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

-
To be clear, not suggesting the issues on the right are only due to factory tolerances. Or the installer. Just noticing that it seems like if there are issues, it seems like the right side is where it happens. Like maybe something is off on the right side of the cars from the factory. Not conclusive, but that’s 3 cars with a similar alignment issues.

I had figured it was an issues with my car. Now I am wondering if maybe it is something the factory did instead.

Doesn’t mean anything, even if it takes some shims it can be adjusted out. Just wondering now.
 
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%.
Oh, I am quite capable of making mistakes. (and I will admit to that when they occur) With upper control arms like ours where the front is higher than the back, the ball joint sits level (or dang close to it) when the UCAs are in right.

FER 158.JPG


You can see how the ball joint pad on the stock UCA is tilted to sit level. The QA 1 arms in my Charger are like this....

Q 7.jpg


When they are in wrong, you can really tell.
One time some 20 or so years back, a guy in our Mopar club was building a Hemi Challenger. He was selling some parts so I went to his place to buy them. He had his Challenger on jackstands and I could see he had his UCAs in wrong. I politely let him know and he did not appreciate being told that.
Some people are SO touchy!
 
To be clear, not suggesting the issues on the right are only due to factory tolerances. Or the installer. Just noticing that it seems like if there are issues, it seems like the right side is where it happens. Like maybe something is off on the right side of the cars from the factory. Not conclusive, but that’s 3 cars with a similar alignment issues.

I did not take your words as an insult at all ! I thank you for chiming in.

I had figured it was an issues with my car. Now I am wondering if maybe it is something the factory did instead.

That is an interesting point.

Doesn’t mean anything, even if it takes some shims it can be adjusted out. Just wondering now.

I ponder stuff like this quite often. I am always wondering why-what if-how come?
 
This is the right side.

IMG_1061.JPG


To the naked eye, it looks like a mirror image of the left side.

IMG_1058.JPG


Here is an interesting thing. Look at the first picture again, the RIGHT side. Note how close the front bar on the UCA is to the rubber bumpstop....then look at the LEFT side. The left has a bigger gap which leads me to believe that the upper ball joint is rearward more. (It is)
Both sides have the ball joints sitting level.
 
Sounds like Rich is gonna have to call and see what can be done. PST does say returns only for unused parts. They don't say anything about returning something cause its messed up or defective though.

Leave some online reviews too.
 
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.
This is not a big deal to me. I didn't start this thread. I would not have started a thread on this topic, instead I would (will) call PST and let the chips fall where they may and nobody on this site would be the wiser. But since Greg mentioned my car, I felt compelled to at least acknowledge who the owner was.
I have spent thousands of dollars with PST on my Coronet and Dart and have had very good experiences; obviously otherwise I wouldn't keep going back. But I am disappointed in these UCAs, and I will never be convinced that because I had a great experience with the Coronet that I should not have applied that to the Dart. I understand hot rodding, and dealing with the aftermarket and I don't need my hand held. It is what it is and the bump stop issue has already been remedied.
Not being able to dial in any sort of reasonable camber and caster in the RH UCA is the overarching issue now. All the measurements taken point to something off with the UCA and tomorrow I'll see how PST responds.
 
This is the right side.

View attachment 1716416753

To the naked eye, it looks like a mirror image of the left side.

View attachment 1716416754

Here is an interesting thing. Look at the first picture again, the RIGHT side. Note how close the front bar on the UCA is to the rubber bumpstop....then look at the LEFT side. The left has a bigger gap which leads me to believe that the upper ball joint is rearward more. (It is)
Both sides have the ball joints sitting level.
Plus look how close the rear tube of the UCA is to the shock on one side vs the other. It may just be the camera angle, but something looks amiss. The upper ball joint on the right side is visibly more toward the front than on the left side. Again, it may just be the camera angle. Now you just have to figure out where the issue is. Maybe stacked tolerances?? Also, I may have missed it, but how did it align with the factory UCA's?
 
