Seen this part to level out the UCA on E-bodies for improved handling, any benefits to doing the same on a. A-body? Would you want to do this on a track car only?

Thanks.

Hotchkis said it was not needed when they did their suspension geometry analysis and plotting on the A-body platform.


It's done on the E-bodies to remove anti dive that helps improve bump steer.


I measured bump steer with a real bump steer gauge on my A-body 68 Barracuda. It has Hotchkis setup with the A-arms in the stock geometry.

The Bump Steer measurements were very good without even adjustment. 0.055" at 2" compression/dive/bump is only less than 1/16" So my finding seemed to match what Hotchkiss determined.

I thought all the 62-72 B, 70-74 E and all A body cars had the "Anti-Dive" built in as evident by the lower position of the rearmost UCA bushing.

They do.

It just doesn't affect bump steer on the a body.

Correct.

And there's many other geometries that effect bump steer too. The Anti-Dive is not the only thing. There may be some things that cancel out others. But the net sum overall on a A-body is not bad at all.

That said. My car is lowered and I only measured to 3". Not really going to get to 3" extension/rebound on the street or roadcourse. Especially with higher spring rates. We're not Off-Roading this deal.

Now on a drag car the light front spring rates may pull the front tires nearly or completely off the ground. In that case, extension/rebound may get over 3". So the range of concern is much higher on those cars.

Yes, drag car use a lot of tricks that are inimical to good handling. But that's another forum, not this one.

Inimical ??
Who are you trying to impress?

Thanks everyone for your replies, probably nothing I need to bother with.

I do have AM UCA and the upper ball joint is on the same plane as the UCA not rotated vertical to the knuckle (spindle) like an OEM part.

No issues so far just curious as to efffect to steering movements.

Thanks.