Tall ball joints

[chris mc bride]

was told tall top ball joints aided cornering for c10. Reading that taller lower in Camaros would lower 1/2", So is same true for trucks seems has to be? Any handling benefits from taller lower and upper, Hell while there need to get everything can. Going to be moving lower arm anyway and dropping springs. Doing the work and no reason doing twice if can do al since apart.

May have to go back if can get spindles later sine that would include disc brake swap. But later date there.

[Cooter!]

Taller upper ball joints will not affect ride height at all.

They will not increase camber, but they will increase the camber gain rate. Better handling? Maybe. If you're that much into 'handling' you'll know if they are good for your use case.

IMHO avoid drop spindles until you want to 'lay frame bro'. These trucks are perfectly fine
lowered to 4" without them and all their downsides because of the long control arms and good steering geometry.

[SCOTI]

Taller lower BJ's can drop the vehicle slightly because the spindle pin height is slightly higher in relation to the lower control arm vs a stock height BJ. As mentioned, a taller upper BJ doesn't do anything for ride height.

Taller BJ's are typically used in short spindle applications (early A/F/X drum brake applications & later A/G bodies). The short spindles combined w/the taller BJ's create a taller distance between the a-arms which helps the very poor/non-existent Camber curve of these applications.

C10's already have the tall spindles. Can a taller upper BJ help the Camber curve? Possibly, but one would need to plot & measure things to 'know'.

As for "avoiding drop spindles"..... Drop spindles for a C10 application allow a lower ride height w/o impacting spring height & shock travel. The best quality ride comes from the longest travel possible on a spring & shock combo.

[c30]

On a tri five chevy forum there is discussion about using the taller upper ball joints.
No, they don't add ride height, but there is a lot of praise towards the handling aspect.
Since I am rebuilding the stock front suspension on my 56, I decided to go that way.
Bought them from Howe racing. They are .900 taller, if my memory is correct.
I figured, why not, can't hurt. Only exception could be interference with certain wheels that you run.
I'm a long way from finishing this car. Have not driven it yet.
So that's all I have to say about them.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by c30

On a tri five chevy forum there is discussion about using the taller upper ball joints.
No, they don't add ride height, but there is a lot of praise towards the handling aspect.
Since I am rebuilding the stock front suspension on my 56, I decided to go that way.
Bought them from Howe racing. They are .900 taller, if my memory is correct.
I figured, why not, can't hurt. Only exception could be interference with certain wheels that you run.
I'm a long way from finishing this car. Have not driven it yet.
So that's all I have to say about them.

Taller BJ's are typically used in short spindle applications (early A/F/X drum brake applications & later A/G bodies). The short spindles combined w/the taller BJ's create a taller distance between the a-arms which helps the very poor/non-existent Camber curve of these applications.

[theastronaut]

Tall uppers add *can* add grip because they add camber as the suspension compresses when the body rolls, but at levels of grip you won't be or at at least shouldn't be reaching on the street. And, if you take out all of the body roll with stiffer springs and shocks and sway bars then do you really need camber gain if the suspension doesn't compress enough to add camber?

I've said this a lot lately, but most people's idea of "better handling" just means stiff with fast steering response and no body roll, but that doesn't mean it actually has good grip when pushed hard. We have a '97 S10 with ZQ8 suspension that has very quick turn in, very little body roll, and beats you to death over bumps because "sport suspension" is suppose to be stiff. My dead-stock '91 Festiva with body roll measured in feet (not really but almost lol) will actually go through a slalom section or corners much faster than the "sport" optioned S10, and it does it on tires that are 90mm narrower. The Festiva feels slow and soft and mushy, the S10 feels sporty, but one is much faster at actually turning and changing directions and generating grip at the limit. The difference is compliance in the springs/shocks/sway bars. They both have similar front to rear weight distribution but the S10 understeers and the Festiva will rotate nicely at turn in even though it has no rear sway bar. The Festiva has McPherson struts that have almost no camber gain. On paper (and on every forum...) the S10 should run circles around the Festiva, but in the real world it not even close.


