74_5.0L_Z Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 What Jon said... I made my control arms several years before the threads mentioned above. My control arms are functional and light, but I have to be careful to verify that the bolt going through the outer pivot is not in a bind after a camber or toe adjustment. If I were to make another set, they would be a little different and would incorporate what has been learned during discussion on HybridZ. My new set would look more like Cary's (tube80z). The only thing that I might do different is make the rear rod end fixed in the plane of the control arm and let the front rod end be the toe link. Either way, I can reuse my jig (as can you) with little or no modification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublexl240z Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Looks a little like something I put together a few months ago. Maybe my Ideas are not all that crazy. I just made toe adjustable on the fly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 When you guys made your rear LCA did you make it so the wheels are centered in the whell now ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 Thanks for the ideas guys perfect timing too. 74_5.0L_Z - How much toe are you running to get everything in a bind? Jon - Maybe i'm not getting it but, I don't see how an adj toe link will be any different. Wont there still be bind at a certain point? Also I know that adj. toe in the rear only requires little movement in the arms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 When you guys made your rear LCA did you make it so the wheels are centered in the whell now ? I'm making mine to be exactly the same as stock. What would be the advantage of dong that? I dont think aligning suspension parts with body panels is not a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wedge Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I'm making mine to be exactly the same as stock. What would be the advantage of dong that? I dont think aligning suspension parts with body panels is not a good idea. Its purely esthitic thats all i was just wondering if you could pull the wheel back 3/4" thats all , its probably not good for the axels anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I'd be concerned with bind in the adjustment between those two adjusters for the heim joints. This is what caused my rear arms to fatigue and crack with time. The vibration and the binde caused the tubing to crack. The reason that the MML and the AZC units work so well is because they compensate for this with independant toe adjustment. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted May 31, 2008 Author Share Posted May 31, 2008 I'd be concerned with bind in the adjustment between those two adjusters for the heim joints. This is what caused my rear arms to fatigue and crack with time. The vibration and the binde caused the tubing to crack. The reason that the MML and the AZC units work so well is because they compensate for this with independant toe adjustment. Mike Thanks Mike. Something I really need to take into consideraton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Jon - Maybe i'm not getting it but, I don't see how an adj toe link will be any different. Wont there still be bind at a certain point? Also I know that adj. toe in the rear only requires little movement in the arms. If you read the whole thread that I linked to it is explained. The difference is not the toe adjuster. The difference is that the toe link is free to move up, down, forward, and back on its own, independently of the solidly mounted heim that is the "main" attachment for the strut. Because of the freedom of motion in the toe link, the better designed arm allows for less stiction and bind than the stock arm or the one you had planned on. The quick explanation: 1. If the strut is not perfectly perpendicular to the control arm, the better design doesn't bind and the earlier design does as the suspension goes through its motion. 2. There is no sensitive adjustment with shims of the space between the heims at the outer end. Sometimes there isn't on the aftermarket arms either, but there SHOULD BE. 3. When you change the toe, the adjustment described in #2 doesn't have to be redone. I'm probably missing a point or two, but the benefits should be a bit more thoroughly explained in the other thread if you're still not getting it. Dan's drawings on the other thread make it pretty clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 Actually, I said it was Dan's drawings that helped, and they do, but I was thinking of Terry's: This misalignment makes a HUGE difference on the arm you were planning and binds things badly, but on the free toe link version makes none at all. What Terry doesn't explicitly state here is that the stock arm doesn't allow for the suspension to move freely if the strut is at an angle. The greater the angle the worse the stiction on the strut. I found this when testing my own homemade control arms, and Dragonfly found the same testing his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Mileski Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 I purchased a set of Mike Kelly's tubular arms a few years ago. After I heard about the issues concerning the outer portion of that arm, I made a couple of mods; I added a cross brace at the outer end and installed two rod ends (see attached picture). I was planning on making a couple of spacers, of equal length, to mate it to the lower portion of the control arm. Is this configuration going to put something in bind based upon what I'm reading here? Mike Mileski Tucson, AZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted June 4, 2008 Author Share Posted June 4, 2008 After more reading i'm changing my previous arm design. I'm planning on making the front rod end solid and the rear one attached to a cleviced adj. rod. What would be the diffrence if I had it the other way around making the rear rod end adjustable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 4, 2008 Share Posted June 4, 2008 After more reading i'm changing my previous arm design. I'm planning on making the front rod end solid and the rear one attached to a cleviced adj. rod. What would be the diffrence if I had it the other way around making the rear rod end adjustable? If the front one is solid, then the control arm's "main" attachment point is at the front. If the rear one is solid, then it is at the rear. This is true because the tie rod really just changes toe. The solid mount connects the strut to the control arm. Dan and I have this theory that if the rear one is the solid one that vertical forces from the wheel will travel straight up the strut (since the rear rod end will be directly under the strut tube). If the front one is solid then the load hits the strut housing at the front, not directly underneath the strut tube. Putting the weight of the vehicle on the suspension will make the strut want to rock backwards. The rear tie rod does nothing to prevent the twist because it can articulate freely. So our theory is that having the solid rod end at the rear and the tie rod at the front is the best way to go. Not everyone is convinced, but it still makes sense to me. I will say that Cary's design with the solid mount in the front and the tie rod in the rear makes his probably the sexier looking control arm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted June 5, 2008 Author Share Posted June 5, 2008 Jon, Your idea's also make sence to me (in theory) but i'm still not totally convinced. I've been collectively looking at various different rear control arms designs (mainly racecars w/ tubular arms) and they all seem to have the toe adjuster on the rear even with different strut/spring locations. I guess the only way to figure this out is to put it to the test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 I got everything tack welded including the clevis that was added. I just used 1/8 rectangular tubing and cut it down to the size I wanted. For the adjustable rod I just added a left hand tube and rod end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB26powered74zcar Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Wow I like that!! Sorry I can't add any tech to this, but I sure can hand out the ada-boys..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 I think that will be fine. The one issue that I would point out is that those tube ends you have are chromoly if I'm not mistaken, and you're welding them to mild steel. They also have the long taper. You can get mild steel ends from Coleman racing that don't have the long taper, and that would allow the other tubes to connect closer to the rod end, which should be stiffer in theory. EDIT--Just re-read the previous page where it says you're using chromoly tubing. So then the chromoly tubing is welded to the original mild steel from the control arm. I don't think that is really a problem, but I don't have too much experience with chromoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EMWHYR0HEN Posted June 8, 2008 Author Share Posted June 8, 2008 If I remember correctly I read an article stating that it's not necessary to use 4130 plate when adding gussets to chrom-moly and encouraged the use of mild steel plate instead. I actually had the same concern on a project a while back so I asked my welding professor, who also teaches metellurgy, and He said the fusion of the two would be just fine. 4130 is just a high grade steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240swapped Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Wow, I don't care if it drives in circles with the wheels pointed straight. Those look great. I really wish I had the tools and the Know-how to accomplish something like that. Great job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube80z Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Myron, The arms look good. I think you'll be very happy with the results. You'll be amazed at how easy they go on. Cary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.