Tubular upper arms-I feel lucky tonight

-
rednesss said:
I don't know, I kinda like the gusset idea.

tubeuca1.jpg
Click to expand...
Between the elongated cross-section at the point of contact and the gusset, I would have much greater confidence in those. The details hint at some degree of intent and thought. I'd suspect that this design would do well in a finite element modeling environment.
 
I have been to the Mancini store up outside Detroit. I walked around in there for 5 minutes before I found a part for a Mopar! LOL
Is there a Mancini left or is it in name only?????

And yeah...they still list the cap crap with no name!!!!!!!!!!
http://chucker54.stores.yahoo.net/newtukwirapi.html

funny...the link says chucker!:dontknow::angry4:
 
72bluNblu said:
I've been running the CAP arms on my Challenger for well over a year now without problems so far. I didn't know of any issues at the time I bought them. This isn't the first time that I've heard about failures of CAP parts, but with the internet the story/evidence isn't always clear cut. It's COMPLETELY obvious based on those pictures that this was a weld failure though, and I'd have to say I'll be looking for a new pair of tubular UCA's.

And as Joe said, there's nothing wrong with tubular a-arms in general. They are used in everything from F1 cars to Baja racers, and in the case of F1, on cars that cost over 3 million dollars. Like anything aftermarket, there are different levels of quality. CAP has proven itself to be low quality at best. And unlike a lot of things, the CAP arms are not cheaper than the alternatives!

RMS, Magnumforce, Hotchkiss, Firm Feel and Just Suspension all have tubular arms that are quality pieces that I would run well before I ever went back to stock design UCA's.

For those of you that think you're safe running ancient stock UCA's instead of tubular ones, I suggest you think again. Stock UCA's flex, twist, and eventually crack. And unless you're the original owner, you have no idea how many curbs, potholes, or accidents those UCA's have seen over the last 40 years. Also, the factory UCA's were designed around the original tire/rubber compounds available at the time. Needless to say, the tires that originally came on our cars are closer to hockey pucks than they are to modern tire compounds. More grip at the tire equals more force transmitted to the chassis, and in the case of the stock stamped arms, more flex.
Click to expand...

Really....I've had 4 A bodies and never a problem with stock uca's. And the A bodies had well over 400 000 miles between them.
 
72bluNblu said:
I've been running the CAP arms on my Challenger for well over a year now without problems so far. I didn't know of any issues at the time I bought them. This isn't the first time that I've heard about failures of CAP parts, but with the internet the story/evidence isn't always clear cut. It's COMPLETELY obvious based on those pictures that this was a weld failure though, and I'd have to say I'll be looking for a new pair of tubular UCA's.

And as Joe said, there's nothing wrong with tubular a-arms in general. They are used in everything from F1 cars to Baja racers, and in the case of F1, on cars that cost over 3 million dollars. Like anything aftermarket, there are different levels of quality. CAP has proven itself to be low quality at best. And unlike a lot of things, the CAP arms are not cheaper than the alternatives!

RMS, Magnumforce, Hotchkiss, Firm Feel and Just Suspension all have tubular arms that are quality pieces that I would run well before I ever went back to stock design UCA's.

For those of you that think you're safe running ancient stock UCA's instead of tubular ones, I suggest you think again. Stock UCA's flex, twist, and eventually crack. And unless you're the original owner, you have no idea how many curbs, potholes, or accidents those UCA's have seen over the last 40 years. Also, the factory UCA's were designed around the original tire/rubber compounds available at the time. Needless to say, the tires that originally came on our cars are closer to hockey pucks than they are to modern tire compounds. More grip at the tire equals more force transmitted to the chassis, and in the case of the stock stamped arms, more flex.
Click to expand...

Well spoken.
 
Just one question ? Is there a brand of tubular control arms that you dont have to use washers on to compensate for them being narrower than the stock control arms where you mount them??????
 
It would be real easy for CAP to remedy......A name change to CRAP would point out the obvious.
 