I started the thread to let others know about what I found so that they can make informed choices.
I did a search here and did not find this topic mentioned so I moved ahead. Some people buy tubular control arms when making a disc brake swap where the big ball joint UCAs are required. Maybe they are not interested in 18 inch wheels and 275 series tires, they just see an opportunity to install a replacement part that seems to be a step up from stock. What if they have no welder or welding experience? UCAs like these would leave them in a spot.
A few little issues when installing aftermarket parts has become common practice. Very few aftermarket/replacement parts are 100% plug and play.
Anyone that has spent any time working on cars knows that.
Just like when you are dealing with some annoying person....you let a few things slide but as the negatives start to pile up, you are compelled to mention stuff that in and of themselves isn't such a big deal.
 
Plus look how close the rear tube of the UCA is to the shock on one side vs the other. It may just be the camera angle, but something looks amiss. The upper ball joint on the right side is visibly more toward the front than on the left side. Again, it may just be the camera angle. Now you just have to figure out where the issue is. Maybe stacked tolerances?? Also, I may have missed it, but how did it align with the factory UCA's?
I missed that about the spacing of the shock absorber. Great catch.
Last year, Rich and I checked the alignment on the car and both sides were around 2 degrees of positive caster with very little negative camber. It drove fine like that but as being the men that we are, if some is good, MORE is better!
It would be interesting to put the stock RH arm in tomorrow and see what settings we can get with that. I have some other stock UCAs I could try as well.
 
Check this out. If those holes in the side of the frame are in the same place on each side, then it appears the upper arm mounts are in different places. I'm far from perfect trying to draw a straight line, so you might use a straight edge to make sure I haven't exaggerated it.
RIGHT SIDE.JPG

LEFT SIDE.JPG
 
We will check tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure that we did measure from that hole to the bumper bolt and found there to be no more than 1/8" difference between left and right.
If the car is out of whack, I will absolutely admit to making a mistake.
I keep going back to how the stock UCAs lined up so well and these aren't even close from side to side.
For the record, the stock UCAs are the 1973-76 A body Disc and 10" drum units. The car in question is a '68 Dart.
Being the curious type, I measured and measured....looking for something to be obvious and make sense. So far, all the points that we have measured have been within 1/8" from side to side.
I don't want to bash a company that is popular with people. Many of us have spent hundreds of dollars with these guys.
I also don't want for someone else to be surprised by stuff like this.
I'm lucky to be retired with lots of free time as well as having the stuff to do home alignments. It would really suck for this stuff to happen to a guy trying to do this in his driveway that gets told by his alignment guy that it cannot be aligned right.
 
I like your redneck hotrodding solution to a design failure issue.
College kids have no business being engineers without first working in a shop for at least a year.
 
We will check tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure that we did measure from that hole to the bumper bolt and found there to be no more than 1/8" difference between left and right.
If the car is out of whack, I will absolutely admit to making a mistake.
I keep going back to how the stock UCAs lined up so well and these aren't even close from side to side.
For the record, the stock UCAs are the 1973-76 A body Disc and 10" drum units. The car in question is a '68 Dart.
Being the curious type, I measured and measured....looking for something to be obvious and make sense. So far, all the points that we have measured have been within 1/8" from side to side.
I don't want to bash a company that is popular with people. Many of us have spent hundreds of dollars with these guys.
I also don't want for someone else to be surprised by stuff like this.
I'm lucky to be retired with lots of free time as well as having the stuff to do home alignments. It would really suck for this stuff to happen to a guy trying to do this in his driveway that gets told by his alignment guy that it cannot be aligned right.
I'm not talking about the bumper as a reference. I'm talking about the control arm bracket.
 
I like your redneck hotrodding solution to a design failure issue.
College kids have no business being engineers without first working in a shop for at least a year.
Exactly. In fact, I think the auto industry as a whole would benefit from having retired mechanics as engineers.
 
