Can I shim upper control arm?

[hrosenthal]

I'm not loving how the end nut on one of my upper control arms is rubbing (and scratched) the frame (see photos).
I was thinking of putting shims between the control arm to create some clearance.
Is this a safe option?
Will it cause any problems in the future?
Is there any special shim I need for this?


As long as we are on the subject, are the end nuts supposed to be tightened (see photo).

Thanks,
H

11600116011160211599

[CraigS]

I don't see any problem shimming that out maybe 1/4 inch. I think I would make a square washer from some 1/4x1 inch bar stock rather than just using washers. You want to have the same contact area and a nice tight fit on the hole in the washer. Most 1/2 inch washers have about a 9/16 hole. I might even make it a long spacer that has holes for both bolts.

[FritoBandito]

Can I ask what model roadster you have? I.E. Mk1 2 3 or 4? My Mk4 upper control arms don't look like that and are narrower so they don't hit.

Mario

[hrosenthal]

Can I ask what model roadster you have? I.E. Mk1 2 3 or 4? My Mk4 upper control arms don't look like that and are narrower so they don't hit.

Mario

It's an MK4, it was delivered about 4 weeks ago.

[jlfernan]

Who's control arms are those? You may want to ask them.



http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/9124/jorge.jpg (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=111)

[hrosenthal]

Who's control arms are those? You may want to ask them.



http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/9124/jorge.jpg (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=111)

These control arms are part of the FFR complete package. I have an inquiry into their tech department as well.
Thanks,
H

[hrosenthal]

I don't see any problem shimming that out maybe 1/4 inch. I think I would make a square washer from some 1/4x1 inch bar stock rather than just using washers. You want to have the same contact area and a nice tight fit on the hole in the washer. Most 1/2 inch washers have about a 9/16 hole. I might even make it a long spacer that has holes for both bolts.

A long spacer makes a lot of sense. Is this something I can do with aluminum, or do I need steel?
Thanks,
H

[FritoBandito]

These control arms are part of the FFR complete package. I have an inquiry into their tech department as well.
Thanks,
H
Those are very different from mine. I'll be interested in their comments. BTW, you might wanna just call em 9am EST tomorrow. I've never had great success getting call-backs or replies to my e-mails.

Mario

[Norm B]

Hi. I have a Mark IV base kit and my manual says to mount the upper control arms on the horizontal frame attach point and not the vertical one as you show in your pictures. I don't believe there is a difference between the base kit and complete kit is this case. Good Luck!

Norm

[jlfernan]

Hi. I have a Mark IV base kit and my manual says to mount the upper control arms on the horizontal frame attach point and not the vertical one as you show in your pictures. I don't believe there is a difference between the base kit and complete kit is this case. Good Luck!

Norm

With the complete kit, you mount the control arms on the vertical, donor gets mounted horizontal. Unless they've changed their control arms, I don't know what to tell you. I see a decal on the pivots, is there a manufacturer name there? Here are my control arms for comparison.


http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1207/dscf2688d.jpg

Now, does it hit the frame or just the aluminum? One of mine hit the aluminum and it had to be trimmed a bit. Here's a photo of that. HTH.


http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9195/dscf2671r.jpg


http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2561/jorgec.jpg (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=111)

[Jeff Kleiner]

Those UCAs are different than what has been used on Mk3s and Mk4s up to now. The drawing you have attached, and the photo Jorge included, is of the ones which have been used for the past few years. You can easily see how they differ from yours. I also noticed and commented on one of your earlier posts that the upper ball joint is now angled, much like they used to do on the Mk2. Again this difference is visible in the drawing and photo. I think I'd talk to FFR, and specifically speak to Jesper. You may have uncovered an issue that has arisen from a vendor change which they are not yet aware of. I would NOT simply shim it; moving just the rear outward is going to change location of only one of the 4 suspension points and will not allow the cross bar to mount flat to the chassis. If anything both ends need to be moved an equal amount.


Hi. I have a Mark IV base kit and my manual says to mount the upper control arms on the horizontal frame attach point and not the vertical one as you show in your pictures. I don't believe there is a difference between the base kit and complete kit is this case. Good Luck!

