Lower control arm pivots question

-

dukes69

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2005
Messages
258
Reaction score
67
Location
San Diego
Are the lower control arm pivot shafts supposed to be extremely snug in the k member? I have the Hotchkis greasible lower control arm pivots shafts and poly bushings and they are "an interference fit" according to Hotchkis tech, which would not allow them to rotate or move whatsoever once installed and torqued. Thoughts?
 
rubber bushings are vulcanized and provide some torsional resistance ...the lower pivot pins are fixed.
With greasable bushings they will move independent of the fixed pin
 
Yes, the pivot shafts should be a tight fit in the K member. "interference fit" probably isn't the right description, it shouldn't require a press or anything like that to install the pivot pins into the K. But they shouldn't wobble around either. The pins might require a light press into the LCA bushings depending on the tolerances. With the poly bushings I usually install the bushing into the sleeve, then hold the pivot pin in a bench vise and slide the LCA with the bushings onto the pivot pin. With the pin held fixed it can be done by hand. Make sure to use plenty of the grease provided with the poly bushings.

The pivot shafts are not supposed to move or rotate in the K, that's why the pivot shaft bolts get torqued to 100 ft/lbs. The LCA and bushing rotates on the shaft. With poly bushings and the appropriate amount of grease the bushings will rotate on the pivot pin without any issues. In fact, the bushings can slide back and forth on the pins. In the original design the bonding of the rubber bushing to the sleeve provided some more fore/aft resistance (which is why you had to torque the pivot pins at ride height, to keep from separating the rubber bushings from the sleeves when they rotated). One of the reasons I use adjustable strut rods on my cars with poly LCA bushings, the strut rod plays a slightly bigger role in precisely locating the LCA's with the poly bushings. With the old rubber bushings there was a little more fudge factor there.
 
Thanks guys. I have the hotchkis adjustable strut rods as well, lower control arm stiffening plates, firm feel solid tie rods and a new borgenson power steering box so this should drive 150% better than the factory setup. The only things left are a new sway bar and T-bars....still trying to decide on which ones to use. Any ideas on those? I am thinking the 1.03 pst or the equivalent firm feel bars
 
good question on the t bars.
Do Firm Feel,PST and Just Suspension 1" torsion bars
have identical resistance to twist?
 
Thanks guys. I have the hotchkis adjustable strut rods as well, lower control arm stiffening plates, firm feel solid tie rods and a new borgenson power steering box so this should drive 150% better than the factory setup. The only things left are a new sway bar and T-bars....still trying to decide on which ones to use. Any ideas on those? I am thinking the 1.03 pst or the equivalent firm feel bars

Sounds like you've got a good plan! :thumbup:

The 1.03" PST bars are a good choice for most people I think. PST has NEVER given the actual wheel rate for those bars, but based on the generic spring equation it should be around 220 to 230 lb/in. With that kind of rate I would still want a good set of shocks like the RCD Bilsteins. The closest Firm Feel bars would be their 1.06's, which have a 252 lb/in wheel rate. That's what I bought for my Dart. My Duster has FFI 1.12" bars, with a 300 lb/in rate. But that car was built with the intention of running autoX. I do drive it almost daily, as it's my primary transportation. It's definitely stiff, but not intolerable. I actually like it the way it is. I do run Hotchkis Fox shocks on it though, and they do work better for the larger 1.12" bars than the Bilsteins did (I ran them previously).

good question on the t bars.
Do Firm Feel,PST and Just Suspension 1" torsion bars
have identical resistance to twist?

No, not at all. The problem is that neither Just Suspension or PST actually publish the wheel rates for their bars, so the best you can do is use a generic constant for spring steel in the torsion bar wheel rate equation based on their diameter. If you compare the published numbers for the larger Mopar Performance bars and the Firm Feel bars though you see that even bars of the same diameter can have different wheel rates based on the steel used. I worked the equations backwards to get some different constants from the companies that actually publish their wheel rates, which is where I get my wheel rate ranges for a given diameter.

But I've run the Just Suspension 1" torsion bars. They were pretty soft for their diameter, and based on the equations and my experience running them compared to other torsion bars I would say they're probably closer to 185 lb/in or so. Based solely on diameter they should be between 185 and 200 lb/in. I have not run the PST 1.03's, but based on their diameter and a generic constant for spring steel they should be somewhere between 220 and 230 lb/in or so. Firm Feel actually publishes it's wheel rates, their 1" bars are 195 lb/in, their 1.06's are 252 lb/in, and their 1.12's (which I run now) are 300 lb/in.

Just depends on how crazy/accurate you want to be. For the most part the numbers are tied to the diameter of the bars. For large changes in diameter you really only need to consider the diameter. It's when you start comparing bars that are the same diameter but from different manufacturers, or bars that are close in diameter from different manufacturers that things get interesting. I mean, .03" doesn't sound like much, but it could mean a difference of 20-30 lb/in on the wheel rate (or more!), which is more than a 10% difference in the wheel rate if you're comparing 1" to 1.03" bars.
 
-
Back
Top