The reason I like the gusset's are as you drive and brake, great force is transmitted through the ball joint to the frame rail through a relatively small footprint on these tubular control arms. As you hit the brakes hard, the cars momentum will put the forward arm in compression and the rear arm in tension, hit a speed bump and those forces are reversed, repeat that a few thousand times and stress cracks can form and the weld can fail. The gusset creates a triangular support at this joint which adds an incredible amount of strength due to its shape and spreads the loads over a larger surface area. In my opinion its a superior design. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee these days.
 
look at the magnum force arms without the gussets (2 have em, 2 don't)
the ones without are using the balljoint socket as a gusset
 
rednesss said:
The reason I like the gusset's are as you drive and brake, great force is transmitted through the ball joint to the frame rail through a relatively small footprint on these tubular control arms. As you hit the brakes hard, the cars momentum will put the forward arm in compression and the rear arm in tension, hit a speed bump and those forces are reversed, repeat that a few thousand times and stress cracks can form and the weld can fail. The gusset creates a triangular support at this joint which adds an incredible amount of strength due to its shape and spreads the loads over a larger surface area. In my opinion its a superior design. That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee these days.
Click to expand...


I'm with you on this triangulation make everything stronger.
 
The Great Pyramid has been standing for how many thousand's of years?? 4 or 5??
 
clutch said:
Just one question ? Is there a brand of tubular control arms that you dont have to use washers on to compensate for them being narrower than the stock control arms where you mount them??????
Click to expand...


cap is the only one that uses washers that i know of. i know rms uses a machined spacer to put them in the correct location
 
What's the longevity expected for the heim joint on the RMS set?? Does it have a zirc to grease, or does it not get lubricated?? Wouldn't water and dirt get in there and over time wear that out as it travels up and down??
 
abodyjoe said:
cap is the only one that uses washers that i know of. i know rms uses a machined spacer to put them in the correct location
Click to expand...

It looks like the RMS set comes with washers if you go with the bushed ends.

product_image.php
 
clutch said:
Just one question ? Is there a brand of tubular control arms that you dont have to use washers on to compensate for them being narrower than the stock control arms where you mount them??????
Click to expand...

Yes. It looks like most of the heim joint versions actually come with machined spacers (RMS, Magnumforce). FFI and Just Suspension versions use stock bushings. Not sure about what Hotchkis does. The bushed versions of the RMS arms appear to use washers, although, there's really nothing at all wrong with that. The washers only act as a spacer, so they're only used as washers were intended. The only drawback is you get into the quality control of the washer when it comes to thickness, so there are larger tolerances than say with a machined spacer.

inkjunkie said:
what company made these? never mind, just seen the sticker, sometimes the obvious gets away...
Click to expand...

tubeuca1.jpg

Those are FFI UCA's. Nice pieces, but only adjustable using the stock bolts, although they have more caster built in from the start.

The gusset is a good idea, but if you look at the differences in design, not always necessary. The Magnumforce double adjustable arms (the most expensive), don't have them. But you also notice that because of their design the tubes are at a steeper angle, so the tube intersects the ball joint cup over a much longer area (vs a straight butt weld like the UCA's with wider, more curved legs). This makes the weld much stronger.

needsaresto said:
Really....I've had 4 A bodies and never a problem with stock uca's. And the A bodies had well over 400 000 miles between them.
Click to expand...

Even in the short time that I've been into this particular genre of mopars, I've seen several sets of cracked stock UCA's. Not to mention issues caused by bent/warped ones when it come to alignment. And that's really only talking about damage. But its not really fair to compare the reliability of a stock arm to an obviously defective tubular UCA, made by a company with a poor reputation.

The stock arms simply were not designed with the cornering loads that today's tires, rims, shocks, sway bars, and torsion bars can provide. Improvements in rubber compounds, tire sizes, weight, size and bending moments of sway bars and size and spring rates of modern torsion bars all transmit A LOT more force to the stock suspension components. I guarantee that an otherwise stock A-body running a 245 wide modern tires, with no other mods, will flex the hell out of a stock arm on a spirited drive.

