Team Camaro Tech banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

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

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 51 Posts
Discussion starter · #21 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

joe clance said:
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.

Joe, a 69 has around 1.5" wider wheel well than the 67-68's that I have more experience with. I think on a 69, a 275 front and 285 is doable but I haven't done it. The only thing is, how much clearancing and fussing with fender lips you might have to do, and you really need to science out the right backspace.


thx
joe c
Click to expand...
MileHigh69 said:
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
Click to expand...
Lots of caster, it won't hurt you up to around 5.5 deg positive, camber is determined by how aggressive you want to drive the car.

Sorry I haven't checked this thread lately, I've been pretty buisy.
David
 
#23 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

TheBandit said:
David, what tool or tools do you like to use for measuring camber & caster?
Click to expand...
I'm not David but.....
I think the most important is accurately turning the wheel in and out the same amount each time while reading caster specs. IMHO to do that you need degree plates (turntables) to take readings the least expensive is probably a magnetic caster camber gauge. If I had room to keep one I might consider a used electronic machine form back in the 80's when I was using this stuff on a daily basis.

Jeff
 
#25 ·
Discussion starter · #27 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

TheBandit said:
David, what tool or tools do you like to use for measuring camber & caster?
Click to expand...
You really need turntables to free up the suspension from bind & let it settle to normal ride height, also when measuring caster, you must accurately turn the wheels in & out 20 degrees. A slight error in turning will affectthe reading, especially at high caster angles.
I use a circle track magnetic bubble gauge. If your wheel spokes are far enough apart, you can stick it to your rotor instead of hub. For some wheels, i have made bolt in adapters (thick steel washer) that fit in the center cap position. Speedway motors has them at good prices. I use circle track aluminum plates to check toe-in.
 
#28 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

What about SPC's... http://www.summitracing.com/parts/SPS-91000/
Worth it for checking at home and the track?
Will be ordering some PP ball joints. Just waiting for one more review. Thanks David for the help on these over at Pro-touring and here.

Robert
 
#29 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

I just purchased these, and the mounting holes do not line up with the original '69 rivit holes.

I had "stock" bolt in replacement upper ball joints in befor, and the holes matched. With the power performance ones, it looks like I have to open up the outboard holes.

Anyone else have this issue?

As always I find this out on a Saturday or Sunday when I cannot call the vendor directly......

Thanks!
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#30 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Hello Everyone,

I just finished installing these with Gulstrand offset shafts with stock A-arms and disck brake spindles in a '69.

Here are some things to consider:

1) The bolt holes did not line up to the stock rivet holes. Had to modify them alittle.
2) The grease boot does not contact the spindle. I used a stack of washers to keep the boot slightly compressed as would be with the stock boot.
3) As best I could measure, I could not detect any camber gain or loss at all throughout the suspension travel. My guess it was less than a degree. I have no real good way of measure caster - I set it by eye which as much caster as I could and still maintain close to 0 camber at ride hight for a baseline. My guess is I have less than 3 deg of caster.

Thanks Dave for all your work and time sharing your knowledge.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#31 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

installed mine with no problems, also installed hotchkis coils and leaf springs, havent gotten an alignement done (waiting on power steering conversion). BUT.... its night and day since installation... huge difference in handling, much, much less understeer, i actually experienced oversteer going fast around a corner ( i use to have excesive understeer).

i will update once car gets alignement.

thanks to everyone who posted suggestions and answers to my questions.
 
Discussion starter · #32 · (Edited)
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

Latest news.
Power Performance has changed it's name to Proforged L.L.C http://www.proforged.com/
They are coming out with .5" taller outer tie rod ends. I have tested them and incorporated the results into my spreadsheet below.
The optimum combo is .5" tall upper ball joints, with .5" taller outer tie rod ends.
To put a little pressure on the boot, you can cut a 1/2" slice of neoprene hose and slip it over the ball joint stud. There have been some issues with the bolt pattern, especially with aftermarket A arms, usually two holes need some filing to fit. I had similar issues with the Howe uppers. If your ball joint won't fit through the hole in the A arm, bolt it in from below.
David

Image
 

Attachments

#33 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance .5" taller ball joints

davidpozzi said:
Latest news.
Power Performance has changed it's name to Proforged L.L.C http://www.proforged.com/
There have been some issues with the bolt pattern, especially with aftermarket A arms, usually two holes need some filing to fit. I had similar issues with the Howe uppers. If your ball joint won't fit through the hole in the A arm, bolt it in from below.
David

Image
Click to expand...
FYI, They dropped right in CPP's upper arms. Their ball joint area is boxed-in and mount flat to the ball joint's flat surface and lined up perfectly from above or below.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#34 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

Hi

I come back with this thread,

I have a 68 camaro, stock A arms, stock spindles, guldstrand mod, new Iroc Z fast steering box, moog 6320 springs cutted 1/2 coil, and I purchased proforged tall ball joints and tall tie rod ends.