I like your redneck hotrodding solution to a design failure issue.
College kids have no business being engineers without first working in a shop for at least a year.
Yeah, I think retired mechanics should be the engineers. I just got done replacing the alternator in our 2004 Ford Escape 3.0L V6. You have to remove the passenger side drive axle and lower the front frame assembly while also jacking the engine up in order to get the alternator out. I called my friend at a local Ford dealer and he said their customer pay book time is 7.8 hours. It's ridiculous anything is made in this fashion. If I had a lift, it would have been a little easier, but rolling around on the floor on a creeper and a rolling seat really takes it out of my old butt. I'm still in recovery mode. Just because they CAN do something, doesn't mean they SHOULD.
 
I would always recommend that you contact the manufacturer with any issues before badmouthing anyone.
All companies need consumer feedback.
They are in business to make happy customers and a profit.
They have millions of dollars invested in their businesses so do think your opinion doesn't count.
They may have new parts in development that meet your need but you don't know what is going on behind the scenes.
Everyone has a customer service phone line for a good reason.
Use it first before you start asking for a dozen opinions on what you should do or how bad you think a product is.
Call the company first. That is your best path to solving your issue.
You might learn something from the people who actually make the product.
 
You know, I actually agree with you. I was a bit out of character in this instance. You can search all you want, you will not find a theme of vendor bashing from me. This was inconvenient but not a gigantic problem.
I have to admit though..... I got caught up in the mess with that 72 blue guy. His arrogance and perceived superiority just friggin pissed me off. Instead of ignoring the post or simply replying with oh yeah, that sucks...., he played it off like we were idiots that should expect what we encountered. From there he blabbed about unrelated stuff on his own car. None of that was helpful.
From there, I went for the jugular.
Hey....We just finished a 4 month engine build with lots of small hiccups so we are accustomed to making accommodations for a plan that gets derailed often. I'm used to encountering obstacles and finding a way around them. Yeah, assumptions were made that these would be a direct bolt in since no footnotes or warnings were made. The bump stop pads have turned out to be but a mere inconvenience compared to the weird issues with the right UCA.
 
I'm not taking sides, just sharing my two cents.

Another point of reference for comparing the installed arms is to accurately measure (and adjust/jack one side if necessary to make equal for comparison) the length of the exposed damper/shock rod.

All the angles make good checks more difficult, but to determine (with "good enough" accuracy to align the car) if the arms pivots and ubj don't mirror each other, I'd take the question of the car tolerances off the table. Put the arm tubes (not the pivot tubes and ubj) on a leveled surface clamped level in a vice. To keep it on the surface, hang weight off the pivot end to counter the ubj weight. Put a digital protractor across the top of the ubj, parallel to the pivot axis to check the arm ubj boss angle. Do the same across the top of each pivot tube.

A larger flat surface to support a carpenter square (shimmed off the surface a 1/2 inch or so) can be used to compare pivot and ubj locations. Run a straight line down each tube to the top center of each (level for the purpose of marking, and not while measuring) pivot tube to use as the reference point. A second, smaller carpenter square nested in the larger one is helpful to check each position.

If they are not reasonably close, I'd cut, tack for checking alignment, then final weld (off the car) as needed and not be concerned about symmetry/mirroring since they would only be going on this one car and the end result is symmetrical (with normal adjustment later for road crown if needed). In truth, I'd rather rework the standard arms for caster and camber with zero offset and eccentric adjustment (so it can be adjusted either way). Nearly all the load is on the lca so the tacks do not have to be massive to hold during the alignment setup process.
 
Last edited:
Just my 2c as well. I purchased the same UCA's from PST, and can confirm the right side does not simply drop in. This arm not fitting without forcing it into position caused it to bind enough to break the cam from the adjustment bolt when trying to set initial position. I replaced the adjuster and have it bolted together but have chosen to do other work on the car and will address this issue later. In hindsight, I would of gladly spent the extra bucks for different UCA's. Greg (Bergman) was pumping their adjustable flagships at me for a bit, but not in my price or requirement range at that time. Nice stuff they sell...
I think a measurement like MV8 posted is in the future. it looks like the location/angle of the forward bushing is wrong.
I am curious if PST would correct this, or would I receive the same response on the ball joint boots that won't compress into the cavity. "That's just the way their made". I did get Moog to send me different boots that fit perfectly, so a non issue now. But that's a different story.
 