If you're running bias-ply's, stock brakes, stock torsion bars and shocks, with a stock rebuild on your engine and just cruising you car around town, then your stock UCA's are plenty fine. But when you start making upgrades that the factory never dreamed of for a production car (400 hp+, 255+ wide tires with <300 treadwear, big brakes, frame connectors, etc) and/or throwing your mopar around corners at speed, you'll find the stockers to be fairly lacking. I seriously doubt ma-mopar ever thought that you could pull better than 1G on a skid pan with a car that still retains its torsion bar suspension.
 
I just contacted Dick at firmfeel about the reinforcement plates for k frames and lca's. $75 for k frame plates and $35/side for lca plates.

$145 total.Not bad but seems high like every other mopar part.

Sorry this is off topic,but I thought it worth bringing up. You will notice there is no plates for the upper A arm. Im thinking they would be simple to make as are the others.
My Dart currently has no drivetrain and is up in the air,so Im feeling like yanking the entire front k frame with susp. If I can get this pain to quit...
 
LCA plates are $20 to $25 for the pair, not $35 per side.
 
72bluNblu said:
Yes. It looks like most of the heim joint versions actually come with machined spacers (RMS, Magnumforce). FFI and Just Suspension versions use stock bushings. Not sure about what Hotchkis does. The bushed versions of the RMS arms appear to use washers, although, there's really nothing at all wrong with that. The washers only act as a spacer, so they're only used as washers were intended. The only drawback is you get into the quality control of the washer when it comes to thickness, so there are larger tolerances than say with a machined spacer.



tubeuca1.jpg

Those are FFI UCA's. Nice pieces, but only adjustable using the stock bolts, although they have more caster built in from the start.

The gusset is a good idea, but if you look at the differences in design, not always necessary. The Magnumforce double adjustable arms (the most expensive), don't have them. But you also notice that because of their design the tubes are at a steeper angle, so the tube intersects the ball joint cup over a much longer area (vs a straight butt weld like the UCA's with wider, more curved legs). This makes the weld much stronger.



Even in the short time that I've been into this particular genre of mopars, I've seen several sets of cracked stock UCA's. Not to mention issues caused by bent/warped ones when it come to alignment. And that's really only talking about damage. But its not really fair to compare the reliability of a stock arm to an obviously defective tubular UCA, made by a company with a poor reputation.

The stock arms simply were not designed with the cornering loads that today's tires, rims, shocks, sway bars, and torsion bars can provide. Improvements in rubber compounds, tire sizes, weight, size and bending moments of sway bars and size and spring rates of modern torsion bars all transmit A LOT more force to the stock suspension components. I guarantee that an otherwise stock A-body running a 245 wide modern tires, with no other mods, will flex the hell out of a stock arm on a spirited drive.

If you're running bias-ply's, stock brakes, stock torsion bars and shocks, with a stock rebuild on your engine and just cruising you car around town, then your stock UCA's are plenty fine. But when you start making upgrades that the factory never dreamed of for a production car (400 hp+, 255+ wide tires with <300 treadwear, big brakes, frame connectors, etc) and/or throwing your mopar around corners at speed, you'll find the stockers to be fairly lacking. I seriously doubt ma-mopar ever thought that you could pull better than 1G on a skid pan with a car that still retains its torsion bar suspension.
Click to expand...
"72bluNblu " I thought the same way you do when I built this car in 2006.I ordered cap tubular a-arms.When I discovered you had to use washers to make them fit I gave them away and went with stock upper control arms.That car had 383 torsion bars,stock upper and lower control arms,super stock springs in the rear with Dr Bob ajustable spring hangers and just suspension adj hangers in the rear,245/40/18s on 10inch wide rims,with the 4 speed tranny and a motor that dyno'd at well over 400 hp my buddy in his ZO6 had a fit when he couldnt even begin to shake me on the back twisty country roads in my neighborhood.Its not very hard to set up an old school mopar that can do just about anything a new school muscle car can do using the stock mopar components!

