Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints - Team Camaro Tech
Brakes, Suspension & Steering Conversion questions, Steering & Handling

 2Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 6th, 10, 09:33 PM Thread Starter
Moderator
David Pozzi
 
davidpozzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Central California, USA
Posts: 10,061
Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

I just finished testing some taller upper and lower ball joints, from Power Performance. They increase negative camber gain without having to relocate the upper A arm holes, as with the Guldstrand Mod. I hope this helps someone, it took me a lot of time to do it.
David

View the test here: PROFORGED .5 TALLER BALL JOINTS

Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

67 RS 327 original owner. 1965 Lola T-70

Last edited by davidpozzi; Apr 1st, 19 at 07:04 PM.
davidpozzi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 7th, 10, 08:01 PM
Gold Lifetime Member
Jeff
 
yellow69RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aurora, IL
Posts: 4,958
Send a message via Yahoo to yellow69RS
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

OK, I'll be the brave one. I admit it. I don't understand the data.
Maybe the other 50 people feel the same way? (no comments)

Jeff
yellow69RS is offline  
post #3 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 7th, 10, 08:42 PM
Gold Lifetime Member
joseph l clance
 
joe clance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 991
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

good to know Dave. ive installed the power performcance tall uppers a year ago. car was already gulstranded. since the car is also hotchkiss spring and bar loaded, the front suspension travel is significantly reduced from stock. since suspension travel is reduced, i left it gulstranded /tall uppered and had great results in AutoX events this year.

curious, if the gains at reduced travel (say < 1.5" of bump) are as impressive as the tall joint alone at 2.5" of bump)

I was going to install the lower talls this winter, but after seeing your results and not currently suffering bump steer or shoot out, im opting to go wider up front from 245 to 255 on a 9" rim for next year.


thx
joe c

69 X-44 base coupe, ZZ4, 16lb nodular flywheel, Center force DF clutch + PP, Holley 600DP, Hooker super comp 1 3/4 ceramics, 2.5" dual exhaust w/ X-pipe, flowmaster 40 series mufflers.
joe clance is offline  
 
post #4 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 7th, 10, 08:48 PM
Senior Tech
Al
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver, USA
Posts: 10,511
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow69RS View Post
OK, I'll be the brave one. I admit it. I don't understand the data.
Maybe the other 50 people feel the same way? (no comments)

Jeff
Yes....at least me, deer in the headlights. Or maybe beer in the headlights.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
BPOS is offline  
post #5 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 7th, 10, 08:51 PM Thread Starter
Moderator
David Pozzi
 
davidpozzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Central California, USA
Posts: 10,061
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Height numbers (-.5, -.1, -1.5, etc ) going up from zero are the chassis in dive. Zero is a normal ride height for a lowered Camaro.

The goal of the tall ball joints is to increase negative camber gain.
The .5" taller upper alone is the best bang for the buck, .8 degrees neg camber gain per inch of bump (wheel up) is a good goal for a custom subframe, this trick gives you .4 degrees per inch.

Bump steer is the wheel turning when it should not turn. The stock camaro has bumpsteer, ths makes it a little worse. The fix is to relocate the tie rod end lower, an extended tie rod end stud would do this.
David

Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

67 RS 327 original owner. 1965 Lola T-70
davidpozzi is offline  
post #6 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 7th, 10, 08:56 PM Thread Starter
Moderator
David Pozzi
 
davidpozzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Central California, USA
Posts: 10,061
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Joe,
I plan on testing with Guldstrand mod too. I'm working on a practical bumpsteer reduction method. Off hand, I'd say you are on the upper limit of what you can or should do to increase neg camber gain using the tall upper in combination with the Guldstrand mod. I'm testing 2nd gen Camaro tall balljoints now.

Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

67 RS 327 original owner. 1965 Lola T-70
davidpozzi is offline  
post #7 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 7th, 10, 09:09 PM
Gold Lifetime Member
joseph l clance
 
joe clance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 991
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidpozzi View Post
Joe,
I plan on testing with Guldstrand mod too. I'm working on a practical bumpsteer reduction method. Off hand, I'd say you are on the upper limit of what you can or should do to increase neg camber gain using the tall upper in combination with the Guldstrand mod. I'm testing 2nd gen Camaro tall balljoints now.
Agreed, however, at reduced suspension travel, (i doubt there is two inches of bump with the hotchkiss front spring/bar), the gulstrand mod provides the positive caster that the tall ball joint cant.

i can say the car was well behaved this year. Got all i could out of 245 fronts with the set up..

thx
joe c

69 X-44 base coupe, ZZ4, 16lb nodular flywheel, Center force DF clutch + PP, Holley 600DP, Hooker super comp 1 3/4 ceramics, 2.5" dual exhaust w/ X-pipe, flowmaster 40 series mufflers.
joe clance is offline  
post #8 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 7th, 10, 10:50 PM
Senior Tech
Steiner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Lyman, SC
Posts: 8,348
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Thanks very much for the info, David. Think I'll try a set of the uppers.

