I have that control arm on my pace car. Camber is done at the strut only, then the toe link does all toe, and slightly effects camber due to the "ball joint" no longer being under the centerline of the wheel. They are easier to adjust then the factory setup. However, I have two complaints:

The pin and clevis joint on the control arm is loose. Doesn't fit tightly, its always been a loose fit, and I've seen people that have had the joint fail. It should have been another heim joint with a pinch bolt. I think I'll modify them next time I'm in there.

The other complaint is weight. The block of steel that goes underneath the control arm is SOLID steel, and REALLY HEAVY. I't could have been a lot lighter.

Those two points aside, it does do the job quite well. If it weren't for the crappy clevis connection, it would definitely control toe with little to no deflection under heavy loading.

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: However, I have two complaints: The pin and clevis joint on the control arm is loose. Doesn't fit tightly, its always been a loose fit, and I've seen people that have had the joint fail. It should have been another heim joint with a pinch bolt. I think I'll modify them next time I'm in there. The other complaint is weight. The block of steel that goes underneath the control arm is SOLID steel, and REALLY HEAVY. I't could have been a lot lighter.

I installed that setup on a friend's Fiero. I also had the same two complaints. Whoever decided to put a clevis pin on the toe link needs a good hard kick in the nuts. That's just plain stupid. It leaves the toe link loose, which allows the rear wheels to wobble a bit.

And yeah, that bar under the knuckle is heavy. I was shocked that they used a bar of solid steel for that. That must add a good 5 pounds of unsprung weight to the end of the control arm.

My fix was inspired from their design but my goal was to keep the stock control arm and ball joint to keep the most number of parts as stock as possible

Yeah I opened this thread up.
I lowered both my 86GT turbo and my 87GT norm asp and what with the major engine mods, brakes mods, and ploy suspension etc, I've been thinking about having my son race my 87GT -chump road race or motor-x- or at least see what it can do at Summit Point road curse in W.Va. As for my question, should I address the tie rod location issue what with the car being lower or will the poly and a really good alignment suffice?

BTW: I for one, don't think they -GM engineers- for whatever reasons, did such a splendid job on the Fiero. The 2.8 has some functionally God-awful designs features, even for 1980s that limit power and gas millage and longevity. Don't get me wrong, I love the cars too and they did a get lot right, but let's face it, the Fiero is not a shinning example of GM expertise or quality. Examples: You have to love they way never fixed or took a while to rectify some of the little things, like: ballast resistors that get hot enough to set errant leaves ablaze in the heater air inlet -cowl vent- or the neat way the gauges get nailed with lamp-test volts when you turn the key on; often making the temp gauge read falsely. There's fix here on PFF for that one. And there's the engine compartment drip-rail thing and other issues. I also love how darn close they put the exhaust system to starter motors without putting any heat shielding. So yeah, I can believe GM engineers did or perhaps were forced to drop the ball to some extent on the suspension.

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

trueleo.com
RSpiderII@aol.com

[This message has been edited by Francis T (edited 06-21-2012).]