A little confused about front upper Control Arm...

[JeffS]

Hi all:

My manual revision is 1F, and a bit confusing.... the SolidWorks parts diagram of the front spindle assembly shows the UCA with the grease fittings pointing up, but many of the assembly photos in the manual show them pointing down.

I'll assume that the Solidworks layout is geometrically correct, but anyone else notice this??

[wallace18]

Hi all:

My manual revision is 1F, and a bit confusing.... the SolidWorks parts diagram of the front spindle assembly shows the UCA with the grease fittings pointing up, but many of the assembly photos in the manual show them pointing down.

I'll assume that the Solidworks layout is geometrically correct, but anyone else notice this??

Point them down.

[RM1SepEx]

The suspension geometry is the same with them mounted either way, the only change is a slight difference in the ball joint angle

I also pointed mine down because it looks cleaner

[wleehendrick]

Rather than post a new thread, I'll follow up here with a related question on the front upper control arms...

The UCA's are identical, not mirror images, which would be ideal. As already answered, the grease fitting can go up or down; and as stated in the manual, the short turnbuckle should be at the rear... no problem so far.

However, in order to get the driver's side ball joint mount to angle properly, you have to flip it, this puts the longer threads on the shorter turnbuckle. This makes the rear arm too long, messing up geometry.

I seem to remember this being mentioned in a build thread and that the solution is to cut some length off. Am I right that one UCA cannot be properly installed as is? (You have to install with the ball joint mount improperly angled (which will stress the joint?), or flip it and lengthen rear arm. Is the only solution to cut the part? How much? I assume to match the shorter one.

Since this is not well documented, I'm sure there are/will be a lot of 818's improperly set-up. Let's get the solution right and make it a sticky.

Thanks!

[JeromeS13]

Wayne added a post you the Tips thread.


Early production control arms on the upper front left side need to be modified, there is a running change by FFR to correct this so please verify before doing this modification.

Trim the welded stud on the ball joint plate 1.100" and you should end up with .800" of thread past the fully threaded nut.

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc175/vcpinjectionpb/20130806_085846_zps43f3a0c6.jpg (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/vcpinjectionpb/media/20130806_085846_zps43f3a0c6.jpg.html)

Flip the pivot arms so the grease fitting face down and assemble as shown.

http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc175/vcpinjectionpb/20130803_080312_zpsb7033de4.jpg (http://s213.photobucket.com/user/vcpinjectionpb/media/20130803_080312_zpsb7033de4.jpg.html)

[wleehendrick]

Thanks Jerome! I thought I recalled seeing I saw it somewhere, but couldn't find it by searching or in the suspension section.

[wleehendrick]

Thanks Jerome! I thought I recalled seeing I saw it somewhere, but couldn't find it by searching or in the suspension section.

And just to clarify... If you keep the grease fittings down, you don't need to flip the ball joint mount. Just swap the turnbuckels and cut the thread.

[JeromeS13]

You do need to flip the upper balljoint mount. You need it angled out.

[wleehendrick]

Thanks for the clarification... Right, angled out on both sides, but the same side is still up on each side (otherwise it's angled in, hence the problem). So, as assembled, it works on the passenger's side, but it's the driver's sided that needs to be dissembled, ball joint oriented properly, the rear stud shortened, and turnbuckles swapped.

I'm putting the shock mounts on the LCAs and coating all my cockpit Al today (yesterday was a big drilling day, went through two bits). Tomorrow I'll be back at the garage to rivet the panels in place and mount the control arms, hopefully without further issues!

[Xusia]

I was under the impression - perhaps mistakenly so - that the ball joint mount in the UCAs included with newer kits was not angled, but straight up & down; to eliminate this problem. Does anyone know if this is correct?

[wleehendrick]

I was under the impression - perhaps mistakenly so - that the ball joint mount in the UCAs included with newer kits was not angled, but straight up & down; to eliminate this problem. Does anyone know if this is correct?

I do remember reading that, but mine are angled (chassis #52). Not that big a deal if you know what to do, but a little confusing at first!

[Mechie3]

I got the cutting instructions included as part of an update package.

[JeromeS13]

I was under the impression - perhaps mistakenly so - that the ball joint mount in the UCAs included with newer kits was not angled, but straight up & down; to eliminate this problem. Does anyone know if this is correct?

I just got chassis 67 on Monday, 18 November, and I had the angled mounts.

[cmcintyre]

I have serial #46, I called tech and was told:

If you have the straight balljoint mounts (as I do), reassemble UCA's so as to have grease fittings up, bolt heads on top, angle fittings at base angled in (down), short mount to the rear. This provides the "in " angle as presented in the manual , Rev 1f, which shows ball joint mounts welded in at an angle.

[C.Plavan]

I have serial #46, I called tech and was told:

If you have the straight balljoint mounts (as I do), reassemble UCA's so as to have grease fittings up, bolt heads on top, angle fittings at base angled in (down), short mount to the rear. This provides the "in " angle as presented in the manual , Rev 1f, which shows ball joint mounts welded in at an angle.


