Unacceptable: tubular upper control arms with no bump stop pads.

-
Kern Dog

Kern Dog

Build your car to handle.
FABO Gold Member
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
12,348
Reaction score
36,271
Location
Granite Bay CA
Millions of these cars were built and despite some sloppy tolerances, the dimensions are not that different from car to car so why does THIS happen?

IMG_1058.jpeg


This aftermarket tubular upper control arm front bar misses the bump stop by a mile.

IMG_1059.jpeg


Really? This is supposed to be acceptable? Maybe the right side is better.

IMG_1061.jpeg


Uhhh….

IMG_1062.jpeg


No, it is just as shitty as the left side.
These are PST products. They were a fight to install too, being too wide on the left side by 3/16”. I had to mill down the aluminum spacers to get them to fit in the car. Oddly, the right side went right in.
As it stands, I could weld on a flat tab on the front bars but that means prep and a repaint of the UCAs.
Just for a quickie fix, I made offset brackets.

IMG_1067.jpeg


IMG_1073.jpeg


IMG_1076.jpeg


I shouldn’t have to do this. Last year I installed a set of QA 1 arms and they had the bump stop pads welded to the front section on each one. This is shoddy work.
These offset pads will work but they shouldn’t be necessary. I’d weld on tabs like the QA -1 UCAs have but I’m pressed for time. I’d have to pull these off to get a good weld to them then there is the prep and paint…
Just a warning to you guys…. These UCAs may be great otherwise but this one part really sucks.
 
I actually like your bracket idea. But I agree 100%. You shouldn't have to have done that. Just one more piece of boosheet we have to put up with owning a Mopar.
 
The QA 1 UCAs that I installed in my Charger last year:

Q 7.jpg


Q 9.jpeg


How hard can it be to get this right? Firm Feel has arms that spread out from the ball joint so even if they don't have bump stop pads, the front sections may be in line with the factory bump stops.

UCA FF a.png


You can see by the pictures that PST has straight arms with no pads.

UCA PST.png


Come on, man...
 
Just custom parts, that’s the way it is.

The narrower profile of the UCA’s is actually a really good thing, it makes the arms stronger and it allows for wider rims up front with more backspace. A wider arm that contacts the factory bump stops can also interfere with wide wheels on the front, the factory control arms start to interfere at about a 9” wide wheel when you get close to 6” of backspace.

There are several brands of aftermarket UCA’s that require the bump stops to be moved. The SPC UCA’s I run need a different bump stop as well, and I use a completely different bump stop anyway to match up with my lowered ride height and larger diameter torsion bars. So for my car the bump stop change would be mandatory anyway, and a wider UCA would interfere with my wheels.

That’s hot rodding!
 
Kern Dog said:
The QA 1 UCAs that I installed in my Charger last year:

View attachment 1716416268

View attachment 1716416270

How hard can it be to get this right? Firm Feel has arms that spread out from the ball joint so even if they don't have bump stop pads, the front sections may be in line with the factory bump stops.

View attachment 1716416271

You can see by the pictures that PST has straight arms with no pads.

View attachment 1716416273

Come on, man...
Click to expand...
For the price, it's just ridiculous they don't have the pads.
 
Guys, I hate to say it, but if you look at the pictures of those arms you should clearly understand that they won’t contact the factory bump stops. The geometry is completely different, it should be obvious if you think about it.

And yeah, for the pro-touring crowd that design is a plus, not a minus.
 
I didn't buy the arms. I'm helping a friend that bought them.
No, I don't see how the design is a plus for anyone, "Pro Touring" or just a regular guy that wants more caster.
The QA 1 pictures did show a pad in ONE of the pictures.....

UCA QA 1.png


The ones for my Charger showed no pads...

UCA QA 1 a.png


But they had them as shown:

Q 4.jpg
 
Know what you are buying and don't shop by price.
I guarantee the price had an effect on the buying decision.
They are not the same part only application.
Like buying brakes or rims. Some are more than others and the price reflects the difference.
 
I agree to a point but what good is an incomplete part if they get returned more than ones that are properly built? Whatever parts they get back probably won't be sold and shipped to anyone else. Short cuts like this screw them more than help them.
If this were my car, I would be tempted to ship them back just to make a point even if I had to pay a bullshit restocking fee. Once they are installed though, I suspect that you're stuck with them.
 
Bump stops or no , is it possible they are switched side for side?
 
Are bump stops really needed? What is the suspension limit on extention without hitting the bump stops? Shocks maybe? Does it contact bumpstops in normal driving conditions or just when the vehicle is lifted with a jack or lift? Does the suspension have more extention travel with the new A frames than it did with the old frames and the original stops? Just curious.
 
Kern Dog said:
I didn't buy the arms. I'm helping a friend that bought them.
No, I don't see how the design is a plus for anyone, "Pro Touring" or just a regular guy that wants more caster.
Click to expand...

Then you either haven’t tried running 275/35/18’s on the front of an A-body, or you didn’t check wheel to UCA clearance through the full range of steering and suspension travel. “U” shaped UCA’s will interfere with the wheels specs you need to put a 275 on the front of an A body. “V” shaped UCA’s will clear the wheel, but will clear the factory bump stop as well. I’ve been saying this for years now to anyone that asks about running wide tires on the front of an A-body

Either way, it’s an improvement over the original design and just requires moving the bump stops. If you can’t handle moving a bump stop, don’t modify your cars.
Kern Dog said:
The QA 1 pictures did show a pad in ONE of the pictures.....

View attachment 1716416280
Click to expand...

