rear control arms

[Clone TIE Pilot]

I would like to think that UMI has tested these arms and they aren't going to "bind up and cause snap oversteer".
Shortly after I bought my Monte 14 years ago,I boxed both upper & lower control arms and installed poly bushings.I put this car through some very spirited driving over the years and never once saw any signs of the rear suspension binding or snap oversteer.
Guy

The thing is UMI may only intend these parts for race track use and not street use. FE3X Clone explained what I was talking about very well. One thing to keep in mind is that some performance parts, especially suspension parts may not be designed or intended for street use and only for track use, you just have to really know what you are doing and when it doubt stay stock until you find out more. If you ever had snap oversteer there is a high chance you would not be telling the tale. But with your current setup you have an increased risk of it happening. Also with your set up, your LCA frame mounts are now twisting, with 4 links something has to twist and the LCA mounts are not designed to take twisting since the arms are supposed to do it.

Of couse I am going by the pictures of the UMI arms in the link which appear to only have poly pushings and no roto joints. It could be an outdated picture and UMI could have upgraded to roto joints, but better check before you purchase.

The arms Anubis is selling are nice pieces and clearly do have the required roto joints.

 

[L92 OLDS]

I would like to think that UMI has tested these arms and they aren't going to "bind up and cause snap oversteer".
Shortly after I bought my Monte 14 years ago,I boxed both upper & lower control arms and installed poly bushings.I put this car through some very spirited driving over the years and never once saw any signs of the rear suspension binding or snap oversteer.
Guy

The arms Anubis is selling are nice pieces and clearly do have the required roto joints.

Thank you sir.

Yes, the factory rear suspension pretty much sucks balls if you plan to put some power to the street or take your car through the cones.. The GM design was a performance compromise and designed to get the job done for reduced cost and complexity.

 

[86judge]

I can only speak for the umi control arms with the roto joint, but I am extremely happy with the performance gained by the adjustable uppers and tubular lowers. I done a 12 bolt swap and tried to use factory control arms. Not a fun experience at all. The car wheel hopped real bad and would turn sideways faster then anything I've ever driven. I also was happy with there quality and customer service. I suggest calling them and tell them exactly what your intentions are and let them explain what would work best for your set up. I can also say that Its a lot more positive feel then the stock set up was.

 

[1Bad4558]

Does it need the Roto joints on both upper and lower in the frame side. What if I used a stock type bushing on the frame side, would that work or would I still have the same issues?

 

[GuysMonteSS]

Heres what UMI says about this package on their webpage;
"These control arms are a direct bolt-on replacement designed to minimize wheel hop, improve cornering and help track consistency."
Some of you are,IMO,starting internet rumors,using terms like "snap oversteer" and "bind up" regarding rear suspension on the G Bodies.
Granted,they are not the best design in the world.But,the majority of us are not going autocross racing,we are looking to have a better handling street car.
As for this comment;
"If you ever had snap oversteer there is a high chance you would not be telling the tale. But with your current setup you have an increased risk of it happening. Also with your set up, your LCA frame mounts are now twisting, with 4 links something has to twist and the LCA mounts are not designed to take twisting since the arms are supposed to do it."
I do not autocross my Monte,that venue is not available to us where I live.But,I have been through many twisty back roads at a high rate of speed,or as fast as I could get it to go,with no ill effects.My car has been on a hoist at my buddy's shop quite a few times.He is a Class A mechanic and gearhead who owns his own shop,and we have never seen any signs of the LCA frame mounts twisting.When I replaced the stock boxed arms earlier this year,they looked like the day I put them on.Nothing was bent or twisted and no oblong holes in the mounts or arms.That was after 14 years and app. 50,000 miles.When I put the new arms on,the bolt holes lined up like they are supposed to.Hard to believe if we listen to how much everything twists and bends.
For the OP,if you want info from someone that really knows suspension,I suggest you call Mark Savitske and see what he recommends,;
http://scandc.com/new/node/9
Guy

 

[L92 OLDS]

Does it need the Roto joints on both upper and lower in the frame side. What if I used a stock type bushing on the frame side, would that work or would I still have the same issues?

I bought the UMI's with roto joints on one end for my 442. I would have used the Global West LCA's I am selling but at the time, they were on a Hurst Olds. Check out this link with more detail....

http://www.oldspower.com/vb/showthread. ... oints+ends

 

[pontiacgp]

