Custom lower control arms official EOI. Do it!!

SNR · Post by **SNR** » November 29th, 2010, 9:12 pm

So what's stopping you (future editions, if any) from getting the arms made with the rod-end location where the e-series one is, instead of where the AU one is - are there clearance issues?

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » November 29th, 2010, 9:38 pm

???????

The rod end location is part of the upright - AU upright = au rod end location. E-series upright = E-series location. Can't be changed.

BBQBurner · Post by **BBQBurner** » November 29th, 2010, 9:58 pm

So V2 is going to look something like this then?

SNR · Post by **SNR** » November 29th, 2010, 10:01 pm

Ok, I've not looked at both types long enough to quite understand what you mean.

LUXO_8 · Post by **LUXO_8** » November 29th, 2010, 10:03 pm

nothing to do with the lower balljoint location.. thats correct......
its the steering knuckle on the upright in relation to the rack

Steady · Post by **Steady** » November 29th, 2010, 10:03 pm

that would do weird things to the geometry, changing the relationship between the upper and lower arms.
how bad they'd be i dunno, worst case upper arm is on a downward angle at ride height and as the suspension compresses you get positive camber before it goes into negative.

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » November 29th, 2010, 10:07 pm

BBQ burner, all that will do will raise the car like 50mm!!! It won't affect the bump steer at all.

Steady - changing the relationship between the upper and lower arms may be a good thing or a bad thing - I'm yet to find out the distance between the mounting points on AU and on E-series to see if they are closer or further apart, which will result in more or less camber gain than AU or e-series depending on what the factory distances are.

Steady · Post by **Steady** » November 29th, 2010, 10:15 pm

to me it looks like the only way to do it while still meeting the original goal of a bolt-in relatively low cost proposition is by spacing the tie rod end down.
having to use an extension between rod end and tie rod is less dodgy to me then the actual spacing itself.
the extension would be stronger the tie rod itself. male thread rod end, round bar with a thread cut in each end and flats for a shifter in the middle...
spacer would have to be beefy though...

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » November 29th, 2010, 10:25 pm

Spacing the tie rod end down is what I've been trying to explain to cunce for the last several pages!!!!!

I've looked at the joiner option too, but I haven't been able to find one big enough I don't think - you're supposed to have at least the same length of thread engaged as the diameter of whatever you're joining at the Minimum - so 13mm dia rod needs at least 13mm thread engagement, 16 needs 16 etc - but I've only been able to find extensions like THIS which I haven't crunched the numbers on yet, might be too small still, depending on how far out they have to be wound.

LTDHO · Post by **LTDHO** » November 30th, 2010, 7:39 am

Have you not finished this yet, what have yopu been doing all this time!!

Keep at it mate, looks frustrating, but at least there is progress.

BBQBurner · Post by **BBQBurner** » November 30th, 2010, 11:59 am

Rollin wrote:BBQ burner, all that will do will raise the car like 50mm!!! It won't affect the bump steer at all.

Steady - changing the relationship between the upper and lower arms may be a good thing or a bad thing - I'm yet to find out the distance between the mounting points on AU and on E-series to see if they are closer or further apart, which will result in more or less camber gain than AU or e-series depending on what the factory distances are.

Yes it will raise the car but will also lower the height of the tie rod mounting point in relation to the steering rack.
Silly question but did you take into account the height difference of the mounting points of the lca between the e-series and au lower control arms when you designed your arms or did you just change the end of the e-series arm to hold the ball joint?

Steady · Post by **Steady** » November 30th, 2010, 5:12 pm

Rollin wrote:Spacing the tie rod end down is what I've been trying to explain to cunce for the last several pages!!!!!

I've looked at the joiner option too, but I haven't been able to find one big enough I don't think - you're supposed to have at least the same length of thread engaged as the diameter of whatever you're joining at the Minimum - so 13mm dia rod needs at least 13mm thread engagement, 16 needs 16 etc - but I've only been able to find extensions like THIS which I haven't crunched the numbers on yet, might be too small still, depending on how far out they have to be wound.

i wasn't saying it like it was a new idea

i know thats what you are a looking at, im agreeing it's the only way to do it while still meeting the design brief.
just get them made? how long does it need to be?
round bar with a thread through the middle and mill/file a couple of flats on the outside for a shifter/spanner.

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » November 30th, 2010, 6:30 pm

BBQ Burner - moving the LCA outer ball joint only changes the ride height, has no effect on bump steer at all, trust me.

How do you mean height differences in the mounting points? You mean into the K frame? Attempting to get the first design right nearly did my head in, because I had to keep the locations for the swaybar and z bar bushes in the same place using the same attaching methods, then work out where the bolt for the shock had to be in relation to the LCA inner and the ball joint on the outer to make sure that the ride height and track didn't change once the new arms were fitted, which is part of the reason why they're straight when e-series arms have a huge bend in them.

They're nothing at all like an e-series arm apart from the shape of the holes for the bushes, so that stock e-series bushes can be used.

Steady - if you can find lengths of hi strength round bar with an M16x1.5 thread through the middle for sale anywhere on earth (apart from china who will only sell in 10 ton shipments...) you're a better man than me.

Steady · Post by **Steady** » November 30th, 2010, 7:02 pm

it would take anyone with a lathe about 5 minutes to drill the hole and tap a thread.

holmsy · Post by **holmsy** » November 30th, 2010, 8:08 pm

yeh not hard to get it made surely.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » December 3rd, 2010, 3:52 pm

Rollin

I don't know how much space you have to play with but have you considered flipping the tie-rod end over (thread points down rather than up) and have a u-shaped bolt on adaptor on the knuckle/upright to space it down the required amount. It is the centre of the tie-rod ball (the pivot point) that's critical, not whether it joins the some way it used to

I hope that makes sense

Ford themselves flipped the tie-rod location from bottom to top (swapped taper around) on the RTV utes to gain the ride height change without moving the rack.

Cheers, Rob

[Killer of a first post if it solves the problem

]

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » December 3rd, 2010, 4:19 pm

That's pretty much a supermegamassiveepicrediculousexponentialttradgedy failure of a first post mate, sorry.

Tie rod end needs to be spaced down, not up like on the RTV utes. Flipping it will make the angle so bad there probably isn't even enough range of movement in the ball joint to allow it to be bent that far.

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » December 3rd, 2010, 5:01 pm

Hey, don't call it a fail when you have totally missed my point.

The RTV was only mentioned to demonstrate it doesn't matter which way the steering tie-rod points.

I know you need it placed down because the AU upright has the mounting point placed higher than the E-series. You seem to have overlooked my suggestion of using a U-shaped (think sideways U) adaptor. Top of sideways U adaptor bolt to higher AU mount, flip the tie-rod and bolt that to bottom of sideways U adaptor now acting as the lowered mounting point. Thus improving steering angles and restoring balance to the universe.

I'd provide a sketch but I'm useless with piant etc.

I'll accept your apology once you understand the concept

LUXO_8 · Post by **LUXO_8** » December 3rd, 2010, 5:29 pm

um....what?

i think you need to get onto that piant pic.....

sdoylie · Post by **sdoylie** » December 3rd, 2010, 8:11 pm

yeah raptor. draw a pic. something basic with paint will suffice.

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » December 4th, 2010, 12:40 am

NUT347 · Post by **NUT347** » December 4th, 2010, 12:53 am

Lol wouldn't want to clip a gutter with something like that.

Who is this know it all anyway?

sdoylie · Post by **sdoylie** » December 4th, 2010, 4:57 am

reckon its something like this?

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » December 4th, 2010, 9:00 am

Rollin wrote:

Yep. Or the orange U-shaped thingy could be longer and mount to the top of the uprights steering arm if there isn't enough room for it below.

I just wanted to raise another possibility as your thinking seem to be caught up in keeping the tie-rod oriented the same way which isn't necessary. As I said in my first post I don't know how much room you have to play with or how much it needs spacing down I'm just trying to contribute ideas so this project isn't scrapped after you've put in so much effort, time and money.

I no longer have an E-series (had an ED

) or AU Falcon (had one of them at the same time too once) sitting in the driveway to compare so I'll let you guys sort out whether this is practical or not. If it is there is a lot more scope to position the tie-rod pivot exactly where it needs to go and a fabricated prototype U-shaped thingy shouldn't be too hard to mock up and change as required.

I don't know what the authorities might say about it either but it sticks with the simple bolt-on approach.

Cheers, Rob

Raptor · Post by **Raptor** » December 4th, 2010, 9:09 am

More ideas;

Again the authorities in Aus may not like it but our US friends would ditch the tie-rod for some steel rod-ends and use an adaptor like this => http://www.daymotorsports.com/product/1 ... EER-SPACER" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Flip this over for this applciation

or

Super adjustable; texasperformanceconcepts.com

LUXO_8 · Post by **LUXO_8** » December 4th, 2010, 10:12 am

last idea is what he's looking into iirc

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » December 4th, 2010, 12:02 pm

Yep, welcome to the middle of page 5/Nov 09 2010.....

galapogos01 · Post by **galapogos01** » December 4th, 2010, 12:23 pm

At least he's trying to help!

Post by **EFFalcon** » December 4th, 2010, 12:42 pm

Hahaha yeah, an extra mind can't hurt!

plus, he's got pictures

sdoylie · Post by **sdoylie** » December 5th, 2010, 8:43 pm

those tie rods look like a goer. dont look cheap with the rose joints though.

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » December 5th, 2010, 11:17 pm

Currently emailing two cunce in the US about kits, waiting to see what they say re pricing and measurements. Both say they can make them to suit...

LUXO_8 · Post by **LUXO_8** » December 5th, 2010, 11:19 pm

Definantly sounds promising!

_JP_ · Post by **_JP_** » December 7th, 2010, 7:25 pm

Wow dude, what a massive headache, all for big brakes? If its that quick put a parachute on it

But seriously, awesome work, you must have really been putting your brain into this shit to work all this out man, hope it will eventually work out for you!

knowsfords · Post by **knowsfords** » December 14th, 2010, 4:26 pm

I was thinking today (Uh-oh) about the amount of surface area the standard AU/BA/BF stub axle has where the lower ball joint mounts, and I was wondering if it would be possible to machine out the area so a balljoint would slot into the same position as the E-series stub axles... and then just run a longer e-series style lca and the stock AU/BA/BF upper control arm.

This way the kit would be the stub and lca instead of just the lca, people could send in their stub axles on an exchange basis.
That is of course assuming that this would fix the problem and there is sufficient material in the AU stubs to machine out and fit the ball joint.

LUXO_8 · Post by **LUXO_8** » December 14th, 2010, 7:46 pm

its nothing to do with the ball joint, as has been said a number of times...

knowsfords · Post by **knowsfords** » December 14th, 2010, 7:52 pm

LUXO_8 wrote:its nothing to do with the ball joint, as has been said a number of times...

Actually it does.
The issue is that the new stub axle sits up too high and the e-series rack can't reach.
So by mimicking the E-series balljoint position then theoretically the issue should become less pronounced/non existant.

Rollin · Post by **Rollin** » December 14th, 2010, 8:04 pm

I don't think there is anywhere near enough meat unfortunately

knowsfords · Post by **knowsfords** » December 14th, 2010, 8:05 pm

Damn, feel like funding the development for a custom stub?

knowsfords · Post by **knowsfords** » December 31st, 2010, 7:36 am

I was thinking today again (uh oh) I wonder what the legalities of a custom/remanufactured E-Series k-frame would be.
Rather than make the suspension fit the K-Frame... why not make the K-Frame fit the suspension.

superhuS! · Post by **superhuS!** » December 31st, 2010, 8:12 am

knowsfords wrote:I was thinking today again (uh oh) I wonder what the legalities of a custom/remanufactured E-Series k-frame would be.
Rather than make the suspension fit the K-Frame... why not make the K-Frame fit the suspension.

Then you might adwell fit an AU k frame. Rollin is doing this for cunce like me who cbf with that shit