length of lower control arms

anumber1 wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim beam > wrote in news:KI-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does
>>>>>>> anybody
>>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and
>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>>
>>>> how is that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing
>>> surfaces. Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to
>>> mention the forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the
>>> end of the axle. Bad ju ju!
>>>
>> ok, but:
>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing
>> anyway.
>
> A load that the bearing is designed to handle.
>
>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual
>> to go much more than 10mm.
>
> 10mm that is going to move the load out, changing the designed fulcrum
> of the original geometry, increasing the load on the bearing.

dude, with respect, you're going to get more transient bearing load on a
bearing from having suspension lowered too far than you are from spacers.

>
>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> The point of a well designed aftermarket control arms is to keep the
> suspension geometry correct in the areas that matter.

hardly - all it does is correct camber. it does nothing for the swing
radius of any of the suspension components themselves.

>
> Bearing load and various wheel alignment tracking angles would be very
> close to the original design.

by what margin??? the vehicle has a working load in the range of
800lbs. how do you think spee-dee ricer with his 10mm spacers and 90lb
girlfriend is going to exert more leverage on the bearings than spec?
install an even bigger sub?

wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message > ok, but:
> > 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
> > 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> > go much more than 10mm.
> > 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> > bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> > lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> I have heard the explanation, whether myth or fact, that the use of spacers
> will cause premature failure of bearings. Since the axle flange is always
> out
> past the centerplane of the bearing, like you, I dont think it matters too
> much.
>
> I tend to think this may be another garage legend, but wont stick my neck
> out on it.

Certainly in older RWD designs where the centerline of the wheel is
outside of the bearing, moving it further out by use of wider wheels,
spacers, and usually both increases the lever arm of the load on the
bearing. If the centerline of the wheel is inside of the bearing, then
a spacer has the opposite effect, but of course it does affect
whatever steering effect they wanted to achieve by putting the
centerline of the wheel there.

jim beam wrote:
> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> > jim beam wrote:
> >> Tegger wrote:
> >>> jim beam > wrote in news:KI-
> >>> :
> >>>
> >>>> z wrote:
> >>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does anybody
> >>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and which
> >>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
> >>>>>
> >>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
> >>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
> >>>
> >> how is that?
> >
> >
> > Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
> > those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
> > assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
> > Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
> > forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the axle.
> > Bad ju ju!
> >
> ok, but:
> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> go much more than 10mm.
> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.

Other way around. I'm not lowering the car, therefore want stock length
lower arms, my only goal is to just swap them in on the first warm
afternoon and drive off, without having to run around and get new
bushings stuffed into the old arms while the car is immobilized. I
don't want aftermarket arms sized for lowered suspensions that will
throw the rear camber off. Some sales websites identify some
aftermarket arms as shortened for lowered suspensions, some don't,
nobody identifies any of the aftermarket arms as stock length.

"z" > wrote in
ups.com:


>
> Other way around. I'm not lowering the car, therefore want stock
> length lower arms, my only goal is to just swap them in on the first
> warm afternoon and drive off, without having to run around and get new
> bushings stuffed into the old arms while the car is immobilized.



I was in Princess Auto today for the first time. They're only in Canada, so
if you're in the US, you'll have to try AZ or Kragen or one of those
places. In there I found something very interesting for $20.

What I found was a "puller" that resembles a very big, fat C-clamp. This
one takes a hex socket on the screw end. The other end ends in a round
hole. With sufficient sockets and spacers, this thing just might budge your
bushings without power assist. The principle is the same as those screw-
type balljoint pullers.

If such a thing is available where you are, you may be able to avoid the
immobile-car syndrome.