Picture 941.jpg
 
clutch said:
"72bluNblu " I thought the same way you do when I built this car in 2006.I ordered cap tubular a-arms.When I discovered you had to use washers to make them fit I gave them away and went with stock upper control arms.That car had 383 torsion bars,stock upper and lower control arms,super stock springs in the rear with Dr Bob ajustable spring hangers and just suspension adj hangers in the rear,245/40/18s on 10inch wide rims,with the 4 speed tranny and a motor that dyno'd at well over 400 hp my buddy in his ZO6 had a fit when he couldnt even begin to shake me on the back twisty country roads in my neighborhood.Its not very hard to set up an old school mopar that can do just about anything a new school muscle car can do using the stock mopar components!
Click to expand...

Let me make a few points here-

I didn't intend to imply that the handling of our cars CAN'T be improved with stock parts. Upgrading to big block torsion bars, SS springs, better tires and shocks will make a big difference over stock (provided you don't already have a big block car). On the same note, even just adding stock sway bars and using later model disk brakes (all the way up to 11 3/4") can really improve things.

But, the stock components have their limits. The stock UCA's flex. Quite a bit actually. Anyone that's ever taken a ball joint socket and a breaker bar to a stock UCA to change an old crusty ball joint has probably witnessed this. Still, I haven't personally heard of a catastrophic failure of a stock arm, and I can't say the same for the CAP tubular UCA's. But that doesn't mean that the stock UCA's are better than the other tubular UCA's out there. It also doesn't mean the stock UCA's perform particularly well, it just means they don't typically fail in a catastrophic manner.

And I'd also be willing to bet that you'd probably notice the difference if you went to tubular UCA's. Mostly because if you're keeping up with a Z06 it says a lot more about you than it does your car. I really don't like Chevy's, and I really DISLIKE 'Vettes, but in an objective, car to car comparison, a Z06 shouldn't have any trouble making all but a well equipped A-body racer disappear in the rear view on a road coarse.
 
Alright, I didn't have time earlier...the real difference between Magnum Force's 2 styles (gusseted and not) is not in the design of the control arm...it is in the material used to make the control arm. The two control arms without gussets are chromoly steel. The other two are probably a milder steel and require the gussets, since they don't actually tell you what they are made of. Here's the tech page on all of the control arms. They tell us that they are "Manufactured from D.O.M. Seamless tubing". Only in the individual listing do they mention chromoly steel control arms and only in the two high end arms.
http://www.magnumforce.com/magnumforce_tubular_control_arms.htm

The rod ends that Magnum Force uses are rated at 30,000 pounds each!!!
"4130 Chromoly teflon lined spherical rod ends with a radial load capacity in excess of 30,000 lbs each!"
No worrys about breakage or corrosion...wear should take many many miles! Even when they wear out they don't come apart unless you keep driving forever until it eats itself...LOL you would actually have to be a complete idiot for this to happen because it would be rattling bigtime! LOL
 
1968FormulaS340 said:
When you are running meats and streamers the adjustability is pointless, your car will corner like crap anyway.

They do little or nothing even when you are running a standard wheel and tire like 14s or 15s with some BFGs.

They are however useful when you move to a real performance wheel and tire package like abodyjoe is running.

The weight savings is insignificant on all but race cars where weight reduction becomes a priority.

In the end….. If you choose tube control arms you should only buy the best quality. Often people buy crap like this simply because it looks cool.
Click to expand...

Do you actually understand anything about suspensions and alignments? Apparently not.

Even straight line cars need extra caster so they go straight better. There are three ways to get extra caster in a Mopar. Run the Moog offset bushings oriented so they give you more caster, run fixed tubular arms that have extra caster built in or run tubular arms that have adjustable heim joints.

Try understanding the subject before slamming someone for the choice of part they put on their car.
 
lilcuda said:
Do you actually understand anything about suspensions and alignments? Apparently not.

Even straight line cars need extra caster so they go straight better. There are three ways to get extra caster in a Mopar. Run the Moog offset bushings oriented so they give you more caster, run fixed tubular arms that have extra caster built in or run tubular arms that have adjustable heim joints.

Try understanding the subject before slamming someone for the choice of part they put on their car.
Click to expand...


Yes, I completely understand and I stand firm on what I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top