83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

Do extended ball joints (I'm thinking the .75" Howe or the 1" summit) cause any clearnace issues? I'd like them to clear some stock 16" rims as well as some Z06 rims (I do run some skinnies on draglites also, but I doubt that those will go far enough in to be an issue at all).

I realize that I may end up wanting to run a bump steer kit which will have some clearance issues with wider rims, but I'll cross that bridge when I decide how bad it really is and if I can run a slightly narrower rim with it.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (15)

the only clearance issue i would see would be if you use more than 4.5" of bs on a wheel smaller than 18". The balljoint, stock no bump kit, will still fit in the wheel with a .75 joint, IDK about the 1". If you use a bump kit, clearance will be tight. I have a .5 taller joint and can only lower the tie rod with my bump kit about .375 before its too close for comfort with an 18" wheel. Experimenting with a fix for that too.

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

I don't think that your answer gives any useful information. You say that it "will still fit in the wheel with a .75 jont..." what wheel? I was asking about stock wheels, are you saying that they'll work in stock wheels?

As far as everything you said with the 18's, that doesn't answer my question at all, and even if it did the answer doesn't mean much without knowing what backspacing those wheels have, and for that matter possibly what the width of the lip on the wheel is.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (15)

.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (15)

ok, plain and simple. Tell me what this zo6 wheel is, size and specs. Tell me what stock wheels you have, size and specs. What brakes do you have.

any wheel from 14" to 24" with no more than 4.5" of BS with stock brakes will have no conflict with the tie rod end, whether it be stock or a bump kit. It does not matter if you use a bump kit or not.

any wheel, 18" and larger will fit around the stock tie rod, with the stock tie rod end, or a bump steer kit. A standard length stud will fit right in the wheel, but it may be close to the barrel if you use over 5.5" of BS with stock brakes. You would have to trim the stud down a bit for clearance.

If you use a tall joint in the same application as above, you will have to cut the stud down with any more than 5.5" of bs with stock brakes and a tall balljoint.

If you are using a 17" zo6 wheel, with stock brakes, it will hit the tie rod regardless of what you put there. so you are limited to about 5" of BS with or without a bump kit and a tall joint. it will be close, but it "should" just clear

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (15)

for reference, this is a 18" wheel, 1/2" taller joint, bump kit set with the rod 1/2" lower. the entire assembly will fit in the 18" wheel, but there is only about 3/16" of clearance. i would like to see more. this wheel would be the same as 6.25" of BS on a typical ls1/c5 upgrade. a 17" wheel would have the tir rod about centered on the lip, so it will not work. I used to have a pic of that but i lost it with my last computer hard drive



its not entirely in the wheel, about 50 percent i would say. this is about the extreme of fitment, you cant go inboard any more than this. This should hopefully give you an idea of where it sits in relation to the wheel. and why you are limited in BS with a smaller diameter wheel

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

I kind of figured out where we're having the disconnect after looking at one of the f-bodies in the driveway (I guess I have an excuse for being crazy and lazy, my wife just had twins 3 weeks ago, I'm running on something like 20 minutes of sleep a night right now): I really did mean will the extended ball joint cause any interference, I know that I might want to run a bump steer kit which will, but I'm not asking about that.

After looking at it I realized that the ball joint would have to be like multiple inches longer to cause any interference problem. That's not an issue.

That said, I didn't actually go and measure the stock bump steer, but since the control arms (pivot to ball joint) and tie rods appear to be in the same plane and fairly close to the same length, I would imagine any change in ball joint length would require an adjustment to fix bump steer (well, I'm not sure that a well setup 3rd gen really has enough front suspension travel to need it but that's another issue).

so to answer your question, the wheels that are likely to end up on the car right now (roughly in order of likelyhood. oh, and it's not unreasonable that I might decide to machine custom spacers... I have the tools in the garage):
- stock 16x8 Formula/TA rims (I have 2 sets so I can end up with any combination of backspacing you can get with them, currently on the car)
- 17x9 and 18x10.5 Z06 rims (yea, I know the 18 fronts would be better and easier, but I got these for less than $400 new and they are light for that big a rim)
- Draglites, 15x3.5 (I don't expect these to be a problem if I remember right there were 2 available backspacings and I chose the one that put the outside surface of the rim/tire as close to the stock location as possible)
- Stock 15x7, firebird rims - I really like these for a stealth look on the car, you can stick a 255/60 or 275/60 DR on the back, something fairly skinny on the front, they're reasonably light (almost 20# less per wheel/tire than the 16's) and it looks stock enough that most people can't tell something is up. These I don't think will be a problem

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (15)

Sounds like you will be fine. Only one to be careful with would be the 17" front vette wheel, just make sure the adapter is thick enough to allow the wheel clear the tie rod.


