Well, I got a bad ball joint in my front end, so I might as well make it better, instead of stock. I plan on adding Rodney's 1" Lowering Ball Joint to it. I have stock 15" GT Rims, so hopefully they will not pose a clearance issue.
My main concern is, since I will lower the front by 1" without changing my spring rate... what is the most reccomended procedure for lowering the rear by 1" as well, to keep the car looking proper? I could cut coils but that would increase spring rates in the rear and may throw off the balance of the car. Or is it reccomended to get new springs for the front at a higher spring rate, and matching the rear spring rates with lowering springs?
I cut a coil, didn't see much difference in harshness of ride. If I had to do it again (& I will), I will be using "Coil Overs", that way there's room for "More Tire".
Thanks guys! I am familiar with them but a quick workaround would be more wanted, but I hate half a$$ing anything, so might as well get WCF's performance spring package along with Rodney's lowering ball-joints. This way I can maintain even spring-rate front and rear, and use the coil-overs to adjust the rear height to match the front.
That is the link. I used an article on the forum and converted my struts with springs from QA1 and I think the sleeves and rings from Summit. It was easy and adjustable.
Not regally carbon. The effect to roll center is different between a lowering spring ( both arms are equally changed within original geometry) and using a lowering ball joint (changes the suspension geometry because it changes the relationship between the two arms). So the question wasn't really answered as the lowering ball joint changes the geometry and the arc of each a-arm.
Not regally carbon. The effect to roll center is different between a lowering spring ( both arms are equally changed within original geometry) and using a lowering ball joint (changes the suspension geometry because it changes the relationship between the two arms). So the question wasn't really answered as the lowering ball joint changes the geometry and the arc of each a-arm.
The "geometry" of the upper and lower a-arms is defined by lines that pass through the pivots (ball joints and bushings), not the shape or perceived angle of the arms. The lowering ball joints keep the lower ball joint pivot in the same location vs. the upper ball joint at the spindle, but shift its base connection to the lower a-arm down, so the geometric changes between using lowering ball joints and lowering/cut springs is very close. The only real difference is the lateral placement of the lower ball joint pivot by a very small amount - due to it being shifted perpendicularly from the lower a-arm vs. following the arc of travel of the lower a-arm, but this is likely less than 1/16" and won't change things much.
Dropped spindles are the only bolt-on way to lower the suspension without significantly changing the suspension geometry.
[This message has been edited by fieroguru (edited 02-21-2014).]
Yes, "dropped" (actually raised) spindles are the way to maintain stock geometry. Then you have the rear geometry consideration: Do you utilize coil-overs and lower the rear a similar amount? If so, the result is lower control arms ('88 here) sloped upwards from the inner pivots to the outer connection, beginning to introduce positive camber, ever increasing as the suspension increasingly goes to jounce (compression); not desirable. One would like to have ever increasing negative camber to maintain proper tire contact withe road as the car leans in a corner.
What I have done is to raise the inner pivots an amount nearly equal to the raising of the front spindle. However, after raising the inner pivots, at static ride height with the lateral links level, I was left with about 3/4" travel in compression before contacting the bump stops of my (Held) rear coil-over struts. I ended up raising the top mount of the struts to accommodate more travel. All because I wanted lowering spindles for the front. And to maintain original geometry. Now that I've gone this far I see that It appears necessary to also raise the inner pivot of the trailing link a like amount.
Originally posted by 2.5: So the best way? Unless you are trying to make the geometry better than stock?
Best from a geometry perspective, yes, but probably not best from a cost standpoint (dropped spindles are $550ish). For a daily driver, most would never notice the difference between the three options (springs, spindles, ball joints), so many (myself included) opt for the lower cost options. Eventually I will get some dropped spindles.
quote
Originally posted by kennn:
What I have done is to raise the inner pivots an amount nearly equal to the raising of the front spindle.
Ken
[shameless plug] Or you can use a bolt on kit that lowers the outer lateral link attachment points by 1 1/2":
there is only two ways to lower the suspension. The right way and the half-ass way. Buy dropped springs, dropped spindles, dropped ball joints for the front, and either coil overs or swap out the springs for the rear. (Fiero Guru has a few posts on how to replace your rear springs with stock springs (cut down) if you don't want to purchase the coil over kit)
Rodney chimes in there. They are NOT plug and play. Ask me how I know...
The lowering ball joints are most definitely plug and play... that thread is about getting more adjustment with his upper ball joints which, at least on a pre-88 with lowering ball joints, appear to not be plug and play.
I had no issues with the 1988 versions, but the alignment adjustments on the 88s are obviously made in a completely different way.
Dont got to be a shameless plug, Plug that stuff!! the more sales you get might make you develop future products for our beloved cars! i one personally want to thank you for your contribution to our hobby.
quote
Originally posted by fieroguru:
[shameless plug] Or you can use a bolt on kit that lowers the outer lateral link attachment points by 1 1/2":
Why do we need to use the adjustable upper ball joints? I would think that using the standard ones would give us more static negative camber as the effective length of the UCA is shorter due to its upward angle. Problem seems to be the lack of offset in the slotted ball joints compared to the std ones. Also, since we have to slot the holes in the UCA anyway, can we just use the std ball joints? Again because of its offset. Only problem would be if we could not get enough adjustment with ot without slotting the UCA and using std ball joints.