They were a fight to install too, being too wide on the left side by 3/16”.

Wait, I am confused. I thought all the issues were on the right side. The left side was too wide, but the right side is way out of alignment?

Either way, did you take a measurement of the PST UCA mount width, or is the 3/16" just an eyeball of the difference between the mounts and the UCA?

Reason I ask is I went and measured the 2 sets of stock UCA's I have on my bench right now and got right at 9.5" wide for all of them. I thought maybe Mopar had done something weird and made them different widths from side to side, which could result in an aftermarket manufacturer not matching if they assumed they were the same and they weren't. But looks like they should be the same width side to side so not why there was an issue.

If you did measure it and it was 9.6875", and there wasn't something weird with the bushings, it would suggest PST has an issue with their jig. But I was thinking the wrong width and alignment issues were on the same side which made make me think the jig for the right UCA is all messed up. But now it might be that both jigs are off?
 

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.

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.

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.

I'll respond to anyone I want. If you don't like it, don't post ignorant crap.

I responded before you bothered to actually post any relevant measurements of the control arms. Yeah, they should be the same dimensions but mirror images. If they're not, that's a manufacturing error. But you hadn't posted any dimensions when you were ranting about the bump stop "issue"

I posted about my car because I was trying to get you to understand that a large number of the customers buying tubular control arms WOULDN'T WANT UCA's THAT HIT THE BUMP STOPS BECAUSE THEY WOULD ALSO HIT THEIR WHEELS. So all your whining about it being a bad design or a mistake just isn't true. It's a BETTER design for some applications, if you realize you have to move the bump stop. I wouldn't buy a set of tubular UCA's with a bump stop pad because I'd know just from that fact they wouldn't clear my wheels.

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.
Yes, on a Mopar with camber bolts that's simply a fact. You can't adjust caster and camber separately, it's literally built into the suspension design of these cars and has been the same since A-bodies when into production. The only way to adjust caster and camber separately on these cars is to have adjustable UCA's, or add spacers at the lower ball joint.

I started the thread to let others know about what I found so that they can make informed choices.
I did a search here and did not find this topic mentioned so I moved ahead. Some people buy tubular control arms when making a disc brake swap where the big ball joint UCAs are required. Maybe they are not interested in 18 inch wheels and 275 series tires, they just see an opportunity to install a replacement part that seems to be a step up from stock. What if they have no welder or welding experience? UCAs like these would leave them in a spot.
A few little issues when installing aftermarket parts has become common practice. Very few aftermarket/replacement parts are 100% plug and play.
Anyone that has spent any time working on cars knows that.
Just like when you are dealing with some annoying person....you let a few things slide but as the negatives start to pile up, you are compelled to mention stuff that in and of themselves isn't such a big deal.

This picture is from my build thread, and is almost 9 years old. The bump stop is clearly relocated. I made no mention of the relocated bump stop (it was literally so easy it didn't need mentioning) and no one asked, but it's obvious.

img_4373-jpg.1715082118


Also, no welding needed. You just drill an extra hole in the frame horn. If you can work a drill, you can move the bump stop. This picture is of the first set of tubular UCA's I ran on my Duster should make that super clear. It's from 2014. I know I've included it in PM's, it may not be posted to the open forum. Either way, it's not news.
IMG_1641.JPG

There's also this thread, also nearly 9 years old, which covers several different UCA designs and the issues, and advantages, that each of them have.

Tubular A arms slightly too wide!

It also shows another issue that comes up with the "V" shaped UCA's, which is clearancing the UCA mount

dart-uca-jpg.1715034595

I like your redneck hotrodding solution to a design failure issue.
College kids have no business being engineers without first working in a shop for at least a year.

