New FFR Roadster UCA design significantly improved over previous versions

[Jester]

I just received my new UCA's for my MK4 roadster (required new set to replace previous version due to failed pivot bushing). The new design and construction is a big improvement over previous versions. The pivot bushings are nylon and should provide significantly improved performance and reduced maintenance. These are very easy to grease and service.

I believe this improved design will eliminate the possibility of failures due to seized pivot bushings.

I just need to source the proper ball joint boots for the revised design.

[acth4347]

Could you post a pic? I might want to upgrade. Thanks

[Garry Bopp]

I just upgraded as well. Mark Dougherty found the right side, forward pivot mount fully seized up, so ended up replacing both sides with the new version.

Garry

[MPTech]

My original UCAs have me paranoid now and I don't trust them.
Is there a new part# for the new ones? and how much. (looks like FFR still lists the old ones on their site)
So I'll need new ball joints and covers too(?)

Disappointed that FFR hasn't stepped up on these, if they are dangerous. And I dis-agree with the comment that they are racing parts and need to be serviced every oil-change. These could get someone killed!

I REALLY like my FFR, but still burned that they didn't own up to the screw-up of the IRS axles. Their fix was not satisfactory in my book.

[Gumball]

Seems that their website has the new ones listed - I know of lots of guys who have the original style and have had no problems... but I do know one who did have the galling problem (not seized, though).

I'm going to think about this one... of the guys I know who haven't had issues, all were pretty careful about lubing these all the time - the one with problems admitted to irregular service. From what I can tell by looking at the photos of the new design, they are likely made to take a little more neglect.

[chopthebass]

What is a UCA?

[Jester]

Could you post a pic? I might want to upgrade. Thanks

Here are some pic's of the New UCA's as well as the old UCA that failed

see below

These new C/A's are Part # 15501 (Adjustable Front Upper Control Arm). They list for $229.00 from FFR but FFR offered me a slight discount.

I too was very surprised when FFR would not offer to replace the individual failed parts but in the end I am very happy with the new A-arms and I believe the problem has been addressed with the new design. As FFR has stated, "soles ride in these cars" and I would not want to see anything happen due to a faulty bushing.

I would suggest that there may be little to no issue if the older UCA bushings are seen to have grease exiting both ends during lubrication and move freely. I would have been fine replacing the failed parts but FFR does not stock parts for the older versions.

I would suggest that older bushings definitely require monthly inspection and greasing - I plan to do the same with the new bushings and as an added precaution I plan to dismantle and inspect the front suspension annually during the winter. I would add a comment that more frequent inspections may be needed if frequently driving on rough or uneven surfaces as this may increase ware on the pivot bushings.

31065310663106731068310693107031071

[Timb]

2 Questions

Do we know the manufacturer?
Is there any reason you couldn't just source the pivot ends and install them on the older version?

[MPTech]

What is a UCA?
Upper Control Arm.


THIS scares the hell out of me! Driving on the hiway, this could be lethal.
http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31070&d=1403963102

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31071&d=1404760211


So I had my upper and lower Control Arms greased last week. Am I safe? Service every oil-change?

[Jester]

Upper Control Arm.


THIS scares the hell out of me! Driving on the hiway, this could be lethal.
http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31070&d=1403963102

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=31071&d=1404760211


So I had my upper and lower Control Arms greased last week. Am I safe? Service every oil-change?

Funny you say that - the weekend before this failed I was on the hwy for an hour at 70-80mph going with the traffic. If it let go during that trip the outcome may not have been so favorable.

[Jeff Kleiner]

OK, I'll be the wet blanket in this party. Personally I have bigger concerns about the lack of material in the clevis end of the new style arms than I do about (properly lubricated) cross shaft bushings in the older versions. Check these out:

http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/t557/Popeye727/UCA/98c23b14-c195-47bc-9d8b-226c6d56c571_zpsc8a717d8.jpg

http://www.ffcars.com/forums/attachments/factory-five-roadsters/106002d1393699420-question-new-f5-front-ucas-photo-1.jpg

Not exactly what I'd call "robust". Maybe it's a case of picking your poison...

