• Stock UCA with stock rubber bushing
  
• Stock UCA with Moog #7103 offset rubber bushing for 3-5 postive caster
  
• Tubular UCA with poly bushings
  
• Tubular UCA with sperical rod ends
  
• Tubular UCA with turnbuckle legs with clevis attachment with poly bushings
  
• Tubular UCA with turnbuckle legs with clevis attachment with sperical rod ends
  
• Tubular UCA with sperical rod ends
  
• Tubular UCA improved geometry with changed attachment point for reduced bumpsteer with sperical rod ends
  

Quote:

---

To start with, I see the options out there as this for 63-72 B-body and E-body UCA's:

• Stock UCA with stock rubber bushing
  
• Stock UCA with Moog #7103 offset rubber bushing for 3-5 postive caster
  
• Tubular UCA with poly bushings
  
• Tubular UCA with sperical rod ends
  
• Tubular UCA with turnbuckle legs with clevis attachment with poly bushings
  
• Tubular UCA with turnbuckle legs with clevis attachment with sperical rod ends
  
• Tubular UCA with sperical rod ends
  
• Tubular UCA improved geometry with changed attachment point for reduced bumpsteer with sperical rod ends
  

Any other off the shelf options please feel free to add.

---

Quote:

---

Stock UCA with stock rubber bushing

Stock UCA with Moog #7103 offset rubber bushing for 3-5 postive caster

Tubular UCA with poly bushings

Tubular UCA with sperical rod ends

Tubular UCA with turnbuckle legs with clevis attachment with poly bushings

Tubular UCA with turnbuckle legs with clevis attachment with sperical rod ends



Tubular UCA improved geometry with changed attachment point for reduced bumpsteer with sperical rod ends

---

There, fixed it for you

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

the gusset at the ball joint mount is very important. I've seen a number of pics posted here of tubular UCA's without gusset that let go at the weld on a roll. Not pretty.

---

Not sure what the op intended use is and if "roll" is included.
If what you mean is a wreck, then that really complicates matters, such as what is the most important item that needs to survive a wreck vs parts that break/fail/fall off and dissipate energy. Is a uca stronger with gussets and is it heavier sure, cost more likely, stronger then stock? So other then not pretty alluded to roll failures, any other examples of non gusseted failures?

---

Quote:

---

I'm running the FF tubular UCA's with poly bushings on a '70E. The alignment came in where I wanted (>5 poitive caster and -.75 camber). The parts appear well made and have been trouble free for 5+ years, 10k miles.

As for opinions or observations, the gusset at the ball joint mount is very important. I've seen a number of pics posted here of tubular UCA's without gusset that let go at the weld on a roll. Not pretty.

---

1 car, 1 UCA - same pics - repeated ad infinitum by an ax grinder. Circumstances of failure, as in actual facts, were never posted by the owner to be rebutted by the vendor, but there sure were a lot of "experts" ringing in with their "humble opinions".

Quote:

---

I disagree, I've seen the picture of the failed UCA. It is quite clear from the picture that a manufacturing defect was the cause of the failure. The weld did not have adequate penetration, as a result the part failed at the weld. This should NEVER occur. When a joint is properly designed and welded the joint should be stronger than the parent material surrounding the weld. Thus, in a tubular control arm the tube should fracture or bend well before the weld gives way. Preferably, the tube should bend, allowing the part to fail "gracefully." It is quite evident from the picture that this arm failed suddenly and catastrophically.

I don't care if the failure was caused by the buyer of the part jumping the car, the arm should not fail at the weld. Period. Had the tube fractured that could still be a problem as it probably shows a design error in the choice of parent material. For example, the use of chromoly steel MIGHT be inadvisable since it is more prone to cracking than mild steel. Ideally, you'd see a bent arm, or tearing in the material that shows that the part was slowly ripped apart under great stress.

For example, in the NTHSA offset crash tests, the front wheel can be ripped from the car. If the test shows that the control arms stretched a good portion before failing, that would in my view show a properly designed part; because, as the part was stressed beyond its designed capabilities, it deformed substantially before breaking. Thus in a real world crash, where a car hits a huge pothole or drops a wheel off the pavement, the arm is likely to deform (bend) well before braking.

Regards,

Joe Dokes

---

A G A I N - 1 car, 1 UCA - same pics - repeated ad infinitum by an ax grinder. A G A I N - Circumstances of failure, as in actual facts, were never posted by the owner to be rebutted by the vendor.

First, we've all seen the pictures, WAY too many times for ONE part failure. PICTURES indicate a weld failure. On ONE UCA, out of how many in production. Everybody has been stuck on a weld failure - ok, fine, lets skip the ACTUAL INSPECTION of the UCA (since it was never produced to be inspected by the vendor) and go by the PICTURE and say that one weld out of HOW MANY (parts produced) failed. Now that we have a FAILED WELD - WHY did it fail? Hmmmm - the plot thickens... Was it a "Race Only" part, designed to be as light as possible, that was being used in an improper situation, as in STREET USE? Before anyone says that shouldn't make a difference, look at all the lightweight wheels labeled "not for street use", because of the additional possibility of curb, chuckhole, etc. damage. And those rims when used on the street get damaged and FAIL REGULARLY. So if the UCA that failed wasn't designed to be used on the street, or marketed as such - why should it be expected to survive "street damages", as in curbs, not to mention being installed on a car several hundred pounds over "race" weight, etc.

And one last scenario for all of US "armchair engineers" out there - given enough of a trauma, ANY part will fail - PERIOD. Since NOBODY knows whether or not the action that caused that particular UCA to fail would have also caused a stock or a "street application" tube UCA to also fail, it's pretty much just typing practice from then on.

And just for the record - I'm not real warm and fuzzy about ANYBODIES tube front end parts. I've installed them because the customer wanted them. I don't sell them and I won't order them. The overall weight savings are never anywhere near the claims after the needed braces, bars, etc. are installed to bring the strength back to the front end. There is no way a single tube crossbar K member has the same overall integrity as a factory K, as in bracing the framerails for side to side flex. Many rack kits end up with horrible bump steer, to the point where the outside wheel starts going overcenter and starts turning out. Many of the parts are designed for "X" plane strength with little thought about the " Y + Z" loads. So when it comes to lightweight parts - I pretty much just let them sign a check and I'll install who evers boxes shows up at the door... If it fits.

Regards, Willie Shaw