--
Tegger

Tegger wrote:
> "z" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>
> >
> > Other way around. I'm not lowering the car, therefore want stock
> > length lower arms, my only goal is to just swap them in on the first
> > warm afternoon and drive off, without having to run around and get new
> > bushings stuffed into the old arms while the car is immobilized.
>
>
>
> I was in Princess Auto today for the first time. They're only in Canada, so
> if you're in the US, you'll have to try AZ or Kragen or one of those
> places. In there I found something very interesting for $20.
>
> What I found was a "puller" that resembles a very big, fat C-clamp. This
> one takes a hex socket on the screw end. The other end ends in a round
> hole. With sufficient sockets and spacers, this thing just might budge your
> bushings without power assist. The principle is the same as those screw-
> type balljoint pullers.
>
> If such a thing is available where you are, you may be able to avoid the
> immobile-car syndrome.

I was thinking of something like that; like I said, since the bearings
have been pre-removed for me, it's just a matter of pressing new ones
in, so I was thinking just the biggest screw, nut, and washer that
would fit; or if that's too weak, as you mention, a big clampy thing
with an external bigger screw. I'll go look at the car parts store. I
was even thinking of just sandwiching the thing between the jacking pad
on the car and the jack.

>
> --
> Tegger

z wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>> jim beam > wrote in news:KI-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does anybody
>>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and which
>>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>>
>>>> how is that?
>>>
>>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
>>> Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
>>> forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the axle.
>>> Bad ju ju!
>>>
>> ok, but:
>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
>> go much more than 10mm.
>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>
> Other way around. I'm not lowering the car, therefore want stock length
> lower arms, my only goal is to just swap them in on the first warm
> afternoon and drive off, without having to run around and get new
> bushings stuffed into the old arms while the car is immobilized. I
> don't want aftermarket arms sized for lowered suspensions that will
> throw the rear camber off. Some sales websites identify some
> aftermarket arms as shortened for lowered suspensions, some don't,
> nobody identifies any of the aftermarket arms as stock length.
>
question:
if it's stock height, why do you want to adjust the camber? the only
reason it can be out is either damage or worn bushings. new bushings
cure the latter. a visit to the junk yard cures the former.
aftermarket control arms are usually the adjustable types so you set to
what you want.

jim beam wrote:
> z wrote:
> > jim beam wrote:
> >> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> >>> jim beam wrote:
> >>>> Tegger wrote:
> >>>>> jim beam > wrote in news:KI-
> >>>>> :
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> z wrote:
> >>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does anybody
> >>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and which
> >>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
> >>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
> >>>>>
> >>>> how is that?
> >>>
> >>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
> >>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
> >>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
> >>> Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
> >>> forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the axle.
> >>> Bad ju ju!
> >>>
> >> ok, but:
> >> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
> >> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
> >> go much more than 10mm.
> >> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
> >> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
> >> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
> >
> > Other way around. I'm not lowering the car, therefore want stock length
> > lower arms, my only goal is to just swap them in on the first warm
> > afternoon and drive off, without having to run around and get new
> > bushings stuffed into the old arms while the car is immobilized. I
> > don't want aftermarket arms sized for lowered suspensions that will
> > throw the rear camber off. Some sales websites identify some
> > aftermarket arms as shortened for lowered suspensions, some don't,
> > nobody identifies any of the aftermarket arms as stock length.
> >
> question:
> if it's stock height, why do you want to adjust the camber? the only
> reason it can be out is either damage or worn bushings. new bushings
> cure the latter. a visit to the junk yard cures the former.
> aftermarket control arms are usually the adjustable types so you set to
> what you want.

The other way around; I want to avoid Unintended Camber Adjustment by
Helpful Aftermarket Manufacturers who think I lowered the suspension,
when all I want is to replace the shredded bushings with minimal
trouble, and if I can get a set of aftermarket control arms with
bushings installed for < $100, that makes them competitive with getting
a stock set from a junkyard and having to get bushings installed in
them in terms of hassle per dollar factor, and both are miles above
having to take the arms out then haul them somewhere on my bike to get
new bearings pressed in. or trying to press them in myself in the
backyard.

