Unacceptable: tubular upper control arms with no bump stop pads.

[RBConvert]

Guys, I hate to say it, but if you look at the pictures of those arms you should clearly understand that they won’t contact the factory bump stops. The geometry is completely different, it should be obvious if you think about it.

Not true. The pic below is the same manufacturer on PST's website selling B Body UCAs. I have these on my Coronet and they contact the bump stop.

 

[RBConvert]

Know what you are buying and don't shop by price.
I guarantee the price had an effect on the buying decision.

Wrong. These UCA's are sold by PST and the price is comparable to QA1's. I have these same style UCA's from PST on my Coronet and they contact the bump stop.

 

[RBConvert]

I didn't buy the arms. I'm helping a friend that bought them.

I bought these UCA's, along with several other parts from PST back in January to go along with the 5.9L stroker build I'm doing at Greg's shop, since we were dropping the K frame anyway. I have a full assortment of suspension pieces from PST on my Coronet, including tubular UCA's, and I've been very happy with their product and customer support. The UCA's contact the bump stop on the Coronet.
So I purchased these UCA's for the Dart based on prior experience. PST's website makes no note of the bump stop issue. There is a note warning readers that 1973 and up disc brake spindles must be used for these UCA's. They could have added the bump stop clearance as a note. In fact, they could make more money by fabbing a bolt-in bump stop relocation bracket and selling it as a recommended part add-on for hobbyists that don't weld.
It's not the fabbing that's the irritant here, Greg can weld and has fabbed countless brackets for his cars and mine. It's because the vendor chose not to disclose and the purchaser has to find out during the install.

 

[DionR]

Not true. The pic below is the same manufacturer on PST's website selling B Body UCAs. I have these on my Coronet and they contact the bump stop.
View attachment 1716416428

I think B-Bodies have their bump stops in a different spot that makes it work. Even the factory A-Body arms have a flair to them to get them over to the bump stops.

Apples to oranges

 

[RBConvert]

I think B-Bodies have their bump stops in a different spot that makes it work. Even the factory A-Body arms have a flair to them to get them over to the bump stops.

Apples to oranges

No its not. If everyone knows that A bodies are different, then either engineer the part to fit, or sell an offset bracket as a complimentary add-on.

 

[gdrill]

Same issue with the old Dillinger ones I bought years back. I just repositioned the stops.

 

[Kern Dog]

That is great and yeah....not a monumental task but it shouldn't be needed.

 

[72bluNblu]

How did you correct over extension of the shocks or unloading the torsion bars on your car? Did you return it to the stock amount of extension or deviate from stock?

My car is lowered 2” from stock. I use a tall upper bump stop (~3”) and a short lower bump stop (3/8”) to have a fairly stock 5”+ of travel when using a QA1 LCA. The bump stops and aftermarket shocks for lowered cars take care of managing the shock extension and torsion bar travel range.

I just installed a set of the discontinued SPC 1.0 arms @BergmanAutoCraft used to sell and the balljoints ran out of travel before the arms would have hit the stock upper bump stops if they had even lined up (which they didn't). So I got a set of the taller Energy Suspension bump stops @72bluNblu has suggested in the past to try and keep the balljoint from bottoming out.

Note that I didn't move the bump stops over like they needed to be, they were wide enough to just barely work. I didn't want to drill another hole plus I had the balljoint torqued and didn't want to take the suspension apart again so I took the easy way out.

I bought the UCA's thinking I would put them on my G3 swap car down the road, but had a bad balljoint on the '74 so on they went.

That said, I wonder about the SPC 2.0 arms as they have a huge arc to the front arm and I doubt there is ever a way to get a bump stop on those. I asked if there was a solution in this thread and have seen pictures of Peter's suspension and it doesn't appear it matters for those, but not sure.

Yeah you’re going to have to come up with something to have a limit for that suspension extension. At least I would on my car.

Not true. The pic below is the same manufacturer on PST's website selling B Body UCAs. I have these on my Coronet and they contact the bump stop.
View attachment 1716416428

What I said was 100% true for A-body UCA’s. B-bodies are a whole different ballgame, comparing the two is apples to oranges, and if you didn’t know that then you didn’t have enough information to be making a good decision.

No it’s not. If everyone knows that A bodies are different, then either engineer the part to fit, or sell an offset bracket as a complimentary add-on.

It’s a bump stop. If you’re not familiar enough with your suspension to look at that arm and see it’s going to be an issue maybe you’re not familiar enough to be making that decision.