Another thought. I wonder if the steering stop on the control arm will be tall enough to still.contact the spindle if you use a .75 or 1" taller balljoint? I don't know

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

I have a 2" and 2.25" adapters to try with them, 2" should be optimum but I have the 2.25's just in case. Are you saying that will clear with the bump steer setup or just with the stock setup?

yea, um, I have a welder

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

For the bump stop, just use the strut mounted progressive ones. I got mine from SPOHN (KONI and other people sell them too). No matter what height, your struts will not be damaged.

I have stock 16" IROC wheels, MOOG stock height 5662 springs with with bump steer kit and LS1 front brake kit. As you know, the 0.75" HOWE extended ball joints are going in next week, so I'll let you know if there's fitment issues with my setup which sounds similar to yours.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the only way ride height will affect the clearance is if you put in dropped spindles because that raises the wheel in relation to the spindle/tie rod, right?

In any case, right now, center of fender to ground height sits as follows (I just measured this at the garage, with 30psi in tires and a full gas tank):
Driver's front: 28"
Passenger's front: 27.25"
Driver's rear: 28.5"
Passenger's rear: 28.5"

After HOWE ball joints I'll be estimated at (I will be cutting rear MOOG 5665 springs half of a coil to hopefully closely match the fronts):
Driver's front: 27.25"
Passenger's front: 26.5"
Driver's rear: 28.5"
Passenger's rear: 28.5"

I'm pretty sure though lowering this way (at the ball joint) won't affect the clearance with stock width (8") wheels.

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

Why are you using extended ball joints at near stock ride height?

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

It will lower my ride height 0.75" which is enough for me and will raise the roll center in front putting it closer to the CG to have less front body roll and a lower overall CG. Also im lowering the PHB bracket to lower the rear roll which can also improve handling on these cars (they tend to oversteer more). Also by cutting springs it will stiffen the rear to reduce the added rear body roll. I'm trying small things to improve handling here and there nothing too drastic cuz its still a full street car but with all the upgrades i can think of.

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

at close to stock ride height the front roll center is in a reasonable place. Honestly I'm not sure that this is _that_ big a deal even for severely lowered 3rd gens. Somewhere out there there are pictures of Dean's camaro front suspension with the roll center... drawn out, and even lowered close to 3" it doesn't look like it goes below the ground level like many people suggest.

I wouldn't be surprised if lowering the PHR and using extended ball joints and a fairly tall ride hight if you wouldn't end up with the rear roll center below the front, which I would expect some wonky handling and braking from. Again, using dean's car as an example, with standard front ball joints and only a jegs bracket in the rear and a lot of lowering he found that lowering the rear roll center roughly 2" resulted in perfect brake bias but it was a little too much of a good thing for handling and I think he ended up lowring the rear roll center somewhere in the 1/2-1" range after some experimenting

I'm tinkering with a fairly different setup which is why I'm considering them, but I'm still only about 50/50 on them, not sure I'll do them yet. The fact is that with performance springs and shocks a 3rd gen just doesn't have a lot of suspension travel, so in a lot of ways it's more like tuning a go cart than a corvette, you get the wheels pointing where you want them to go and leave them. Serious autoxers have gotten to the point with them that they tend to just run the biggest front bar they can find to keep the car flat and then just tinker with alignment.

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

It is possible that what you are saying is what might happen, but there's only one way to find out. There's one thing about Dean's car that is different from most of ours: His is a V6, and his CG was much lower and towards the back of the car than ours with V8's are. This means that our CG being higher a couple of inches say, would make sense that trying to raise the roll center on a front heavy V8 car is a good thing. The CG is probably a few inches higher than the crank on a V8 car, the roll center on my car is probably a bit lower than the crank, bringing the roll center closer to the CG is my goal..
The rear roll center will have to be adjusted as well. With more front weight the car tends to roll more over the front hence the reason why I'm trying to even out the car by making it roll more in the rear, this way I'll have a more neutral balancing car, in theory.. Ofcourse I'll have to test it out first to know, but I could be completely wrong in all this. I drove my car a few days ago out of storage and gave it a quick test in the corners and I noticed the front rolled a little too much in my opinion and the rear oversteered slightly, but not drastically. Lowering the CG is always a good thing and 0.75" is probably the max I'd be willing to go on the street. I'll have one side at 27.25" and the other at 26.50" in the front. That's plenty low IMO! Dropped spindles only do a 2" drop so that's why I opted to go with the ball joints.

