Here are my initial results with installing Rodney's R&D lowering ball joints. Some discussion of these ball joints occurred here: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/046119.html#lastpost and included a great diagram posted by litespd which showed how they affect the suspension.

In short, these longer ball joints will lower the body over the wheels 1" without affecting upward travel before the bump stop. Here is a comparison picture between a new Moog lower ball joint and one of Rodney's lowering ball joints:

as you can see the body of the ball joint itself is longer not the stem.

Here is a comparison picture of each ball joint pressed into my drivers side LCA:

Note that the retaining clip is installed. The clip should be installed unless you plan on welding the ball joints in place. Due to the extra forces that may be generated by the longer ball joint housing, Rodney currently recommends welding the ball joints in place for safety. Three or four short beads around the ball joint should be adequate and still allow changing the ball joint out by carefully grinding off the welds. My preference was overkill:

This welding was done with a TIG welder in short sections to minimize heating. As you can see from the picture the ball joint did not get very hot. I would not recommend welding all the way around the ball joint unless the heat can be controlled well.

Once installed it is easy to see how these ball joints lower the car and how they affect the relationship between the UCA and LCA:

The lowering effect is easy to see with the car on the ground:

It should be noted that this installation was done on a suspension with all new components, on the same day with no other changes. This eliminates the chance of slop or rubber bushing preload affecting the results.

It is safe to assume that installing these ball joints will cause an increase in negative camber. I hope to have some actual measurements to share with everyone later. I do not have any driving impressions as of yet since the car is still not quite finished, but I will follow up when it is road worthy.

I'd like to thank Rodney Dickman for the parts and his continuing efforts to help this community.

------------------
1988 5-speed Coupe, Konis all around, 8Shark Bushings, Held AltBearing Drop Spindles and Held 13" Brakes, V-8 Archie Radiator, Rota Subzero 17 x 7.5" wheels, Yokohama AVS ES100 P225/45-17 TIres. Powered by a wicked 2.5L L-4 making at least 75HP to the wheels.

Those will change more than the static camber. With these balljoints, your lower control arm will be farther apart from your upper control arm. This changes the instant centre of the suspension, which will in turn affect your roll centre. They will also have an effect on the dynamic camber curve (the way the camber changes as the wheels move up and down). I'd be rather disinclined to lower a car in this manner, but that's just me.

You are right. The camber curve is very different with these ball joints. The steeper camber curve may be a good thing though. I have not determined the change to roll center yet but I was aware that it would change.

Do you feel that this method of lowering has a more adverse affect on geometry than lowering springs?
I am already running drop spindles although I regret not getting the 2" droppers instead of the 1".

I haven't analysed the stock suspension enough to know whether or not the effects that this produces are good or bad. It's quite possible that having the extra camber change is beneficial. I was just pointing out that alot of things will change due to this mod, and one should take them into account. I would love to make a model of the fiero suspension to see exactly how these mods change things, but i don't have the time.

quote Originally posted by Posthumane: I would love to make a model of the fiero suspension to see exactly how these mods change things, but i don't have the time.

That makes two of us. An accurate model would be a useful tool. I guess the best way to make the model would be in autocad though. Then it would be easy to show the effect of changing parts.

I volunteered my car as a guinea pig for these ball joints knowing that they would change the geometry. When I get the car on the road I will know more about how the handling is really affected. I will post my results when I get more information. Right now, I am pleased with the results and I think the changes to geometry may be beneficial, but that is all talk until the car is on the road. Hopefully I will be chewing up pavement by next Sunday.

[This message has been edited by Sparkles (edited 04-10-2004).]

How much closer is the lower control arm to the wheel?

Is there any minimum wheel diameter requirements?

Looks like a very simple way of lowering!

I would think if this could be applied to the rear suspension it would have a less dramatic affect on the geometry.

WKDFIRO: The car is off the ground right now. When I get it back down I will get some measurements. I am running 17" wheels and have no clearance issues. I will try to see if 16" or even 15" wheels will fit.

