FAB SHOP

[J]

I have a option to submit a project to the fab shop at my wifes High School for production. Are there any parts that w owners need, or any other parts for that fact? I was also thinking if they could produce trailing arms with a hole for a zerk fitting and have the option before i ship them for poly bushings. depending on price ...... Anyone have demensions for the BMR or even stock size and know of a poly bushing that would work>?

[slick]

Tubular front control arms would be the biggest push I would go for.

[CSI_MuNkY]

Tubular front control arms would be the biggest push I would go for.

 

x2

 

I would take a set (job permitting)

[94GPGTP]

I'll take 2 sets for sure of the tubular trailing arms. Maybe a 3rd.

[CSI_MuNkY]

The way I see it tubular trailing arms are already widely available (GMPP, Held, BMR), Front control arms on the other hand, the idea has been tossed around sooo much and no one has done anything about it. A few people have said they were doing it but nothing ever came of it.

 

Jamie

[RobertISaar]

how about 284 rebuild parts?

[J]

Tubular front control arms would be the biggest push I would go for.

i'm going to need a set of stamped control arms to bring them in the first place and a diameter of the busing hole that will be needed for the poly bushing that is available...

[White93z34]

I know I have one front control arm... I forget which side though. If I can find a pair I'll ship them your way post haste.

 

[GOT2B GM]

UD pulleys?

 

But I'd go for a set of tubular a-arms.

[xtremerevolution]

I'm really wondering why these tubular control arms haven't been made yet. There's another thread about this that hasn't had much progress at all.

 

Are our stamped steel control arms really that weak? I can hardly imagine there being much deflection while cornering from the actual control arms themselves, and the weight savings wouldn't be that significant either, so the reduction of unsprung weight will also be minimal.

 

Not trying to rain on peoples' parade here, but I'd really love to know why people want these so bad.

[slick]

You'd be suprised how much flex there is.

 

A few other benefits:

 

#1: Solid mounts. Gets rid of rubber or polyurethane (usually with spherical bearing rod ends).

#2: Possibility for a different ball joint angle.

#3: Weight savings.

#4: They just look damn good.

#5: TONS stronger.

 

Here's the exact ones I have on the Firebird- http://www.umiperformance.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7_137_103&products_id=171

[xtremerevolution]

You'd be suprised how much flex there is.

 

A few other benefits:

 

#1: Solid mounts. Gets rid of rubber or polyurethane (usually with spherical bearing rod ends).

#2: Possibility for a different ball joint angle.

#3: Weight savings.

#4: They just look damn good.

#5: TONS stronger.

 

Here's the exact ones I have on the Firebird- http://www.umiperformance.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=7_137_103&products_id=171

 

Hmm.

 

And Damn, they're not cheap.

 

I understand they're stronger. I'm not doubting that. What I'm doubting is the need for their strength in these cars.

 

How much would these things cost?

[slick]

Well, those above are fully adjustable. You can make them non-adjustable and save probably a good $75-$100. However, I feel that the adjustable is well worth the extra cash. If you are really concerned about having an all out handling machine, these are just another thing that you can adjust.

 

W-body's aren't exactly featherlight vehicle's. Hell, they're pigs! A little more strength, completely solid mounts, good looks, and weight savings (on an already nose-heavy vehicle), IMO well worth it.

[slick]

However, I will be the first to admit, you may not feel much of a difference. The solid mounts you will obviously feel, however you won't feel the weight savings.

 

I just like the complete adjust-ability of the arms, with the option that if someone wants to adjust the balljoint angle when making these, it can be done.

 

 

EDIT: If work turns around, or I get a new job, one of the winter plans for the Firebird is upper control arms. Yeah, expensive, and probably not much gain, but well worth it in the end.

[RobertISaar]

actually the ones on wifey's gp rotted out once... REAL pain in the ass to replace.

 

peace of mind doesn't always come cheap.

[slick]

The units I have, the metal ends are two piece. So, if for some weird ass reason the metal mounts would fail, all I have to do is buy some aluminum, toss it on a lathe, and machine down the two new pieces. There is no inner sleeve for the bolt to get stuck to. There is no crappy rubber to fail.

[xtremerevolution]

However, I will be the first to admit, you may not feel much of a difference. The solid mounts you will obviously feel, however you won't feel the weight savings.

 

I just like the complete adjust-ability of the arms, with the option that if someone wants to adjust the balljoint angle when making these, it can be done.

 

That's what I was thinking. The stock arms weigh what, 20 pounds each? Maybe 25? I don't see anyone shaving off more than 5 or 6 pounds and maintaining stronger arms by the mere fact that they're tubular.

 

The solid mounts, yes, I agree with you there. Similar to how my poly bushings made a difference in comparison to the stock rubbers. I wonder how much of a difference the solid mounts would make over the poly bushings.

 

I'm not too familiar with ball joints and angles. What would be the benefit of having a different balljoint angle?

 

My impression is that people are looking for tubular control arms for the strength and rigidity over stock control arms with rubber bushings. Sure the bushings will make a difference, but I have a $60 solution to that already made and well documented.

 

What I'm wondering here is whether or not you need that strength. That's like saying you have a new heat treated, titanium plated spoon for eating ice cream.

 

Assuming you somehow fitted the stock control arms with solid mounts, could you tell a difference, at all, between the those and tubular control arms with solid mounts?

[slick]

Well, with having aftermarket arms, you have the possibility of having everything being adjustable, which is where the big benefit comes in. If they are made to pretty much stock, non-adjustable, then no, I would see no benefit.

 

Start here for the balljoint discussion: http://www.w-body.com/forum/index.php?topic=66349.60

 

As for price, if they are just tubular, solid mounts, different balljoint angle, non-adjustable: $275-$325 would be fair. Maybe even slightly higher for the limited amount being made.

 

For tubular, solid mounts, different balljoint angle, and fully adjustable ends: $350-$400.

[jman093]

I'd also be interested in Tubular FCA's, especially w/ the relocated ball joint. I think there was also a large thread on 60V6 going on about them as well. So there's interest over there too.

[J]

i'd have to have a plan, these are HS kids with the correct tools, not a production shop guys.

 

I'm thinking more simple!

[CSI_MuNkY]

Fair enough.... what about reverse engineering and producing some 3.4 FSTB?

[J]

thats what i was thinking, the 3.4 bars fit both cars correct? I'd just have to make sure the notch on the bar is there in the middle.

[mra32]

how about something to use keeper springs on coilovers so the spring doesnt become unseated? should be a simple lathe/minimal amounts of milling type project. I've thought of a few ways, havent bought materials and got off my duff to do it yet.

 

or better yet, some good upper mounts for the rear so homemade coilovers are even easier

[J]

designs fellas, thats what i need to bring them

[mrl390]

I can see weight savings being more than you would think. I dont see a tubular control arm being much more than 10lbs if that. To put it in perspective, we put a whole cage in a honda civic hatch. The cage was 1 5/8" 120 wall tubing which is pretty heavy duty and it only added 83 lbs to the weight of the car. I think some 1" .151 wall should be plenty strong and lighter than you would think.