SlickTrackGod

test post

SlickTrackGod

I did have 1/2" extended ball joints on my V6

Car was extremely low so roll center progressively drops faster the lower it goes- unlike the rear which is 0.5:1 ratio always.

My fender lips were 24 3/4" front and 25 7/8" rear.

You want to keep the rc's or roll axis close to the cg to reduce positve or negative body roll. The lower the rc to cg is, the increased leverage on positive body roll. Reducing upper body weight of course reduces poisitive body roll, whereas reducing lower body weight such as lightened kmember will increase positive roll does to lower counteracting weight on the roll axis in lateral load.

Lastly, keeping the rc close to the cg will help keep the inside wheels weighted in corners. Keep in ind that the car will corner best grip (not to be confused with 'best balance')with equal weight distribution on all 4 wheels (if tires are equal sizing)

Dean

ps- best to find me on SC3G on FB

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

Dean, I was under the impression that you did those later... Either way, your car is _much_ lower than most, 2-3" lower than what he's talking about. I'm curious, did you find that you had to change your bump steer adjustment after you installed the 1/2" extended joints?

My 83 was about at the same height as your camaro, and I loved the look and the handling, but it was a bit questionable for daily street use, every once in a while something strange happened (like my wife borrowed it once and actually took it to a gas station and got it stuck on one of the tank filler caps in their parking lot, I actually had to go and get her). I'd love to go the same with my current TA, but unlike the earlier TA's which didn't have full body work I'm worried that I'll be catching too much stuff with the lower nose... I'm also debating running some Z06 wheels and not sure if a 265/40-17 will fit under a car at that height, did you ever try running something bigger than your stock sizes?

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

Firstly, welcome back Dean! Your suspension knowledge has always amazed me, glad to have you back on here sharing your wisdom.

My car is not lowered by the springs, it has the stock replacement MOOG 5662/5665 springs (I'm in the process of cutting the rears to match the front height but be 0.5" higher). The front a-arms are angled different than what yours were. My ball joints are slightly lower than the a-arm bushings so my roll center is probably much higher than what yours was, although i doubt it's really close to the CG, and it could be brought closer towards the CG, hence the reason for my purchase of HOWE 0.75" extended ball joints. Also, I've done tons of weight reduction ABOVE the CG (fiberglass hood, AC delete, battery relo. to rear, SMOG/EGR delete, aluminum parts, etc.) so this also reduces positive body roll in the way that you specified above.

I may be drifting off topic here... Back on topic: Dean when your car was that low, did you have any clearance issues with the bumpsteer kit you had with your stock size IROC-Z wheels? Also, did you have any bumpsteer corrections to make with such a small change in height? I purchased the 0.75" extended ball joints but after installed I measured and it appeared that they lowered the front only slightly, at 0.5".

83crossfireTA: That's reason enough for me to not drop my car too much. Montreal roads are so bad engineers come from other cities to study our road system not because they want to replicate it, but because they want to avoid repeating the same mistakes Montreal did lol... Montreal is one of the oldest cities in North America and the road system in some older parts of the city resembles that of Paris or London. Lowering that much is unfortunately not an option. *sigh*

SlickTrackGod

Yes, had to change to change the tierod angles (aka- bump the car) any time you change suspension geometry. The geometry of the A-arm and the geometry of the tirerods are realivent.

My car was a daily driver and extremely streetable. It was not a harsh ride at all and you could steer it with one finger on the freeway even in grooves on the road. The car was very stiff- however the exotic parts I built into the suspension kept my unsprung weight low and my chassis weight higher(Things like dynomat added, and placement of other componants in both sprung and polar weight changes.

Keep in mind that my car, even though was very low, had a normal suspension travel of only 1" (yes one inch) up front with a maximum travel over the hardest bump of 1 1/2", however my wheel assembly and suspension was light weight so it did not toss the chassis And returned to the ground very quickly. The nose of my car was very light also with the V6 so it did not have the weight of the heavy V8 that is ALSO more weight forward in the engine bay ove rthe front wheels. I drive many of the guys cars here in So Calif and have run several on race courses so I can tell you they handle nothing like my car did even though I help alot of them set up their cars. Setting a car with someonne elses budget is not the same as setting my car with what I packaged together as a whole unit. I can add parts and set them for the guys, but often limited on spring rates, swaybars, tires, bushing choice,etc,etc so I have never gone more than about 1/4 of the level of what I did to my old car.- again, I had soooo much done to it it took years to build and refine. Thats why I know these chassis like the back of my hand, I studied that car extensively until I corrected all of its factory weaknesses. Including messing with the SAI, but I could get away with that because the car was so low and the strut assembly was shorter as a result- that and anti jacking angles included combine with rear progressive springs that aided in anti jacking- I had ALOT going on and thats why that car was one of a kind with all the correct parts married together. I handled like a jetfighter is the best way to explain it- you pointed it and it went, it would sometimes skip a second and then go if the ground varied, but you knew it would be their in that split second so you hammered it anyways.

