Suspension????

[GuysMonteSS]

If better handling is your goal here is a link to the kit that I got from Mark @ SC&C several years ago;
http://scandc.com/new/node/47
The difference it made was huge.
Guy

 

[UNGN]

The more expensive A arms help to correct the poor factory geometry,which in turn equals better handling.
The cheaper ones are copies of the stock ones,
.Guy

Adjustable uppers can add more caster, but so can some shims. Other than that, upper arms themselves can do very little with the suspension geometry. Tall ball joints fix the most of the issues with the g-body suspension geometry (with any arms), but they may not be compatible with smaller diameter wheels.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

The main purpose of using arms designed for tall ball joints is that factory upper arms will hold a tall ball joint at a angle with reduced travel. While aftermarket arms designed for them will hold the tall ball joint in better alignment and maintain more travel.

 

[UNGN]

The main purpose of using arms designed for tall ball joints is that factory upper arms will hold a tall ball joint at a angle with reduced travel. While aftermarket arms designed for them will hold the tall ball joint in better alignment and maintain more travel.

The bumpstop on the lower control arm stops any binding of the ball joint in upward movement of the wheel. The shock stops binding of the balljoint on downward movement of the wheel.

Most aftermarket UCA's, and all adjustable ones are "flat", with no angle built into the arms. I'll have to look at my factory arms, but I think they are "flat", too.

I have some UB machine arms with an angle built into them and get that angle wrong (flip side to side, flip balljoint in hole) and the balljoint breaks on full extension. That isn't the case with flat arms, however.

 

[MC96]

UB is a pain in the *ss company to deal with.

I wouldnt trust the uppers that are sold for circle track use. When I was full swing selling my fully adjustable uppers I had atleast 3 people message me asking about quality because they had UB/Speedway style ones come apart and junk wheels/ entire cars.

The other issue with that style is once you add enough shims in the rear to get the caster you want and tighten down the arm you bend the crossshaft into an S and bind it up solid, those arms are metal on metal with only a layer of grease to allow for missalignment. A factory arm is better than that as it has the rubber bushing and a forges crossshaft to resist bending, although they are ugly.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

The bumpstop on the lower control arm stops any binding of the ball joint in upward movement of the wheel. The shock stops binding of the balljoint on downward movement of the wheel.

Most aftermarket UCA's, and all adjustable ones are "flat", with no angle built into the arms. I'll have to look at my factory arms, but I think they are "flat", too.

I have some UB machine arms with an angle built into them and get that angle wrong (flip side to side, flip balljoint in hole) and the balljoint breaks on full extension. That isn't the case with flat arms, however.

According to Mark, the stock upper arms curve downwards over the frame to hold the stock balljoints at the proper angle for full range of travel. When you install tall balljoints on the stocker arms, the uppers are more level at rest which they are not designed for as they curve down. This causes the taller balljoints to be closer to their travel limit at rest which induces more strain. Plus tall balljoints add + camber which makes it harder to dial in - camber with stock arms. It is near impossible to setup the best alignment with stock parts and shims as they all were not designed for modern performance specs.

I got under my car today and the stock upper arms are curved downwards and clearly are designed to be pointed downward, not level which puts the balljoint mount at a angle at rest. Its not designed at all for performance handling.

 

[melloelky]

it all boils down to what the op is looking to do/spend.most(not all) aftermarkets out there are just tube version of the oe parts.there's no gain to be had with those kind of parts.no better alignment capability's @all.
sure it looks "tubey" but that's where the cool stops.
you said you're concerned about the ride height, look into some new springs and check over the rest of the front end when you're changing them.it might be just fine and you'll be going down the road.take a look before you spend your hard earned money.there's no sence changing parts that don't need changing.save some money for other things.

 

[michmalibuman]

Remember you get what you pay for. 😉

 

[UNGN]

...This causes the taller balljoints to be closer to their travel limit at rest which induces more strain.

Nope. Look, I've talked to Mark on the phone multiple times. He never said this. At rest on a stock height or lowerer car (or even on a slightly raised car) a Tall ball joint is going to sit pretty close to the center of its travel with a stock arm.

Other than some caster angle, the balljoints sit relatively flat in a stock stamped steel arm, and won't bind, unless you put long travel off road shocks in front... then they might bind in full, airborne, droop.

The only real issue with stock arms is they are 1/2" too long, so they have to be shimmed at least 1/2 in with tall ball joints. That's it. I'm sure someone with a drill press could whip up some 1/2" spacers and then even that isn't an issue.

 

[Clone TIE Pilot]

Nope. Look, I've talked to Mark on the phone multiple times. He never said this. At rest on a stock height or lowerer car (or even on a slightly raised car) a Tall ball joint is going to sit pretty close to the center of its travel with a stock arm.

Other than some caster angle, the balljoints sit relatively flat in a stock stamped steel arm, and won't bind, unless you put long travel off road shocks in front... then they might bind in full, airborne, droop.

The only real issue with stock arms is they are 1/2" too long, so they have to be shimmed at least 1/2 in with tall ball joints. That's it. I'm sure someone with a drill press could whip up some 1/2" spacers and then even that isn't an issue.

Well he, or someone employed by him, typed a very different answer on his site.

"
Q: Can I use the tall ball joints or tall spindles and use my stock upper A arms?
A: Yes...and no. They'll physically bolt together and you could drive the car around but there's a catch or two. There's the fact that the original arms on A, G and 1st Gen F body cars were originally designed to droop down over the frame and have the ball joints at the proper angle for a full range of travel. Once you lower the car, go to taller spindles or ball joints etc. the arms end up closer to level and the ball joints end up close to binding at ride height. Hitting a big bump can bind up the ball joints and put a tremendous amount of stress on them as well as the upper A arms and A arm mounting bolts. They'll only take that for so long before something fails...

Much of it also has to do with alignment. A lot of folks think if their car goes straight and doesn't chew up the tires that it's aligned properly and working as well as it can. They're kidding themselves and they're missing out on a LOT of performance. The alignment specs recommended in the `60s and `70s (and even `80s!) were anything but performance oriented. In fact they've changed little since the 1940s. Today almost every car is using power steering and we're all running high performance radial tires (except for the resto guys but that's another story...) these tires are often more than twice the width of the originals, we've also got another 40 years or so of experience to draw on. What's more, once we've corrected the geometry so that it works like a new performance car it demands the same type of alignment those cars run to achieve peak performance.

Modern performance cars run a LOT more + caster and - camber. The + caster helps the cars track better at highway speeds and gives better steering feel. The - camber helps keep the tire's contact patch flat on the road surface during cornering. It's part of what makes new cars drive like new cars. Using these kinds of settings on older cars yields a BIG improvement in drivability and performance but because they were designed around different specs it's usually impossible to attain the best numbers with stock parts and shims. Lowering the car or increasing the effective spindle height with taller spindles or taller ball joints all add more + camber making it ever harder to dial in a - camber setting (which is what we want). That's the big reason for different upper arms. The taller spindles or tall ball joints make the big geometry improvements and the proper upper A arms make it possible to combine the new parts and geometry with the proper performance alignment, an unbeatable combination! "

http://scandc.com/new/faq#n626

Also there is this post by him concerning 1st gen F bodies.
ttp://www.pro-touring.com/threads/85046-Tall-upper-ball-joints-VS-tall-spindles?p=859742#post859742

Image of stock upper A arm

Note how it "droops" down at stock operating angle with stock balljoint. If you angle the arm up, the balljoint mount will no longer be even but at an angle at rest.