Qa1 upper control arm and moog offset bushing help

-
S

Shadowfirexz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
46
Reaction score
4
Location
Bc Canada
Hello I’m new to this posting and apologize if this is in the wrong area but need some help. I have a 1970 duster. I’m running a qa1 level 2 front suspension kit. Control arms/kmember /sway bar all qa1.... well having some issues at the alignment shop getting neutral camber on the drivers side . Passenger side is 0 and drivers is .5 negative. The control arm is maxed out and will not allow any more positive camber adjustment. The guy doing the alignment is a oldschool guy who knows his stuff but maybe he’s a bit rusty. There could be a slight tweet to the frame from a previous owners accident but not sure. Anyways. Can anyone tell me if a moog k7103 offset bushing will fit into a 52301 qu1 tubular upper control arm? ????
I don’t wanna frame shops the car. Just need a little extra help to get my wheels straight without a frame twerk. Called qa1 and some dummy couldn’t tell me anything about anything you know how it is with some tech guys...

I’d like to add that I have been running running the 52303 qa1 control arm which has the small ball joint going into one of those small to big ball joint adapter sleeves going into a 73 spindle.

Now cause I hate that I just bought the 52301 upper control arm for a 73 spindle that has the big proper upper ball joint for the 73 spindle. I’ve been suspicious that maybe that alone is why I can’t get the positive camber on that corner due to the incorrect geometry of the small ball joint control arm going into the big ball joint spindle. Uhg sorry this is so long winded but please someone must have advice here if the offset moog bushings will fit into the qa1 upper control arms or if they think my issue is due to running the wrong ball joint and control arm into the 73 spindle. Also all I know is the bushings that come in qa1 arms are energy bushings don’t know if moog will fit? Ps from what I was told from qa1 is that I can’t just change the small balljoint to the big ball joint on the 52303 cause the big ball joint just won’t fit in the hole that the small one does so have to buy the other set with big ball joints uhgggggggggg help. And here’s a pic of my alignment print out

3570D307-B3A8-4A63-AE75-4717F82164F7.jpeg
 
I can't help with your question because I've never used QA1's but there are plenty here that can help, just wanted to welcome you to the site great knowledge from the guys and gal's on here! Welcome from Kentucky! :welcome:
 
Shadowfirexz said:
Hello I’m new to this posting and apologize if this is in the wrong area but need some help. I have a 1970 duster. I’m running a qa1 level 2 front suspension kit. Control arms/kmember /sway bar all qa1.... well having some issues at the alignment shop getting neutral camber on the drivers side . Passenger side is 0 and drivers is .5 negative. The control arm is maxed out and will not allow any more positive camber adjustment. The guy doing the alignment is a oldschool guy who knows his stuff but maybe he’s a bit rusty. There could be a slight tweet to the frame from a previous owners accident but not sure. Anyways. Can anyone tell me if a moog k7103 offset bushing will fit into a 52301 qu1 tubular upper control arm? ????
I don’t wanna frame shops the car. Just need a little extra help to get my wheels straight without a frame twerk. Called qa1 and some dummy couldn’t tell me anything about anything you know how it is with some tech guys...

I’d like to add that I have been running running the 52303 qa1 control arm which has the small ball joint going into one of those small to big ball joint adapter sleeves going into a 73 spindle.

Now cause I hate that I just bought the 52301 upper control arm for a 73 spindle that has the big proper upper ball joint for the 73 spindle. I’ve been suspicious that maybe that alone is why I can’t get the positive camber on that corner due to the incorrect geometry of the small ball joint control arm going into the big ball joint spindle. Uhg sorry this is so long winded but please someone must have advice here if the offset moog bushings will fit into the qa1 upper control arms or if they think my issue is due to running the wrong ball joint and control arm into the 73 spindle. Also all I know is the bushings that come in qa1 arms are energy bushings don’t know if moog will fit? Ps from what I was told from qa1 is that I can’t just change the small balljoint to the big ball joint on the 52303 cause the big ball joint just won’t fit in the hole that the small one does so have to buy the other set with big ball joints uhgggggggggg help. And here’s a pic of my alignment print out

View attachment 1715370870
Click to expand...
Anyone?
 
I can't help either but .5 degrees negative camber shouldn't eat up your tires.
I have run .75 negative camber with no issues.
I suppose you could raise that side a little, but if it's even now with your butt in the seat I'd leave it alone!
 
I'll assume any brand of upper arm bushing would fit.
 