You’re modifying the car with a part that is clearly not the same design as stock. Expecting every aftermarket company to hold your hand when you’re making modifications isn’t realistic. None of the companies that make tubular UCA’s will tell you that they clear or interfere with 9” wheels or 275mm wide tires, but some absolutely won’t clear them on an A body.

That design has been around for decades, on an A body that design will not result in contact with the stock bump stop. A quick search here will show you multiple threads and pictures of modifications needed for various aftermarket UCA designs.

If it was that big of a deal, you should have returned the parts and bought the more expensive QA1’s with the bump stop plate included.

 

[DionR]

Yeah you’re going to have to come up with something to have a limit for that suspension extension. At least I would on my car.

You mean the SPC 2.0 arms?

Maybe the shock limits the droop.

I guess someone could argue that droop is less important than compression unless the car pulls the front tires on the strip. Not that it never happens, but I would bet the suspension being at full droop happens mostly when the car gets jacked up. But just an assumption.

 

[72bluNblu]

You mean the SPC 2.0 arms?

Maybe the shock limits the droop.

I guess someone could argue that droop is less important than compression unless the car pulls the front tires on the strip. Not that it never happens, but I would bet the suspension being at full droop happens mostly when the car gets jacked up. But just an assumption.

Yep, with the 2.0 arms.

I wouldn’t leave it to the shock to limit the suspension extension. Under normal conditions that down stop probably won’t be as much force as the compression stop, but I still wouldn’t leave it to the shock.

On the street it’s fairly uncommon to completely unload the suspension, but on road courses and even AutoX courses it’s not crazy to see a car completely picking up an inside wheel on hard cornering.

It’s something you could get away with, but personally I’d make sure it hit a stop before it hit full shock extension. Or unloaded the torsion bar adjusters on a lowered car with large torsion bars that have a narrower range of loaded travel like mine.

 

[DionR]

I wouldn’t leave it to the shock to limit the suspension extension. Under normal conditions that down stop probably won’t be as much force as the compression stop, but I still wouldn’t leave it to the shock.

I wouldn't be comfortable with that myself. It was more a joke.

On the street it’s fairly uncommon to completely unload the suspension, but on road courses and even AutoX courses it’s not crazy to see a car completely picking up an inside wheel on hard cornering.

Good point, seems like I have seen people come off the curbing on a road course and hang a wheel too.

Best idea I can think of for those SPC 2.0 arms is a limiter strap like I see on some heavy drag race builds or the 4x4 rock crawlers use.

 

[crackedback]

Sorry, but putting non factory parts on a car may require some "hot rodding" modifications. Whether they tell you or not with a footnote. Adapt and overcome.

Why does it happen, because it's easier to jig up a straight tube than a piece that requires a bend and jigging process.

Weiand SB Stealth intake missing the coil mount standoffs as an example... Or Ede intakes missing the AC mount. oh the horror.

Just fix it up. @gdrill did it the right way if you want to use the factory piece. Nice job on that!

 

[Kern Dog]

Bullshit.
It wouldn't have cost them much to make them fully compatible with stock components. The pictures often are "stock" photos that are not 100% representative of actual reality.
Look, I'm not the type to immediately blame the manufacturer when I encounter a problem. We have all seen those guys and I absolutely am not one of them. I can fabricate and weld so it isn't as if I'm stuck on an island with this one.
This isn't the only issue Rich and I are having with these UCAs...
The left side UCA had mounts that were a strong 3/16" wider overall than the right side. Measuring over/over, the stock control arms were approximately 9 1/2". The 72 Duster I rebuilt last year was 9 3/8"

The PST left arm was just shy of 9 3/4", requiring me to mill down the aluminum end spacers/caps to get the arm to fit in. The right side went right in.
BOTH arms were installed with the alignment cams adjusted the SAME way....front cam OUT toward the fender, rear cam IN toward the engine.
Late last year, I used my gauges on the car and found it had 2 degrees of positive caster and bear zero camber on BOTH sides. This is with stock UCAs with offset bushings.
When we tried to align it today, the left wheel cam in with a fantastic 5 1/2 degrees of caster but only about 1/4 degree of negative camber. That is fine, I could give up a slight amount of caster to have a little more negative camber.
But....
When measuring the right side, it was 1 1/2 degrees of POSitive camber with 4 1/2 degrees of NEGATIVE caster.
The owner installed PST adjustable strut rods and they were installed at the same measurement of what the stock arms measured. We cranked the RIGHT side strut rod forward by 1/4" and rechecked the alignment. The camber was almost the same at 1 1/4 degree POSitive but the caster was still the same.
How could that be? I moved the lower ball joint forward by 1/4" and saw NO change in caster?
Well.....