Now I wonder if I am really going to install these upper ball joints as I don't find return of experience from use with gulstrand mod. (it seems it will be at the limit to use both in combination -gulstrand mod + taller ball joint- for camber gains in turns)

I 'd like to get your experience on this.
Thanks


Marc
 
Discussion starter · #35 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

Marc, If I were doing a lot of track driving or autocross, I would do both the Guldstrand mod, and the .5" tall upper ball joints. 6320 is an OK road spring, not stiff enough for track our autocross if you are serious.
 
#36 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

Hi David
Excuse me from my time getting back to this, I am in the process of installing then taller upper ball joints, taller tie rod ends with gultrand mod done and with factory A arms.
I guess I will improve bump steer issues and get better camber curves.

My worry is over the movement of the upper A arm in this configuration, I am not going to bind the upper ball joint on maximum suspension compression? Does the A arm still allow normal ball joint movement??
Did someone tested that?

Regards
 
#37 · (Edited)
Re: Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

Marc said:
Hi David
Excuse me from my time getting back to this, I am in the process of installing then taller upper ball joints, taller tie rod ends with gultrand mod done and with factory A arms.
I guess I will improve bump steer issues and get better camber curves.

My worry is over the movement of the upper A arm in this configuration, I am not going to bind the upper ball joint on maximum suspension compression? Does the A arm still allow normal ball joint movement??
Did someone tested that?

Regards
Click to expand...
I am inquiring the same thing. The 1/2" taller upper ball joints w/o the Guldstrand mod resulted in my car handling well but not as well as with the GS mod. I can drop the a-arm cross shafts back down to the GS mod holes leaving the tall ball joints if they won't bind. Or remove the taller upper ball joints and reinstate the GS mod. What is my best plan of action?

I see that the Mu$t@ng guys have a wedge that angles the upper ball joint's base to eliminate bind when setting up the Shelby Mod. http://www.mustangmonthly.com/howto/mump_0705_upper_control_arms/photo_04.html Is there any kind of wedge available to us for the Guldstrand mod?

My car is street driven. Thus far no drag racing or track racing.
 
Discussion starter · #38 · (Edited)
Re: Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

In my testing of the 1/2" tall upper ball joints, I did not have upper ball joint binding even when the lower A arm was touching the spring bucket in bump. This was on a stock subframe without the G mod.

I think you would have binding right at full bump if adding the G mod to a .5" tall upper ball joint. You should always test it yourself to be sure. It's too critical an issue to take someone elses word for it in my opinion. Probably any upper arms made for tall spindles would work, Ride Tech for example. The Mustang shims are probably OK but I haven't tested them.

Moving the upper A arm changes the roll center location so it can have effects on front to rear balance. The higher the outer end, or lower the inner end, the more the front roll stiffness goes up. This can make the car understeer more but is usually offset by increased front traction.
 
#39 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

Hi!

Some fresh info :
I did install finally, with gulstrand mod, the proforged 1/2" taller upper ball joints on original A arms and I tested movement before spring install to check for possible bendings.
The ball joint seems very far from bending at maximum suspension travel, which is good news.
I also have installed the taller tie rod end, to get them 1/2" lower. This is clearing my wheels : 17" wheel with 4.75 backspace but by not much!

Now I need to get the correct allignement settings done and drive it!


Regards
 
#40 ·
Re: Test Results, Power Performance/ Proforged .5" taller ball joints

hi im in the middle of my suspension rebuild for the front I have gw upper and lower control arms with the urethane bushings qa1 coil overs to adjust ride height 11/8 solid sway bar. gw solid body bushings and hotchkis sub frame connectors. In the rear I have hotchkis 11/2 in. lowered leaf springs 3 leaf gw del a lum rear shackles and cal tracks my question is which way I should go Guldstrand mod or long upper ball joint thanks omar
 
21 - 40 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