Jeff

[stroked 6t5]

Hello,
I seem to have read in the past that in certain circumstances the adjusting sleeves would have to be replaced with longer ones to achieve proper wheel adjustment. Has this been addressed as well or does that problem still exist? Just wanting to cover all bases before optioning up. Thanx for the photos Jester and glad no harm came from this.
Regards,
Andy

[Jeff Kleiner]

I seem to have read in the past that in certain circumstances the adjusting sleeves would have to be replaced with longer ones...Has this been addressed as well or does that problem still exist?

It's not a "problem" just something to be aware of and address if necessary when getting into the higher caster ranges (which is ordinarily only done when running power steering).

Here's some info:

http://www.ffcars.com/forums/17-factory-five-roadsters/244160-lots-caster-warning.html

Cheers,
Jeff

[MPTech]

where's the shaking head emoticon?

I give up!

[Avalanche325]

Back in the day, oil changes were done every 3000 miles. It was also standard to grease everything when an oil change was done. That would have been every 3 - 4 months for an average car.

With ours usually getting much less mileage, I can see an argument for having to do it more (sitting parts can seize or corrode) or less often. I am going to opt for more.

How are you guys checking for ease of motion on the UCA?

[Jester]

OK, I'll be the wet blanket in this party. Personally I have bigger concerns about the lack of material in the clevis end of the new style arms than I do about (properly lubricated) cross shaft bushings in the older versions. Check these out:

http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/t557/Popeye727/UCA/98c23b14-c195-47bc-9d8b-226c6d56c571_zpsc8a717d8.jpg

http://www.ffcars.com/forums/attachments/factory-five-roadsters/106002d1393699420-question-new-f5-front-ucas-photo-1.jpg

Not exactly what I'd call "robust". Maybe it's a case of picking your poison...

Jeff

Thx Jeff

For me - I am much happier with the new design. As per any design, the assembly is only as strong as it's weakest link. I was a little surprised with the new ball joint end of the A-arm assembly as you point out in the photo and this may be the new weakest link in the redesigned assembly. However when comparing the old and new design, the changes to ball joint end of the assembly appears to be a wash regarding a significant change in strength (need materials engineer to confirm the strength of materials used and max forces encountered during operation - old vs new). Note the fixed arm on the ball joint end is more substantial than the previous design which should more than offset the size of the slotted shoulder on the other side of the ball joint mount. In addition the threaded rods are a larger diameter then the previous design. With a properly functioning ball joint there would very little rotational force on the ball joint mounting plate clevis mounts and once the clevis bolts are properly torqued, the arms and the ball joint mounting plate act as fixed unit and a failure of the slotted joint would seem highly unlikely (although not impossible). These parts would be designed to exceed max strength requirements - if they are not then that's a new issue. I am not aware of any previous failures from the ball joint end of the assembly (??).

The big change is in the design is the pivot bushing which has been known to fail due to friction buildup (cause of friction build-up is another topic). The new design appears to have eliminated the pivot bushing failure issue. For me, the re-designed pivot bushing represents a significant improvement in safety. As with all manufactured parts, once a design goes final there are always additional changes that can be made to improve strength, performance, cost etc., but there can be a trade off with safety (the top priority). Perhaps in time this new design can and will be improved upon, but hopefully no further improvements are needed.

I applaud FFR for incorporating the new UCA design and hopefully this is the last we hear of UCA failure issues.

Although it would be nice to see the strength tests of the old vs new design. An upgraded slotted bolt for the clevis mount on the ball joint plate would be a quick fix if this is a concern.

[edwardb]

2 Questions. Do we know the manufacturer? Is there any reason you couldn't just source the pivot ends and install them on the older version?