Yeah only one of those pictures is an A body QA1 arm, and you can see the wider profile of the UCA (more U shaped) and the bends in the arms. Your other pictures are for B/E arms, which have a different design and aren’t relevant here.

Either way that plate is just a bucks worth of metal tack welded to the arm, it’s hardly a good design. Someone on here posted a picture of their QA1 UCA after that bump plate fell off. It’s an afterthought added for people that want to bolt on a part that requires far more thought and planning than just slapping it in place. The bump stop is a minor consideration compared to the other things you should be thinking about when changing a UCA to an aftermarket piece with altered geometry.

67Dart273 said:
Bump stops or no , is it possible they are switched side for side?
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t matter, that style of UCA won’t hit the factory bump stops. But based on the caster they’re on the correct sides.

92b said:
Are bump stops really needed? What is the suspension limit on extention without hitting the bump stops? Shocks maybe? Does it contact bumpstops in normal driving conditions or just when the vehicle is lifted with a jack or lift? Does the suspension have more extention travel with the new A frames than it did with the old frames and the original stops? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Yes, the bump stops are needed. Overextended shocks are one problem for sure. Depending on the torsion bar diameter they can also be very important. With stock torsion bars you’ll use those bump stops all the time. With really large torsion bars, you may need the upper bump stops to keep the torsion bar adjusters from becoming unloaded at full extension, depending on your ride height.
 
67Dart273 said:
Bump stops or no , is it possible they are switched side for side?
Click to expand...
No, that isn't possible. When installed on the correct side, the ball joint mounts are level. When installed in the wrong side, they are WAY out of level.
Look, I'm not complaining about the quality of the welds, the amount of caster they add or anything like that. I'm bitching that they didn't spend a couple more minutes and do this right. There was nothing stated in the instructions about this. Yeah, accommodations can be made but why should I? They dropped the ball on this. They should have done better...others do for a similar price.
 
I put QA1s on my car recently and they have a plate welded to the tube that lines right up to the factory bump stop. They are niece pieces but they are pricey.

PXL_20250524_002000979.jpg
 
As far as I can tell.....and I could be wrong, because I've not looked under every rock, but I believe all their competition offers the arms WITH the bumpstop pad. That in and of itself should be enough that they offer it as well. Just my opinion and you know what that's worth. lol
 
72bluNblu said:
Then you either haven’t tried running 275/35/18’s on the front of an A-body, or you didn’t check wheel to UCA clearance through the full range of steering and suspension travel. “U” shaped UCA’s will interfere with the wheels specs you need to put a 275 on the front of an A body. “V” shaped UCA’s will clear the wheel, but will clear the factory bump stop as well. I’ve been saying this for years now to anyone that asks about running wide tires on the front of an A-body

Either way, it’s an improvement over the original design and just requires moving the bump stops. If you can’t handle moving a bump stop, don’t modify your cars.


Yeah only one of those pictures is an A body QA1 arm, and you can see the wider profile of the UCA (more U shaped) and the bends in the arms. Your other pictures are for B/E arms, which have a different design and aren’t relevant here.

Either way that plate is just a bucks worth of metal tack welded to the arm, it’s hardly a good design. Someone on here posted a picture of their QA1 UCA after that bump plate fell off. It’s an afterthought added for people that want to bolt on a part that requires far more thought and planning than just slapping it in place. The bump stop is a minor consideration compared to the other things you should be thinking about when changing a UCA to an aftermarket piece with altered geometry.



Wouldn’t matter, that style of UCA won’t hit the factory bump stops. But based on the caster they’re on the correct sides.



Yes, the bump stops are needed. Overextended shocks are one problem for sure. Depending on the torsion bar diameter they can also be very important. With stock torsion bars you’ll use those bump stops all the time. With really large torsion bars, you may need the upper bump stops to keep the torsion bar adjusters from becoming unloaded at full extension, depending on your ride height.
Click to expand...
How did you correct over extension of the shocks or unloading the torsion bars on your car? Did you return it to the stock amount of extension or deviate from stock?
 
A little plate welded to the bottom of the arm would work the best. Those must have been an early copycat rendition of a tubular control arm by someone.
 
RustyRatRod said:
As far as I can tell.....and I could be wrong, because I've not looked under every rock, but I believe all their competition offers the arms WITH the bumpstop pad. That in and of itself should be enough that they offer it as well. Just my opinion and you know what that's worth. lol
Click to expand...
I believe the RMS arms don't have bump stop pads either - At least mine don't. They are shaped in a way to hit the bump stops though, so they don't really need a "pad" per-se.
 
I just installed a set of the discontinued SPC 1.0 arms @BergmanAutoCraft used to sell and the balljoints ran out of travel before the arms would have hit the stock upper bump stops if they had even lined up (which they didn't). So I got a set of the taller Energy Suspension bump stops @72bluNblu has suggested in the past to try and keep the balljoint from bottoming out.

Note that I didn't move the bump stops over like they needed to be, they were wide enough to just barely work. I didn't want to drill another hole plus I had the balljoint torqued and didn't want to take the suspension apart again so I took the easy way out.

I bought the UCA's thinking I would put them on my G3 swap car down the road, but had a bad balljoint on the '74 so on they went.

That said, I wonder about the SPC 2.0 arms as they have a huge arc to the front arm and I doubt there is ever a way to get a bump stop on those. I asked if there was a solution in this thread and have seen pictures of Peter's suspension and it doesn't appear it matters for those, but not sure.

image-jpeg.1715997818
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top