Tubular upper arms-I feel lucky tonight

-
the hotchkis arms are super nice and really strong as are the just suspensions little pricey but you get what you pay for
 
Lol I think the Moog offset stuff came about as a fix for some of the mopars who cant get aligned properly. I think after 40+ years getting enough caster can be a probelm,lol.
 
I thought of a crazy way to increase caster and keep all of the stock components but this mod isnot for the faint of heart.
Here goes; remove the bolts holding the K frame and move the K frame forward on the frame, either mod the original holes or just weld the K to the car 1/4 inch should do it. sure I know it will effect alot of things but it would do it. Would need spacer on the motor mounts and the steering shaft might need to be spaced forward a bit. Of course the tire would move forward a bit too. I know, I know....try not to listen to those little voices..........
 
1968FormulaS340 said:
This is why I tell people not to waste their money on this crap. With your front wheel and tire combo tube control arms were pointless to begin with.
Click to expand...

Whether they are pointless or not is nowhere near the real issue. If a company offers parts for the front end of our street cars, they damn well better be SAFE. We are free to build our cars however we like, for more performance, for more safety, or even just for the "coolness" factor. Even if these parts are cheaper, they still HAVE TO BE SAFE. If it was me, I would already be talking to lawyers.
I'm glad you and your grand youngin are ok.
 
MtNemoMopar said:
Whether they are pointless or not is nowhere near the real issue. If a company offers parts for the front end of our street cars, they damn well better be SAFE. We are free to build our cars however we like, for more performance, for more safety, or even just for the "coolness" factor. Even if these parts are cheaper, they still HAVE TO BE SAFE. If it was me, I would already be talking to lawyers.
I'm glad you and your grand youngin are ok.
Click to expand...

Well put! Can't we get the DOT involved in this?:spiderma:
 
In regard to UCA failure, I've only had one experience where one failed, a stock one on my 88 D100 1/2 ton, which was about 12 years old at the time, and had about 100,000 miles on it. I was working on a construction job, where we were allowed to u-turn through the median of a divided interstate to get to where our machinery was.
The drivers side UCA failed in the middle of the median at low speed. It would have been catastrophic if it had happened a few minutes earlier!

It fractured right behind upper ball joint socket, apparently due to a combination of flex and corrosion. This wasn't a performance truck or treated harshly, in fact it had been owned by a security company before I bought it.
Now think about a performance car that has many hard launches and events of "spirited driving" over the years, and add all the other conditions they are subject to...all metal parts eventually fail.
But , has anybody here considered subjecting thse parts to a magnaflux test during a rebuild, even though you wouldn't increase your engine output using stock 20+ year old connecting rods without a thorough inspection.
Most of us just give them the eyeball test and put a Dupont overhaul on them. I'd like to be able to use something newer for all the reasons previously posted.
I guess it's really a case of buyer beware.... but from what I've seen here, think I'll avoid CAP products, however.
Alan
 
I just got a new disc break conversion kit yesterday from a company and when I opened it up to my horror were a set of Cap tubular UCA's.They were supposed to be the stamped UCA's like the OEM ones. When I called the company they said the correct ones were on back order and they were substituting these. I told them I didnt want them and they promptly gave me a UPS return authorization number to ship them back and they are going to give me my money back for the Cap product. How ironic, I have been following this story all week and chose to go with the stamped UCA's because of it, and when I finally get my breaks I was mortified to find these frigin things instead. Now I need to decide what I want to do for UCA's.
 
efriedrich said:
I just got a new disc break conversion kit yesterday from a company and when I opened it up to my horror were a set of Cap tubular UCA's.They were supposed to be the stamped UCA's like the OEM ones. When I called the company they said the correct ones were on back order and they were substituting these. I told them I didnt want them and they promptly gave me a UPS return authorization number to ship them back and they are going to give me my money back for the Cap product. How ironic, I have been following this story all week and chose to go with the stamped UCA's because of it, and when I finally get my breaks I was mortified to find these frigin things instead. Now I need to decide what I want to do for UCA's.
Click to expand...
If you are determined to use tubular upper control arms find some that are actually designed so that they are specific to the car. Meaning that they actually fit where you run your two bolts thru at the mounting point on the back side.So many of these tubulars are not as wide as the stock units so you have to use washers to make up the difference.Mopar 340 dave said he thought at least one of the brands were the same width as the stock ones.Maybe he will chime in.
 
I like the Magnum Force and would spend for either the #1 or #2 arms they sell. They are very nice and made of chro-moly with badass rod ends.

