upper control arms issue.

[belac515]

So you buy wrong UCAs and camber kits to get you where you would be with stock UCAs and no camber kit? And no, -3deg is not fine, which is why camber kits go up to 3deg of adjustment.

How would you be where you would with stock arms when the EF arms are shorter? And yes, negative 3 degrees camber is perfectly fine and useful.

[Jarrett]

...useful

[crazymikey]

I don't want to cut because it looks horrible.

I can clearly see the marks where the top of the upper balljoint and arm and smashing into the inside of the strut tower. It's double walled metal there, so I can tell it'll take some persuasion to bend it. Also seems like it's easier access to remove the strut and UCA to get up in there.

[mndude07]

EF UCA's = roll center probably underground and a shit ton of migration

[dj_ender]

EF UCA's = roll center probably underground and a shit ton of migration

[wildBill83]

How would you be where you would with stock arms when the EF arms are shorter? And yes, negative 3 degrees camber is perfectly fine and useful.

If you used EF arms a camber kit and custom shorter LCAs it may work, but be the same as using CB7 UCAs and custom LCAs with no camber kit. I'll draw a picture if you don't understand how -3 camber on EF UCAs with camber kit and -3 camber on stock with no camber kit is the exact same geometry. Camber kits essentially LENGTHEN the UCAs...

Please educate me on how -3deg is "useful"...

[HardInThePaint]

How would you be where you would with stock arms when the EF arms are shorter? And yes, negative 3 degrees camber is perfectly fine and useful.

Listen bro, using an EF arm is not going to fix the problem. Wildbill83 already explained it to you like 3 times already, its simple logic. You use a short ass EF arm and throw some camber kits on it to get it to 0 degrees or close to that, you STILL run into the problem because the UCA will be in the exact same position as running normal UCA's and using CB camber kits. And why the fuck would you use EF arms (which DO NOT belong a CB) to acheive -3 when you can use the CB arms with NO kit (or better yet, use a kit and dial in as much negative camber as you want) and achieve the same shit? That makes no damn sense.

Quit trying to make an arguement for them punk ass EF UCA's. They won't help the situation AT ALL. They only thing they are good for is achieving a ridiculous amount of negative camber, usually for hellaflush shit. You CANNOT use them to correct camber and expect them to cure the banging, They WILL NOT keep the UCA for banging into the inner fender, regardless if you use a camber kit with them or not. I am not sure why people seem to think they can use these arms and it'll help the situation... You are not the first person to try to make this argument and to me its pretty damn simple to figure out why they wouldn't do any good.

It's double walled metal there, so I can tell it'll take some persuasion to bend it. Also seems like it's easier access to remove the strut and UCA to get up in there.

Yeah, the persuasion is called a torch. Just do like I said before bro and torch it.

And yes you should most definitely remove the UCA and strut for better clearance.

[dbales]

Personally I would cut the shock towers and have someone weld up some covers for the holes, but with the travel you needed. To me, beating the hell out of it would look a lot worse than cutting.

[HardInThePaint]

To me, beating the hell out of it would look a lot worse than cutting.

Well, it doesn't. You can hardly tell its even hammered to be honest. Cutting looks like a bunch of bullshit, like you just chewed a hole out of your engine bay.

Personally I would cut the shock towers and have someone weld up some covers for the holes, but with the travel you needed.

I've actually seen a couple a cats cut the hole and like you said, welded a piece of tent shaped metal over it. That would actually be the way to go if you have access to a welder and a little skill.

[brsteinbach]

Personally I would cut the shock towers and have someone weld up some covers for the holes, but with the travel you needed.

I've actually seen a couple a cats cut the hole and like you said, welded a piece of tent shaped metal over it. That would actually be the way to go if you have access to a welder and a little skill.

I second this!

This is eventually what I am going to do, I have been so tempted to cut my towers but I just can not do it cause of the way it looks and having gaping hole in my engine bay would allow it to get dirty!

[crazymikey]

My wagon had the towers cut, and covered with duct tape lol.

I raised up my coilovers today and put the stock anchor bolts back in, so I am no longer having issues, until next spring when I drop it back down.

My roommate and I just bought a MIG welder this weekend, so now we can have all sorts of fun with that.

