Ok, having lurked and searched and occasionally posted, I'm finally moving forward w/ updating my suspension. It's going into a '68 442 convertible 4 spd, which is currently all factory, probably right down to the 38 year old bushings, except for the Hotchkis sway bar in front, 1" Adco rear sway bar, and the Edelbrock IAS shocks that I just installed. The car has the factory 4 piston front disk brakes; I don't know if that affects the spindle and the available brake choices.

Goals
Great handling, while maintaining "decent" ride characteristics. This is a daily driver and family car in addition to being my hotrod.
Able to revert to stock. No cutting etc.

I know this is a long post, but I want to make sure everything I have works as a complete package. Let me hear it:

Will this work?
Is there a better way?
Is there a cheaper way?
What should I change, and why?

My handling recipe:

Front
springs 9.5", 575 lbs, Speedway 2x40 = $80
long spring adjuster, Speedway 2x30 = $60
upper control arms: SC$C Pole Positions, "soft" bushings, AL sleeves
tall Ball joints, uppper and lower, SC$C (kit w/ arms) $720
lower control arms, stock w/ poly bushings $53.99
Hotchkis 1 3/8 hollow sway bar $193
NAPA premium - tie rod ends, center link, idler arm
C5/C4 13" hybrid brakes, Touring Classics $799
AL hubs $285

Rear:
Rear spring ~150lb ???
Length ???
Spring adjuster ???
Upper control arms, Edelbrock - with rubber bushing in axle $210
Lower control arms, Currie correc-trac. $225
1" Adco rear sway bar, or perhaps go back to stock, about 3/4".
4th gen F-body LS1 brakes 12". $700

Considerations:
Front spring rates. I know many here are going to much higher rate springs. I don't have any experience w/ using heavier springs w/ no sway bar, but I tend to think the "lighter" (still far stronger than stock) springs w/ a moderate sway bar will give a better ride while still having good handling. In addition, I think the flexible chassis, especially w/ the convertible, won't really benefit from the heavier springs.

Rear springs and rates. This is the biggest question for me. The current springs are some cargo coils that were in it when I bought the car. To get the rear down to a reasonable height, I used bolt in coil compressors. That takes an already stiff spring, and by making one full coil dead, really makes it stiff. The car is unsettling to drive this way; moderate bumps really make the rear kick out. I don't know what the factory rates are, but Global West's rears are 135, so I suspect that's nearing the max I should consider. In addition, I'm very picky about ride height, so I'd like to use adjusters of some sort.

I am planning on doing this in two stages; the suspension upgrades first, then the brakes. That helps me keep the car on the road, and helps defer some of the costs. I am planning on using the factory 14" wheels until I do the brake upgrade, since that will affect the offsets needed for a close fit.

upper control arms: SC$C Pole Positions, "soft" bushings, AL sleeves
tall Ball joints, uppper and lower, SC$C (kit w/ arms) $720
lower control arms, stock w/ poly bushings $53.99
Hotchkis 1 3/8 hollow sway bar $193
NAPA premium - tie rod ends, center link, idler arm
C5/C4 13" hybrid brakes, Touring Classics $799
AL hubs $285

I am planning on doing this in two stages; the suspension upgrades first, then the brakes. That helps me keep the car on the road, and helps defer some of the costs. I am planning on using the factory 14" wheels until I do the brake upgrade, since that will affect the offsets needed for a close fit.

One consideration, is that the tall balljoints MIGHT cause interference between the control arms and the stock 14-inch rims...

Just a question, If you are worried about deferring costs and planning to use the stock lower control arms, why spend an additional $280 on AL front hubs? Just a question... Will they make any difference for a street car? will they be seen once the rotor and wheel are installed? Even if you had to "buy" drum hubs from Touring Classics, I think they are about $150, but they will modify yours for free when you buy the kit (find some used ones at a swapmeet, etc)...

Get rid of the 14" first, then build around the 17's if you are going to do it in stages.

Get rid of the 14" first, then build around the 17's if you are going to do it in stages.In theory, I'd agree with you Denny, but it seems he's in the same boat as I am... can't afford to do it all at once, and the suspension needs work to be safe and work properly anyway.

