Tall lower BJ, PP 'super travel' upper BJ and stock control arms?

If I understand correctly the problem with running tall ball joints and stock control arms is that the upper can be forced beyond it's range of travel when the suspension is compressed.  Do you think the power performance super travel upper BJ's would allow you to run tall lowers on stock control arms (with ZQ8 coils)?

http://www.powerperformancemotorsports.com/product.sc;jsessionid=17B9C0389C6076B10ECA2527A7FB5E91.qscstrfrnt04?productId=1818&categoryId=17

I need new upper ball joints ASAP and don't have the cash to invest in a complete tall setup with tubular uppers right now.  I was thinking I'd get the super travel upper BJ's now and then PP tall lowers when they became available. If there's a major risk of breaking the uppers this way then I'll just stick with regular lower BJ's for now (at PP you get a free set of the regular lowers with the super travel uppers anyway).  Opinions? 

Also, will I be able to get a proper alignment with this setup or do the tall lowers affect that as well?     

Your ride height and travel will be the determining factors. If you're "slammed" you're much more likely to damage the upper control arm. IMHO, if you're not dropped more than 1" in springs or arms, and it's not a daily you're going to be putting through potholes and speedbumps, it should be fine, though I have no physical proof to back that up.

The biggest problem with the stock arms is the hump in them, it pushes the upper ball joints out really hard in dropped suspensions. Since the tall lower ball joint is essentially dropping your suspension another .5" as far as the upper ball joint can tell, then the amount you're dropped before installing it is by far the largest factor. Since the super travel ball joint was designed to allow guys to drop their trucks further on stock arms, it stands to reason that it should work with a tall lower ball joint, but it is essentially a band-aid and can only get you so far.

Thanks for the info.  I do understand that it is a band-aid but if it works well enough to solve the problem and is safe I'll consider it.  I get the feeling that not many people are going to have first hand experience with this so it may be a trial/error thing. 

I'm at stock ZQ8 height and have no plans to go lower but it is a daily driver and I plan on racing it as much as possible. 

I guess if I put in the 'super travel' uppers now I can still reuse them if I find out that control arms are required for tall lowers.   

with a 4 inch spring drop, ball joint angles are getting pretty extreme. with a 3 inch, thyre bad. with a 2 inch, theyre acceptable. with a 1 inch, theyre in the sweet spot. witha 1.5 that youre talking about, i wouldnt worry about it.

also, the super travl ball joints are acceptable for theyre application. for UB machine uppers and PP 1/2 ton chevy tall ball joints. the angles are great, the buy in doesnt hurt that bad, and theyre almost idiot proof.

long story short, stock uppers will work. so will all the other options.

michael

Thanks Michael,
That's good to know - if that's the case do you think I should even bother with the 'super travel' uppers?  Do you have the part #'s for the UB machine control arms?  I looked at their catalog today but there were hundreds of control arm options and I had no idea what to look for!  The prices did look great though.

You may want to look at Qa1 ball joints as well. They're recomended only for racing applications, but I tend to think that is only because they're re-buildable and not at all idiot proof and they're a true pivot ball joint, so there's no play in them. They come out to about $50 a piece, but you can get tall or short studs for the same price and they look pretty stout. I'll be using custom sets for to 4wd-2wd build because they're the only reasonably priced set-up I can find that will fully mix and match studs and mounts.

call tony out at UB machine. tell him you want the tall ball joint conversion arms for s10/g bodies. you may get a price brak if you tell him that michael crawford with hellbilly hotrods sent you.

i think eric said that they went 130 for the pair.

and i wouldnt bothert with the supoer travels. just no need.
michael

Awesome!  That's much more affordable than the other setups I've seen - I'll look into it for sure. I'll check out the QA1 bj's as well.

Stock uppers are counter productive to an extent with tall ball joint/ spindles. The lever arm is longer (stock UCA) which will have a larger ark which in turn will pull the upper pivot point in slower. The "tall" swap is all about caster gain. Slow it down and you are missing the point. It's not much but shorter uppers are part of the geometry.

You may want to look at Qa1 ball joints as well. They're recomended only for racing applications, but I tend to think that is only because they're re-buildable and not at all idiot proof and they're a true pivot ball joint, so there's no play in them. They come out to about $50 a piece, but you can get tall or short studs for the same price and they look pretty stout. I'll be using custom sets for to 4wd-2wd build because they're the only reasonably priced set-up I can find that will fully mix and match studs and mounts.

I for one will say I do not like the HOWE BJs. The housing is soft. One of mine is out of round in the stock LCA. The stamped hole was out of round and the housing conformed to it rather then the opposite.

As far as manufacturers an racing only, cars in the 50's that rode like a pillow had steel bushings but now steel bushings are hardcore and racing only. You know part of the reason those cars had such a soft ride was the shock and springs could do their job with less bind.

Good to see you back Eric 

I decided to just order the Howe tall uppers rather than paying for a regular ball joint that I may toss later on.  Marcus seemed to think that even with the stock UCAs the tall uppers would be a big improvement although the stock UCAs would limit my alignment settings to less than optimal for performance.

If that's what he said I'm losing respect for him.

I have to figure out how to make .gif and over lap them.

Anyone have a program I should look for?

I miss my northern brother

Why, do you not agree with him? 