[Macaqueistrong]

If I was in this situation I would just cut the shock towers and weld in a raised cover to hide the hole like the others mentioned earlier. If done right it can still look just as clean as any other oem bay. Just have to make sure that your hood clears or you might have to get some risers.

[crazymikey]

Cleanly done. That's way I'd do it.

[Frijoles]

Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but I wanted to add something to the topic the OP brought up.

I put my UCAs on backwards once. I drove the car like that for probably four months and I could NEVER figure out why my wheels were so far forward.

I also could never get a shop to align it worth a shit. Took many tries.

Once I did get it aligned though, it rode and drove fine. Caster was WAY off from stock, but honestly, I don't know if that was necessarily a bad thing. Turned and handled very well. It also (very slightly) lengthened the wheel base.

I had no issue with getting the UCA balljoint in the knuckle either.

I have since fixed it, but I haven't driven it yet on a good alignment, and I've also replaced all bushings and balljoints and a bunch of other stuff, so I can't yet report on the difference between driving it with those backwards, and those normal unfortunately.

However, it might be a good modification for drag racing or something.

[johnl]

I put my UCAs on backwards once. I drove the car like that for probably four months and I could NEVER figure out why my wheels were so far forward.

I also could never get a shop to align it worth a shit. Took many tries.

Once I did get it aligned though, it rode and drove fine. Caster was WAY off from stock, but honestly, I don't know if that was necessarily a bad thing. Turned and handled very well.

The upper ball joint would have been moved several cm further forward (about 3cm at a guess without measuring it). This will change the caster angle from positive toward negative, so that the steering axis (in side view) is leaning less rearward at the top. The stock caster angle is quite small, about 2° give or take (from memory), so moving the upper ball joint forward could cause the caster angle to become zero or negative.

This at least will cause a reduction in 'trail', which is the point at which the steering axis (in side view) intersects the ground relative to the nominal centre of the contact patch. With cars, trail always involves the steering axis intersecting the ground at a point in front of the centre of the contact patch.

Reducing trail (or worse, trail becoming negative, i.e. the steering axis intersecting the ground at a point behind the centre of the contact patch) will create steering instability because the steering will not 'self centre' as strongly. If the trail becomes negative then the front wheels will always be 'wanting' to rotate around the steering axis until the centre of the contact patch is behind the point at which the steering axis intersects the ground. The effect is like a shopping trolley wheel, which have a lot of 'trail' geometry (but despite being called 'casters', have a caster angle of 0°, i.e. the 'steering axis' is perpendicular to the ground).

Of course it can't actually do this because, a) the wheels won't turn that far, and, b) because the driver will correct the problem. But, the car will tend to be directionally unstable and require constant steering corrections to keep it travelling in a straight line.

The steering is also likely to become very light and lacking in feel.

There are also affects on the steered camber angles, i.e. with positive caster the steered OF wheel gains negative camber while the IF wheel gains steered negative camber (both of which are desirable). If the caster is negative then the affects are reversed, i.e. the steered OF gains positive camber while the IF gains negative camber, both of which are undesirable and will cause understeer.

Note that these steered camber affects are added to and subtracted from the steered camber affects created by the king pin inclination (KPI, the steering axis in front view, also known as 'steering axis inclination' or SAI).

If anything, you would want to increase the stock caster angle (not reduce it), which will improve steering feel and directional stability as well as generate desirable steered camber changes that reduce understeer (at least in tighter corners where substantial steering motion at the wheels is occurring).

I had no issue with getting the UCA balljoint in the knuckle either.

I'd be surprised if this caused any problem getting the ball joint post into the tapered hole.

However, it might be a good modification for drag racing or something.

Not good for anything, too much directional instability, and too much understeering affect. It may well make the car feel more responsive to steering inputs since the car is always 'wanting' to change direction, but push it hard and the car will likely become a bit of a handful...

In the old days of cross ply tyres it was fairly normal to use very slight, zero or maybe even a very slight negative caster angle, which is because the tyre casing deformed so much with it's own rolling resistance that the centre of the contact patch could move backward relative to the rest of the casing and to the steering axis.

With soft tyre casings like this the static trail could be negative, but the dynamic trail would become positive on the move. If the static trail were significantly positive then the dynamic trail would become more so, and without PS the steering could become excessively heavy (or require too many turns lock to lock in the steering box to overcome the steering weight).