SlickTrackGod

Helwigs, my tierod ends (actual rodends) were very cose to the rim of the factory IROCS prior to my brake upgrade. It was probably on memory about an 1/8" clearance at best. I then built the Wilwood setup and pushed the wheel out a tad more (.310" more from memory) so I had at least a 1/4" at that point. Thats when I also corrected the SAI by elongating the strut to spindle holes and playing with the setup on Jon's alignment machine at Accurate Alignment (Good to have friends that let me have the time for this- most of you won;t so playing with SAI can be a bad thing if you get both siides out of wack- it will affect your brake steering and yank tthe car to one side if not matched. You also do not want to reduce it down to zero scrub or even go negative would be bad. Keep it slightly positive, but definately equal on both sides.

ps- Toyota Speedway closed and my driver/ team owner moved to Washington so I am out of NASCAR and bored. Doubt if I am ever going back either because of politics evenif they do reopen the track

SlickTrackGod

To give as tip- most of you do not have bumpsteer tools to check the brake rotor surface through articulation of the suspension, this is best done in a home garage by just simply using toe plates to check static toe/ then have two or three buddies SIT on the bumper to get the car to lower while tow others read the changes in the toe plate settings.

What is wrong with this though? both sides could be changing together to keep the reading accurate. If you individually bump one side then the other with proper equipment it takes out this error of one side gaining as the other side looses toe.

On the circle track car's, I use this to my advantage. I set the car with a 1/8" out static toe. I have data on how the car sits ride height wise in the corner via shock travel indicators as well as numerous photos to study. I dynamically set the chassis to this corner height and increasethe tow settings to 1/4" out. HOWEVER, I do this while loosing 1/16" toe in the right front and gaining 3/16" toe out on the left front. This really helps the turn in and corner exit of a circle track car at Toyota Speedway banking.

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

My tierod ends (SPOHN bumpsteer kit) are somewhat close as well with my stock IROCs and I have Ed's LS1 brake kit which also pushes the wheel out about the same (0.3"). It definitely clears, but it's tight.

When you say elongating the strut to spindle holes, are you referring to the Intrax camber bolt kit that you had? I have SPOHN's version which essentially is the same thing but I have both bolts that are adjustable (I bought two kits. DOH!) I could probably adjust them enough to correct SAI or make it better. The alignment tech I go to now is willing to take some time (not free unfortunately) to adjust even these bolts and bumpsteer as well. My SAI the last time I had an alignment done is WAY too low.. In the 13's I believe. It should be around 23-24. This is probably due to the fact the Koni yellows went in and these strut bolts aren't adjusted properly. I think that if you turn the bolts IN towards the engine, this pulls the spindle IN which increases negative camber, and if you turn the bolts OUT away from the engine, this pushes the spindle OUT which increases positive camber? So what I would need to do is turn all bolts OUT away from the engine to get a higher SAI and less scrub radius, and then bring the strut mounts back in the correct camber back to negative? Am I correct? (sorry to drift off topic)

SlickTrackGod

That is correct.

I did NOT have the intrax setup. I retained standard bolts with no adjustment. I jhust slightly elongated the holes in the spindle with a die grinder so I could fudge the SAI a little more to increase the angle.

This increase comes at a cost of loss negative camber adjustment- HOWEVER- since my car was so low with a short strut assembly length, this was not an issue for me. It will probably YES be an issue for most if your car ride ehight is above about 25 1/5" up front at fender lip. Ride height alone decreases strut angle when the car is raised.

With that said, the same applies to Caster

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

Right now my front sits at about 27" after the extended ball joints were installed yesterday. This should have increased the strut angle slightly giving me more range to increase negative camber (and get more positive caster as you mentioned).

I do have quite a bit of adjustment possible for negative camber with my hot part strut mounts (MUCH more than the stockers did) so I'll have to play with this a bit at the alignment shop to get it right.

This reminds me, I was actually looking at your car domain page two days ago and checking out your mods. Funny coincidence!

SlickTrackGod

I forgot about that page- have not looked at that for a few years now. Thanks for reminding me, I have photos on there I would like to upload onto my computer again.

hellz_wings

iTrader: (2)

Yep here ya go:
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/518752...-camaro/page-1