These are from Specialty Products in Colorado. http://www.spcalignment.com/spc-performance. The do sell parts separately. Just scrolling through their catalog though don't see the old style pivot assembly with just the single tab. The ones several have reported and pictured breaking off. Everything pictured in their catalog that I saw has two tabs with the pivot stud captured between. Like those pictured by Jester and seen in the later Mk4's sold by FFR. Maybe this was a design change by Specialty Products?

[CDXXVII]

Part numbers found on the other forum. I have not verified just copied.

sps-93400 Steel Cross Shaft 5” Center bolt hole spacing
sps-92045 – 4” aluminum sleeve
sps-92055 – 5” Aluminum Sleeve
sps-92003 – 0 degree Chrysler ball joint plate
sps-92021 – Pivot and Hardware Kit

[edwardb]

Part numbers found on the other forum. I have not verified just copied.

sps-93400 Steel Cross Shaft 5” Center bolt hole spacing
sps-92045 – 4” aluminum sleeve
sps-92055 – 5” Aluminum Sleeve
sps-92003 – 0 degree Chrysler ball joint plate
sps-92021 – Pivot and Hardware Kit

Yea, those parts show up in the catalog listed on their website. But they appear to be the newer design. Specifically the 92021 pivot. Don't know that these can be used with the older A-frame version. I kind of doubt it. May have to call and see if parts are available for the older version.

[Jeff Kleiner]

... Don't know that these can be used with the older A-frame version. I kind of doubt it. May have to call and see if parts are available for the older version.

I don't think SPS was the vendor for the aluminum and black Mk3/early Mk4 arms.

Jeff

[edwardb]

I don't think SPS was the vendor for the aluminum and black Mk3/early Mk4 arms. Jeff

Interesting. I had heard they were from SPS some time ago. If they're not, than several of the parts even with the new design are amazingly similar.

[CHOTIS BILL]

I am with Jeff on this one. The amount of material on the clevis where the bolt goes though is a point of concern for me. Torqueing the bolt will help a little but I wouldn’t think of using that setup on a track car. In a turn the outside wheel generates the most force on the UCA and that force is in tension which makes it even worse. However the amount of force on the UCA is much less than most people think. The force is generated where the tire meets the road and the LCA acts like a fulcrum. Even so I wouldn’t want to be the one testing that part on a track.

Bill Lomenick

[skullandbones]

Every aspect of the newer design looks better to me except one. The ball joint plate is larger giving a larger welding surface for the fixed adjustment arm mount. Of course, the double on the mounting points of the UCA are more substantial and better design for the greasing. The bushings should stop any gaulding, of the metal shaft and pivot. Even the adjustment arms are a little beefier at least the leading one. The moveable attachment point is the only one that looks like there is less metal to support it. Is it possible for that to be as strong or stronger than the part on the older design even though it doesn't look it? WEK.

[Jester]

Ok, I called SPC to discuss the design of the new A-arms vs the older version offered by FFR. SPC was not the supplier of the A-arms for the early Mk4's (black & silver) but they are now supplying the new A-arms (have been for ~ 1 yr) and they did supply A-arms at one point many years ago. Other than the obvious as discussed above, one of the differences is that the SPC UCA's use 3/4 threaded rod vs 5/8 in the previous UCA's. The SPC UCA's have extensive track testing (more than 13 years) with no failures reported during normal use (the only failures reported were from impact during a race).

I did mention the possible concern re the slotted rod on the ball joint plate and SPC has not seen any failures in that location with the design (under normal use including track use). I did mention the possibility of increasing the dia of the slotted rod end at the ball joint plate to 1 inch "+" to provide more material at the mounting slot for more strength (better visual impression) and reduce to 3/4 for the threaded rod - this suggestion will be passed on to the design team for consideration. This way customers could have the option to go with a more substantial slotted clevis rod for the ball joint plate (if they choose).

All in all - I am very satisfied and confident in the new A-arm assembly.