Norm

Whether to use the vertical or horizontal mounting point is dictated by the spindles. When using the FFR spindles the UCA uses the vertical mounts; Fox or SN95 spindles get mounted to the horizontal points. Since the complete kit includes FFR spindles the vertical mount is correct.

Jeff

[hrosenthal]

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2561/jorgec.jpg[/IMG] (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=111)

It isn't the bolt that's rubbing, it's the nut. It can't be turned without rubbing on the powder coated frame.

[hrosenthal]

Those UCAs are different than what has been used on Mk3s and Mk4s up to now. The drawing you have attached, and the photo Jorge included, is of the ones which have been used for the past few years. You can easily see how they differ from yours. I also noticed and commented on one of your earlier posts that the upper ball joint is now angled, much like they used to do on the Mk2. Again this difference is visible in the drawing and photo. I think I'd talk to FFR, and specifically speak to Jesper. You may have uncovered an issue that has arisen from a vendor change which they are not yet aware of. I would NOT simply shim it; moving just the rear outward is going to change location of only one of the 4 suspension points and will not allow the cross bar to mount flat to the chassis. If anything both ends need to be moved an equal amount.

Jeff

Jeff -
I was planning on shimming both the front an rear an equal amount to maintain the angle. Or as CraigS suggested, creating just one spacer - I'm just not sure what material I need to do that.
Thanks,
H

[CraigS]

I would do steel.

[hrosenthal]

Thanks for all the help. I also spoke to a FFR tech this afternoon who confirmed that using shims is fine. Looks much better now.

[FritoBandito]

Hey do what you gotta do but aren't you concerned that we think you might have the wrong upper control arms?

Mario

[hrosenthal]

I don't think it's wrong, but will verify at build school this weekend.
Thanks,
H

[jlfernan]

I don't think it's wrong, but will verify at build school this weekend.
Thanks,
H

They may have gone to new vendor for the control arms and the school may still have the old. I would play it safe and check directly with FFR. Although, it seems to me upon closer inspection, that the only real difference is the pivot around the bolts. Mine are silver where yours are gold.


http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2561/jorgec.jpg (http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/private.php?do=newpm&u=111)

[Avalanche325]

I got mine in Jan and my control arms are like jlfernan's picture. I would call to make sure you have the right ones. It could be a new design.

They do make shims for that very thing. Cars from the 60s used them. Steel shims in different thicknesses. My 66 Mustang fastback had quite a stack of them.

[Jeff Kleiner]

A bigger concern for me than shimming the arm outward slightly is the upper ball joint angle change that these arms have, as I mentioned above. Here is the photo from one of your other posts:

http://thefactoryfiveforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11436&d=1345852923

Here is one of my photos of a Mk4 using the same FFR spindles:

http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj43/jkleiner/Mk4%207276/100_1804-1.jpg

Notice that on mine the stud of the joint is in the center of the ball seat when engaged with the spindle while on the angled one it is not, it's off to one side. Compare that to the bottom where the mount where the ball joint is mounted at an angle to match the angle of the spindle, keeping the ball/stud centered in the seat. Take these two photos to build school with you and see what Todd, Scott and Jim think.

There may not be an issue at all but it's one of those things that makes me go "Hmmm?..."

Enjoy the school! While I have never attended I've known Scott and Todd for many years; they are a wealth of knowledge and are sure to show you a great time!


Jeff

[CraigS]

Jeff, it looks to me that your top pic has the suspension hanging at full droop. The bottom pic has a stand under the LCA so I assume it's at least close to normal ride height. If the top pic were at ride height it might look better. I am not sure why FFR uses that angled top plate as the bottom pic shows both arms to be close to horizontal.

[Someday I Suppose]

First on the shim, I dont think shiming it out will hurt, on some race cars I have seen, shims are how camber and caster are adjusted. That said, I would be concerned that those arent the right ball joints as well for the reasons Jeff mentioned. I think way back in the day the cups were angled, and for guys that did the SAI mod they had to swap the left for the right because the angle was too much to do an alignment on.

-Scott

[Steve Powell]

When I changed my Challenge car to the new spindles last winter I shimmed the arm out with a strip of 1" x 1/8" thick steel. I have the original MKII Pole Position arms on it. Works just fine.