Tubular Lower Control Arm Thread

-
Here are the weights that I came up with using my trusty old bathroom scale. (May not be exact) Interesting if nothing else.

Torsion bar setup

340 torsion bar 7.2 lbs
Lower control arm 11.3 lbs
Strut Rod 3 lbs
Bump stop brackets (Cut Off) .5 lbs
Upper control arms 3.1 lbs
Shock 3.5 lbs

Total 28.6 x 2 = 57.2 lbs

Coilover Setup

Coilover with adapter 5 lbs
Spring 4 lbs
Tubular lower control arms 7 lbs
Tubular upper control arms 3 lbs (guess)
Aluminum strut rod (mine) 2.6 lbs

Total 21.6 x 2 = 43.2 lbs With 2 J bars and brackets 7.2 lbs x 2 = 14.4 lbs + 43.2 = 57.6 lbs

I don't care about unsprung weight, this is total weight.

So with the coilovers and extra bracing, which the front end on these cars need badly, you still come out the same weight.
 
i dont think i gain anything as i thought i would with a tubular frontend,as i think i went backwards,i had no problems with the stock stuff or header clearness problem,other than it looks cool,no gain
 
Ok I figured out what I want to do for the inner fender bracing. Option A is the J Bars that run inside of the engine bay. I have incorporated a landing on top of the spot welds on the factory shock tower. There is also an 1/8" piece of plate that will box the factory shock tower area for both options and should make that area considerably stronger.

Option A
 

Attachments

  • Inner fender bracing3.jpg
    71.8 KB · Views: 769
  • Inner fender bracing4.jpg
    62.7 KB · Views: 768
Option B
 

Attachments

  • Inner fender bracing.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 778
  • Inner fender bracing2.jpg
    92.2 KB · Views: 790
Badart said:
Ok I figured out what I want to do for the inner fender bracing. Option A is the J Bars that run inside of the engine bay. I have incorporated a landing on top of the spot welds on the factory shock tower. There is also an 1/8" piece of plate that will box the factory shock tower area for both options and should make that area considerably stronger.

Option A
Click to expand...

Would this be instead of the one that connects directly to the shock tower from the J bar and has the holes cut in it like the one in the picture that was painted Red?
 
Fst73_360 said:
Would this be instead of the one that connects directly to the shock tower from the J bar and has the holes cut in it like the one in the picture that was painted Red?
Click to expand...

I believe so. This design is less complex and allows more clearance for guys running big blocks, plus it should be just about as strong if you ask me. The issue with connecting it directly to the shock tower is the amount of trimming to the inner fender that would have to be done to build a proper landing. If you look at where the shock attaches there is about 1/4" gap of air and that area would have to be removed. Where the plate in the picture attaches is a spot welded area that is a better attachment point if you ask me.
 
Just so everyone knows. I triple checked this measurement today on a 73 Dart Sport. With this coilover and adapter it puts it exactly factory ride height and possibly 1/2" lower. Should be a nice setup.

I can also make the adapters up to 3/4" shorter if you want a little more drop.
 

Attachments

  • Clearance6.jpg
    93.1 KB · Views: 689
Wahoo Final mock up. Fits like a glove. I am using the factory upper bump stop. I am using Reilly Motor Sports Upper control arms and I have to say that the fit was spot on. I am impressed by the quality too.

I have decided to move the lower control arm coilover mounts out about another 3/4" to allow a little more clearance from the frame rail, but this setup works fine.

The Upper and lower arms will be sent out for powder coating this week also.
 

Attachments

  • Before paint5.jpg
    105.7 KB · Views: 640
  • Before paint4.jpg
    101.3 KB · Views: 626
  • Before paint3.jpg
    104.6 KB · Views: 633
  • Before paint2.jpg
    113.3 KB · Views: 635
  • Before paint.jpg
    108.8 KB · Views: 642
  • Before paint6.jpg
    94.5 KB · Views: 641
Do You not want to make both upper and lower control arms or is it a technical reason?
 
Badart said:
There are so many people making the uppers that I don't have much interest in it.
Click to expand...

ah ok, was jw for price reasons, as I thought thats what everything being made was about! But I didnt know they were wide spread made, thought only Riley made them!
 
Do those arms have the factory "cant" of the ball joint built into them? Or are the tubes on the same horizontal plane as the ball joint itself?
 
curleysracecars said:
Do those arms have the factory "cant" of the ball joint built into them? Or are the tubes on the same horizontal plane as the ball joint itself?
Click to expand...

I built them so after the main tube bend it is a straight shot into the ball joint, so yes they have the factory cant is built into them. Thanks for the question Curley.
 
Badart said:
I built them so after the main tube bend it is a straight shot into the ball joint, so yes they have the factory cant is built into them. Thanks for the question Curley.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the UCA...are we talking about the same thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top