So I just finished getting my front suspension together only to notice that the rotors are hitting the lower control arms. (In the pictures they are close to hitting, when I set the car down they hit) I have SPC upper arms, stock lower arms and tall upper and lower ball joints. The springs are lowering springs but I don't know how much. They came with the car. I just can't seem to figure out what is wrong. I'm pretty certain that all the parts that I bought are correct. However, I'm not sure what the spindles and caliper brackets are off of. Again, they came with the car. I didn't pay attention to rotor/a-arm clearance before I tore all the old stuff apart. Didn't think I needed to. Also, I would think that the rotor offset would have to be correct because the calipers bolt right on. I am stumped on this one. It's almost as though the spindles and caliper brackets are not right. I am really pushing to get my car on the road. I am near the end of a 5 year project but I definitely want it to be right.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009642.jpg
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009652.jpg
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009662.jpg
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009672.jpg
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009682.jpg

Thanks.

I would get it aligned. I think this will bring the top of the spindle closer to the car when you set camber, thus making a gap at them bottom. (It looks like you have positive camber just from looking at the pics.)

Matt

Did you adjust your upper control arms to the starting point (baseline) SC&C lays out for you in the directions that came with the UCAs? How much thread is showing on the adjusters both front and back?

I can't see the pics but I am going off of Matt's comments.

By the way It is pretty close on the old fit I think too. I got drop spindles and had to pull backing plates on mine.

The more I look the more it looks like you barely have any threads left on those uppers?

Matt, I know what you mean about making the gap wider with an alignment. However, there really is no more adjustment to make the upper ball joint move inward. (There is a little left on the rear adjuster) Also keep in mind that the front suspension is hanging since the car is on jackstands. So is it really supposed to be so close that you had to remove the backing plates? Also, It seems the more I move the upper ball joint inward the more of an angle it's making the upper ball joint sit at. Does that seem right? You can see what I'm talking about in the first and fourth pic.

Genpac, I was forced to screw the adjusters all the way in just to get the rotors to even go on. In fact after talking with Mark at SC&C a couple of days ago I ended up cutting about 3/4" off the front adjusting sleeve. Mark said they should both be 5" long. For some reason My front sleeve was 6" long and the rear one was 5". Now they are 5 1/4" front and 5" rear.

Thanks for the replies.

What effect does cranking them out do? Just out of curiosity?

and any other pics of the car? with that header pipe going around the frame it has to look pretty sick.

Matt

What else can you tell us about the other components? OEM brakes? OEM spindles? If OEM, you clearanced the disc backing plate and didn't just bend it over the LCA, right?
Also, as I can't see the pics (i'll check on my phone at lunch) what is your year 'velle?

The way you worded your OP it sounds like your spindle and brakes are aftermarket also.

Any stamping or PN on the spindles anywhere?

Matt, cranking them out makes it worse as you probably expected. Although it doesn't change the gap that much, it will make it hit worse. The headers are from Stahl. Supposedly the only way to get true equal length is to go over the frame rail.

GenPac, The spindles came with the car so I'm assuming they are just standard OEM A-body spindles. My car is a 66 so I don't think they came on the car originally. Did 66's come with a disc brake option? Anyway, When I bought the calipers and rotors I probably told the parts store 67 since I think they came with discs and figured they would work the same on my 66. Also, I don't have the backing plates installed. Everything bolts together and looks right except for that interference.

BTW, I "tweaked" the edges of the lower control arm just enough to get it to sit on the ground. It looks like they are just about rubbing the rotors. It will roll though so there might be an extremely small clearance now. Not enough though to drive it safely I would think. If I find that everything is correct and it's just a tight fit then I might be in the market for an aftermarket set of lower control arms that would give me more clearance.

Beaux, I will look and let you know.

Here's another pic of the car.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/chevelle.jpg

I bet you have drum spindles b/c their "J" is about 9/16" shorter than 2-piece and 1-piece cast rotor hubs w/o the rotors.

In other words the rim mount drum hub face is 9/16" closer to the centerline of the car than the disc ones are!

pdq67

I dont have an helpful advice but i have to say that you have a nice looking car. The stance, wheels, and color all flow together nicely to give an awesome look. Now how about some more pics of those headers under the hood and interior. I hope you get it on the road soon. Good luck

pdq67, Here is a pic of of a spindle. Is this the dimension you are talking about? If so, does anybody know what a disc brake spindle measures at this point?

BTW, this isn't my spindle. Just a pic I found. I did find a stamping on my right spindle. I think it says GM171 G.

Thanks.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/spindle.jpg

Here's a couple of pics for you 317millhand. Not much of an interior yet to show you.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/fo0207.jpg
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P1000950.jpg

eyeballing a tape measure to mine my spindle it looks like your measurement that is 2 inches is close to 2.5 inches on my spindles. this is nowhere near a super accurate measurement but it looks greater then your 2 inches.


