Classic Mustangs List Archive
Lower control arms
Posted by mailbot
|
mailbot
Mail List Archive Bot
., Online, USA
|
Topic Creator (OP)
Jan 14, 1997 06:35 AM
Joined 15 years ago
59,279 Posts
|
|
mailbot
Mail List Archive Bot
., Online, USA
|
Topic Creator (OP)
Jan 14, 1997 03:40 PM
Joined 15 years ago
59,279 Posts
|
This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Max Watson (email redacted)
>Why is it that when doing a suspension rebuild, the "kits" usually have
>complete lower control arms instead of the parts to rebuild them?
The stock lower ball joints are rivited to the stock lower controls arms.
You could drill out the rivits and bolt on a new lower ball joint, and put
in some new bushings.
The lower control arm is in a place that is susceptible to road hazards, I
doubt any lower control is in reusable shape after 30 years.
Max
'68 coupe
Mail From: Max Watson (email redacted)
>Why is it that when doing a suspension rebuild, the "kits" usually have
>complete lower control arms instead of the parts to rebuild them?
The stock lower ball joints are rivited to the stock lower controls arms.
You could drill out the rivits and bolt on a new lower ball joint, and put
in some new bushings.
The lower control arm is in a place that is susceptible to road hazards, I
doubt any lower control is in reusable shape after 30 years.
Max
'68 coupe
|
mailbot
Mail List Archive Bot
., Online, USA
|
Topic Creator (OP)
Jan 14, 1997 11:34 PM
Joined 15 years ago
59,279 Posts
|
This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David McCracken (email redacted)
Max Watson wrote:
>
> >Why is it that when doing a suspension rebuild, the "kits" usually have
> >complete lower control arms instead of the parts to rebuild them?
>
> The stock lower ball joints are rivited to the stock lower controls arms.
> You could drill out the rivits and bolt on a new lower ball joint, and put
> in some new bushings.
>
> The lower control arm is in a place that is susceptible to road hazards, I
> doubt any lower control is in reusable shape after 30 years.
>
> Max
> '68 coupe
I have to take some issue to the statement that the lower A arms take
the most abuse. Unless they are bent in accident damage they are
almost always in good shape. All of the load of the Mustang suspension
is transmitted through the upper A frame and ball joint to the spindle.
The lower ball joints last for much longer than the top and often do
not need replaced when doing a front end rebuild. The innner lower A
frame anchor bushings do deterriorate through time and usually do have
to be replaced ( available from TRW and cost about $6 each, easy to
press in with a small press). Also the upper A frames are subject to
stress cracks in the area of the spring perch mounting bolts(can be seen
easily only with the spring perch unbolted). So my opinion is that if
you are going to replace any contol arm, it is far more likely that you
will need to replace the upper. Hope that this saves people some money
and helps people to spot those nasty upper contol arm cracks.
David
Mail From: David McCracken (email redacted)
Max Watson wrote:
>
> >Why is it that when doing a suspension rebuild, the "kits" usually have
> >complete lower control arms instead of the parts to rebuild them?
>
> The stock lower ball joints are rivited to the stock lower controls arms.
> You could drill out the rivits and bolt on a new lower ball joint, and put
> in some new bushings.
>
> The lower control arm is in a place that is susceptible to road hazards, I
> doubt any lower control is in reusable shape after 30 years.
>
> Max
> '68 coupe
I have to take some issue to the statement that the lower A arms take
the most abuse. Unless they are bent in accident damage they are
almost always in good shape. All of the load of the Mustang suspension
is transmitted through the upper A frame and ball joint to the spindle.
The lower ball joints last for much longer than the top and often do
not need replaced when doing a front end rebuild. The innner lower A
frame anchor bushings do deterriorate through time and usually do have
to be replaced ( available from TRW and cost about $6 each, easy to
press in with a small press). Also the upper A frames are subject to
stress cracks in the area of the spring perch mounting bolts(can be seen
easily only with the spring perch unbolted). So my opinion is that if
you are going to replace any contol arm, it is far more likely that you
will need to replace the upper. Hope that this saves people some money
and helps people to spot those nasty upper contol arm cracks.
David
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.
Having trouble posting or changing forum settings?
Read the Forum Help (FAQ) or click Contact Support at the bottom of the page.