#1:
http://www.magnumforce.com/store/de...BrandID=&Category=&SubCategory=&Search=&Page=

#2:
http://www.magnumforce.com/store/de...BrandID=&Category=&SubCategory=&Search=&Page=

The only real difference between the #1 and #2 is that you have to take the cam bolt out to adjust the rod end, if required, on the #2. They are both double adjustable. The bushed arms they sell are also nice but the price difference is not enough to steer me to them....in the grand scheme its only $40-$100 difference....not very significant.
I have not run the bushed tubular arms but if the washers they are using just go on either side of the bushing, that is a good thing. It gives the bushing a nice flat surface to ride against. It may be that the bushings are generic, so to speak, and work for our app with the washers centering them up. It really is not a problem.
 
72bluNblu said:
CAP also sells their arms with heim joints, so that might account for the pivot difference. I'd try to find out where he got them.

As far as MIG vs TIG welded, it depends on the weld. On average I'd say TIG welds are smaller, cleaner, more uniform welds. But a good MIG weld can look much better than a bad TIG weld.

Post up some pictures of the arms, we can probably figure out which one's you have.
Click to expand...

72bluNblu - here are a few photos of my tube UCA's. These were bought over 6 years ago, i bought them a few years ago from the guy, but although he told me the brand, i can't remember. CAP does NOT sound familiar though, but these do look like ones in the original post. I would like to think that if these were manufactured over 6 years ago, then the incompetent welder (responsible for the failed ones) might not have done these ! Its not the CAP products in general that are at fault, its the poor welds turned out on some of them by some idiot who shouldn't be working there. These ones here have the Hiem joints, and i have also posted some closeups of the welds. Can you or anyone ID the brand or see if the welds look MIG or TIG? Someone on this forum said that gussetting (a la Magnum Force, Hotchkiss and Firm Feel) is not necessary. I disagree. You only have to look at the small amount of material on these welds and know of the huge loads that they have to carry, to see that some sort of gussetting would be adviseable. Its liek a road bridge - most well designed bridges could easily perform well 98% of the time with 25% of their support material removed -but its that freak strong storm combined with a load of heavy trucks that will bring it down, so the engineer's have to allow for this. So too the UCA - they should be able to withstand radial and side loads that would not be experienced in normal driving.

pair UCAs.jpg


pair UCAss.jpg


RHS UCA.jpg


weld.jpg


side on.jpg


from top.jpg


weld closeup.jpg
 
a gusset isn't needed. the welds were bad on those arms. the way the arms broke right down the weld tells you it wasn't welded properly. the gusset would have broken and done nothing too if welded like those arms that are pictured in the original post.
 
The pictures of the failed UCA look to me as if it has been butt welded?? I'm no chrome-moly expert but surely with these, and especially non-gussetted items, the tube should go through a hole in the radius (ie in about 1/4 inch into the ball joint cavity) and welded all around from the inside, AS WELL as again on the outside ?
 
abodyjoe said:
a gusset isn't needed. the welds were bad on those arms. the way the arms broke right down the weld tells you it wasn't welded properly. the gusset would have broken and done nothing too if welded like those arms that are pictured in the original post.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying a gusset would have saved those particular examples. What i am saying is that it would be general good engineering practice, considering the large loads to use a gusset -otherwise, why would have most other more respected brands have done it? If all the welds are done properly, gussetting can only make them stronger and stiffer. I know i'm not alone in thinking this.
 
alot of you guys are over engineering this - the ball joint cup is threaded - you cant weld it in there.

all you need is a good weld - the butt weld is fine - as long as there is penetration - even stick welding it would yield more strength then you need in that location.

the bottom line is the weld should not break - the weak point IMO should be the ball joint sleeve should distort - but I'm no engineer and have not done any testing.
 
70Hardtop said:
I'm not saying a gusset would have saved those particular examples. What i am saying is that it would be general good engineering practice, considering the large loads to use a gusset -otherwise, why would have most other more respected brands have done it? If all the welds are done properly, gussetting can only make them stronger and stiffer. I know i'm not alone in thinking this.
Click to expand...

the rms ones that have been on my car since 06 i think it was aren't gusseted. its not needed if welded properly.


the firm feel and magnumforce may need them because where the tube meets the balljoint socket, the angle the tube meets the socket or even the material used. i don't know. look at the difference of where everything is joined.. one thing i can tell ya is that if the broken arms pictured were welded correctly in the first place you would never see a thread liek this in the first place... :)

rms
product_image.php




firm feel
tubeuca1.jpg



magnumforce

gusset
MFR161022_mopar_bushed_control_arms.jpg


magnumforce

no gusset

MFR161022_mopar_adjustable_control_arms_blue.jpg
 
I believe the gusseted arms are mild steel,
the non-gusseted are chr-moly and don't require gussets.
I tried calling MF, no answer.
 
I just bought a RMS set to do a coil-over suspension. Bill changed the angle where the arms come into the BJ cup. The older style had a large loop, the newer look more like the Magnum Force ones.