Looking closer, the NEGative caster on the scale STOPS at 4 1/2 degrees. I tilted the gauge from it's base and found that I was surely well past the 4 1/2 degree number. Who the heck knows how much negative caster we have at this point. The RIGHT arm is simply built wrong.
We started measuring from several points and found that the zerk on the top of the upper ball joint is 1/2" further forward on the right than it is on the left.

 

[mopowers]

Isn't PST a sponsor on this site? Maybe they can exchange that arm with a new one?

 

[crackedback]

You've been around mopars for YEARS and I'd bet even with a basic knowledge of how the front suspension bumper is laid out, you'd KNOW those arms were not hitting the stops. Stock photo or not when you take them out of the box..

Come on, stop with the outrage.

These cars were built with garbage tolerance. Acting like they are built on a jig in a NASCAR Cup shop... let me know which comedy club you are appearing, might be a decent act.

If the arm was jigged up improperly, then that is a different issue than my initial response. Then again, **** happens

Have at it. Nothing about this is going to make you happy. Good luck with it. Fun reading while it lasted for me.

 

[Kern Dog]

We measured at several points. The wheelbase is 111" on the left, 111 1/8" on the right.
We measured The frame rail bumper bolts to the upper ball joint zerk, bumper bolt to UCA bumpstop bracket/mounting hole. Width of UCA mounts in the frame, everything I measured regarding the car itself was always within 1/8" from left to right.
The RH UCA is mounted into stock mounts that are in the right place....it is the UCA itself that was built wrong.
No, I should not simply accept this since it is "not a stock replacement part". Making excuses for this reflects poorly on anyone that says it.

What I said was 100% true for A-body UCA’s. B-bodies are a whole different ballgame, comparing the two is apples to oranges, and if you didn’t know that then you didn’t have enough information to be making a good decision.

Stop being a dick. In fact, IGNORE responding to anything that I write because your arrogance is never appreciated. No matter what your skill level is, you often look for ways to subtly include some theme that infers that you are smarter than everyone else.

It’s a bump stop. If you’re not familiar enough with your suspension to look at that arm and see it’s going to be an issue maybe you’re not familiar enough to be making that decision.

Read my response above.

You’re modifying the car with a part that is clearly not the same design as stock. Expecting every aftermarket company to hold your hand when you’re making modifications isn’t realistic. None of the companies that make tubular UCA’s will tell you that they clear or interfere with 9” wheels or 275mm wide tires, but some absolutely won’t clear them on an A body.

Nobody said or wrote anything about expecting EVERY company to hold anyone's hand. You're continuing the arrogant routine here too.
Nobody said or wrote anything about 9 inch wheels or 275 series tires. That it YOU again.

That design has been around for decades, on an A body that design will not result in contact with the stock bump stop. A quick search here will show you multiple threads and pictures of modifications needed for various aftermarket UCA designs.

Yeah...because people always just defer to the forums for advice instead of trusting a manufacturer to build something the right way.
No, they don't. The parts were built wrong. It is that simple.

 

[Kern Dog]

Isn't PST a sponsor on this site? Maybe they can exchange that arm with a new one?

They are...or at least they used to be. How do we know that the next set are any better than these?

You've been around mopars for YEARS and I'd bet even with a basic knowledge of how the front suspension bumper is laid out, you'd KNOW those arms were not hitting them the stops.

Come on, stop with the outrage.

These cars were built with garbage tolerance. Acting like they are built on a jig in a NASCAR Cup shop... let me know which comedy club you are appearing at, might be a decent act.

Fu** all that. I am aware of factory "tolerances". When you measure from numerous places and come up with left versus right numbers all within 1/8" but the upper ball joint is 1/2" further forward on one side, the aftermarket parts were made wrong.
The car aligned with the stock control arms but suddenly the PST part comes in at at least 9 degrees of caster difference from side to side? I checked each side twice and was able to repeat my numbers.
It looks like the blame lies entirely on PST for this. If I am wrong, I will humbly apologize.

 

[crackedback]

LOL outta here for me... enjoy the control arms.

 

[DionR]

Interesting the issues with the right side. I had a similar issue with none or positive camber and ended up with very little caster. @Kern Dog, didn’t you have to add spacers to the right LBJ to get a car to align a couple of years ago? Same car?