Ok. So first off, the tapered sleeve for the ball joint shouldn’t change anything as long as everything is seated properly.

Next, why are you trying to set “neutral” camber? If you have radial tires, you should be running negative camber. The factory alignment specs are for bias ply tires and are TERRIBLE for radials. If you’ve got radials, you should be running specs more like this

E58016C7-02C5-45D0-A79A-57A83CCB8649.jpeg


The QA1 UCA’s are designed to give you more positive caster and more modern alignment numbers, so negative camber. The caster is pretty low too, those UCA’s should be able to get you to +4*’s of caster. Ride height plays a big part of that though, what’s the ride height set at?

And finally, if the frame is bent to the point its screwing up your alignment numbers you shouldn’t be driving it. Period.
 
72bluNblu said:
Ok. So first off, the tapered sleeve for the ball joint shouldn’t change anything as long as everything is seated properly.

Next, why are you trying to set “neutral” camber? If you have radial tires, you should be running negative camber. The factory alignment specs are for bias ply tires and are TERRIBLE for radials. If you’ve got radials, you should be running specs more like this

View attachment 1715371309

The QA1 UCA’s are designed to give you more positive caster and more modern alignment numbers, so negative camber. The caster is pretty low too, those UCA’s should be able to get you to +4*’s of caster. Ride height plays a big part of that though, what’s the ride height set at?

And finally, if the frame is bent to the point its screwing up your alignment numbers you shouldn’t be driving it. Period.
Click to expand...
I want my tires straight the .5 negative camber on the driver side is visually ridiculous looking tires look like this /|
I don’t believe the frame is bent as the k memeber bolts to the front frame so if there was a bend issue bolting the kmember in place woulda caused issues. Just a thought that there could be a tweak there as I’ve read some Abody a have issues getting positive camber due to a slightly rolled frame corner. The ride height has been set to where it needs to be. The right control arm is maxed out literally to its full reach so lowering any more does nothing!!!!!! I want the ability to get neutral or positive camber on the driver side or what good is it if I have to keep negative camber for life. Needs to be fixed with the offset bushings a frame roll or hoping the small to big ball joint swap will correct on the 73 up spindle
 
Shadowfirexz said:
I want my tires straight the .5 negative camber on the driver side is visually ridiculous looking tires look like this /|
I don’t believe the frame is bent as the k memeber bolts to the front frame so if there was a bend issue bolting the kmember in place woulda caused issues. Just a thought that there could be a tweak there as I’ve read some Abody a have issues getting positive camber due to a slightly rolled frame corner. The ride height has been set to where it needs to be. The right control arm is maxed out literally to its full reach so lowering any more does nothing!!!!!! I want the ability to get neutral or positive camber on the driver side or what good is it if I have to keep negative camber for life. Needs to be fixed with the offset bushings a frame roll or hoping the small to big ball joint swap will correct on the 73 up spindle
Click to expand...

Well, I don’t know what to tell you. The QA1 arms are designed to give you a proper alignment for radial tires. Which means, they are designed to give slightly negative camber because that’s what radial tires are supposed to have. So, if you’re getting negative camber they’re literally doing what they were designed to do, and the “good” is having the proper alignment for the tires you’re running.

You should not be setting 0 or positive camber with radial tires. And you can barely see a 1/2 degree of camber I either direction anyway. They really only start to look cambered when you get close to 1 degree. And regardless, you should be more concerned with your car having a proper alignment and handling than what the tires look like with a very small amount of negative camber.

Switching to large ball joint UCA’s will change nothing by itself, that’s not causing your problem. If you switched back to factory UCA’s it might help, but again that’s because they were designed for bias ply tire alignment specs. Which will give you a squirrelly feeling if used with radial tires, because they’re the wrong specs.

Saying that ride height is “where it needs to be” says nothing about where it actually IS, so, not helpful in trying to diagnose a possible suspension geometry problem.

The frame could be bent and still have the K bolt in place, one doesn’t exclude the other. But I’m more inclined to think the “problem” is that you’re trying to set the wrong alignment specs for the parts that you’re using.
 
72bluNblu said:
Well, I don’t know what to tell you. The QA1 arms are designed to give you a proper alignment for radial tires. Which means, they are designed to give slightly negative camber because that’s what radial tires are supposed to have. So, if you’re getting negative camber they’re literally doing what they were designed to do, and the “good” is having the proper alignment for the tires you’re running.

