Major problem with $$$$ performance upper control arm..... - Page 3 - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Vintage Mustang Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2013, 12:12 PM   #31 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pennsauken, NJ 08109
Posts: 569
Default

Looking at that pic makes me wonder if the barrel adjusters aren't loose. That would allow twisting motion in the arm and spindle. So under repeatative or hard braking or even not so big potholes the result could be what's shown in the pic Just a thought.
tweet66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-29-2013, 04:58 PM   #32 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16
Default

Let me start off by providing my credentials. My name is Lino Chestang. I have worked for Total Control Products since 1999 and was part of the acquisition by Chris Alston's Chassisworks in 2004. In my 14 years working with the TCP product line I have worked in sales/tech support, inventory management, product development, technical writing; including ALL installation guides, product data sheets, website content, product catalog, and internet store. Currently I oversee marketing and all public documentation for each of the five product brands owned by Chris Alston's Chassisworks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtrain View Post
UPDATE: I posted this on another forum, and a tech guy from a late model Mustang suspension figured out the problem.

Two things can cause this, and its NOT my wife's fault.

1. The upper bump stop hitting the upper arm can cause a bend like that, not to mention that using a bolt on type upper ball joint mounted to a flat plate is also not best for strength.

2. Brake torque. Brakes that are too efficient can also cause the upper arm to bend along with the weak design of the spherical rod ends.

I got the instruction sheet out and re-read it, now where did I see where it said to remove the upper bump stops.

Pity is that I have this kit on four of my other Mustangs. I'm glad that one Mustang has the Ron Morris kit.
You need to be very careful about who you take advice from on the internet. Just because someone offers their opinion, doesn't necessarily mean that they are an expert or even experienced in the matter.




IMPORTANT: DO NOT remove the factory shock tower reinforcement cap or suspension bump stop. This purposely limits compression travel of the suspension to prevent exceeding the operation range of the shock and ball joints.

1. Upper Bump Stop Contact: Judging by the five-year-old decal on the bump cap it doesn't appear that the cap has had much forceful contact with the bump stop. Any forceful or repeated contact would have rubbed a blank spot across the decal. In the event of bottoming out the upper arm against the bump stop, the force is directed through the spindle upright, through the ball joint and into the shock tower. This force is 'in line' and will have minimal torque or twisting forces on the bump cap area of the upper arm. From the lack of witness marks on the decal, I would say that bump stop contact is not what caused the upper arm to bend.

2. Brake Torque: Regardless of the type of front brakes, the maximum amount of force is limited by the tire's available traction. I can personally testify to the TCP coil-over upper arm withstanding multiple years of road race/open track duty with full racing slicks, 13" brake rotors, and race compound brake pads. A street tire and your current brake system is not capable of generating this level of force.

To discuss the brake torque theory a bit more, the actual pivot center of the ball joint is very near but slightly below the ball joint mounting plate. Forward-vehicle-movement braking forces push the top of the upright forward (toward the right in photo). The ball-joint stud's pivot point will actually exert a much lesser force, attempting to rotate the mounting plate counter-clockwise from the view in the photo. The arm in the photo was rotated clockwise. I suppose that one could argue that the car was traveling in reverse when the brakes were applied. Braking in reverse transfers vehicle weight to the rear tires. This transfer reduces available traction at the front tires along with a reduction in the amount of force that the tire and brake assembly can generate against the upper control arm. So, I don't believe that this was the cause either.

So what could have caused it? This is not an accusation. A ratcheting tie-down strap looped over the forward tube of the upper arm could possibly generate enough rotational force around the ball-joint pivot center to twist the ball joint plate. That's not to say that some of other type of impact did not cause this.

Regarding your comment about one of our techs recommending you hammer the arm straight, as a consumer I would want to change out the part, which you do have the option of doing so. (Call me and we can work something out.) But as someone having experience in the manufacturing industry, I can tell you that bending metal is how we make many of the parts that go on your car. Frame shops will also bend your vehicle back into original position. Is it ideal? No. But, providing you sand blast the arm and carefully inspect it for any cracks along the weld I feel you could bend the arm back without any issues. Seeing as how you own four cars with our systems, I don't think that the $120 bucks you would save by straightening the arm is the main sticking point for getting your car fixed.

The TCP arms are extremely overbuilt for the type of duty they see. And I would suspect that your arm has been bent for a few years and has held its position just fine, other than any possible difference in alignment. If your car has driven fine for the last few years, I would even suspect that the arm was bent prior to the front end alignment.

Like I said, give me a call and we can work something out for the two new upper arm weldments and a pair of ball joints. We have since shortened the bump cap to allow more compression travel, so both weldments would need to be changed.

Lino Chestang
Marketing and Technical Documentation Manager
Chris Alston's Chassisworks
(916)388-0288
Psydwaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 05:40 PM   #33 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Modesto CA
Posts: 81
Default

+1 to the gentleman from Sacramento..... P.S I may call you as well
tycooley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 06:21 PM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Mtrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,993
Default

Thanks Lino. I was hoping someone from your company would jump in on this post.

I can tell you now that there was NOT a ratcheting tie-down strap use to hold down the car. Due to the low clearance of the front Shelby spoiler we had to use the front of the sub frame connectors to the trailer.

Also, that was the only time it was ever towed, and that was to the alignment shop.

I'll try to give you a call sometimes this week. Thanks again.
__________________
Horsepower TV's Pro-touring Pony 65 fastback/431w, 66 Shelby resto theme/393 paxton, 67 Eleanor 540fe/Procharger F1R, 66 shelby theme {wifes car, 347/paxton}
"People make grand plans for life as it passes them by"
Mtrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:03 PM   #35 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 16
Default

Should have mentioned this in my original post...

If you haven't done so already, carefully inspect absolutely everything that has to do with the front suspension or steering system. This includes the lower control arm, strut rod, all hardware, sheet metal in the areas around the lower arm mount, strut rod mount, and shock tower, as well as the tie-rod assemblies, rack mounts and centerlink, if you have a rack installed. We're looking for fractures or anything that looks bent.

Also, I have some concerns over the amount of preload on the spring. Once your upper arms are back in shape, I'd like to go over some ride height and shock travel measurements with you to make sure you're getting the best performance and ride quality from the system.
Psydwaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2013, 07:12 PM   #36 (permalink)
H65
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6
Default

Could this damage be caused by under-torqued components?
H65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2013, 06:23 PM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Mtrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alabama
Posts: 1,993
Default

UPDATE: The issue has been resolved. I'm not at liberty to discuss the specifics of what was decided, but both parties has reached an agreement.

I would like to thank Lino, and Total Control Products. Mr.Chestang was very helpful in resolving this issue.

I would also like to thank the forum for letting me post this issue.
__________________
Horsepower TV's Pro-touring Pony 65 fastback/431w, 66 Shelby resto theme/393 paxton, 67 Eleanor 540fe/Procharger F1R, 66 shelby theme {wifes car, 347/paxton}
"People make grand plans for life as it passes them by"
Mtrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.