I'm sure he doesn't, and neither do I. It's hard to explain and make sense, but think of the two arms lengths as a ratio, that ratio represents(non-linearly) the camber gain because with the same amount of vertical movement at one end of each arm, the angle of the arm increases more rapidly, and thus the horizontal distance between the mount and the spindle decreases more rapidly. That pulls the top in faster than it pulls the bottom in. So if you shorten the upper arm, that difference in angle change and horizontal distance is more rapid, thus faster camber gain. Increasing the distance between the upper and lower control arm in and of itself will only do so much and it's effect will vary hugely depending on the initial angle of the arms. What Mark is likely referring to is that with the tall ball joints it will increase the angle of the arms and increase camber gain because what would be the first half inch of bump has been substituted by the ball joint, but it's nowhere near as significant of a difference as the shorter upper arm. As I recall the upper arm is ~.5" shorter, which on a nine inch arm(which is close to stock if memory serves, which it often doesn't) it's roughly a 5.5% decrease in length which will increase camber gain per a given distance of bump by roughly the same ammount. Take that same 9" distance, and figure that .5" of bump equates to 5.5% grade, which is just over 3 degrees or less than a 1% improvement in camber gain, versus 5.5%, no contest.

I don't think either Marcus or I was arguing that the tall BJ alone was just as good as a shorter UCA.  I understand how most of it works and Marcus encouraged me to go with new UCAs but I told him I was just replacing worn out parts for now.  I don't have the money to do the whole setup at once so I'm piecing it together a part at a time.  I'm sure he was speaking in relative terms when he said it would be an improvement.

Let me apologize for both me and eric, I don't think either of us meant to say that it's not a worthwhile upgrade, just wanted to make sure you had a solid understanding of the difference. I can't speak to anyones motivations but my own, however I for one just like to share information and tend to be a very matter-of-fact person, which often come across as being a dick, it's entirely un-intentional though.

No worries guys!  I wasn't taking offense and I look forward to hearing everyone's opinions.  I'm just starting to get a handle (pardon the pun) on this stuff and still have lots to learn.

Let me apologize for both me and eric, I don't think either of us meant to say that it's not a worthwhile upgrade, just wanted to make sure you had a solid understanding of the difference. I can't speak to anyones motivations but my own, however I for one just like to share information and tend to be a very matter-of-fact person, which often come across as being a dick, it's entirely un-intentional though.

Thanks and X2 for everything. I wish I could explain it like you did in the previous post but I lack the communication skills at times.

Anyway, I say stay away from Howe if using stock lowers. One of mine binds because the stock LCA had a slightly out of round hole. UB Machine is a great, cheap, alternative to the more pricey systems. It uses a early 80's C10 UBJ, plenty strong and cheap on egay ($22 a pair shipped in my case for McQuay-Norris). My arms were $127 shipped and I had them in 3 days and they were only the second set so they had to set the jig and build them. Some may not like or fear the bushing set up but all those bagged guys that run Gbodyparts.com arms are using the same thing only not shorter or drilled for the proper BJs.

If you are piecing it together then buy the right parts the first time and put it together once. Every time you beat a BJ loose you are damaging it. Tyson, you have until at least April of '10 so don't rush.

Don't forget what I told you about when I get the tall spindle, I didn't. As long as you can wait a little it's yours.

Thanks for the info Eric,
I couldn't wait for upper BJ's - mine are worn to the point where I don't feel confident driving the truck so I've already ordered the Howe uppers.  I thought about the QA1's but I couldn't find any info on them on the forums to say whether they were good so I stuck to the Howes.  They were more or less free with the money I made off the header buy/resell anyway. 

You're right in that I do have lots of time to figure out the rest of the setup so I'm not in a rush.  Will Howe upper BJ's work with the UB machine UCA's?  They're just bolted in so the swap shouldn't hurt them.  I may spread the part #s around to the old family and hope that they show up in my x-mas stocking 

You can have them drill the arms for the Metric chassis ball joint.
When you call ask for Tony and tell him you want the tall ball joint Metric arms Micheal Crawford and Eric Howell ordered. He should be able to pull our orders. Micheal helped with the design of the arms.

The Howe's are good parts and serviceable which makes them nice but they will conform to the shape of the hole in LCA's which is my problem. You will be fine with the uppers.

You can have them drill the arms for the Metric chassis ball joint.
When you call ask for Tony and tell him you want the tall ball joint Metric arms Micheal Crawford and Eric Howell ordered. He should be able to pull our orders. Micheal helped with the design of the arms.

The Howe's are good parts and serviceable which makes them nice but they will conform to the shape of the hole in LCA's which is my problem. You will be fine with the uppers.

Hi fellas, Not to suggest a whole other can of worms but in my years of short track experience, I have learned the howe parts catalog to be the racer's bible. look at their metric front suspension parts.  the lower controll arms for big spring ( 5" coils) and the coil over lca's with the strut rod ( trailing rod)  and their ajustable uppers.
along with the custom shaft kit and the mounting tabs with uca mount height ajustments are the cats meow in metric front suspension. the cool thing about it also is, you can use it on your s10.   it does require a little fabricating but i recomend peicing together the whole front suspension. there are other options as well. you can check out Pathfinder chassis for ideas and also Lefthander chassis.  All the stock car front sus. is all based off metric gm unless you want pinto front sus, but nobody ever does.   anyway the stock car stuff has been adapted to a few s10 and blazer 2wd rigs that I've monkeyed with. it looks great and it works really well and you will lose about 20 lbs in un-sprung weight per side.