I'm guessing here; but I believe the change was driven by tire/arm interference on large/wide front tires that required some shimming to correct. I think the new design cures this issue. RMS could answer for sure.
 
swing69 said:
I just bought a RMS set to do a coil-over suspension. Bill changed the angle where the arms come into the BJ cup. The older style had a large loop, the newer look more like the Magnum Force ones.

I'm guessing here; but I believe the change was driven by tire/arm interference on large/wide front tires that required some shimming to correct. I think the new design cures this issue. RMS could answer for sure.
Click to expand...

still no gusset though right?
 
swing69 said:
I just bought a RMS set to do a coil-over suspension. Bill changed the angle where the arms come into the BJ cup. The older style had a large loop, the newer look more like the Magnum Force ones.

I'm guessing here; but I believe the change was driven by tire/arm interference on large/wide front tires that required some shimming to correct. I think the new design cures this issue. RMS could answer for sure.
Click to expand...

Yes that is correct. It was I who was working with Bill to change that angle. When I found that the older style didn't work with the larger style rims alot of us like to use, he was so kind to redesign them, and he sent me a set of the new A-arms FREE of charge! What a guy!! Bill is simply the best!!!
 
70Hardtop said:
72bluNblu - here are a few photos of my tube UCA's. These were bought over 6 years ago, i bought them a few years ago from the guy, but although he told me the brand, i can't remember. CAP does NOT sound familiar though, but these do look like ones in the original post. I would like to think that if these were manufactured over 6 years ago, then the incompetent welder (responsible for the failed ones) might not have done these ! Its not the CAP products in general that are at fault, its the poor welds turned out on some of them by some idiot who shouldn't be working there. These ones here have the Hiem joints, and i have also posted some closeups of the welds. Can you or anyone ID the brand or see if the welds look MIG or TIG? Someone on this forum said that gussetting (a la Magnum Force, Hotchkiss and Firm Feel) is not necessary. I disagree. You only have to look at the small amount of material on these welds and know of the huge loads that they have to carry, to see that some sort of gussetting would be adviseable. Its liek a road bridge - most well designed bridges could easily perform well 98% of the time with 25% of their support material removed -but its that freak strong storm combined with a load of heavy trucks that will bring it down, so the engineer's have to allow for this. So too the UCA - they should be able to withstand radial and side loads that would not be experienced in normal driving.
Click to expand...

those are mig you can see how the metal looks like it almost has laid on there cold with almost no penatration. now look at the pictures that mopar dude posted those are heliarc welds with good penatration you can even see the edges where the weld has under cut the base metal
 
70Hardtop said:
72bluNblu - here are a few photos of my tube UCA's. These were bought over 6 years ago, i bought them a few years ago from the guy, but although he told me the brand, i can't remember. CAP does NOT sound familiar though, but these do look like ones in the original post. I would like to think that if these were manufactured over 6 years ago, then the incompetent welder (responsible for the failed ones) might not have done these ! Its not the CAP products in general that are at fault, its the poor welds turned out on some of them by some idiot who shouldn't be working there. These ones here have the Hiem joints, and i have also posted some closeups of the welds. Can you or anyone ID the brand or see if the welds look MIG or TIG? Someone on this forum said that gussetting (a la Magnum Force, Hotchkiss and Firm Feel) is not necessary. I disagree. You only have to look at the small amount of material on these welds and know of the huge loads that they have to carry, to see that some sort of gussetting would be adviseable. Its liek a road bridge - most well designed bridges could easily perform well 98% of the time with 25% of their support material removed -but its that freak strong storm combined with a load of heavy trucks that will bring it down, so the engineer's have to allow for this. So too the UCA - they should be able to withstand radial and side loads that would not be experienced in normal driving.
Click to expand...

Those are CAP arms and they are MIG welded, but I would have to agree with you in that those welds look good. Not sure what 1qwkScamp is talking about, they have good penetration and look to be right on for a MIG weld. The edge of the weld bites into the metal, there's no shoulder or build up of filler rod to suggest that the weld was too cold, and the weld has a good fillet to it. There's a little blob of filler metal on the bottom of the one weld, but the underlying weld looks good, that's just where the welder overlapped the start and finish of the weld. I wish the welds on my CAP arms looked as good. On that note, I've still not broken anything in about 10k miles now, and I drive a lot of backroads that have pavement quality issues. I will be replacing them though, just not worth it. CAP seems to have a quality control issue, MIG welding to begin with is less than others do, although as long as the welds are good it shouldn't be a problem. Their design seems fine as well, but they definitely let poorly welded arms out of the shop, which is just unacceptable. If you got a set with good welds they should perform fine.

The TIG welds on the RMS welds are good too, almost too hot right at the edge of the ball joint socket where it did undercut the edge a little. Not a problem, and far better than a cold weld, but just a little more filler rod in that area would be perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top