USFiero: There is no lower ball joint on the rear of 88 fieros. I believe that longer ball joints on the rear of 84-87 fieros would raise the ride height due to the strut based design. This method will work on the front suspension of 84-87 Fiero's though. I believe Rodney has made some of these as well. I'm not convinced that the geometry changes are detrimental either.

***Update***

I put some wheels on the car while it was in the air to check for clearance. The factory Fiero spare tire will clear the LCA with this mod installed.

Factory 15x7 Diamond Spoke wheels did not clear the LCA completely. They would go on fine but when the suspension was compressed there was some light contact with the inside of the rim. I am running 1" drop spindles, and the contact was along the bottom edge, so I would imagine that 15's would work without them. I did not try 14" wheels and 16" wheels should have no problem at all.

[This message has been edited by Sparkles (edited 04-10-2004).]

Using lowering ball joints on the rear won't do squat to lower the car, since its the struts that hold the car up, not the lower conrol arm like the front. And it would have a negligable effect on toe and no effect on camber. Basically it would do nothing, but might hit the wheel.

Rodneys lowering balljoint has NO effect on camber or caster! look at it this way, The distance from the center of the ball on the lower and the upper ball joints has not changed, therefore the geometry has not changed. The only difference is the lower control arm sits alittle lower, and so does the car. Kudos to you Rodney.

Lets say the shaft of the balljoint was only extended, then the ball centers have been spread apart, the camber would change in some manner through the suspension travel.

Im not very good at explaning geometry. I drew a model of the suspension. The upper one represents stock, the lower one is the lowered one. The black dots represent all the pivot points in the suspension, witch are key to determining geometry. Whats most impotant to notice is that none of the pivot points have moved at all. Every distance is maintained. But the lower controll arm is lower, therefore the car sits lower.

[This message has been edited by Fierobsessed (edited 04-11-2004).]

When you compress the suspension, the UCA is going to travel up farther than it normally would compared to the LCA, increaseing the amount of negative camber with the suspension loaded. How much is hard to say, will it affect tirewear, drivability?, dunno, theres not enough R&D put into these yet to make any claims.

Personally I don't think this method of lowering is going to be affective in the long run, but I will keep the reasons for those comments to myself untill some miles are put on these by several sources, and we see the outcome.

[This message has been edited by jelly2m8 (edited 04-11-2004).]

Fierobsessed: I think you may be a little off here. The factory front suspension uses unequal length, non-parallel upper and lower control arms. The camber curve (change in camber through travel) is determined by how unequal in length and non-parallel the arms are. These ball joints seperate the upper and lower control arm by 1" and therefore make the arms diverge more. Also the Upper control arm has nothing to do with ride height. The spring exerts force on the LCA and the cradle thus lifting the body. When adding these ball joints the LCA returned to the exact same level with the car on the ground. This makes sense because the spring rate did not change and the load on the spring was not affected. The centerline of the spindle however sat 1" closer to the body thus lowering the car over the wheels. The upper control arm is just there to control alignment and since the angle it works at is now steeper, the change in alignment through travel will be different. I will measure the change in static camber and post it, but static camber change does not matter anyway since it can be adjusted.

Jelly2m8: I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I am not putting this forward as the best way to lower a car, it's not. We all know that the best way to lower this type of suspension is a drop spindle. This could however be a safe and inexpensive way for many people to lower their cars, and I think it will prove to be a better idea than cutting springs or using drop springs. I plan on daily driving this car and thrashing the crap out of it. I'll be sure to post results and impressions...good or bad. Why do you think this method will be ineffective?

where do I get those brakes? sorry if this hijacks your topic but I just have to have those brakes

crouyer: The brakes are Held Motorsports 13" brake upgrade kit. http://www.heldmotorsports.com

The Held website is out of date. Their picture for the 13" brake kit shows a 1 piece rotor but in reality they now use two piece rotors for the 12" and 13" kits. Both kits use Wilwood 4 piston calipers. The price seems high until you realize that you can put 13" two piece rotors and 4 piston calipers on all four wheels of a Fiero for about the same price as putting a Brembo brake kit on the front wheels of most other cars. Held is now run by Lee Waldmiller (sp?). He has been friendly and easy to work with. Call Lee if you are interested, I am not sure if the pricing on the website is current either.