[Gumball]

Jester - I'm not 100% convinced I needed to do this, but I did just order a set of the new UCAs from FFR for my nearly completed build. Since I have to replace the front brakes to fit the 15" wheels I decided to use, I figured now would be as good a time as any to swap the UCAs, too.

I'll do a more thorough evaluation when they arrive - it may be that I just keep them on the shelf for the inevitible service replacement down the road.

[Jester]

Chris,

You will be happy with the new UCA's. My only comment and as pointed out in the discussion above is that, with relatively frequent proper lubrication, there is nothing wrong with the previous version of UCA's (as long as the pivot bushings rotate freely) and I would not be discussing the UCA's if I could easily locate replacement parts. Unfortunately I could not locate parts so I ordered the new UCA's.

I do however really like the new design and I no longer have to be concerned with pivot bushing failure.

Shedding some light on the UCA maintenance is a good thing for all.

[myjones]

Ok, The SPC UCA's have extensive track testing (more than 13 years) with no failures reported during normal use (the only failures reported were from impact during a race).
I did mention the possible concern re the slotted rod on the ball joint plate and SPC has not seen any failures in that location with the design (under normal use including track use). All in all - I am very satisfied and confident in the new A-arm assembly.

That clevis does look small but after thinking about it, collisions aside the tension and compression loads on that part are limited by tire grip.
The clevice would also likely be the crumple zone maybe saving you from frame damage.
DB

[Gumball]

Does anyone have the Moog part number for the ball joint for these new UCAs?

[NukeMMC]

Moot K772 fit mine.

[CHOTIS BILL]

Ok, I called SPC to discuss the design of the new A-arms vs the older version offered by FFR. SPC was not the supplier of the A-arms for the early Mk4's (black & silver) but they are now supplying the new A-arms (have been for ~ 1 yr) and they did supply A-arms at one point many years ago. Other than the obvious as discussed above, one of the differences is that the SPC UCA's use 3/4 threaded rod vs 5/8 in the previous UCA's. The SPC UCA's have extensive track testing (more than 13 years) with no failures reported during normal use (the only failures reported were from impact during a race).

I did mention the possible concern re the slotted rod on the ball joint plate and SPC has not seen any failures in that location with the design (under normal use including track use). I did mention the possibility of increasing the dia of the slotted rod end at the ball joint plate to 1 inch "+" to provide more material at the mounting slot for more strength (better visual impression) and reduce to 3/4 for the threaded rod - this suggestion will be passed on to the design team for consideration. This way customers could have the option to go with a more substantial slotted clevis rod for the ball joint plate (if they choose).

All in all - I am very satisfied and confident in the new A-arm assembly.


It would be interesting to know what type of impact caused the failure. If it was a hard impact with another car or wall a failure somewhere is to be expected but if it was hitting a curb a little too hard that would raise a red flag. I like the improvements made to the bearing area but would be concerned about the clevis. I would think that a company making such an important part as a UCA and the willingness of people the sue would have test data on how much force it takes to a cause failure. Perhaps they do but I didn’t see it mentioned.

Bill Lomenick

[Jester]

It would be interesting to know what type of impact caused the failure. If it was a hard impact with another car or wall a failure somewhere is to be expected but if it was hitting a curb a little too hard that would raise a red flag. I like the improvements made to the bearing area but would be concerned about the clevis. I would think that a company making such an important part as a UCA and the willingness of people the sue would have test data on how much force it takes to a cause failure. Perhaps they do but I didn’t see it mentioned.

Bill Lomenick

Bill,

SPC did mention that all failures were from circle track race cars hitting a wall (hitting a curb - not sure how the UCA would function - many variables to consider?). The discussion also touched the force on this slotted mount but we did not discuss test data (it would be interesting to review but we would also need the test data from the older design for a proper comparison).

Perhaps you may want to speak directly with SPC given your concerns.

Having experience with a failed pivot bushing (older version), I am pleased and confident with the improved SPC design and performance as stated by SPC.