'69 Camaro
Dart 400-AFR 195-224/224 HR-Powerjection III TB with F.A.S.T. Sportsman XFI
TKO 600-Moser 3.42-Detroit Truetrac
500hp/538lbft

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

'69 Camaro Beater-SFT 327-M20-Moser 4.10-sold
'02 Z/28 vert-stock-sold and totaled
Steiner is offline  
post #9 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 10, 03:57 AM
Moderator
Kevin
 
KevinW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 10,995
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Interesting info Dave! A couple of questions... I am planning a stock front end rebuild (69 Camaro vert, 26" tire on 14x6 rallys), but I plan to to use a 1" solid sway bar and change the springs to 6320s.

Would it benefit my suspension to use the .5 uppers?

What would the alignment spec's be?

I found a local shop with a new alignment rack, but he has no idea what the spec should be. I was going to use yours from your site.

thanks!

Kevin


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
KevinW is offline  
post #10 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 10, 09:39 AM Thread Starter
Moderator
David Pozzi
 
davidpozzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Central California, USA
Posts: 10,061
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

The .5 taller upper ball joints are a step in the right direction, they don't do quite as much as the Guldstrand mod, because they don't increase caster like the G mod does. I think they are well worth using on any Camaro 1st or 2nd gen. The stock 2nd gen Camaro camber curve is at least as bad as a 1st gen.

Joe, 245's up front are very limiting.
David

Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

67 RS 327 original owner. 1965 Lola T-70

Last edited by davidpozzi; Apr 1st, 19 at 07:07 PM.
davidpozzi is offline  
post #11 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 8th, 10, 10:54 AM
Moderator
Kevin
 
KevinW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 10,995
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Dave, thanks. So the alignment specs would still be these from your site?

* Caster 5 deg positive, or as much positive as you can achieve up to 5 deg, can use .5 deg additional positive on the passenger side to compensate for road crown. A common setting would be: LF 5 deg positive, RF 5.5 deg positive.

*Camber -.25 to .5 degee
*Toe in, 1/16" to 1/8".

Kevin


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
KevinW is offline  
post #12 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 10, 10:24 AM
Gold Lifetime Member
Jeff
 
yellow69RS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aurora, IL
Posts: 4,958
Send a message via Yahoo to yellow69RS
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

David thanks for the brief explanation. That got me started the right derection at least. looking forward to the results of Gidstrand and the tall joint test.

Kevin i think those specs would serve a spirited street car really well. If it's a dedicated autocross set up you might want more negative camber. I'm sure someone with more experience will chime in as well.

Welcome aboard Al, glad there's someone to keep me company in the land of confusion.

Jeff
yellow69RS is offline  
post #13 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 10, 10:37 AM
Senior Tech
Al
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Vancouver, USA
Posts: 10,511
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow69RS View Post

Welcome aboard Al, glad there's someone to keep me company in the land of confusion.

Jeff
Ya! I understand the concept, just didn't understand the numbers. I have a hard time thinking in abstract. I tend to think in really big terms....so I imagine a spindle that's 10 feet tall, and what effect compressing a spring a bit would have on the stub axle as relates to parallel to the gound - not much. Then think of a 1" spindle and the effect the same amount of spring compression would have on the stub axle - quite a lot.

My car has the Howe x-tall UBJ's, which I understand would be too much of a good thing if used in combination with the G mod - interested to hear David's thoughts on that.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
BPOS is offline  
post #14 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 10, 11:44 AM
Moderator
Kevin
 
KevinW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Millstone, NJ
Posts: 10,995
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellow69RS View Post
Kevin i think those specs would serve a spirited street car really well. If it's a dedicated autocross set up you might want more negative camber. I'm sure someone with more experience will chime in as well.

Jeff
Mine is just a stock 69 heavy vert street car, nothing spirited about it Just want to be able to go into corners and not have to slow to a crawl like I do now

Kevin


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
KevinW is offline  
post #15 of 51 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 10, 09:33 PM Thread Starter
Moderator
David Pozzi
 
davidpozzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Central California, USA
Posts: 10,061
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinW View Post
Dave, thanks. So the alignment specs would still be these from your site?

* Caster 5 deg positive, or as much positive as you can achieve up to 5 deg, can use .5 deg additional positive on the passenger side to compensate for road crown. A common setting would be: LF 5 deg positive, RF 5.5 deg positive.

*Camber -.25 to .5 degee
*Toe in, 1/16" to 1/8".
Yes, use those specs for a street car. .5 deg neg camber is good on a cruiser, 1.5 is a spec I use a lot for a street/ autox car.

On the subject of negative camber gain. .7 to .8 degrees per inch of bump is a commonly mentioned number.
David

Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

67 RS 327 original owner. 1965 Lola T-70

Last edited by davidpozzi; Sep 12th, 10 at 10:38 PM.
davidpozzi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Team Camaro Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address.
NOTE we receive a lot of registrations with bad email addresses. IF you do not receive your confirmation email you will not be able to post. contact support and we will try and help.
Be sure you enter a valid email address and check your spam folder as well.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome