Tubular A arms slightly too wide!

-
Good grief!:rolleyes:

Call CPP before you do anything. If it was a jig issue you may not the only one with a set like this, which also means they may have already heard of this issue. You bought them second hand so they may not do anything about it, but who knows. Worth a shot. They certainly won't do anything if you alter them.

Outside of that, I'm not going to recommend altering them to fit. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm not even saying I wouldn't try it myself, but I'm sure as heck not just gonna say toss them in a press to someone on the internet without seeing them. Tubular arms are used because they don't flex that much. They have welded joints that could fail. Yeah you can probably get that much out of them without screwing up the geometry. But if the weld fatigues without fracturing you might find out 5 years from now when it fails. No thanks.
 
brian6pac said:
I got that but you said that it would be so far off that it would wear out the bushings and if you believe that you need to look at how far off the center line will it be by moving then .200 - .250 and how do you know they are perfectly straight now.
the problem I have seen is there welded in a jig and removed hot and when they cool they move. Had the same thing with S&W control arms.
Click to expand...
I agree; that is a quality control issue.
 
Maybe CPP would prefer to see their company''s name associated with good customer service, rather than poor quality control, and poor customer service on the internet. Give them an opportunity to make it right.
 
I do agree on the quality control but I would have no problem bending them cold, if a weld brakes that's a very poor weld and I wouldn't want them on my car, I work with metal and have done a lot of welding and things moving when they cool is always a problem, I also have a Hossfeld #2 heavy metal bender and have bent many thing including leaf springs. Everything is bent cold.
 
Thanks Evertone... This really sucks. Well I already painted the arms and greased the ball joints so I don't think they'd take them back. I'm gonna try compressing them just because why not at this point. I don't think compressing them .2 of and inch would really affect it too much. There no way they are perfect right now. I'll post what happens tomorow
 
rustycowll69 said:
Maybe CPP would prefer to see their company''s name associated with good customer service, rather than poor quality control, and poor customer service on the internet. Give them an opportunity to make it right.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And this isn't likely to be the first time they've heard of it.

brian6pac said:
I do agree on the quality control but I would have no problem bending them cold, if a weld brakes that's a very poor weld and I wouldn't want them on my car, I work with metal and have done a lot of welding and things moving when they cool is always a problem, I also have a Hossfeld #2 heavy metal bender and have bent many thing including leaf springs. Everything is bent cold.
Click to expand...

It's not just about a weld breaking though. You have a constructed arm, with joints, different thickness metals, maybe even different grades of metal. Where is it going to bend? Who knows. In the pictures you can see there's a web/gusset welded between the arms. So, where are the arms going to bend in that press? At the ends of that gusset. The tube could kink right there. Not only would that mess up the geometry, it would significantly weaken the arm.

Bending something like a leaf spring, with a constant composition and uniform metallurgy, is totally different than bending something that is constructed. Heck even bending the stock UCA's is a far better idea. At least they're fairly uniform, and they do flex.
 
just a hunch, but I would guess you're going to have to compress them more than 0.200in, because they will spring back. You may have to squeeze them to -0.500in(or maybe more) to get them to stay at -0.200in. Of course, you should probably sneak up on it. Keep track of the process, maybe we'll all learn something new. Good Luck.
 
Dont bend them, are they not on the same centerline? Bending will botch this. How about just putting a spacer in there, like a fender washer? Hey, you can even pick up some positive caster. I drove a 340 for years with a 318 mount and washers.....That bushing is stationary in the frame, a washer would not be moving either? I had a Set of Hookers that were obviously mis-drilled at the flange as they sat too high on the ports. I called them and mailed them the burned header gasket..."Lifetime warranty on Manufacture defect" they say...yeah, WITH A RECEIPT! Thats straight up Bullsh!t right there.
 
Last edited:
AJ/FormS said:
We have seen this problem before, right here on FABO.
If you draw them together with all thread, it may be that the two cam-bolts will end up running at angles to eachother. This will cause binding and premature bushing failure. So after you have successfully tweaked them to fit in there, you will have to sight them, and more tweaking may be required. Ima thinking there will be a torch involved,lol.
That wouldn't scare me at all.
Click to expand...
AGREE, w/ --it might get them out of alignment, might hell, it will ! I wouldn`t try and bend , or force them together w/o heat anyway, it could put unseen stress on them.
 
Are both tube arms the same, as in .250" too wide of a spread to fit either control arm bracket?
Have your brackets or frame tops been repaired at some point?

If you squeeze them with the bushings in you might waste the bushings.
Pictures look real close to the tubes but maybe possible to take .100" from the outsides and add to the insides?
 
Daves69 said:
Are both tube arms the same, as in .250" too wide of a spread to fit either control arm bracket?
Have your brackets or frame tops been repaired at some point?

If you squeeze them with the bushings in you might waste the bushings.
Pictures look real close to the tubes but maybe possible to take .100" from the outsides and add to the insides?
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm going to try and do! Can't wait to see the look on the alignment guys face.
 
Update: so took the outer retainer (or whatever you call it) out and slide the a arms into place. They only need a very slim shim in there for a nice fit. So what's your guys thoughts either get them machined down a bit or put a washer in there.

image.jpeg


image.jpeg
 
Does reducing that cap cut down the area for the bolt? Check the inner bushing for diameter vs. the cap diameter.
To clarify....
This stock end cap fit into the bushing sleeve. The sleeve ID was .575"+. The cap ID was .500" for the half inch cam bolt.
BushingEnd.jpg
 
Last edited:
Daves69 said:
Does reducing that cap cut down the area for the bolt? Check the inner bushing for diameter vs. the cap diameter.
To clarify....
This stock end cap fit into the bushing sleeve. The sleeve ID was .575"+. The cap ID was .500" for the half inch cam bolt.
View attachment 1715034366
Click to expand...
Well the outer retainer has a sleeve attached to it and the overall diameter will be the same since it is going into the factor UCA mounts.
 
So I decided to mount the a arms up just to make sure they'd fit with the bolts in...well they don't clear the freakin UCA mount!!!! I can cut part of it off but I don't want to since it seems like it'll weaken it. Here's a pic. I'm just about over this.. Any suggestions for what a arms to get???

image.jpeg


image.jpeg
 
The UCA hitting the mount is a common problem with the tubular UCA's that have a tight "V" shape. The stock mount just wasn't intended to accommodate the tubular UCA with that kind of angle. The only way around this is to have a UCA with either a "U" shape, or a partial "V" shape with straight legs at the ends. There's more to consider too, because the "U" shaped arms will interfere with the rims and turning radius if you start mounting significantly wider tires up front.

You can cut the UCA mount back without sacrificing the structural integrity of the mount if you do it right. This is a much easier problem to deal with than the other issue you've got. The upper part of the tab doesn't do much if anything for strength. Leave as much of the corner as you can, because that does add strength, and only take the cut down as far as you need.
Dart UCA.jpg


If you don't want to make that relief cut, you'll have to choose a UCA with a more rounded shape.

These are the CPP arms. Anything that looks like this will need that relief cut made
clp-a6374wbik-t.jpg

Like these non-adjustable arms from PST. You'd have the same issue with needing to clearance the mount. Magnumforce makes non-adjustable arms just like this as well, same issue with cutting the mount back a little.
F142749055.jpg



Here's a QA1 arm. This one should clear, you can see the difference I'm talking about in the legs of the UCA with one having a bend in it
hal-52301_xl.jpg


UCA's from Firm Feel. Notice there's a straight section on both legs of the UCA. Shouldn't require any modification
a_body_upper_control_arms_mopar_1.JPG


Same with the Hotchkis arms, although these have heim joints which I'm not a fan of for street cars.
1112.jpg


These are PST's adjustable arms. Notice the really wide shape. I would bet that I'd hit these when turning the 18x9" rims I have up front. And heim joints again.
F142744874.jpg
 
good explanation, 72nblu. That shows some key differences in the brands. Personally, if I were in the market for such, which I am not, I'd be looking more at the QA1, and the Firm Feel style UCA. I'm not a fan of the heim joint UCA's, either, for street driven cars.
 
Yeah I have a set of Hotchkis UCA's on my Challenger, and after blowing through a set of heims after only 7,000 miles Hotchkis was nice enough to send another set of heims and the boots they came out with the cover the heims. But another 7k miles later they're starting to click again, probably won't see 10k. Most folks could probably get more mileage out of them, and really most people with these cars would probably take years to rack up that kind of mileage, but I drive my cars all the time and in all weather conditions so heim joints aren't a good choice for me. For most street driven cars I think the non-adjustable arms with bushings are the way to go. There's plenty of caster built into them for a good alignment, the bushings will last a long time and you'll get more rim clearance if you want to run wider tires and more backspace up front.

These are the grand daddies, delrin bushings and fully adjustable. I've got a set that will be going on the Duster whenever I get around to it. I wouldn't hold your breath, I've had them for about a year so far. They'll be going on with my tubular QA1 LCA's too, which I'm setting up with delrin bushings as well.
5-0090.jpg

Bergman Auto Craft - Home of the Modern Muscle Car
 
A
72bluNblu said:
The UCA hitting the mount is a common problem with the tubular UCA's that have a tight "V" shape. The stock mount just wasn't intended to accommodate the tubular UCA with that kind of angle. The only way around this is to have a UCA with either a "U" shape, or a partial "V" shape with straight legs at the ends. There's more to consider too, because the "U" shaped arms will interfere with the rims and turning radius if you start mounting significantly wider tires up front.

You can cut the UCA mount back without sacrificing the structural integrity of the mount if you do it right. This is a much easier problem to deal with than the other issue you've got. The upper part of the tab doesn't do much if anything for strength. Leave as much of the corner as you can, because that does add strength, and only take the cut down as far as you need.
View attachment 1715034595

If you don't want to make that relief cut, you'll have to choose a UCA with a more rounded shape.

These are the CPP arms. Anything that looks like this will need that relief cut made
View attachment 1715034602
Like these non-adjustable arms from PST. You'd have the same issue with needing to clearance the mount. Magnumforce makes non-adjustable arms just like this as well, same issue with cutting the mount back a little.
View attachment 1715034597


Here's a QA1 arm. This one should clear, you can see the difference I'm talking about in the legs of the UCA with one having a bend in it
View attachment 1715034603

UCA's from Firm Feel. Notice there's a straight section on both legs of the UCA. Shouldn't require any modification
View attachment 1715034604

Same with the Hotchkis arms, although these have heim joints which I'm not a fan of for street cars.
View attachment 1715034605

These are PST's adjustable arms. Notice the really wide shape. I would bet that I'd hit these when turning the 18x9" rims I have up front. And heim joints again.
View attachment 1715034606
Click to expand...
awesome explanation! Yea that is exactly what I'm talking about, mine is the v shape and doesn't clear that tab. I don't wanna cut it, but I'm already this far, may as well do it. I like the U shape more but it's whatever now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top