"z" > wrote in
ups.com:


>
> The other way around; I want to avoid Unintended Camber Adjustment by
> Helpful Aftermarket Manufacturers who think I lowered the suspension,



If you're the sort who buys aftermarket in the first place, I think it's a
safe bet you're also the type who wants to flatten his cranium against the
roof by having the suspension bouncily bottom out on gum wrappers and lost
coins.

But you're not that type, so...




> when all I want is to replace the shredded bushings with minimal
> trouble, and if I can get a set of aftermarket control arms with
> bushings installed for < $100, that makes them competitive with
> getting a stock set from a junkyard and having to get bushings
> installed in them in terms of hassle per dollar factor, and both are
> miles above having to take the arms out then haul them somewhere on my
> bike to get new bearings pressed in. or trying to press them in myself
> in the backyard.




I think you may be overestimating the problem. Before starting the job,
phone around to a few places, and ask them if they'd be willing to push out
some small bushings on-the-spot for you when you show up. Should take an
hour total for both arms, going slowly with lots of palaver and jokes. (I
would advise not attempting to do this at 4:00pm on a Saturday. Ask me how
I know...).

With an electric impact wrench, it should take you minutes to sever the
lower control arms from the vehicle. And they're small and light, so easily
transportable by bike.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

z wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> z wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam > wrote in news:KI-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> z wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Speaking of lower rear control arms for a 92 civic sedan, does anybody
>>>>>>>>> know which of the aftermarket replacements are stock length, and which
>>>>>>>>> are shorter for camber improvement with lowered suspension?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you use adjustable upper arms, not lower. readily available. if
>>>>>>>> you want the wheel track wider, use spacers on the hubs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which will quickly eat up the wheel bearings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> how is that?
>>>>> Just a wild guess but I imagine moving the weight to the outside of
>>>>> those bearing is going to play hell with them. The axle/bearing
>>>>> assembly is designed with the weight centered on the bearing surfaces.
>>>>> Move it in or out and you concentrate the weight (not to mention the
>>>>> forces inflicted on the wheel by uneven terrain) on the end of the axle.
>>>>> Bad ju ju!
>>>>>
>>>> ok, but:
>>>> 1. the wheel is already offset from the center line of the bearing anyway.
>>>> 2. normal spacers aren't going to make a lot of difference - unusual to
>>>> go much more than 10mm.
>>>> 3. it's all relative. the op is lowering and presumably "racing".
>>>> bearings take a hit in this situation anyway. literally if the car is
>>>> lowered too much and the car's riding on the bump stops.
>>> Other way around. I'm not lowering the car, therefore want stock length
>>> lower arms, my only goal is to just swap them in on the first warm
>>> afternoon and drive off, without having to run around and get new
>>> bushings stuffed into the old arms while the car is immobilized. I
>>> don't want aftermarket arms sized for lowered suspensions that will
>>> throw the rear camber off. Some sales websites identify some
>>> aftermarket arms as shortened for lowered suspensions, some don't,
>>> nobody identifies any of the aftermarket arms as stock length.
>>>
>> question:
>> if it's stock height, why do you want to adjust the camber? the only
>> reason it can be out is either damage or worn bushings. new bushings
>> cure the latter. a visit to the junk yard cures the former.
>> aftermarket control arms are usually the adjustable types so you set to
>> what you want.
>
> The other way around; I want to avoid Unintended Camber Adjustment by
> Helpful Aftermarket Manufacturers who think I lowered the suspension,
> when all I want is to replace the shredded bushings with minimal
> trouble, and if I can get a set of aftermarket control arms with
> bushings installed for < $100, that makes them competitive with getting
> a stock set from a junkyard and having to get bushings installed in
> them in terms of hassle per dollar factor, and both are miles above
> having to take the arms out then haul them somewhere on my bike to get
> new bearings pressed in. or trying to press them in myself in the
> backyard.
>
so buy new stock control arms then - they have new bushings
pre-installed... or am i missing something?