Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
You guys spoke and we listened. We have redesigned our lower A-Arms and added the things you would like to see to them including bump stops, spring index and steering stops. The steering stops are adjustable to work with a variety of wheel and tire widths.
www.umiperformance.com/2031
www.umiperformance.com/2031
The following users liked this post:
88bullet (11-01-2019)
#3
Supreme Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 12,666
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes
on
48 Posts
Car: 86 Trans Am, 92 Firebird
Engine: 408 sbc, 3.1L of raw power
Transmission: TKO600, T5
Axle/Gears: Moser 9", 3:70 trutac, 3:23 torsion
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
#5
Supreme Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Car: GTA
Engine: 350 TPI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: Aussie 9-bolt/3.27 posi
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Now THAT is what I call Customer Service! Responding to customers wants & modifying your design to please them!
The following users liked this post:
Tidan (03-07-2020)
Trending Topics
#9
Supreme Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1988 Flame Red Trans am GTA
Engine: Forged 355 4 Bolt, FIRST TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: ls1 torsen 3.42 gear
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
and i thought i was done with suspension mods...i think i found a new suspension mod to add to my to car...
#11
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 RS Camaro
Engine: 305
Transmission: T5
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Those very well may be the best pair of aftermarket A-Arms I've seen.
#12
Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ogden UT
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '88 Camaro (Gone...)
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Those look very well made.
UMI, if you want to improve them further, how about an "upgrade" option which replaces the poly bushings with a bearing?
UMI, if you want to improve them further, how about an "upgrade" option which replaces the poly bushings with a bearing?
#13
Supreme Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 12,666
Likes: 0
Received 50 Likes
on
48 Posts
Car: 86 Trans Am, 92 Firebird
Engine: 408 sbc, 3.1L of raw power
Transmission: TKO600, T5
Axle/Gears: Moser 9", 3:70 trutac, 3:23 torsion
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
bearings wear out a lot faster, and in this application, not a great upgrade over a good bushing IMO
#14
Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ogden UT
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '88 Camaro (Gone...)
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
A bearing in this application offers the best of both worlds. Less deflection than a bushing, & they actually ride & operate smoother too. Have your cake, & eat it
#17
Banned
Thread Starter
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
This is correct, we offer a Delrin bushing options which allows the arm to travel up and down with very little friction.
Thanks everyone for looking!
Ryan
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Clovis NM
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2012 F350 lariot/1991 Camaro RS
Engine: Powerstroke/6.0
Transmission: 6R100/4L80e
Axle/Gears: 3.73/3.42
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
always went with UMI nothing but the best just need a K memeber so I guess im building my own
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Clovis NM
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2012 F350 lariot/1991 Camaro RS
Engine: Powerstroke/6.0
Transmission: 6R100/4L80e
Axle/Gears: 3.73/3.42
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Im going to build one to work with power rack and pinion
#21
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Imagine a bolt in K-member / a-arm combo with a power rack and pinion with a 12:1 steering ratio (like the IROC boxes)? That's something I would buy in a heartbeat! (ofcourse it would have all the braces and stock mounting points so it really is just a "bolt in" setup)
#22
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Clovis NM
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2012 F350 lariot/1991 Camaro RS
Engine: Powerstroke/6.0
Transmission: 6R100/4L80e
Axle/Gears: 3.73/3.42
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
thats what im putting together now a bolt in k member a arm setup with power rack same turning radius with 2.25 or 2 turns lock to lock so better than the iroc boxes
Ive found the rack and it will work just has to be ajusted to get the 6 in of throw
Ive found the rack and it will work just has to be ajusted to get the 6 in of throw
#24
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Central FL
Posts: 2,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Camaro
Engine: 3.1...not hardly stock
Transmission: 700r4....not stock either
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
These look great! my question is...would it not be beneficial to also incorporate some type of "hook" over the top of the tubes from the spring pocket? Thats just a ton of sheer force on the welds holding the spring pocket in place.