You should not be setting 0 or positive camber with radial tires. And you can barely see a 1/2 degree of camber I either direction anyway. They really only start to look cambered when you get close to 1 degree. And regardless, you should be more concerned with your car having a proper alignment and handling than what the tires look like with a very small amount of negative camber.

Switching to large ball joint UCA’s will change nothing by itself, that’s not causing your problem. If you switched back to factory UCA’s it might help, but again that’s because they were designed for bias ply tire alignment specs. Which will give you a squirrelly feeling if used with radial tires, because they’re the wrong specs.

Saying that ride height is “where it needs to be” says nothing about where it actually IS, so, not helpful in trying to diagnose a possible suspension geometry problem.

The frame could be bent and still have the K bolt in place, one doesn’t exclude the other. But I’m more inclined to think the “problem” is that you’re trying to set the wrong alignment specs for the parts that you’re using.
Click to expand...
I appreciate these thoughts and Info....qa1 arms are designed to reduce the weight of stock arms and offer more strength. They give additional caster and adjustments positive or negative that’s why they are so fancy. With any control arm I should have the option to adjust negative -neutral and into positive camber. I’m having a issue on this driver side as I can’t get neutral or positive and that’s just saying something isn’t right.
Qa1 says arm 52303 which contains the small ball joint is different then the 52303 arm containing the big ball joint. There’s a different in the end of the arm as the hole the large screw in ball joint sits in is bigger for the bigger ball joint. I’m no scientist but that I’m immediatly tells me the 52301 big ball joint arm should sit out a tad farther at least enough to give me that .5 camber I’m after? It’s a 73 up arm for a 73 spindle. I’m running a 52301 small balljoint arm for a 70-72 with a ball joint adapter sleeve. As I stated above Ive now bought new arms the proper 73 up arms for the 73 spindle. So does that not sound like a geometry issue to anyone??????? Anyways all good. I’ll figure it all out like usual. My main concern/ question here was will the moog offset k7103 bushings fit into the qa1 arms. Offset bushings will give me my numbers I’m personally after
 
I think the center of the ball joint would be in the same place regardless of its diameter. If you now have the smaller ball joint with late model spindles you have the adapter sleeves in the spindles. Change to the arms with larger ball joint simply means remove those adapters from the spindles.
My question is why in the heck would aftermarket produce upper arms that require something other than OEM replicable parts? Any brand of ball joint or bushing listed for a-body should fit in them.
 
1: doesn't matter which QA1 you have, the vertical center line for both ball joints are in the same place.
2: why are you so set on getting neg to pos camber? everyone else that's had one of these cars for the last 40 years has been trying to get neg camber, and that's why there's a market for these control arms.
3: if your out of height adjustment on one side something is wrong. you need to start from scratch again. to get more help here your going to need to list everything you've done to the front suspension on this car. T-bars, control arms, adjustable strut rods, ect
4: the moog bushings will not fit those arms
 
kursplat said:
1: doesn't matter which QA1 you have, the vertical center line for both ball joints are in the same place.
2: why are you so set on getting neg to pos camber? everyone else that's had one of these cars for the last 40 years has been trying to get neg camber, and that's why there's a market for these control arms.
3: if your out of height adjustment on one side something is wrong. you need to start from scratch again. to get more help here your going to need to list everything you've done to the front suspension on this car. T-bars, control arms, adjustable strut rods, ect
4: the moog bushings will not fit those arms
Click to expand...
I’m working on sorting this out will post when I find out what’s going on with the driver corner. I don’t want negative camber at the drag strip. Straight line needs straight wheels!!! What good is a adjustable suspension if you can only stay in negative camber. I want neutral or positive adjustment abilities like every other Abody out there. How do you know the moog will not fit in the qa1? Own a set? Have you tried? Waiting for my offset bushings and I’ll let everyone know if they fit in the qa1 arms
 
I would assume that the moog bushings would not fit the Qa1 arm due to the fact that they are running poly bushings with no sleeves, secondly most aftermarket control arms manufacturers use one type of poly bushing whether it is a mopar, ford or gm control arm as this is an aftermarket piece. So from a production stand point they only have to carry one part number and change the inner sleeve to fit the corresponding application. If it were me I would pull the control arm out (qa1) pop one of the bushings out and I bet on the end facing in is a part number to the poly manufacturer and you maybe able to Google it. But my money is on that you will not be able to fit a stock moog bushing to their arms.
 
