C body spindle advantages, if any.
#2999928
12/30/21 01:38 PM
12/30/21 01:38 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
CKessel
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
|
I wanted to throw this out to those with more knowledge. Are there any advantages in using the C-body spindles as opposed to the late A-body or FMJ units? Firm Feel has some nicely made C-body drop units now and am wondering what the advantage would be over the others. Also, any difference in brake attachment, ball joint hole size, bearing size? They do offer dropped A/E/B body units but am not sure if those are offshore cast. Thoughts brethren?
Carl Kessel
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: CKessel]
#2999945
12/30/21 02:00 PM
12/30/21 02:00 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,307
north of coder
moparx
"Butt Crack Bob"
|
"Butt Crack Bob"
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,307
north of coder
|
the C body [1974- 1978] had larger ball joints than the A,B, & E bodies. however, the 59-73 C's used the K772 upper ball joints, [same as the A,B, & E] but different lower ball joints. with that said, i "think" [actually, i'm pretty sure] the taper is the same, but the bolt hole to spindle is different, and the steering arm to tierod is a different length and shape than the A, B, & E's. this is from years of screwing around with disc brake swaps and the moog master catalog i have. don't know if this helps you or not. 
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: moparx]
#3000006
12/30/21 04:20 PM
12/30/21 04:20 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
CKessel
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
|
I forgot about the joint size differences. Will need to ask FF about that for their new units. Maybe they are a hybrid where the take the K772's and have late A,E,F,M,J for the bearing sizes. The Kit Car spindles were supposedly based off of C-body units as they were supposed to have better geometry on them. Maybe thats a moot point now due to the A-J units.
Carl Kessel
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: AndyF]
#3000307
12/31/21 02:20 PM
12/31/21 02:20 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
CKessel
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
|
I got some more info in from FF earlier about the c units. Not worth the hassle, too much stuff to change out with little gain compared to effort and expenditure. I do like the idea of them being made from stout material instead of offshore cast? by their looks.
Last edited by CKessel; 12/31/21 02:21 PM.
Carl Kessel
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: CKessel]
#3000801
01/01/22 07:39 PM
01/01/22 07:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,386
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,386
Pikes Peak Country
|
Well, in stock form, the C body 73+ C body spindles are taller in overall height, which changes geometry, the axle stub is 5/8 higher in the forging so they provide a drop in ride height, and they utilize a thicker disc rotor so they can be a better heat sink, and the 73 year only utilizes the same upper ball joint as ABE bodies.
Down side is the lower ball joint mounts are not the same width, so milling the mounting holes would be required to bolt up to the standard BE joint. The thicker disc would require a change to C body calipers, or a step up to any number of aftermarket units that can utilize the thicker disc, and the 74-78 years use a larger upper ball joint that would require a new or modified set of upper control arms.
I thought the general consensus about the widely available 2" drop spindles were that their casting were a reasonable street car piece unlike the Fatman Fab units that were a welded plate.
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: TC@HP2]
#3000977
01/01/22 11:56 PM
01/01/22 11:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
CKessel
OP
mopar
|
OP
mopar
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
|
Who knows. Maybe FF is going to surprise us in the future. Not ready yet, just planning ahead.
Carl Kessel
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: CKessel]
#3001346
01/02/22 11:56 PM
01/02/22 11:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,451
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,451
So Cal
|
Who knows. Maybe FF is going to surprise us in the future. Not ready yet, just planning ahead. IMHO, the modular upper ball joints that Howe and others offer take care of a taller spindle option.
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: TC@HP2]
#3001835
01/04/22 12:49 AM
01/04/22 12:49 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,989
Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 30,989
Oregon
|
Well, in stock form, the C body 73+ C body spindles are taller in overall height, which changes geometry, the axle stub is 5/8 higher in the forging so they provide a drop in ride height, and they utilize a thicker disc rotor so they can be a better heat sink, and the 73 year only utilizes the same upper ball joint as ABE bodies.
Down side is the lower ball joint mounts are not the same width, so milling the mounting holes would be required to bolt up to the standard BE joint. The thicker disc would require a change to C body calipers, or a step up to any number of aftermarket units that can utilize the thicker disc, and the 74-78 years use a larger upper ball joint that would require a new or modified set of upper control arms.
I thought the general consensus about the widely available 2" drop spindles were that their casting were a reasonable street car piece unlike the Fatman Fab units that were a welded plate. I worked with Firm Feel about 10 years ago on a C body knuckle conversion for B body cars. I had several sets of '73 C body knuckles modified so they would bolt on to a B body lower ball joint. I also designed a brake kit that worked with 17x8 Ford rims. Firm Feel was going to build me a set of custom upper arms so I could test drive the setup on my Coronet but they had some other stuff going on and the project never got off the ground. It might have been a cool project, might have been a dud. Who knows.
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: AndyF]
#3001991
01/04/22 02:17 PM
01/04/22 02:17 PM
|
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 259
n.c.
geo.
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 259
n.c.
|
Well, in stock form, the C body 73+ C body spindles are taller in overall height, which changes geometry, the axle stub is 5/8 higher in the forging so they provide a drop in ride height, and they utilize a thicker disc rotor so they can be a better heat sink, and the 73 year only utilizes the same upper ball joint as ABE bodies.
Down side is the lower ball joint mounts are not the same width, so milling the mounting holes would be required to bolt up to the standard BE joint. The thicker disc would require a change to C body calipers, or a step up to any number of aftermarket units that can utilize the thicker disc, and the 74-78 years use a larger upper ball joint that would require a new or modified set of upper control arms.
I thought the general consensus about the widely available 2" drop spindles were that their casting were a reasonable street car piece unlike the Fatman Fab units that were a welded plate. I worked with Firm Feel about 10 years ago on a C body knuckle conversion for B body cars. I had several sets of '73 C body knuckles modified so they would bolt on to a B body lower ball joint. I also designed a brake kit that worked with 17x8 Ford rims. Firm Feel was going to build me a set of custom upper arms so I could test drive the setup on my Coronet but they had some other stuff going on and the project never got off the ground. It might have been a cool project, might have been a dud. Who knows. Would the current availability of adjustable arms take care of any issues, or does the angle of the upper joint need changing to avoid restricting travel and over-angling the ball joint? The idea of a 1.25" thick, readily available rotor is what appeals to me about this swap (C-body or D-truck) The gentleman from Canada with a big-block T/A replica documented putting them on his car, wonder if he thinks it was worth the effort?
|
|
|
Re: C body spindle advantages, if any.
[Re: cudazappa]
#3002098
01/04/22 07:59 PM
01/04/22 07:59 PM
|
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 259
n.c.
geo.
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 259
n.c.
|
|
|
|
|
|