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Clovis NM
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 2012 F350 lariot/1991 Camaro RS
Engine: Powerstroke/6.0
Transmission: 6R100/4L80e
Axle/Gears: 3.73/3.42
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
welds especially good welds are stronger than the metal
#26
Senior Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ogden UT
Posts: 753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '88 Camaro (Gone...)
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Because welding reduces the surrounding metal's strength in the head affected zone... Just saying
Not too significantly with mild steel, but chromoly is a different story. Welding doesn't "Make the steel stronger", it's just stronger in comparison
Since this topic got brought up.... UMI, that's another way you could set yourself above the competition. As far as I know, the only aftermarket company that post-weld heat treats it's chromoly suspension components is J&M. I kinda wish more companies did...
I have no idea how many welds, if any have failed on your chromoly pieces, but it's just an idea.
Not too significantly with mild steel, but chromoly is a different story. Welding doesn't "Make the steel stronger", it's just stronger in comparison
Since this topic got brought up.... UMI, that's another way you could set yourself above the competition. As far as I know, the only aftermarket company that post-weld heat treats it's chromoly suspension components is J&M. I kinda wish more companies did...
I have no idea how many welds, if any have failed on your chromoly pieces, but it's just an idea.
#30
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Posts: 2,642
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1993 GMC Typhoon
Engine: 4.3 Turbo
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 3.42
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
question... what is the over all benefit to using these types of A-arms over stock? i mean the weight savings can only be minimal at best.. 1-2lbs?
#31
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Besides looking fancy, they are probably "stiffer" than stamped steel ones (not sure if the gains from this are ever noticeable). But these comes with poly or Delrin bushings which are an improvement over stock rubber bushings (although you could install poly or delrin in stock control arms). They also come with new balljoints. These comes with adjustable steering stops, bump stops and finally a spring index (yay!). But to be honest, the weight savings are advertised as 5.5lbs of savings and that's not that much but it IS unsprung weight so there are definitely other things you can spend money on FIRST before you get these, although if your car is already fully done over then yes these are "better" than stock. I do like the way they look under the car though, damn sexy lol.
#33
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Litchfield Park
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: '91 1LE
Engine: 377 w/Stealthram
Transmission: T56
Axle/Gears: 3.42 Torsen
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Is there a part number for a replacement ball joint boot? I bought a set of your arms a while back but one came with a ripped boot. Looks like it got snagged during the ball joint install.
#34
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
My biggest question is also my biggest concern. How is it possible that UMI did not realize the deficiencies in their original product? This is just my opinion, but I feel it's kind of lame for a company to have to realize the shortfalls of it's product in an online forum. Where is the Research and Development that goes into these products? Are these items not test fitted, scrutinized and reevaluated before the product sees actual production? I have the following products from UMI: 22mm Chromoly Rear Sway Bar, Chromoly Pan Hard Bar Double Adjustable with Rota Joints. Chromoly Double Adjustable Lower Control Arms with Rota Joints, Lower Control Arm Relocation Brackets (bolt in), Steering Brace, Cast and Camber Plates...
just my thoughts
just my thoughts
#35
Junior Member
iTrader: (2)
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
My biggest question is also my biggest concern. How is it possible that UMI did not realize the deficiencies in their original product? This is just my opinion, but I feel it's kind of lame for a company to have to realize the shortfalls of it's product in an online forum. Where is the Research and Development that goes into these products? Are these items not test fitted, scrutinized and reevaluated before the product sees actual production? I have the following products from UMI: 22mm Chromoly Rear Sway Bar, Chromoly Pan Hard Bar Double Adjustable with Rota Joints. Chromoly Double Adjustable Lower Control Arms with Rota Joints, Lower Control Arm Relocation Brackets (bolt in), Steering Brace, Cast and Camber Plates...
just my thoughts
just my thoughts
You could maybe argue that it took too long to make the improvements, but I have yet to see a product introduced that doesn't need improvements/updates.
