What is wrong with these control arms??

[Formula50]

See the attached pictures. The angles seem so "off" and I can't seem to figure out what it is. This is approximately at ride height, not even full droop. Look at the angles of the ball joints, the boots don't even seal so aggressive are the angles between the control arms and spindles. Hard to find any MKII reference pics and I don't have a build manual, but this just doesn't seem right to me. Or is it and am I just searching for problems? Any MKIV reference pic I can find has the LCA's/UCA's at a "normal" angle relative to the spindle and boots that aren't totally cramped on one side and letting air through on the other. Adjusting the UCA's didn't make enough of a difference (they need to be tightened up and I will get it aligned after this). The spindle seems to be turned backwards instead of sitting nicely vertical between the LCA and UCA attachment points.

It drove like this and it did well at that, but I'm having a hard time believing this is how FF intended it. Granted I'm not an engineer, but yeah...


164831 164832 164833 164834

[michael everson]

I dont see anything "wrong". I think this is how the older FFR cars were using the 87-93 Spindles. Lots of compromises.
Mike

[Formula50]

Thank you! That confirms all is good and I'm just seeing things that aren't there. Best thing I guess would be to find control arm boots that fit better. These are the well regarded Energy Suspension boots that work very well on different models, but I can spin the top boot by hand when the UCA's are tightened all the way down. Seems it needs to be a just a tiny bit taller. And probably new boots every year because of the weird angles, but that's not the end of the world.

[boat737]

It does look like the locking nut's on the upper control arms adjusting sleeves are not locked, and have backed off though.

[J R Jones]

Formula, That ball joint housing is used on later models with favorable results. It is at a 10 degree angle to the outside. There is a 0 angle option that may align your ball joint shaft better.

https://www.speedwaymotors.com/shop/speedway-motors-ball-joint-collar-rings-and-sleeves~8193-10191-4249

https://www.summitracing.com/search?SortBy=BestKeywordMatch&SortOrder=Ascending&keyword=BALL%20JOINT%20COLLAR%20RINGS%20AND%20SLEE VES

jim

[Formula50]

It does look like the locking nut's on the upper control arms adjusting sleeves are not locked, and have backed off though.


Correct. All nuts were loose in these pictures (though I snugged op the ball joints before that). All is back together now.

[Formula50]

Formula, That ball joint housing is used on later models with favorable results. It is at a 10 degree angle to the outside. There is a 0 angle option that may align your ball joint shaft better.

https://www.speedwaymotors.com/shop/speedway-motors-ball-joint-collar-rings-and-sleeves~8193-10191-4249

https://www.summitracing.com/search?SortBy=BestKeywordMatch&SortOrder=Ascending&keyword=BALL%20JOINT%20COLLAR%20RINGS%20AND%20SLEE VES

jim

Good stuff! Thank you, didn't know these existed. That will definitely help.

[Derald Rice]

Formula, Your upper control arms were made by Pole Position.....And Pole Position was bought by Specialty Performance Corp., located in Longmont CO

SPC still makes the same parts today, ( with improvements to the pivot shaft ) , that you have on your car.

I would keep the same MFGR when ( if ) you shop for replacement parts.

They are on Summit as SPC.xxxxx.

EDIT: Upper ball joint is a MOOG K722 (chrysler). Lower ball joint is 87-93 Mustang.

[johnnybgoode]

Here's my MKII with the new SPC control arms. I bent one of the original pivots (which you can't buy anymore) doing an alignment so upgraded to the newer style arms. I also run 8* of caster which moves the top ball joint to the rear quite a bit and I'm still using the stock boots which hang down a full droop but seal up pretty well at ride height.

Your top ball joint seems to sit 1/4-3/8" higher than mine? Maybe the taper is longer on the ball joints you are using?

The control arms should sit pretty close to level at ride height. I can take some further pics if you wish. Scott

164840164841

[Jeff Kleiner]

Although Jim is on the right track those parts aren’t directly compatible. Derald’s information is correct.

Jeff

[J R Jones]

Formula, You should evaluate the fit and angles at ride height (resting weight on the spindle) not extended or compressed.
jim

[Formula50]

The amount of knowledge and people willing to help on this forum is truly outstanding. This really helped me out, since it just looked "off" to me, but I'm assured all is perfectly fine.

It's all back together now and for now I think I'll leave it as is. It didn't pose any issues yet while driving, in fact it drives great. While I was swapping out the boots it just didn't feel right. But now it does.

Since my last post thanks Derald (especially for the pics!), Johnny, Jeff and JR Jones.

[rich grsc]

You don't have the shocks and springs on, I thing you have the suspension way too high, not close to ride height?

[CraigS]

Your first 4 pics make it look to me like your UCA is much higher at the ball joint end compared to the frame end. Could you use a jack to get the LCA approximately level looking from the front and get a pic looking from the front so we can see the LCA and UCA angles. This is a pic of my MkII w/ the suspension hanging.
164977
You can't get a real good definition of the angle but the UCA seems to have the BJ lower than yours.