Heres what UMI says about this package on their webpage;
"These control arms are a direct bolt-on replacement designed to minimize wheel hop, improve cornering and help track consistency."
Some of you are,IMO,starting internet rumors,using terms like "snap oversteer" and "bind up" regarding rear suspension on the G Bodies.
Granted,they are not the best design in the world.But,the majority of us are not going autocross racing,we are looking to have a better handling street car.
As for this comment;
"If you ever had snap oversteer there is a high chance you would not be telling the tale. But with your current setup you have an increased risk of it happening. Also with your set up, your LCA frame mounts are now twisting, with 4 links something has to twist and the LCA mounts are not designed to take twisting since the arms are supposed to do it."
I do not autocross my Monte,that venue is not available to us where I live.But,I have been through many twisty back roads at a high rate of speed,or as fast as I could get it to go,with no ill effects.My car has been on a hoist at my buddy's shop quite a few times.He is a Class A mechanic and gearhead who owns his own shop,and we have never seen any signs of the LCA frame mounts twisting.When I replaced the stock boxed arms earlier this year,they looked like the day I put them on.Nothing was bent or twisted and no oblong holes in the mounts or arms.That was after 14 years and app. 50,000 miles.When I put the new arms on,the bolt holes lined up like they are supposed to.Hard to believe if we listen to how much everything twists and bends.
For the OP,if you want info from someone that really knows suspension,I suggest you call Mark Savitske and see what he recommends,;
http://scandc.com/new/node/9
Guy

You are correct that the lowers do not twist. With the stock sway bar installed it prevents the lowers from twisting. I have a roto joint on my lowers to just pick up the mismatch with my 67 A body rear end. As for snap over steer it's being confused it with a loose condition where the back ends tries to catch up with the front.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

Heres what UMI says about this package on their webpage;
"These control arms are a direct bolt-on replacement designed to minimize wheel hop, improve cornering and help track consistency."
Some of you are,IMO,starting internet rumors,using terms like "snap oversteer" and "bind up" regarding rear suspension on the G Bodies.
Granted,they are not the best design in the world.But,the majority of us are not going autocross racing,we are looking to have a better handling street car.
As for this comment;
"If you ever had snap oversteer there is a high chance you would not be telling the tale. But with your current setup you have an increased risk of it happening. Also with your set up, your LCA frame mounts are now twisting, with 4 links something has to twist and the LCA mounts are not designed to take twisting since the arms are supposed to do it."
I do not autocross my Monte,that venue is not available to us where I live.But,I have been through many twisty back roads at a high rate of speed,or as fast as I could get it to go,with no ill effects.My car has been on a hoist at my buddy's shop quite a few times.He is a Class A mechanic and gearhead who owns his own shop,and we have never seen any signs of the LCA frame mounts twisting.When I replaced the stock boxed arms earlier this year,they looked like the day I put them on.Nothing was bent or twisted and no oblong holes in the mounts or arms.That was after 14 years and app. 50,000 miles.When I put the new arms on,the bolt holes lined up like they are supposed to.Hard to believe if we listen to how much everything twists and bends.
For the OP,if you want info from someone that really knows suspension,I suggest you call Mark Savitske and see what he recommends,;
http://scandc.com/new/node/9
Guy

Here is what Mark Saviske says about aftermarket arms without roto joints:

The converging 4 link rear suspension on many GM cars and all Fox body Mustangs have a problem. Their geometry requires the arms to flex to avoid binding up the suspension but this same flex can also lead to wheel hop and poor handling. Until now you had two choices: Use the flexible stock arms, or use beefy steel arms with hard bushings that helped the wheel hop but caused the suspension to bind in torsion causing erratic handling. Some attempts have been made to fix this problem with heim ends or steel bearings but they can transmit a lot of road noise to the body and are open to water and road grit so they wear much faster than stock components.

It is also well known that the stock LCA frame mounts are weak, just stamped sheet metal and it is a good idea to weld gussets to them. Just to clarify, the binding generally happens when the body tries to roll going around a curve. Urethane bushings installed in a G-body rear suspension will "feel tighter" and minimize body roll only because the rear suspension is now binding ... and the binding will (at some point down the road) cause failure because instead of stresses being absorbed by the bushings the stresses will be transfered to the control arms and their brackets.

 

[Judge Mills]

Since I saw this thread yesterday, and I want to try my hand at autocross, I emailed UMI. According to one of their guys, and i'm paraphrasing, the poly bushings are basically for a street or drag application. You'll want to use a roto-joint on one end of the arms (or both ends) if you want to autocross. UMI has a lot of options on their website. I highly recommend emailing them about your specific application, they got back to me super quick.

 

[UMI Sales]

We use poly in all 8 locations on our Stage 2 kit with no adverse effects. When properly lubricated and not over-tightened, bushing bind isn't as bad as the interweb makes it out to be. Plenty of auto-x guys do well on 8 poly's. A 3500 lb car can move the bushing. Lots of weight and lots of leverage going on there.

but...

8 poly's aren't ideal when we are optimizing stuff back there. 6 rod ends and 2 upper housing Roto-Joints make binding a thing of the past, and you're in full road race beast mode. We've been having good success with our 8 Roto Pro Tour kits and also have some mix and match stuff where there's poly on one end and Roto or rod end on the other.

Summary: Poly isn't as bad as everyone thinks. We have other options to fine tune.

ramey