Sparkles, I see where you are going with that. The only thing that has changed is the suspension now sits as if the springs were cut to lower the car 1". The camber will pull in harder when loaded due to the UCA being at a point 1" higher in it's travel. I don't think that that will hurt the car as far as handling goes, or as the ride goes. But if these are used in conjunction with lowering springs or cut springs, the UCA will sit 2" higher at normal load witch REALLY starts to pull in the camber, wearing the tires out on the inside quickly. Turning the upper balljoint 180º might be needed to get the camber right. But like I said before, The ride shouldn't really be affected. The way the suspension is designed the toe doesn't change with travel (unlike the rear suspension! ) But of course, we still need the test mules (like yourself) to tell us what you think of the end results. Thanks for posting details on the balljoint swap +. If it all goes well, I just might purchase a set! No more monster truck sports car!

[This message has been edited by Fierobsessed (edited 04-11-2004).]

Test mule indeed! I normally scrub off the outside of the tires on cars with good alignment. Maybe I can break even with the extra negative camber.

There was a small hiccup today which has been overcome. Using these ball joints caused a clearance problem between the sway bar and the tie rod. The ball joint raises the spindle 1" higher above the LCA. The swaybar is tied to the LCA by the end link so that distance does not change. Therefore the tie rod moved up 1" toward the sway bar. This caused them to collide when the steering wheel was turned more than one full rotation. The obvious and easy solution was to lengthen the end link by the same 1". I found a pair of spacers that were about 7/8 and we used threaded rod for test fitting the swaybar with longer end links. Heres a before and after:

With 1" longer end links the sway bar clears the tie rod easily. So far this has been the only clearance problem. I'll post more when I know more.

quote When you compress the suspension, the UCA is going to travel up farther than it normally would compared to the LCA, increaseing the amount of negative camber with the suspension loaded.

Lowering springs will cause a similar effect. The difference is that the lowering springs cause both control arms to pivot further upwards when the suspension is loaded. Since the upper control arm has a shorter radius than the lower, you end up with exaggerated negative camber.

As far as I can tell, the only difference between the lowering ball joints and lowering springs (regarding suspension geometry) is that the ball joints don't cause the lower control arms to pivot upwards.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: As far as I can tell, the only difference between the lowering ball joints and lowering springs (regarding suspension geometry) is that the ball joints don't cause the lower control arms to pivot upwards.

Lowering springs also move the LCA closer to the bump stop which reduces your available travel (not exactly geometry related). Longer ball joints do not affect the position of the LCA, just the spindle and the UCA. The change they cause to the camber curve is different than the changes that lowering springs cause because they change the relationship between the UCA and LCA. Lowering springs just move the two arms along a bit further in the same relationship.

[This message has been edited by Sparkles (edited 04-11-2004).]

This is what I get for posting without thinking. Of course it would not lower the rear since the springs are on the strut. Duh. I wonder if there is a replacement strut that has the spring perch down lower even a half inch...

[This message has been edited by USFiero (edited 04-13-2004).]

Just a thought from earlier in this topic...

If anybody has the lengths for the suspension, I'd be more than happy to do it up in Autocad. I've got tons of free time now, so I'm pretty much just looking for anything to do to kill time between my projects. I have to agree, it'd be a great tool to those that need it, and I'd be willing to post it for free on here to anybody who wants it.

Just need the numbers, especially if you're talking all year models...

Send me an email at phorne_tca@yahoo.com

------------------
Patrick Horne

quote Originally posted by Patrick Horne: If anybody has the lengths for the suspension, I'd be more than happy to do it up in Autocad. I've got tons of free time now, so I'm pretty much just looking for anything to do to kill time between my projects. I have to agree, it'd be a great tool to those that need it, and I'd be willing to post it for free on here to anybody who wants it. Just need the numbers, especially if you're talking all year models...