LOL. Again, the design of these UCA's is actually an ADVANTAGE to many of the customers wanting to add tubular UCA's to add clearance for wider wheel packages up front. It's only an issue if you can't see that you need to move the bump stop, but that's obvious. And really a very minor issue in the world of aftermarket parts that don't look anything like the original part they're replacing.
You know, I actually agree with you. I was a bit out of character in this instance. You can search all you want, you will not find a theme of vendor bashing from me. This was inconvenient but not a gigantic problem.
I have to admit though..... I got caught up in the mess with that 72 blue guy. His arrogance and perceived superiority just friggin pissed me off. Instead of ignoring the post or simply replying with oh yeah, that sucks...., he played it off like we were idiots that should expect what we encountered. From there he blabbed about unrelated stuff on his own car. None of that was helpful.
From there, I went for the jugular.
Hey....We just finished a 4 month engine build with lots of small hiccups so we are accustomed to making accommodations for a plan that gets derailed often. I'm used to encountering obstacles and finding a way around them. Yeah, assumptions were made that these would be a direct bolt in since no footnotes or warnings were made. The bump stop pads have turned out to be but a mere inconvenience compared to the weird issues with the right UCA.

You were ranting about a company for no reason (when I responded about the bump stop issue). It's not a design flaw or a mistake , it's literally an improvement in design that trades the bump stop location for additional wheel clearance. The only mistake was made by the person purchasing a part that looks completely different than factory and expecting factory results.

There are plenty of people on this board that need UCA's with a design similar to the PST design to clear wider wheels up front. If you don't want wider wheels and can't be troubled to move a bump stop a couple inches, well, buy the right UCA's.
 
Last edited:
Wait, I am confused. I thought all the issues were on the right side. The left side was too wide, but the right side is way out of alignment?

Either way, did you take a measurement of the PST UCA mount width, or is the 3/16" just an eyeball of the difference between the mounts and the UCA?

Reason I ask is I went and measured the 2 sets of stock UCA's I have on my bench right now and got right at 9.5" wide for all of them. I thought maybe Mopar had done something weird and made them different widths from side to side, which could result in an aftermarket manufacturer not matching if they assumed they were the same and they weren't. But looks like they should be the same width side to side so not why there was an issue.

If you did measure it and it was 9.6875", and there wasn't something weird with the bushings, it would suggest PST has an issue with their jig. But I was thinking the wrong width and alignment issues were on the same side which made make me think the jig for the right UCA is all messed up. But now it might be that both jigs are off?
The openings in the frame are within 1/16” of each other in the car. Right side is 9 1/2”, the left is 9 7/16”.
When Rich installed the right UCA, it fit right in with a little persuasion. The left side though… the overall width of the arm was a strong 1/8” bit not quite a quarter wider than the car. Not ideal but given that the car itself measured 1/16” narrower there, I just milled the aluminum spacers and moved on.
One small issue is not a deal breaker but when stuff keeps happening, each small issue gets to piling upon you.
To repeat, yes… the lack of bump stop pads should have been clearly noted by the manufacturer since there are others on the market that do have them. A UCA with a slimmer shape would be an advantage to the .075 % of guys that want to run a wheel over double the width of a stock wheel.
How about the 10+ degree difference in caster readings from side to side? How is anyone supposed to be satisfied with that?
The front “barrel” on each side isn’t welded squarely to the front either. See how the alignment cam eccentric washer sits. With the nut end adjusted all the way out, the washer is seated and the edge of the washer rests against the ridge.

IMG_1097.jpeg


Now on the inside, the eccentric washer rests on the ridge instead of being beside it. If the barrels were welded squarely, the eccentric washers should match, right?

IMG_1096.jpeg
 
That's how I broke an adjuster. It can't remain out of the "slot" for the cam. I persuaded it into the slot by having both sides loose and running in the nuts. When trying to adjust them when loosely seated, one adjuster cam weld broke. My issue is the left front. I haven't determined if its the car or the bar. My question would be how much did you mill off the spacers? and did the arm adjuster move its full range after complete?
'
 
I used a 4 inch grinder with a flapper disc and did my best to grind all 4 equally. I took enough off to where it fit with slight force.
I’d grind, test fit, grind more, etc. I wanted to work up to proper fitment rather than take too much off and have it be sloppy. Humbly, it was approximately 3/16” too wide at first but then an almost exact fit afterwards. Fair to say that each spacer had less than 1/16” taken off since there are 4 of them.
 
-
Back
Top Bottom