PST said:
I would assume that the moog bushings would not fit the Qa1 arm due to the fact that they are running poly bushings with no sleeves, secondly most aftermarket control arms manufacturers use one type of poly bushing whether it is a mopar, ford or gm control arm as this is an aftermarket piece. So from a production stand point they only have to carry one part number and change the inner sleeve to fit the corresponding application. If it were me I would pull the control arm out (qa1) pop one of the bushings out and I bet on the end facing in is a part number to the poly manufacturer and you maybe able to Google it. But my money is on that you will not be able to fit a stock moog bushing to their arms.
Click to expand...
Ya I’m 600 km away from the car at work so I’m a couple days I’ll be back and see if the bushings f
sccachallenger said:
Did I miss where you asked the manufacturer whether stock bushings would fit?
Click to expand...
i contacted qa1 and one of there “tech” guys was not helpful or mechanical and could not tell me anything about anything. Collect call from Canada for a waste of time. They did tell me they run energy suspension bushings but couldn’t give me the energy bushing part number even. I have no time to waste so bought the moog bushings will try and install when I get home from work in a few days. If it works it works if not then all good
 
Shadowfirexz said:
I appreciate these thoughts and Info....qa1 arms are designed to reduce the weight of stock arms and offer more strength. They give additional caster and adjustments positive or negative that’s why they are so fancy. With any control arm I should have the option to adjust negative -neutral and into positive camber. I’m having a issue on this driver side as I can’t get neutral or positive and that’s just saying something isn’t right.
Qa1 says arm 52303 which contains the small ball joint is different then the 52303 arm containing the big ball joint. There’s a different in the end of the arm as the hole the large screw in ball joint sits in is bigger for the bigger ball joint. I’m no scientist but that I’m immediatly tells me the 52301 big ball joint arm should sit out a tad farther at least enough to give me that .5 camber I’m after? It’s a 73 up arm for a 73 spindle. I’m running a 52301 small balljoint arm for a 70-72 with a ball joint adapter sleeve. As I stated above Ive now bought new arms the proper 73 up arms for the 73 spindle. So does that not sound like a geometry issue to anyone??????? Anyways all good. I’ll figure it all out like usual. My main concern/ question here was will the moog offset k7103 bushings fit into the qa1 arms. Offset bushings will give me my numbers I’m personally after
Click to expand...

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how those control arms work.

The arms by themselves do not give additional adjustment. If you use the same exact eccentric bolts as the stock arms, the amount of adjustment is exactly the same as stock.

The difference is that the QA1 UCA's have additional positive caster built into the design. Which means that the "starting value" for the amount of caster has been changed. Aftermarket tubular UCA's typically have 2° or 3° of additional caster built in, which just means that the range has just been shifted 2 or 3° to the positive side. For example, if the range of adjustment was -1° caster to +2° caster with the stock UCA's and eccentrics, then the range with the QA1's would be +1° to +4° assuming they had 2° built in. The amount you can adjust the caster with the UCA mounting bolts is the same as before (3 degrees total), but now there is more positive caster built in. And yes, that means you have less ability to get 0 or negative caster. And that has an effect on your camber setting as well.

The geometry of the control arm is fixed with the QA1's, it physically CAN NOT add adjustability in BOTH directions. It just shifts the range one direction or the other. In the case of the QA1's, more caster has been built in. The amount of adjustability is completely up to the eccentrics.

As far as the ball joints, the centerline of the ball joint is in exactly the same place between the small ball joint arms and the large ball joint arms. Changing over to the large ball joint arms will not change the suspension geometry, it will just eliminate the tapered adaptor.

Shadowfirexz said:
I’m working on sorting this out will post when I find out what’s going on with the driver corner. I don’t want negative camber at the drag strip. Straight line needs straight wheels!!! What good is a adjustable suspension if you can only stay in negative camber. I want neutral or positive adjustment abilities like every other Abody out there. How do you know the moog will not fit in the qa1? Own a set? Have you tried? Waiting for my offset bushings and I’ll let everyone know if they fit in the qa1 arms
Click to expand...

If your car sees any street time at all, you'd better have a small amount of negative camber. And -.5° of camber won't hurt a thing at the drag strip. If anything the slight tilt on the tire will reduce the amount of contact patch in the front and reduce rolling resistance. The wheels are still pointed straight down the track, that's toe, not camber.