Better to do it once than to have to redo some of it later. I'm running on 15" wheels for a while, then going to 17" when I can afford those, then upgrade the brakes when I have some money after the 17s.

Sure beats tearing the whole car apart again later when I've got it apart now.

As for the suspension, it sounds like a pretty good setup. The sway-bars seem a bit big for those spring-rates though. How does that big hollow bar compare to a smaller solid bar?

Get rid of the 14" first, then build around the 17's if you are going to do it in stages.
The main reason I don't want to do this is fitment. I'm going to be running 275/17s on front, so the offset is critical. My brake changes change the hub, and add the thickness of the rotor, and I can't find info about the offset with my current hubs (for the factory 4 piston brakes). Wheels are way too expensive to have to buy a second pair for the front when I discover the offset is wrong by 1/4".

Is there some reason I can't/shouldn't update the suspension first? Looking at the location of the control arms and other parts, it appears that there's plenty of room to add both the upper and lower tall ball joints.

The main reason I don't want to do this is fitment. I'm going to be running 275/17s on front, so the offset is critical. My brake changes change the hub, and add the thickness of the rotor, and I can't find info about the offset with my current hubs (for the factory 4 piston brakes). Wheels are way too expensive to have to buy a second pair for the front when I discover the offset is wrong by 1/4".

Is there some reason I can't/shouldn't update the suspension first? Looking at the location of the control arms and other parts, it appears that there's plenty of room to add both the upper and lower tall ball joints.


I am planning the same (275/40/17s up front)...

I suggest you measure your hubs, and then ask the guys at Touring Classics for the Chevelle drum hub measurement AND the approximate rotor thickness, and determine IF the final offset will differ, and by how much...

You MIGHT be able to run a wheel spacer with new wheels (naturally, depends on how much difference, and which way it will change)...


As for the new suspension with the old wheels, IF you double check and have the clearance, then there shouldn't be any problems their...



I too am in the same boat... I have wanted to get new wheels, but I was planning on bigger brakes... Originally, I was planning the "tall spindle" swap, so I was S.O.L... Either compromise on the maximum tire stuffed into my wheel wells, or do the entire swap at once... Too much money and too long to wait for new wheels...

I too have decided to go the SC&C "package", the Touring Classics Hybrid setup and Vintage V40 wheels... I plan on doing the wheels first because I have been waiting so long (plus my suspension and "stock" discs were rebuilt a few years ago)...

I figure as long as the backspacing requirements are pretty close, the wheels shoud still fit okay... I currently have 265/50/15 on the front, and while NOT 275/40/17s, they are close in overall size... Haven't had too many clearance issues in years...

why is Sc+C charging like $450 for 4 balljoints??
also you should be able to do the rear LS1 brakes for like $300

why is Sc+C charging like $450 for 4 balljoints??

Because they can:p ... they are actually cheaper than $450 (like $320 for 4, okay so not that much cheaper)

They want $620 for the set (upper/lower tall BJ and upper arms), but $300 for the arms alone... I think I checked the Howe website, and didn't see the tall BJs offered for the A-body taper, so maybe they are custom built to SC&Cs specs?

also you should be able to do the rear LS1 brakes for like $300

Cody,
LS1 brakes are cheaper if you piece together a system, BUT the factory F-body parts will not work on Chevelles without modifications (and some more significant than others)... Some people want a "bolt-on" setup, while some might not mind some minor fabrication...

The main problem is the parking brake setup. With stock earlier 4th gen brackets, the calipers are not clocked correctly to allow the parking brake cables to clear the control arms. Touring Classics mentioned to me that they make their brackets to move the calipers so the cable does clear. They also supply a cable that will work directly in a Chevelle swap.

The LS1 rear disc swap (with the integral "drum" parking brake) has issues with the parking brake cables and their hookup as well (but different from the earlier rear discs)... I have seen several people adapting these (and similar later S-10 rear discs), but no one seems to have completed the swap (with or without fabrication)...