I have some parts for an 88 lying around. If you can be more specific about which measurements and from what points, I'll try to get some of them. jp

Heh, i think the taking measurements part is the most time consuming and hardest, but thank you for the offer Patrick
I would love to get under the car some day with a ruler and find all that out, but alas, no time.

All that would be needed really is the length of the control arms from the balljoint to the pivot axis, the distance the balljoints are apart (and inclination, ie, SAI, caster), the distance the pivot axis for the control arms are apart, and their respective inclinations, and where the suspension sits at rest.

I've got my '86 up on stands right now, so measuring everything now would probably be the best ttime to do it.

I've also got an '88 coming in a week or so, and the cradle's about to be coming out of that too, though I think that the suspension on the '88 will be a *bit* more difficult with the bump-steer/anit-squat additions to the suspension.

How different is the '86 suspension from the '84s to '87s? If they're the same, then I can do the '86 first and post it before the '88, since more people have the pre-88 suspensions anyway. Sounds like a fun project, and something that'll take my mind off the frustrations of the northstar install...

One other thing: Does the PFF let you actually post files other than images? If so, somebody else will have to post it on their website or something to make it accessable. Just a thought.

------------------
Patrick Horne

'84 - '87 are all the same so your '86 is as good as any.

I can put up a file on my lamo webpage, as long as it's not too big. If it gets big I might be able to find a way to host it anyway. Having something like that available to everyone would be awesome.

I still have one pair of these 88 lowering ball joints that I can send out N/C to someone that is willing to install them in an 88 with a totally stock front suspension. I'd like to find someone with some engineering experience if possible. I need input before I decide if these are a good item to sell and that input has to some from the 2 pair I send out (will send out) and also from others that want to voice an opinion. I had prefered that they go into a stock front suspension but the first set did not. I will insist the second pair go into a stock suspension.

------------------
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS

Rodney Dickman's Fiero accessories
www.rodneydickman.com
New address and phone number after June 20,2003:

Rodney Dickman's Fiero acc's
7604 Treeview Drive
Caledonia, WI 53108
(262) 835-9575

Sorry Rodney!

I didn't think about my other mods being a problem.

I've got access to an '88 with a stock suspension (polyeurethane + KYB's) if you wanna send another set to K-town.

For right now I have really lost my interest in offering these. I sent out one set of the 84-87's and have received no info on them to date. These seemed to be a good item. Maybe I was wrong. I had asked for some to install them in their cars but I had hoped they would go into a stock suspension car. I'm sorry I did not specify that in my emails. Both sets went to cars with modified cars. I only have 2 pair of each type to play with.

------------------
PLEASE NOTE MY NEW ADDRESS

Rodney Dickman's Fiero accessories
www.rodneydickman.com
New address and phone number after June 20,2003:

Rodney Dickman's Fiero acc's
7604 Treeview Drive
Caledonia, WI 53108
(262) 835-9575

quote Originally posted by Rodney: I still have one pair of these 88 lowering ball joints that I can send out N/C to someone that is willing to install them in an 88 with a totally stock front suspension. I'd like to find someone with some engineering experience if possible. I need input before I decide if these are a good item to sell and that input has to some from the 2 pair I send out (will send out) and also from others that want to voice an opinion. I had prefered that they go into a stock front suspension but the first set did not. I will insist the second pair go into a stock suspension.

Rodney,

As I mentioned tin the Tech section, I have volunteered and sent my address. I've received nothing to date. I am an engineer. My offer still stands and my dial indicters are still waiting.

Roy

Roy

quote Originally posted by Rodney: For right now I have really lost my interest in offering these. I sent out one set of the 84-87's and have received no info on them to date. These seemed to be a good item. Maybe I was wrong. I had asked for some to install them in their cars but I had hoped they would go into a stock suspension car. I'm sorry I did not specify that in my emails. Both sets went to cars with modified cars. I only have 2 pair of each type to play with.