If you wanted positive camber and a small caster number, you should have stayed with the stock arms and bias ply's. "Every other A-body out there" doesn't run QA1 UCA's. The geometry of the QA1 UCA's is designed to give an alignment with moderately positive caster and slightly negative camber, because that's what these cars should have with modern tires.

As for the use of the Moog K7103 offset bushings, I have no idea if they will work with the QA1 arms. I know that the non-adjustable Magnumforce tubular UCA's can use stock bushings, as I have a set with the K7103's installed in them for even more caster. But that doesn't mean a thing for the QA1's.
 
Shadowfirexz said:
Ya I’m 600 km away from the car at work so I’m a couple days I’ll be back and see if the bushings f

i contacted qa1 and one of there “tech” guys was not helpful or mechanical and could not tell me anything about anything. Collect call from Canada for a waste of time. They did tell me they run energy suspension bushings but couldn’t give me the energy bushing part number even. I have no time to waste so bought the moog bushings will try and install when I get home from work in a few days. If it works it works if not then all good
Click to expand...

Wow! talk about disappointing customer service, thanks for the warning.
 
72bluNblu said:
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about how those control arms work.

The arms by themselves do not give additional adjustment. If you use the same exact eccentric bolts as the stock arms, the amount of adjustment is exactly the same as stock.

The difference is that the QA1 UCA's have additional positive caster built into the design. Which means that the "starting value" for the amount of caster has been changed. Aftermarket tubular UCA's typically have 2° or 3° of additional caster built in, which just means that the range has just been shifted 2 or 3° to the positive side. For example, if the range of adjustment was -1° caster to +2° caster with the stock UCA's and eccentrics, then the range with the QA1's would be +1° to +4° assuming they had 2° built in. The amount you can adjust the caster with the UCA mounting bolts is the same as before (3 degrees total), but now there is more positive caster built in. And yes, that means you have less ability to get 0 or negative caster. And that has an effect on your camber setting as well.

The geometry of the control arm is fixed with the QA1's, it physically CAN NOT add adjustability in BOTH directions. It just shifts the range one direction or the other. In the case of the QA1's, more caster has been built in. The amount of adjustability is completely up to the eccentrics.

As far as the ball joints, the centerline of the ball joint is in exactly the same place between the small ball joint arms and the large ball joint arms. Changing over to the large ball joint arms will not change the suspension geometry, it will just eliminate the tapered adaptor.



If your car sees any street time at all, you'd better have a small amount of negative camber. And -.5° of camber won't hurt a thing at the drag strip. If anything the slight tilt on the tire will reduce the amount of contact patch in the front and reduce rolling resistance. The wheels are still pointed straight down the track, that's toe, not camber.

If you wanted positive camber and a small caster number, you should have stayed with the stock arms and bias ply's. "Every other A-body out there" doesn't run QA1 UCA's. The geometry of the QA1 UCA's is designed to give an alignment with moderately positive caster and slightly negative camber, because that's what these cars should have with modern tires.

As for the use of the Moog K7103 offset bushings, I have no idea if they will work with the QA1 arms. I know that the non-adjustable Magnumforce tubular UCA's can use stock bushings, as I have a set with the K7103's installed in them for even more caster. But that doesn't mean a thing for the QA1's.
Click to expand...
I understand how it all works, I’ll let everyone know what’s causing the right side to not get neutral camber. If just the big ball joint control arm fixes it guess I’m right eh
 
I just had my Duster aligned yesterday. QA1 uppers, Lowers and K frame. Drivers side had was able to get in spec but passenger side couldn’t get any less than -2.5 camber. After some head scratching and to the point of figuring the unibody was askew the tech noticed that it looked like the k frame was shifted to one side a tad. He loosened the k frame and moved it over, bingo front end in spec. Although not optimized for handling, this thing goes straight, tires are straight and I’m ok with that. Just my 2 cents.
 
MomsDuster said:
I just had my Duster aligned yesterday. QA1 uppers, Lowers and K frame. Drivers side had was able to get in spec but passenger side couldn’t get any less than -2.5 camber. After some head scratching and to the point of figuring the unibody was askew the tech noticed that it looked like the k frame was shifted to one side a tad. He loosened the k frame and moved it over, bingo front end in spec. Although not optimized for handling, this thing goes straight, tires are straight and I’m ok with that. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
Hey I like your 2 cents!!!!! I was suspicious of maybe my qa1 k frame causing this abnormality and needing a twerk going to take a better look at it when I get to the car. I appreciate the 2 cents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top