Has any one ever seen the global west control arms with the spherical aircraft joint on them?
Their clame is that the poly bushing's (like on the hotchkis version's) would cause binding and is only suitable for drag racing. They say that the spherical joint allows for free movement and is more suitable for daily driving? Is this true, has anyone tried them? If so It would be great to get some feedback on there performance, before I make a descion on purchasing a set.

Check in with the guys on Impala SS forum (http://www.impalassforum.com)
Many use the GW stuff, spendy but superior

If it says anything, I bought a set of fully boxed and polyurethane bushinged Hotchkis rear arms for my car a few years ago, and took them off and sold them a week later at a loss. The car rode brutally choppy and the rear end loved to sidestep and skip sideways during cornering when you hit a bump. Not a very good setup. The rear end geometry on these cars requires flex and twist of something so the rear end can move up and down freely. In a stock setup this is accomplished by a combination of the rubber bushings deflecting and the open section arms twisting a bit. When you install boxed arms and poly bushings, you remove all the flex points and create massive amounts of bind. The only thing that can then flex is the mounting brackets on the rear end and your frame. With the Hotchkis setup, if I raised the car, supported the frame with jackstands, and tried to jack up only one tire it would try to pick the whole car off the ground rather than just picking up that side of the rear axle. The setup bound so much I couldn't get one side to move independantly of the other, which is why the car had very nasty and unpredictable behavior when I'd hit a bump in a corner.

I now run Edelbrock uppers with rubber bushings on the top of the rear end, and Global West TBC-4 lowers with the del-a-lum bushing on the rear end and the spherical bearing on the frame. There is NO comparison between the two setups, the GW setup rides far smoother, hooks better, and provides far more predictable handling over bumps during cornering.

If you don't need to tweak your pinion angle, keep the stock open section upper arms with rubber bushings and run the GW lowers. I only run the Edelbrock uppers because I needed to adjust my pinion angle.

If you don't push the car to the limits in corners, I feel it's very hard to beat fresh rubber bushings in all 8 locations, stock upper arms, and boxed stock lower arms. It will ride very smoothly, handle quite well, and be very predictable over bumps. If you want to eek out a little more handling, then go with the GW lowers, but a stock setup with boxed lowers and fresh rubber will probably surprise you how well it works.

Even if you run the stock stuff, I suggest picking up a set of frame braces from either Hotchkis or Edelbrock to tie the lower arm mounts to the crossmember the upper arms bolt to. Either piece will work, but the Edelbrocks will provide more exhaust clearance. I noticed a difference after installing a set.

Troy

Troy, does the GW spherical end use spacers to fit it into the stock control arm location?

Is that a spherical rod end on the Edelbrock upper arms or something different. They look a little like sphericals but could also have a bushing in there.

I can see how the poly bushings with the heavy control arms can cause binding. I'm trying to figure out what to do with my rear suspension right now.

Peter

The GW arm's spherical bearing is VERY large and much different from your typical rod end, but yes, it does have small spacers in it; about 3/8" per side. Without them, it's not wide enough to fit into the stock control arm mount. It's a limitation; if the bearing was large enough diameter to fit in the mount width-wise without spacers, it would be too large to clear the floorpan.

As far as the Edelbrocks, they are spherical bearings, very similar to the GW arms, only they appear to have UHMW (or similar) plastic races. You can tighten up the races as it wears to take the slop out. you loosen a setscrew and tighten the race on the side which bears down harder on the spherical bearing.

I still say if you don't have a pinion angle issue, stick with stock uppers. They're simple, strong, lng wearing, and as long as the rubber is fresh they do a great job of controlling the rear end's lateral and torquing movments.

Troy

So GW's ends are steel to steel? Are they a 3-piece rod end? Do they screw into the control arm or are they welded to the end? Do they have a grease fitting?

I can understand the larger end description. I have found some that were maybe 1.5" wide or more which sounds like the GW. I found some on the internet that are "sealed" with a grease fitting. Also found a "boot" to go over the end but only on a UK site.

Peter

It's really hard to tell exactly what the front GW bearing is. It's a sealed unit with no grease fitting. Mine haven't given me any trouble so far, and after about 10K miles on them they still look and feel like new. It's not a rod end per se as it is welded into the front portion of the arm. It's more of a cartridge type which is inserted into the front of the arm and then it appears to have been staked and tack welded in place. It is VERY beefy though.

Troy

Thanks for the info. From searching the internet I have found greasable joints that have seals are around. I just have to find who actually sells them for a reasonable price. I'm really thinking that joints on the control arms would be better than poly bushings or a stock configuration. Especially for the upper arms. If I can find suitabke ones I'm going to use them.

Peter

Originally posted by Peter F.:
I'm really thinking that joints on the control arms would be better than poly bushings or a stock configuration. Especially for the upper arms. If I can find suitabke ones I'm going to use them.

Peter Very much true Peter; you've then turned the flex point into butter-smooth twist using a spherical joint. It would have no effect on the spring rate, and the rear end should move VERY smoothly up and down, even one wheel independant of the other, which is the situation where poly binds the worst.

Troy