|
|
|
#1
12-03-2020, 07:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Added tall ball joints
I have Hotchkis upper and lower control arms on my 66 but was still getting positive camber. It was suggested that I try taller upper ball joints. The greater distance between the two (upper and lower) ball joint pivot points changes the geometry and results in (theoretically) the camber going negative on compression.
First pic is the stock and 0.9” taller ball joint side by side. Second pic is the new ball joint installer. Third pic is the taller ball joint with a short piece of heater hose around the exposed shaft to hopefully protect it. I’ll cram grease inside of it if I can. So far the static camber seems to be better. I haven’t driven it yet but I did have a fat friend sit on the front fender and it appears the camber is now going negative (top in) on compression which is what these A bodies need. I’ll take it to the alignment shop shorty and have the align it as follows: Camber - 0.5* neg Caster - R - 5* pos Caster - L - 4.5* pos Toe - 1/16 in I’ll post again when it’s done about how it handles and tracks. Last edited by 67-ls1; 12-28-2020 at 06:47 PM. 
|
|
#2
12-29-2020, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Back on the road and alignment done. It seems to track better and the steering wheel seems to want to return to center better.
The camber change has helped just slightly with a fender rubbing issue. It doesn’t rub near as much but it’s still not perfect. The Wilwood disc brakes pushed the wheels out farther than I realized they would. Still way better to drive. I have a driveshaft angle issue I need to work through next.
|
|
#3
01-01-2021, 04:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
So you think it handles better. I debated installing tall ball joints before and never got around to it. You think it's worth it?
|
|
#4
01-01-2021, 10:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
01-16-2021, 07:48 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thanks. I don't have an issue with tires rubbing so they may be a good option.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