The average guy driving spiritedly on the street on street tires will never feel any difference between stock and tall ball joints, especially if he did all of the popular mods that make the suspension too stiff to travel enough to make use of any improvements in geometry. There must be some travel/compliance to take advantage of camber gain.


Tall upper ball joints should be used as a tuning aid to dial in dynamic camber changes once the truck is up and going and you're monitoring tire tread temp/wear at the track, it's almost totally irrelevant on the street.

[theastronaut]

Found some old numbers from when I added .500" taller upper ball joints on my old C10.

Stock (per a post from Rob at No Limit) - .86* gain per initial inch of travel

My '66 with 1" narrowed arms, .500" taller upper ball joints- 1.61* per initial inch of travel. The narrowed arms increase the rate of increase since the control arm angle changes more due to the shorter arms, so this isn't a direct comparison with stock length arms.

Rob's post said that the No Limit Wide Ride front clip has 1.56* per inch.


Will anyone be able to make use, or even notice an extra .8* of camber on the street? It's a waste of time and money IMO.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by theastronaut

Found some old numbers from when I added .500" taller upper ball joints on my old C10.

Stock (per a post from Rob at No Limit) - .86* gain per initial inch of travel

My '66 with 1" narrowed arms, .500" taller upper ball joints- 1.61* per initial inch of travel. The narrowed arms increase the rate of increase since the control arm angle changes more due to the shorter arms, so this isn't a direct comparison with stock length arms.

Rob's post said that the No Limit Wide Ride front clip has 1.56* per inch.


Will anyone be able to make use, or even notice an extra .8* of camber on the street? It's a waste of time and money IMO.

But someone somewhere said it's better....

[theastronaut]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

But someone somewhere said it's better....

It is better! But, for what application? Almost no one unless they're on the track in their truck and need to drop their lap times.

Now if I could add more camber gain to my Festiva I could run less static camber (currently at -4* front) so it would have a little more straight line braking grip but still have the same dynamic camber- that's an ideal application for this sort of mod. But, I've done 500 track miles and a few years of autocross events with it on semi-slick 100tw tires, so it would actually be a beneficial mod.

On my '66 C10 that has (relatively) rock hard street tires and has never seen even .8g in corners, and never would after tall ball joints, it would be a total waste. I do run around 1.5 to 2* static on the C10 to get the dynamic scrub radius closer to neutral, but that's mainly because it currently has stock skinny wheels with spacers to clear discs so the whole contact patch is on the positive side of the scrub line. Tilting the tire with camber helps the effective/dynamic scrub be closer to neutral since more weight is closer to the inside of the tire.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by theastronaut

It is better! But, for what application? Almost no one unless they're on the track their truck and need to drop their lap times.

Now if I could add more camber gain to my Festiva I could run less static camber (currently at -4* front) so it would have a little more straight line braking grip but still have the same dynamic camber- that's an ideal application for this sort of mod. But, I've done 500 track miles and a few years of autocross events with it on semi-slick 100tw tires, so it would actually be a beneficial mod.

On my '66 C10 that has (relatively) rock hard street tires and has never seen even .8g in corners, and never would after tall ball joints, it would be a total waste. I do run around 1.5 to 2* static on the C10 to get the dynamic scrub radius closer to neutral, but that's mainly because it currently has stock skinny wheels with spacers to clear discs so the whole contact patch is on the positive side of the scrub line. Tilting the tire with camber helps the effective/dynamic scrub be closer to neutral since more weight is closer to the inside of the tire.

Exactly..... It's all about the context.

This is why I always indicate these are mainly a good idea on suspension set-ups that are handicapped from the OE (short spindle app's) but that by themselves, they're not a magical fix AND they'll likely require additional parts (shorter or diff upper a-arms). I actually got a pair of upper TBJ's for my '64 (R&P steering; Tall modular spindle; Delrin bushed shorter upper a-arms) just for testing purposes similar to what you noted. I wanted to see what the impact would be when it was on the rack. My buddy that I did this stuff with got fired thus I lost my free access to the rack where he worked so I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity.

[KQQL IT]

Id like a set of taller uppers for my pancake.
Handled better with 2 coils cut and no sway than proper geometry and a sway bar.