Adjustable upper control arm opinions.
Since then, almost everything has replaced. QA1 tubular K member, boxed-in LCA's with new forged, greasable pivot pins and polyurethane bushings and new A body LBJ's, QA1 adjustable strut rods, stock power steering box with a Borgeson u-joint coupler and a Magnum power steering pump that is a slightly lower pressure than the original, PST 1.03" torsion bars, and the PST uppers with new ball joints. I also went to 245/45/17's.
All of that, and it's worse. Granted, I can't get the alignment right so that doesn't help. I will say the steering feel is better. I know a lot of the problems are with poor alignment and cheap shocks, but it drives so bad I don't like driving it. I've had enough, and spent more than enough trying to make it better, but it's not.
I made the component choices based countless threads on here about making the stock style suspension work. 72blu has been one the main contributor of information on making it work better.
This is what I'm here for. Thank you for taking the time to measure and map out the difference between A and FMJ knuckles. I've had a suspicion that the FMJ knuckles have been part of the problem with how bad my car drives. I ran them with the stock uppers, torsion bars, lowers, strut rods, and stock K member with 215/60/15's and with decent alignment specs it was borderline dangerous feeling. It wandered around on the road following ruts and felt disconnected from steering input with a 24:1 manual steering box.Absolutely.
A-Body:
View attachment 1716479099
F-Body:
View attachment 1716479104
Note that the inside upper pivot height is dependent on caster and such. Because it is a sloped mount, the effective height is where the UBJ is at 90 degrees to the two mounts. Here is a side view of the F-Body spindle:
View attachment 1716479103
So less caster would move the UBJ forward and effectively raise inner upper mount height.
Agreed, and no one should feel like they have to have to run their car that low. Frankly, I can't say for sure that I am that low with my '74. It's more of the ideal in my mind, since it get's the RC as low as possible.
True.
To be clear though, the slope of the UCA needs to be up to the UBJ when the LCA is flat. If the LCA is not flat but instead slopes down to the LBJ, I wouldn't want the UCA sloping up to the UBJ as the RC would actually climb then.
Here are some examples.
A stock A-Body ride height has a static RC of 6.3".
With the F-Body spindle and 1" longer UBJ, the RC is over 10".
View attachment 1716479106
This is using the stock alignment specs, don't miss that.
So, in my inexperienced opinion, regardless of ride height, an F-Body Spindle and 1" longer UBJ would be a detriment in all cases (in theory) because the RC would be higher and jacking forces greater.
Since then, almost everything has replaced. QA1 tubular K member, boxed-in LCA's with new forged, greasable pivot pins and polyurethane bushings and new A body LBJ's, QA1 adjustable strut rods, stock power steering box with a Borgeson u-joint coupler and a Magnum power steering pump that is a slightly lower pressure than the original, PST 1.03" torsion bars, and the PST uppers with new ball joints. I also went to 245/45/17's.
All of that, and it's worse. Granted, I can't get the alignment right so that doesn't help. I will say the steering feel is better. I know a lot of the problems are with poor alignment and cheap shocks, but it drives so bad I don't like driving it. I've had enough, and spent more than enough trying to make it better, but it's not.
I made the component choices based countless threads on here about making the stock style suspension work. 72blu has been one the main contributor of information on making it work better.