Matt

I think pdq67 might be right. Here is a close up of the brake caliper bracket upper mount. Does this look like a drum spindle that has been machined down? Is this protrusion supposed to be longer?

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/screen-capture-12.jpg

Well maybe I do have disc spindles after all. If this picture from Kore3 is correct (and I don't know why it wouldn't be), then I have disc spindles. Take a look. Here's my spindle:
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P1000962_mod.jpg

And here's the Kore3 picture:
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/screen-capture-2.jpg

Notice the shape of the caliper bracket boss. Mine matches the third spindle in the second picture. Now I'm really confused.

Hubs!

Wheel face mount surface between drum hubs and 2-piece and 1-piece cast drum/hubs w/o the rotors on them.

You can take worn out stock rotor/hubs and cut/machine off the rotors and then mount the ones you want to use and I bet you will gain that 9/16" I'm talking about per side.

I did have all three sets, but threw away my old worn out cast 1-piece rotor/hubs before I learned that I could have removed the rotor part and used them.

Daivid Pozzi has pic's on his great 1st Gen. site if you want to go over to it and see what I'm talking about, plus David gave me onna my 2-piece hubs!

He's a Mod. for Brakes over at Team Camaro.

pdq67

Hubs!

Wheel face mount surface between drum hubs and 2-piece and 1-piece cast drum/hubs w/o the rotors on them.

You can take worn out stock rotor/hubs and cut/machine off the rotors and then mount the ones you want to use and I bet you will gain that 9/16" I'm talking about per side.

I did have all three sets, but threw away my old worn out cast 1-piece rotor/hubs before I learned that I could have removed the rotor part and used them.

Daivid Pozzi has pic's on his great 1st Gen. site if you want to go over to it and see what I'm talking about, plus David gave me onna my 2-piece hubs!

He's a Mod. for Brakes over at Team Camaro.

pdq67

If thats the case, I do have a set of drum brake hubs and a set of disc brake hubs from a 2 piece rotor that I can measure if need be.

Finally able to look at the pics and yeah, your upper spindle brake mounting boss looks like mine.

pdq67, Sorry I misunderstood what you were talking about. I'm learning stuff everyday. I've been reading about this all day long trying to figure it out. I went to David Pozzi's website and looked through the brake section. I think I understand what you are saying. Is this what you are talking about?
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/camaro_disc_drum_hubs.jpg

If so, how do I relate this to my one piece rotors where the hub and rotor are one integrated piece? If I had two piece disc hubs/rotors how would I move my rotors out since my calipers are fixed where they are? I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious. I'm trying.

Thanks for all the help.

A little off topic, what headers are those?

Never seen them go around the frame.

The headers are from Stahl. A bit of a pain going around the frame but the only way to make true equal length I guess.

I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out how in the world you have disc rotors that have drum hub like dimensions. Do you have a link to where you picked these up from? What vendor? What do they say about it?
I recall my setup, before I put on the C5 brakes, was pretty close there also, but I had atleast 1/4" more clearance than you.

Looking around, a difference between the OEM Drum hub and Disc hub is the actual track width. The OEM Disc track width is 22mm wider than the OEM drum setup. Now, this 11mm difference from side to side might have something to do with your problem. :wacko:

Source:
KORE3 billet hubs increase track width .200" [5mm] per side over stock drum applications, making the overall track width .400" [10mm] wider than stock. Track width is decreased .240" [6mm] per side compared to the stock disc applications, making the overall track width .480" [12.2mm] narrower than stock

Ergo, the difference between oem drum and disc is 11mm per side. Now, this is just track width (wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface) but by looking at that pic from the Pozzi site, it looks like the difference is in the hub itself.

I'm used to the lower control arm tucking in the "hat" part of the rotor, but I'm more used to the 68-72 setup. I'm not used to the tall ball joints, but it almost looks like you have tall ball joints plus spacers/extender between the spindle and ball joint? Looks like the LCA would move "up" about 1" or more if you pulled the lower extender out, which would put it near/at the "empty" part of the rotor hat.... I know that doesn't really "solve" your issue, but man, those ball joints look out there to me.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009662.jpg

I'm with TMessick, the relationship between the tip of the LCA and the back of the rotor has changed because of that tall ball joint. I think you should talk to whoever sells the ball joints.

GenPac, I got the rotors at the local parts store. I'll see if I can find my receipt to see what the application was. They must be right though or I would think the calipers wouldn't bolt on. And your stock rotors measured the same as mine. I am not real sure why I'm having this problem but I think I'm going to say it's several factors. First of all, this clearance seems to be pretty close to begin with. It could also be the imperfections of 40 year old parts stacking up against me. The tall ball joints also put the rotor next to the control arm where as they are normally in the open inner section of the rotor as TMessick said. BTW, TMessick and Tom, the ball joints are Howe tall ball joints from Mark at SC&C(a very reputable guy here on Team Chevelle). There isn't an extender in there. It's just a piece of rubber around the joint stud that helps push down on the grease cap. Also when the car is on the ground the ball joint straightens up and isn't angled like in the picture. It still hits though.