Doesn’t explain your issues with the UCA not fitting and measuring wrong, maybe you got a B-Body UCA by mistake?

Either way, I find it interesting that it was the right side. I wonder if there is an issue with the cars on the right side that are unnoticed with a stock alignment.

 

[junkyardhero]

 

[340sFastback]

Can control arms be sent back? Cause it sounds like the one arm is messed up and you have that bump stop head ache on top of that. And I knows you be messing around with alignments on these cars for quite some time and not a novice.

I put QA1s on mine, they had bump stop plates welded on the tubes that perfectly aligned to factory bump.stop, and zero issues dialing in Caster and Camber. I did have to spread frame mounts to get them to fit in and had to bend the one mount area like everyone else had to do. But overall zero hassle install for the most part. And I lack experience with Caster Camber adjustments like you have.

If you can get a refund and buy something that is known to work that would be ideal.

 

[Kern Dog]

Last year I aligned 4 cars using the Longacre gauge. The first was my red car and yeah, I had to add spacers between the lower ball joints and knuckle to get adequate negative camber.
I sure don't know all the answers and I cannot claim to be properly trained in automotive stuff. I jump in and figure things out while sometimes getting help from others along the way. I learn new stuff all the time. 40 + years of being a gearhead ought to be worth something.
It looks like with the alignment cams adjusted for maximum caster, if you need more negative camber, you have to give up some caster to get there.
To recap...
The left side aligns better than it did with the stock UCAs (with offset bushings).
The right side aligns FAR worse than the stock control arms and these PST arms.
Trying to be reasonable here but how could THAT be blamed on the installer or sloppy factory tolerances ??

 

[340sFastback]

Last year I aligned 4 cars using the Longacre gauge. The first was my red car and yeah, I had to add spacers between the lower ball joints and knuckle to get adequate negative camber.
I sure don't know all the answers and I cannot claim to be properly trained in automotive stuff. I jump in and figure things out while sometimes getting help from others along the way.
It looks like with the alignment cams adjusted for maximum caster, if you need more negative camber, you have to give up some caster to get there.
To recap...
The left side aligns better than it did with the stock UCAs (with offset bushings).
The right side aligns FAR worse than the stock control arms and these PST arms.
Trying to be reasonable here but how could THAT be blamed on the installer or sloppy factory tolerances ??

Sounds like that one arm be messed up. And bump stop head ache you don't need on top of that. ***** a pain in the *** if you can get money back then send that **** back

 

[Kern Dog]

Can control arms be sent back? Cause it sounds like the one arm is messed up and you have that bump stop head ache on top of that. And I knows you be messing around with alignments on these cars for quite some time and not a novice.

Sent back? I hope so but I'm not sure. Rich is going to call tomorrow. It has been customary that once you install something, it cannot be returned for a refund. I was thinking that a new one could be just as screwed up as this one. If they sent a single RH one, it would be worth a try to see if maybe the one we have now was some rare mistake.

I put QA1s on mine, they had bump stop plates welded on the tubes that perfectly aligned to factory bump.stop, and zero issues dialing in Caster and Camber.

Same here. Mine was for my Charger though.

I did have to spread frame mounts to get them to fit in and had to bend the one mount area like everyone else had to do. But overall zero hassle install for the most part. And I lack experience with Caster Camber adjustments like you have.

Thanks but I readily admit to being just an avid enthusiast with years of experience doing stuff wrong and sometimes doing it right. I'm always willing to learn and while it is embarrassing to screw things up, I admit my mistakes and try to learn from them.

If you can get a refund and buy something that is known to work that would be ideal.

Even the worst case scenario isn't a bad option. We could put the stock UCAs back in.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Last year I aligned 4 cars using the Longacre gauge. The first was my red car and yeah, I had to add spacers between the lower ball joints and knuckle to get adequate negative camber.
I sure don't know all the answers and I cannot claim to be properly trained in automotive stuff. I jump in and figure things out while sometimes getting help from others along the way. I learn new stuff all the time. 40 + years of being a gearhead ought to be worth something.
It looks like with the alignment cams adjusted for maximum caster, if you need more negative camber, you have to give up some caster to get there.
To recap...
The left side aligns better than it did with the stock UCAs (with offset bushings).
The right side aligns FAR worse than the stock control arms and these PST arms.
Trying to be reasonable here but how could THAT be blamed on the installer or sloppy factory tolerances ??

Are you 100% SURE you have the arms on the correct sides? I know it's a stupid question, just trying to cover all the bases. And I mean 100% and not 99.9%.