[Jester]

New A-arms are in, alignment is complete, clevis nuts torqued down - LUVIN IT

Took it for a 5 hr run today - Got to say that for me I notice an incredible difference in handling and the car feels significantly more stable at higher speed - I think the original PS A-arm was a dud from the beginning. Now I think my car handles the way it is supposed - unbelievably stable and feels balanced.

I'm out

[Gumball]

I ordered mine on Tuesday and they arrived on Thursday - incredible turnaround time from FFR on these. I picked up a pair of ball joints and some parts needed for my brake swap (getting rid of the 13" front rotors so that the 15" wheels will fit), so I'm ready to do a bunch of front end work before the body goes on in another week or so.

[skullandbones]

Hi Jester,

You describe your A arm issue by saying you had a "dud". I appreciated the way you presented it instead of a blanket assessment of all FFR A arms. The thing that interests me about this whole episode is that you installed this UCA thinking it was OK. I believe that could have happened to anyone. Looking back on the events, can you remember if the alignment shop had any problems with your car? You mentioned that you get great stability and balance now with the new part. So I am assuming the UCA had something to do with the way your car handled before you experienced the failure. However, I can't see how the UCA by itself could have affected it unless it was seizing up very badly from day one. Could the alignment have been affected by the stiffness of the UCA to the point it would have caused the alignment to be inaccurate? If that was the case you would probably have notices instability at speed but not necessarily bad handling during your regular driving outings. I'm trying to see if there are any clues you may have had that you didn't notice at the time, that may have indicated some trouble other than the stiffness of the UCA and the difficulty greasing it.

Anyway, you get props for bringing it to the attention of the community. You and I both are using up our lottery luck with these events. Your UCA falls apart on the hoist and my shock falls apart while I'm going 1 mph (but the day before I had been doing 70 on mountain roads).

Continued good luck,

WEK.

[Jester]

Hi Jester,

You describe your A arm issue by saying you had a "dud". I appreciated the way you presented it instead of a blanket assessment of all FFR A arms. The thing that interests me about this whole episode is that you installed this UCA thinking it was OK. I believe that could have happened to anyone. Looking back on the events, can you remember if the alignment shop had any problems with your car? You mentioned that you get great stability and balance now with the new part. So I am assuming the UCA had something to do with the way your car handled before you experienced the failure. However, I can't see how the UCA by itself could have affected it unless it was seizing up very badly from day one. Could the alignment have been affected by the stiffness of the UCA to the point it would have caused the alignment to be inaccurate? If that was the case you would probably have notices instability at speed but not necessarily bad handling during your regular driving outings. I'm trying to see if there are any clues you may have had that you didn't notice at the time, that may have indicated some trouble other than the stiffness of the UCA and the difficulty greasing it.

Anyway, you get props for bringing it to the attention of the community. You and I both are using up our lottery luck with these events. Your UCA falls apart on the hoist and my shock falls apart while I'm going 1 mph (but the day before I had been doing 70 on mountain roads).

Continued good luck,

WEK.

WEK - thx

The alignment shop did not have any issues setting the alignment with the original A-arms.

In retrospect, other than difficulty with greasing the bushing that failed, I did notice that the car did not feel well balanced when making left turns. This makes sense now as the car was not balanced when under load on the front passenger side.

Difficulty with greasing is the easiest way to tell if you may have an issue with your A- arms. Grease needs to be seen exiting both sides of the bushing.

After a few lengthy discussions with SPC, by direct comparison and installing the new A-arms, I am convinced the SPC A-arms are superior in every way over the version in the early MK4's - no more bushing failures. My A-arm troubles should be a distant memory and I hope everyone inspects and confirms the bushings are properly greased.

[skullandbones]

I take it you don't have PS. I think it might be more difficult to "feel" the issue with the binding with my PS system in place. I guess any odd sounds like creaking or repeated squeak could be a sign but it's difficult to hear those small sounds over the exhaust and other engine sounds coming your way. Will have to depend on the inspection process until making a change with the UCA. Thx, WEK.