Ball joints with 4wd/5lugs
02-24-2009, 08:49 AM
#1
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,459
Ball joints with 4wd/5lugs
So what's the deal with the front lca ball joints when changing spindles up front.
People insist on changing the ball joint when putting sn95 spindles on the car... why?
Ford racing cobra r 4wd/5lug kit says absolutely nothing about lca ball joints when using their spindles....
If you claim its some sort of geometry advantage plz back it up.
People insist on changing the ball joint when putting sn95 spindles on the car... why?
Ford racing cobra r 4wd/5lug kit says absolutely nothing about lca ball joints when using their spindles....
If you claim its some sort of geometry advantage plz back it up.
02-24-2009, 09:30 AM
#2
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The P.R.K.
Posts: 1,975
IIRC the SN95 parts have a lower center in the geometry, and the SN balljoints I KNOW are shorter. So perhaps the spindles are longer to compensate for the lower profile balljoint? Someone else will chime in and disprove me Im sure
02-24-2009, 09:48 AM
#3
The Rogue Mod
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland Sucka's!!
Posts: 21,918
The ball joint shafts are different lengths. That's why if you are using the fox bj's w/ the newer spindles the shims/washers have to be added (to compensate for the longer shaft) before the spindle drops on to the bj.
02-24-2009, 10:24 AM
#4
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,459
Ah, well that makes sense.
I guess either the FR spindles have a thicker base which requires no washers which is why they mention nothing about spacers in their install kit.....
Or, despite having 35 pages of detailed instructions they failed to mention "get spacers or new bj's"....
What sort of improvement would the shorter bj shaft serve? I can't really see any...
From experience do most tubular k's/control arms have shorter joint shafts like the sn-95? I'm asking because in the future I could probably just machine a fraction of an inch off of the bottom of my current spindles if and only if they are thicker as to run with stock fox bj's.
I guess either the FR spindles have a thicker base which requires no washers which is why they mention nothing about spacers in their install kit.....
Or, despite having 35 pages of detailed instructions they failed to mention "get spacers or new bj's"....
What sort of improvement would the shorter bj shaft serve? I can't really see any...
From experience do most tubular k's/control arms have shorter joint shafts like the sn-95? I'm asking because in the future I could probably just machine a fraction of an inch off of the bottom of my current spindles if and only if they are thicker as to run with stock fox bj's.
02-24-2009, 10:31 AM
#5
The Rogue Mod
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Maryland Sucka's!!
Posts: 21,918
Ah, well that makes sense.
I guess either the FR spindles have a thicker base which requires no washers which is why they mention nothing about spacers in their install kit.....
Or, despite having 35 pages of detailed instructions they failed to mention "get spacers or new bj's"....
What sort of improvement would the shorter bj shaft serve? I can't really see any...
From experience do most tubular k's/control arms have shorter joint shafts like the sn-95? I'm asking because in the future I could probably just machine a fraction of an inch off of the bottom of my current spindles if and only if they are thicker as to run with stock fox bj's.
I guess either the FR spindles have a thicker base which requires no washers which is why they mention nothing about spacers in their install kit.....
Or, despite having 35 pages of detailed instructions they failed to mention "get spacers or new bj's"....
What sort of improvement would the shorter bj shaft serve? I can't really see any...
From experience do most tubular k's/control arms have shorter joint shafts like the sn-95? I'm asking because in the future I could probably just machine a fraction of an inch off of the bottom of my current spindles if and only if they are thicker as to run with stock fox bj's.
02-25-2009, 07:57 AM
#6
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,459
Well the spindles in the FR upgrade kit have the same balljoint/strut geometry and even the mounting holes for the ABS that will never be used on my fox. The only difference is the steering arm where the tie rod bolts in. Stock sn-95 spindles have an arm that is basically horizontal and straight. My new spindles have a bend in teh steering arm which essentially places the tie rod an inch higher than the sn-95 location. I have no real idea the benifit of this besides fitment of a slightly smaller rim... which wont happen with 13 inch rotors...
Since the spindles are the same geometry as the sn-95's with respect to the bj and strut.... im assuming I'm going to have to get some spacers as I don't want to replace the ball joints yet. That'll get done with the A-Arms. Where should I place the spacers? Under or above the bottom of the spindle... i would think it better to place the spacers above the spindle and below the nut, rather than below the spindle which would make the spindle ride on the spacers. Or will the thickness of the stock ball joint prevent the spindle from sitting flush and instead requires the spacers with larger diameter.
Also, I've heard of people getting different struts because it's a bit harder to install them when you use the sn-95 spindles due to it being lower..... Is this even worth considering.
I don't see the point in spending a couple hundred more dollars so you don't have to jack up the LCA half an inch... since the strut will be in compression regardless of the half inch of difference when the car is on its wheels under its own weight.
Since the spindles are the same geometry as the sn-95's with respect to the bj and strut.... im assuming I'm going to have to get some spacers as I don't want to replace the ball joints yet. That'll get done with the A-Arms. Where should I place the spacers? Under or above the bottom of the spindle... i would think it better to place the spacers above the spindle and below the nut, rather than below the spindle which would make the spindle ride on the spacers. Or will the thickness of the stock ball joint prevent the spindle from sitting flush and instead requires the spacers with larger diameter.
Also, I've heard of people getting different struts because it's a bit harder to install them when you use the sn-95 spindles due to it being lower..... Is this even worth considering.
I don't see the point in spending a couple hundred more dollars so you don't have to jack up the LCA half an inch... since the strut will be in compression regardless of the half inch of difference when the car is on its wheels under its own weight.
02-25-2009, 08:14 AM
#7
This spindle thickness diffference has NOTHING to do with ride height or how to install the strut or anything.
The difference is just what it is...a difference in parts from year and model changes. If you have a thinner spindle in the area that's less material there along with the short ball joint stud which results in reducing costs for the manufacturer. It may not seem like a whole lot at once but when added up over millions of parts...it is...
Listen either get some hardened washers and install them under the nut and then when you get new LCAs get SN95 versions and yoube good.
Or install Sn ball joints now and don't install washers.
Since it would be a very long time before I got new LCAs I just installed SN ball joints when did my 5 lug 4 wheel disc conversion.
The difference is just what it is...a difference in parts from year and model changes. If you have a thinner spindle in the area that's less material there along with the short ball joint stud which results in reducing costs for the manufacturer. It may not seem like a whole lot at once but when added up over millions of parts...it is...
Listen either get some hardened washers and install them under the nut and then when you get new LCAs get SN95 versions and yoube good.
Or install Sn ball joints now and don't install washers.
Since it would be a very long time before I got new LCAs I just installed SN ball joints when did my 5 lug 4 wheel disc conversion.
02-25-2009, 10:21 AM
#10
5th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,459
Hmm, I dont know eddies92lx... did you install washers under the spindle rather than under the nut? I can see that altering ride height because it would change the location of the hub with respect to the LCA by about 3/8'', but nothing too drastic.
As for the newer spindles having the straight steering arm to give a bit more steering angle... Can you describe this in a bit more detail? How much of an effect does this really have on handling? Does this just affect bumpsteer in which case adjustable tie rods would eliminate any advantage? You have me intrigued and now considering getting newer spindles.
Thanks for all the info..
As for the newer spindles having the straight steering arm to give a bit more steering angle... Can you describe this in a bit more detail? How much of an effect does this really have on handling? Does this just affect bumpsteer in which case adjustable tie rods would eliminate any advantage? You have me intrigued and now considering getting newer spindles.
Thanks for all the info..