I have not found anyone that supplys a caliper bracket and cables without costing quite a bit of money (or being an "unknown" Ebay-type seller)... I did some searching on the internet, but didn't get much info that pertains to A-bodies... Info for 1st/2nd gen F-bodies isn't even that great, but much different from the A-body anyway...

Do you know of some sources for parts or info on an A-body swap?

Without the parking brake, it would be a simple, cheap swap...

Just a question, If you are worried about deferring costs and planning to use the stock lower control arms, why spend an additional $280 on AL front hubs? Just a question... Will they make any difference for a street car? will they be seen once the rotor and wheel are installed? Even if you had to "buy" drum hubs from Touring Classics, I think they are about $150, but they will modify yours for free when you buy the kit (find some used ones at a swapmeet, etc)...

Will they make a difference that can be measured in any real performance way? Who knows. I'm not going to do back to back testing of any of this. But it saves a few pounds of unsprung weight, so it has to help. And $280 isn't THAT much extra. If that doesn't explain it, see quote in my signature. :-)

In theory, I'd agree with you Denny, but it seems he's in the same boat as I am... can't afford to do it all at once, and the suspension needs work to be safe and work properly anyway.
Bingo. Much of the suspension is overdue for replacement. Tires still have lots of mileage left. "Affording" it all at once is more a factor of how much time I can put into it all at once, and how long I can/want to have it off the road.
As for the suspension, it sounds like a pretty good setup. The sway-bars seem a bit big for those spring-rates though. How does that big hollow bar compare to a smaller solid bar?
I calculated a while ago the sway bar stiffness. I don't have the numbers to hand, but (if I remember right) it worked out that the 1 3/8's hollow was about the same as a 1 1/8 solid. I just called Hotchkis and found out the inner diameter, and it's an easy calculation from there.

It also has a slightly tighter radius where it turns back to the control arms, which gives a bit more steering lock. I had a 1 1/4 ADCO sway bar that rubbed the tires at full lock; w/ the Hotchkis, no rubbing.

Because they can:p ... they are actually cheaper than $450 (like $320 for 4, okay so not that much cheaper)

They want $620 for the set (upper/lower tall BJ and upper arms), but $300 for the arms alone... I think I checked the Howe website, and didn't see the tall BJs offered for the A-body taper, so maybe they are custom built to SC&Cs specs?

also; the uppers are $300 with "greasable race bushings"; that doesn't sound like what I way. It's $400 to get them w/ "high durometer rubber bushings".

It wasn't a typo when I called them SC$C. But they have products that I can't get anywhere else, that I've found. I'd be happy to get it for less elsewhere if anyone knows where I can.

I calculated a while ago the sway bar stiffness. I don't have the numbers to hand, but (if I remember right) it worked out that the 1 3/8's hollow was about the same as a 1 1/8 solid. I just called Hotchkis and found out the inner diameter, and it's an easy calculation from there.That sounds like it will work very good with your 575# front springs, but I think the 1" rear bar will be too much. You may want to try a 7/8" stock F41 rear bar.

also; the uppers are $300 with "greasable race bushings"; that doesn't sound like what I way. It's $400 to get them w/ "high durometer rubber bushings".I would save the $100 and get the solid bushings. The uppers do nothing to absorb bumps, that's all done by the lowers. You may get a little road-noise/vibration from the solids, but not a very noticeable ammount. The change from rubber to poly in the lowers will give you more NVH than the change from rubber to solid in the uppers.

I was a little reluctant to spend $340 on ball-joints too, but it's hands-down the best low-budget handling upgrade you can do to a Chevelle, and as a bonus, you can do it in stages, which is the only way I could afford it.

I have the LS1 rear brakes on my car, I had to use 2 right hand brackets to clear my staggered shocks. The ebrake cable hooks up just like it would on a drum brake car, so I'm not sure how it would hit control arms??

I don't have a chevelle, but I wouldn't see why the stock LS1 bracketry would't be a complete bolt on.

I was a little reluctant to spend $340 on ball-joints too, but it's hands-down the best low-budget handling upgrade you can do to a Chevelle, and as a bonus, you can do it in stages, which is the only way I could afford it.