The following users liked this post:
Streetstuff (04-24-2021)
#36
Supreme Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Andover, NJ
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '88 Trans Am GTA; '84 Trans Am
Engine: L98 350TPI; 5.3 LSx built
Transmission: N/A; T56
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9 bolt; 3.73 10 bolt
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Hmmm, perhaps I should spend 411 bucks in the near future......Summit's shipping is cheaper for me. These just look awesome. I'm sold, now to rob the nearest convenience store of a measly 500 bucks to buy'em.
#37
Supreme Member
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
IMHO almost anything you buy first gen is pretty much a "beta" product. Cars, software, electronics, all get better as we figure out what we don't like about the product. It's no secret that companies use consumers to test their products. For the most part I just choose not to be a test subject.
You could maybe argue that it took too long to make the improvements, but I have yet to see a product introduced that doesn't need improvements/updates.
You could maybe argue that it took too long to make the improvements, but I have yet to see a product introduced that doesn't need improvements/updates.
#38
Supreme Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1988 Flame Red Trans am GTA
Engine: Forged 355 4 Bolt, FIRST TPI
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: ls1 torsen 3.42 gear
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
i just dont really see any advantage to this other than looking nice and flashy.... you can paint your stockers and put poly bushings in or those expensive derlin bushings in and have a control arms just as good for half the price of those...
the stocker a arms are plenty beefy and imo are beefier than the aftermarket setups.... i just wouldnt trust all the weight on those a arms on weld spots like that on a daily driver hittings bumps and all. and with all the problems poeple had with aftermarket a arms in the past i rather just spend that on something thats more beneficial...
the stocker a arms are plenty beefy and imo are beefier than the aftermarket setups.... i just wouldnt trust all the weight on those a arms on weld spots like that on a daily driver hittings bumps and all. and with all the problems poeple had with aftermarket a arms in the past i rather just spend that on something thats more beneficial...
#39
Supreme Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Central FL
Posts: 2,564
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 91 Camaro
Engine: 3.1...not hardly stock
Transmission: 700r4....not stock either
Axle/Gears: 3.73
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
I don't know if I'll ever put them on my car if it sees a lot of street use. But, while they may be built to hold up to street abuse...they're not really built for street cars. That's more of a race part, realistically.
#40
Banned
Thread Starter
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
We have never had issues with the spring perch being welded, it is welded fully around the ring and has been this same way since 2006 on all our A-arms.
#41
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 85 Iroc
Engine: 305 LB9
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3.27
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Umi - will you guys consider a trade-up program? I recently bought a pair of the old style and would like to get the new design.
#42
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
Hat's off to you guys for listening & improving a product...
Shame on Spohn for selling a part that is clearly wrong defective
(moved my wheels back int he well and rubbed-Addressed them several times, still no response)....
I ended up wasting tons of $$$ with Spohn a Arms, remove stock, install spohn, alignmens, defective part, buy upgraded bushings and ball joints for stock, paid to get that put in, get spohn out and ANOTHER alignment.... $1000 wasted...
Go for the UMI guys...
Shame on Spohn for selling a part that is clearly wrong defective
(moved my wheels back int he well and rubbed-Addressed them several times, still no response)....
I ended up wasting tons of $$$ with Spohn a Arms, remove stock, install spohn, alignmens, defective part, buy upgraded bushings and ball joints for stock, paid to get that put in, get spohn out and ANOTHER alignment.... $1000 wasted...
Go for the UMI guys...
#46
Supreme Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Andover, NJ
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: '88 Trans Am GTA; '84 Trans Am
Engine: L98 350TPI; 5.3 LSx built
Transmission: N/A; T56
Axle/Gears: 3.70 9 bolt; 3.73 10 bolt
Re: Redesigned Lower A-Arms for the 82-92 Camaro/Firebird
I can confirm that. They had 15% off. I almost pulled the trigger on the arms then. Then realized they would have been flopping in the breeze because of no spindles or strut mounts. (I will use Koni Yellows but I can use the old blown struts for build purposes)
I did however get a set of Tie Rod adjusters and the on car adjustable panhard bar. Both were 15% off.
I did however get a set of Tie Rod adjusters and the on car adjustable panhard bar. Both were 15% off.