|
Re: Tubular UCA'S to much?
[Re: Keith Black®]
#1423527
05/14/13 09:31 AM
05/14/13 09:31 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,704
MICHIGAN
DynoDave
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,704
MICHIGAN
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I like others have put off this purchase. I have have a question. All the upper arms that I have seen other than the OEM and FF upper arms have no provision with working with the upper control arm bumper. This may be a stupid question, but how important is this feature?
Our control arm uses upper and lower bump stops.
The Hotchkis UCA's are slick. I'm looking to replace my FF UCA's with these.
DarrenB,
Not questioning your thinking...but want to learn more about these arms.
If you already have FF arms, what is it about the Hotchkis pieces that is so appealing that you would want to change them?
|
|
|
Re: Tubular UCA'S to much?
[Re: DynoDave]
#1423529
05/14/13 10:14 AM
05/14/13 10:14 AM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Dan@Hotchkis
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I like others have put off this purchase. I have have a question. All the upper arms that I have seen other than the OEM and FF upper arms have no provision with working with the upper control arm bumper. This may be a stupid question, but how important is this feature?
Our control arm uses upper and lower bump stops.
The Hotchkis UCA's are slick. I'm looking to replace my FF UCA's with these.
DarrenB,
Not questioning your thinking...but want to learn more about these arms.
If you already have FF arms, what is it about the Hotchkis pieces that is so appealing that you would want to change them?
Our control arms not only shift the ball joint location like most of the other arms on the market, our re-located pick up point also improves camber and bump curves drastically. That with both the heim joints allows for a fully adjustable setup.
|
|
|
Re: Tubular UCA'S to much?
[Re: ScottSmith_Harms]
#1423530
05/14/13 10:20 AM
05/14/13 10:20 AM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Dan@Hotchkis
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
|
Quote:
Some UCA's require notching away sheet metal to install them for clearance (Hotchkis). This is the one reason I won't run them on my car, I only want to add completely reversable upgrades to my car.....
The material removed is minimal; non-structural and not visible once the car is assembled.
|
|
|
Re: Tubular UCA'S to much?
[Re: Dan@Hotchkis]
#1423534
05/15/13 11:31 AM
05/15/13 11:31 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 801
central CT
cudazappa
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 801
central CT
|
IIRC that's only for E-bodies. The A-body UCA doesn't involve any modification.
1971 Challenger
|
|
|
Re: Tubular UCA'S to much?
[Re: cudazappa]
#1423535
05/16/13 01:13 AM
05/16/13 01:13 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
ScottSmith_Harms
Mr Wizzard
|
Mr Wizzard
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 42,714
Spokane Washington
|
Quote:
IIRC that's only for E-bodies. The A-body UCA doesn't involve any modification.
Now that's something I had not heard! Are you certain of this?
|
|
|
Re: Tubular UCA'S to much?
[Re: cudazappa]
#1423538
05/16/13 02:12 PM
05/16/13 02:12 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
|
Quote:
IIRC that's only for E-bodies. The A-body UCA doesn't involve any modification.
The little lip was cut on my A-body for the Hotchkis A-Arms for installation. I have pics I can show later.
I believe it is covered in the instructions if you download and read them.
|
|
|
Re: Tubular UCA'S to much?
[Re: jcc]
#1423545
06/01/13 10:03 PM
06/01/13 10:03 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074
Manitoba Canada
67autocross
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074
Manitoba Canada
|
I don't think I would run those in aluminium.
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
|
|
|
|
|