Rodney, please do not drop these it is a very good effort on your part. I know you have put a lot of effort and time into these and you are trying to do some R&D on them. That being the reason you offered a few so that you could gather some real feedback and data. I can only speak for myself but I appreciate all your time and efforts, I am sorry if it seems all you are getting is a handful of people debating amongst themselves the reasons they will or will not work when what you need is some real data that will prove them either way. Then you can either proceed to produce them or drop the project. I would have offered to try them out on my car but my suspension is not stock. However I am currently in limbo waiting on your hopeful success and release of these lowering ball joints before I proceed with another rebuild of my front suspension.
I will be first in line. Thanks and please keep the new and fresh ideas coming !!!!

I could be wrong, but I think your rotor is on the wrong side. Don't the vanes usually go from inside out???

Rodney:

Please don't give up on these as a product. I have been very excited about being a tester. I think longer ball joints will be a great way for Fiero lovers to lower their cars safely and economically. These parts are less expensive than drop spindles and don't cause a loss of travel like lowering springs or cut springs. We know they work to lower the car and I have posted pictures to prove it to those who did not believe the drawings. We know they will cause the camber curve to be steeper and that will probably prove to be a good thing. We also know that they will work with factory 15" wheels if you do not have drop spindles.

I am sorry that my installation was not what you were hoping for. I did not know that you wanted these to go into a stock setup. On the other hand I do not think my suspension is a poor test bed. I should have the car on the road by next week and I will be daily driving it. Generally speaking, I am an abusive driver and if there is something wrong with these ball joints it will show up on my car.

I hope you don't give up on this idea Rodney,I would be very interested in a set of these for my 88. I too am interested in the feedback on these and if they do make it to production a complete "kit" with longer end links would be great idea. Best of luck with this and any other improvements for our cars.

Rodney, please do not drop this venture.

I would like to volunteer to test a set for my 87 GT, other than cosmeticly, it is 100% mechanicly stock all the way around.

Although i am not an engineer, i am a hard core driver, i drive roughly 50-100 miles a day, and i drive my 87 GT hard. i am not sure if feedback from a non engineer will help you as much as you need or not, but i am willing to pay whatever price you plan to charge for these (if you were to start selling them) just for the opportunity to test them for you. i will even pay for shipping.

These simply can NOT just be dropped. given enough time i believe these will sell very well given the fact they are a more mechanicly superier drop method than drop springs and cost less than springs.

Please let me know if you are interested Rodney, my check book (or money order/Paypal), 87 GT, some highways and curvey mountain roads are ready and willing.

------------------
-Monkey

9 Fieros....help

[This message has been edited by FieroMonkey (edited 04-15-2004).]

ok, are they dead?
like many others, i am wanting these badly.
last week i did up drawings for something just like this, as i was conviced it was the best way to go. didnt know anything about these!

I asked about these a little while ago...i guess it died.

------------------

Member of the Redbar Brigade

[This message has been edited by donk316 (edited 09-27-2004).]

Very, very nice brakes you have there young man. 13" pizza brakes.... yummy!

Yeah lee is a good guy to talk to and one who respones very quickly for orders. I lke the 2-piece rotors you have. Those are the ones I originally wanted several years ago. From looking at your pic, are both style rotors the same. I asked about the slot or vain rotation but never got a anwser. Maybe mine are backwards? Others who I've seen are in the opposite direction but these are the old style ones.

------------------

got an email from good ole rodney today.
several weeks is the answer!!
how come some guys just never let you down?

i saw a response on the rotor direction. he said to get the vanes inside the rotor pointing back. the cuts on the outside shouldnt matter. i agree with him. my vette rotors a re marked rh lh.

Wouldn't a mock-up of real Fiero suspensions (off car) without the springs allow all the caster, camber, and toe-in combinations to be explored and identified more easily?

------------------
RickN
White 88GT 5spd
White 85GT Auto