Team Camaro Tech banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 51 Posts

davidpozzi

· Premium Member
Joined
·
10,183 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 · (Edited)
#3 ·
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
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#4 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

yellow69RS said:
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
Click to expand...
Yes....at least me, deer in the headlights. Or maybe beer in the headlights.
 
Discussion starter · #5 ·
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
 
Discussion starter · #6 ·
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.
 
#7 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

davidpozzi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#8 ·
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.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#9 ·
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!
 
Discussion starter · #10 · (Edited)
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
 
#11 ·
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".
 
#12 ·
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
 
#13 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

yellow69RS said:
Welcome aboard Al, glad there's someone to keep me company in the land of confusion.

Jeff
Click to expand...
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.
 
#14 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

yellow69RS said:
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
Click to expand...
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 :D
 
Discussion starter · #15 · (Edited)
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

KevinW said:
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".
Click to expand...
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
 
Discussion starter · #16 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

BPOS said:
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.
Click to expand...
How tall are those? 3/4"?
They'd probably work. You won't need as much static neg camber setting when using Gmod plus any tall ball joints. Just watch the inner edge of the tires for wear. The G mod was developed for Bias ply racing tires. Most radials can use more neg camber than that but I haven't seen an ideal neg camber gain number for modern tires.
David
 
#17 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

davidpozzi said:
Joe, 245's up front are very limiting.
David
Click to expand...
David, what would you select as a 18" front tire range if:
rears were 275 -18- 35,
or, 285 -18 -30 or 35.

I'm retreading this year to 18X10 rear rims and 18X9 rims front, and plan on running 200 to 220 treadwear tires.



thx
joe c
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#18 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

David
I have a 69 with air ride, stock spindles, hotchkis front sway bar. I installed the howe tall ball joint on the top. What spec should I use for general street use for alignment?
Thanks
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#19 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

First let me say thanks to David for all that he does for our Camaro community. The wealth of information he transfers is nothing short of amazing.


Not sure if I missed something, but wouldn't we have a simple bolt in solution by combining aftermarket tubular arms with the built in caster gain along with the long ball joints to get the camber gain?
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#20 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Sorry, just read the Global West Sticky and I see that tubular arms with tall UBJ's is covered in that sticky.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
About this Discussion
50 Replies
19 Participants
Last post:
davidpozzi
Team Camaro Tech
posts
2.4M
members
90K
Since
1998
A forum community dedicated to 1st generation Chevy Camaros owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, restoration, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, reviews, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Bench Racing Engine Body Shop Performance Brakes, Suspension & Steering