post up some "during" photos?

There's a seperate post about the notching here:

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=114005

I retained the "crush sleeves" but made it shorter and stronger.

Lance

Lance i am glad to see you got your wheels to work with the other arm, still looks really close, is that at full lock?
slightly different shape to the arm than ours, we have started to redesign an upper arm to work better at really low ride heights and with hi off set wheels, stay tuned.

Lance, I had completely missed your othe thread!

You may recall, we chatted a bit about this subject previously. I think you did an excellent job man. Those pictures are worth 1000 words for sure. Great work!

Congratulations. :beers:


,