Or you could spend less than $200 for Pro Motorsports spindle extenders and accomplish basically the same thing.

I have the LS1 rear brakes on my car, I had to use 2 right hand brackets to clear my staggered shocks. The ebrake cable hooks up just like it would on a drum brake car, so I'm not sure how it would hit control arms??

I don't have a chevelle, but I wouldn't see why the stock LS1 bracketry would't be a complete bolt on.

Cody,
I'd be interested in seeing some pictures of your rear brake setup, mostly the parking brake cables and attachment/routing...

I wanted to swap the LS1's (with the drum parking brake), but I couldn't find anyone that had adapted the cables yet (this includes the S-10 rear disc swap)...

So the stock cable (LS1 cables that is) attach directlyto the stock intermediate cable? Not sure how the 2nd gen is setup, but the Chevelle has the cable (the same cable that goes into the backing plate) pass through/attach to the frame right above the lower control arm mount... There is a small ~1/2" dia hole their, with one of those "U" clips to retain the cable...

I understand that the LS1 cable slides over the lever on the backing plate, but not sure if it goes forward from there, or straight across (toward the other wheel)... And would the cable have a brackets attached to the rearend housing, or the backing plate?

The cable/control arm interferance I mentioned was with earlier 4th gen rears (pre-98)...

the cable is pulled to the center of the car. You have to get new cables made that have the correct "end" to it to go with the new ebrake lever on the back of the backing plate. Most aftermarket kits also come with new cables. You can have them made easily at various places.

On the back of the backing plate, centered, and located at the bottom is the ebrake lever. It too is pulled to the center of the car. I will need to weld or bolt or attach a bracket ot the rear end that will hold the ebrake cable housing right before the backign plate, as the backing plate doesn't have anything to hold the cable.

The end of the cable will have some kind of "U" shaped hook that will hook onto the ebrake lever. Pretty simple. Like I said I don't have a chevelle, but the ebrake cable routes to the same exact spot with a drum backing plate, so I don't see how routing the new one could be a problem, you just have to make something to secure the cable housing, so the metal cable strand can pull back and forth(obviously)

the cable is pulled to the center of the car.... On the back of the backing plate, centered, and located at the bottom is the ebrake lever. It too is pulled to the center of the car...
Pretty simple. Like I said I don't have a chevelle, but the ebrake cable routes to the same exact spot with a drum backing plate, so I don't see how routing the new one could be a problem

Thanks Toby.

I guess I'll have to order one of these backing plates... Or hit the wrecking yard looking for an S-10/Bravada/etc...

The stock "Chevelle" ebrake cables don't go toward the center of the car. Each sidecable, individually, follows the lower control arm "forward" from the rearend...

If the cables need to be pulled toward the "center" of the car (roughly along the axles tubes), then the cables might interfere with the lower control arm and brackets, which also are below the axle (roughly where the backing plate lever is)... And with an earlier 64-67 rearend, the backing plate is even closer to the control arm bracket (only a few inches, probably less than 2 inches)...

the cables don't go toward the center of the car, they just go foward, I was just trying to describe which direction they go. It is really simple, you'll just have to see for yourself, I think your are over complicating it. I meant as center differently, I meant towards the center like from front to back, not side to side.

search the forums, on nastyz28 someone posted pics

Cody,
Thanks for the clarification...

BTW, I just searched Nasty Z28 (already searched here, and camaros.com, etc), and I couldn't find ANY info or pictures on the e-brake setup...

Or you could spend less than $200 for Pro Motorsports spindle extenders and accomplish basically the same thing.