/Rant on/ Ok...this is what ticks me off. Why don't we hear from FFR in a "Sticky" thread about changes? Communication about the manual/parts changes is non existent from FFR.

FFR PLEASE do a better job communicating with your builders. /Rant off/

Ok I feel better.

cmcintyre- Can you provide a picture for everyone with straight Ball Joint mounts?

[Bob_n_Cincy]

cmcintyre- Can you provide a picture for everyone with straight Ball Joint mounts?

The green SEMA RHD car had straight ball joint mounts.

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23561&d=1385316299

Edit to post. Sorry my eyes are going bad. The picture I posted is an angled joint. (if you zoom it)
And yes, I think it is installed up-side down.

[C.Plavan]

These are mine-
So people with these kind are supposed to be running with the grease fittings facing up?

http://i.imgur.com/8R5NYJpl.jpg (http://imgur.com/8R5NYJp)

[cmcintyre]

Sorry, out of town so no pictures 'til Thursday. I'd say call Tech, ask them to post a definitive answer.

I mean looking at the SEMA car, it appears to me to be an angled ball joint mount……mounted backwards! "...the angle of the ball joint plate should lean out at the top." p77. Maybe its just an optical illusion. But the grease fittings are on top! And the manual also has a picture of one grease fitting up and one down..on the same unit. Jeez.

I'm sure we all just want to get it right. Maybe the R is different to get more negative camber…..no, that would be the other way. Ah well.

[RM1SepEx]

You are correct, looks like the SEMA car is mounted wrong

re the grease fittings. It makes no difference up or down, geometry wise, so do whatever you want. The virtual arm is from shaft center to ball joint center. I think the look better facing down, for a cleaner look

[C.Plavan]

So I got my panties in a bunch over nothing? :)

[wleehendrick]

So I got my panties in a bunch over nothing? :)

Well, I agree with your rant somewhat... the hardware and documentation I got did not match. If it weren't for the forum, I could not have properly assembled my UCAs (with the angled ball joint mounts).

[Mechie3]

So I got my panties in a bunch over nothing? :)


Well, I agree with your rant somewhat... the hardware and documentation I got did not match. If it weren't for the forum, I could not have properly assembled my UCAs (with the angled ball joint mounts).

I agree with Wleehendrick. Most of the fixes were from early builders finding them and documenting them and then they, others, or a group figuring out the best solution. I didn't even notice the steering rack was offset until someone else mentioned it. It would be nice if FFR had a list of every known issue and sent that to people with kits. Making it fully public would cause panic, but making it available to those building now could save some time/headaches. I think most issues have already been discovered though.

[RM1SepEx]

ditto... the communication loop sucks. I think that there needs to be some sort of private area that documents these or even just an email out to all kit builders as identified. We spun our wheels a lot working on stuff already identified... Then after we ID even earlier builders say "yeah I did that too"

UGH

[palomino]

Now I am really confused. Serial # 97 and I have 1 of each!! One angled UCA and 1 straight UCA! Now what?????


Pete

[Xusia]

Call them. I would think you would at least want, if not need, a matching set.

[K3LAG]

Chassis #86. Mine are straight.

Larry

[dougkirkbride]

25983

Just put mine together, chassis 115

what about the rear bushing....I know it should be removed and swapped with the opposite side then reinstalled, but is there a particular angle you put the tangs on when you retorque or will they find there "home"?

[Xusia]

I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't understand what you mean by the angle of the tangs.

Question for you: Are you using a wagon as your donor?

[dougkirkbride]

26008Yes my donar is a 2006 wrx wagon. the tangs are the alluminum mounts on the back of the control arm. the angle those were at when i removed them wasent level with the arm. i was wondering if they need tightened back up at a certain angle to the arm or if they end up rotating to where they need to be. the tangs are shown in the picture.

[RM1SepEx]

that's about right... the rubber distorts as the suspension goes up and down

[Xusia]

I got you. The nut that holds those on needs to be torqued down, but it needs to be done at ride height. So you should leave them a bit loose when you mount them. Later, after you set the ride height, torque them to spec.

[RM1SepEx]

how would you do that as there is no access to the nuts with a socket after they are installed? Hell, you have to grind off some of the shaft for clearance on the driver's side (both if you modify how you mount the pass aluminum panel)

[K3LAG]

how would you do that as there is no access to the nuts with a socket after they are installed? Hell, you have to grind off some of the shaft for clearance on the driver's side (both if you modify how you mount the pass aluminum panel)

Crows foot on torque wrench should work. At least that's my plan once I get my car on the ground.

[Xusia]

Crows foot on torque wrench should work. At least that's my plan once I get my car on the ground.

Yep. Or wait to rivet the backing panel until you've done it.

[dougkirkbride]

in my mind it, seems that there would be more to the ride height than that. i am probably over thinking it but I dont see how this would be adjusted later without removing. I guess i will have to wait till i am at that step.

Thxs

Doug

[Xusia]

If you need to remove that part, and/or torque again later, it would require a crow's foot.

[Canadian818]

Now I am really confused. Serial # 97 and I have 1 of each!! One angled UCA and 1 straight UCA! Now what?????


Pete

Me too. Did you contact FFR?