No,not really. The geometry you get with those spindle extenders is radically different from ours and is in fact very poor. They yield absolutely no bumpsteer improvement,the roll center ends up much too high and the FVSA is so short that several drivers using them in SCCA events and such have reported mild to severe jacking in the corners.
Why are our taller modular ball joints so much more than OE type ball joints? Because their modular design makes them the ONLY product on the market that lets us make really profound improvements in the suspension geometry while retaining the stock spindles. It`s also because stock type ball joints are mass produced out of cheap low carbon steel and pressed together with little regard for precise tolerances and usually left raw to rust at their leisure. That`s why when you take them out of the box you can barely move them. Our housings and studs are completely CNC machined from high carbon steel,the housings and studs are then fully heat treated and coated using 4 different processes on each ball joint including a graphite/teflon low friction baked on coating on the pivot balls. They fit together and work as freely as a high quality heim joint but are of course greasable,rebuildable,adj. for wear,0 ring weather sealed and have proven to be MUCH stronger and more durable than stock type ball joints. We top them with poly boots that actually fit and rubber spacers to keep the boots firmly seated on tall stud applications. The early Chevelle and Camaro as well as several other applications were originally speced out by and produced for SC&C and 99% of them go to us directly. In fact we have another new product in this line coming in this week (but it`s for early Camaro). Mark SC&C

No,not really. The geometry you get with those spindle extenders is radically different from ours and is in fact very poor. They yield absolutely no bumpsteer improvement,the roll center ends up much too high and the FVSA is so short that several drivers using them in SCCA events and such have reported mild to severe jacking in the corners.
Mark SC&C

Please explain how raising the pivot point on the upper arm the same amount via a spindle extender vs. a tall upper ball joint while using stock spindles with either results in different geometry. Do the tall ball joints not raise the pivot point the same amount as the spindle extenders?

If the stock spindles are retained, why would there be a need for bump steer improvement? My impression is that stock spindles don't have bump steer issues like can occur with a spindle swap. Do your lower ball joints raise the spindle thus bringing the tie rods more parallel to the center link?

The spindle extenders net a roughly 2 inch increase in the distance between the lower and the upper ball joint pivot points. What amount of increase in that same measurement is provided by your ball joint set?

TIA

Please explain how raising the pivot point on the upper arm the same amount via a spindle extender vs. a tall upper ball joint while using stock spindles with either results in different geometry. Do the tall ball joints not raise the pivot point the same amount as the spindle extenders?They do not raise the height of the spindle the same ammount. The extender is 1-15/16", tall ball-joints are 1/2" taller each - 1" total. This is enough to get the UCA pointed upward enough for a good ammount of camber gain, but not too much which shortens the FVSA length, causing jacking like Marcus mentioned above.

If the stock spindles are retained, why would there be a need for bump steer improvement? My impression is that stock spindles don't have bump steer issues like can occur with a spindle swap. Do your lower ball joints raise the spindle thus bringing the tie rods more parallel to the center link?Stock spindles are far from perfect when it comes to bumpsteer. Most tall-spindles more than double the stock bumpsteer, by lowering the steering arm, when it needs to be raised to get the arc of the tie-rods and the arc swung by the LCA to be nearly equal. The tall lower ball-joint gets it much closer, but still not quite 0 bumpsteer. It's about 80% less than stock though.

On the B-body spindle, I wonder if you could invert the outer tie rod end and insert it fromt the top? That would raise the tie rod end quite a bit. I know the taper is wrong but I would think that could be fixed somehow.

That would be too high. Unfortunately bump steer correction is done by moving components in as little as .100" increments. it takes very little OTR movement to make a large impact on bump steer results.

So how much lower is the B-body steering arm that the stock arm? Marcus is saying that the tall ball joint raising the stock spindle by 1/2" is a good change. So if the B-body arm is an inch or so lower than stock then it might be about right. Did you try it?

Also, when you guys are talking about the "stock" spindles, are you talking about stock disc spindles or stock drum spindles?

Can tall ball joints be used with stock control arms to good effect or do they require aftermarket control arms?

Can tall ball joints be used with stock control arms to good effect or do they require aftermarket control arms?

Rich, I think the problem using stock upper arms, is that as the upper arms is raised (using tall spindle, tall ball joints or spindle extenders) the location of the top of the spindle is moved outward... To correct that, you either need to move the entire arm in toward the engine (via lots of shims and/or offset shafts, and header to arm clearance might be an issue), or shorten the arm (aftermarket arms)... There can also be issues with the ball-joint angles and bind, as the new location of the arm (swinging up through its arc) causes the ball-joint mounting to be angled differently...

IF you can get past these issues (possible on some cars) then stock uppers could probably be used... Thats why there are some "tall-spindle" swaps that have used stock upper arms...

In my particular instance I have stock spindles so the problems inherent to or made worse by tall spindles are not part of the picture. Wouldn't a tall spindle swap coupled with spindle extenders or tall ball joints be overkill (and possibly make things even worse)?

Also, when you guys are talking about the "stock" spindles, are you talking about stock disc spindles or stock drum spindles?Disc and drum spindles are almost identical. Geometry-wise, they are identical, but drum spindles just have a little extra material on them... to use tall ball-joints, you need to run discs, since the drum backing-plates will interfere with the lower A-arms with the spindle raised 1/2" from the pivot.

Rich, I think the problem using stock upper arms, is that as the upper arms is raised (using tall spindle, tall ball joints or spindle extenders) the location of the top of the spindle is moved outward... To correct that, you either need to move the entire arm in toward the engine (via lots of shims and/or offset shafts, and header to arm clearance might be an issue), or shorten the arm (aftermarket arms)... There can also be issues with the ball-joint angles and bind, as the new location of the arm (swinging up through its arc) causes the ball-joint mounting to be angled differently...

IF you can get past these issues (possible on some cars) then stock uppers could probably be used... Thats why there are some "tall-spindle" swaps that have used stock upper arms...Even if you can get past these issues, with stock arms, it will be very difficult to get a decent positive caster setting for any type of performance alignment. As the height of the spindle increases, the further back the UBJ needs to go to get the same positive caster angle. More caster equals more high-speed stability.

In my particular instance I have stock spindles so the problems inherent to or made worse by tall spindles are not part of the picture. Wouldn't a tall spindle swap coupled with spindle extenders or tall ball joints be overkill (and possibly make things even worse)?Too tall of a spindle will cause a short swing-arm length, which causes jacking , and also can cause too much camber-gain which will wear out the insides of your tires, and decrease traction in cornering.

What is meant by "jacking"?

Jacking is when the cornering force pushing on the tire at ground level works through the suspension to lift the car, thus the name. Prime text book example is the old VW rear swing axle suspension where jacking was so severe that one of the "fixes" was a Z bar instead of an anti-roll bar. Seems when they jacked sufficiently they turned into a rolling ball.

In general longer virtual swing arms are better than shorter because they cause less camber change from the travel arc and better control leverage.

Derek, I wasn't meaning to use drum brakes. What I should have asked is, can I use my stock drum spindles, a big brake kit of some kind, the tall ball joints, and my Global west uppers?

Hey Derek I should have you on the payroll. :) Generally speaking you`re on the money.

Gearbanger,yes you can run that combination. Depending on your ride height and needs you may find that you`re a bit restricted in alignment settings but a decent street alignment should be no problem. Mark SC&C

Which way will I be restricted Marcus? Camber, caster? My car is lowered about 2-3" in front. Right now I have the tall spindle and it seems awesome, but you guys have me considering a change. I have the drum spindles and the Global west arms already. Basically I would need brakes and a set of ball joints.

Hey Derek I should have you on the payroll. :) OK, send money to the same address you sent my parts to :D

Gearbanger,yes you can run that combination. Depending on your ride height and needs you may find that you`re a bit restricted in alignment settings but a decent street alignment should be no problem. Mark SC&CDo the GW upper arms not have enough caster built in? I don't know the specs on those arms, but if they can get a decent ammount of caster on B-spindle it should allow for even more caster on a stock spindle w/ tall B-Js since its effective height is taller on a B-spindle.

Gearbanger, yeah caster and camber *may* be a bit limited again *depending* on your exact ride height and car. You shouldn`t run into any problems unless you get into hardcore race specs though. The difference between the B spindle swap you have now and a Stage 2 like setup will be that the handling will be just as good but the car will feel more responsive, turn in quicker and feel much more linear and predictable when you drive it hard. 4 wheel drifts in a 4000lb. Chevelle can be fun! :) Mark SC&C