So it seems I have two options here.
1) Get new lower control arms that have a smaller lip around the ball joint. Like the tubular ones from SC&C or BMR or CPP.
2) Go with a C5 brake setup which will push the rotor braking surface outwards.

Not sure which way to go. Maybe both. But that's a lot of $$$. The control arms would be the cheapest way but it would still be a close fit.

GenPac, I got the rotors at the local parts store. I'll see if I can find my receipt to see what the application was. They must be right though or I would think the calipers wouldn't bolt on. And your stock rotors measured the same as mine. I am not real sure why I'm having this problem but I think I'm going to say it's several factors. First of all, this clearance seems to be pretty close to begin with. It could also be the imperfections of 40 year old parts stacking up against me. The tall ball joints also put the rotor next to the control arm where as they are normally in the open inner section of the rotor as TMessick said. BTW, TMessick and Tom, the ball joints are Howe tall ball joints from Mark at SC&C(a very reputable guy here on Team Chevelle). There isn't an extender in there. It's just a piece of rubber around the joint stud that helps push down on the grease cap. Also when the car is on the ground the ball joint straightens up and isn't angled like in the picture. It still hits though.

So it seems I have two options here.
1) Get new lower control arms that have a smaller lip around the ball joint. Like the tubular ones from SC&C or BMR or CPP.
2) Go with a C5 brake setup which will push the rotor braking surface outwards.

Not sure which way to go. Maybe both. But that's a lot of $$$. The control arms would be the cheapest way but it would still be a close fit.


I ran the factory disc with your exact same setup (cept mine is a '69 - before I bought the C5/C6 setup) SPC adjustable uppers, tall upper and lower balljoints, even the factory disc backing plate clearanced forthe LCA, and I had no clearance issues near what you're experiencing. Something else has to be amiss here... but now it comes down to how long you want to spend troubleshooting.

This thing is killing me. I feel like I am missing something obvious. My spindles, caliper brackets, calipers, rotors and lower control arms are all factory correct parts. My upper control arms and ball joints are aftermarket but have been successfully used by others with my exact setup. Why is mine different? I know I've said it already, but if the relationship between my spindles, caliper brackets, calipers and rotors is fixed and non-adjustable then what could it possibly be? I am willing to just move on and "fix" it by going with C5 brakes but I will always wonder what's wrong. I also hope that whatever is wrong won't lead to an unsafe condition. Here are a couple of more pics just to see if anybody sees anything wrong.
Thanks again.

http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009712.jpg
http://i714.photobucket.com/albums/ww141/ebe326/P10009732.jpg

OK, your description on the tall ball joints makes sense -- like I said, I just haven't seen them before.

One other thought -- I'm not sure on the Chevelles, but on 1st gen camaros, they have different one-piece replacement hubs/rotors for the 4-piston calipers used on 67/68 (i.e. the original 2-piece hubs/rotors) vs. the single piston calipers used on 69+. I'm not sure exactly what the difference is, but it could be a different offset to the rotor face. Since you say you asked for '67 parts, they could be the rotors for 4-piston calipers and it looks like you have the single piston jobs. Maybe get a set of '69 chevelle rotors/hubs from the parts store and check/measure against the ones you have?

Note that the calipers are floating calipers, so they will move some in/out to account for a different rotor position and still bolt up. There's a limit to how much they can account for, but there is some play there. Just trying to think of other ideas of why your setup is acting "special"...

Go to the parts store and match-up what you have to rotors for a 70-72. I think you mentioned you got rotors for a 66-67. Probably not a match to the spindles that came on the later disc cars which is what I believe you have (or to spindles modified by machining down top of the spindle from a drum brake car).

This is why KORE3 needs to know what spindle you have. My guess is that the earlier disc options were made to fit the drum spindle. If your spindle is say, from a 70 with factory disc brakes, the rotors for the 66 won't fit like the rotor for the 70. Hang in there. I emailed Tony and he has a set of stock disc brakes off my 70 and can measure the rotor face-to-hub distance.

I'm doing the C5 conversion and its a well known fact that using the earlier drum hubs increases the track width. Conversely, a rotor made for the drum spindle would sit deeper on a disc spindle. The pics you posted from Pozzi illustrate this. You need rotors from the same year as the spindles.

I'll head to the parts store tomorrow and see what I can come up with. I looked around for my receipt for the rotors I have now and couldn't find it. Guess I don't really need it since I'll just be comparing what I have to some later model ones. Thanks for the suggestions.

Go to the parts store and match-up what you have to rotors for a 70-72. I think you mentioned you got rotors for a 66-67. Probably not a match to the spindles that came on the later disc cars which is what I believe you have (or to spindles modified by machining down top of the spindle from a drum brake car).

This is why KORE3 needs to know what spindle you have. My guess is that the earlier disc options were made to fit the drum spindle. If your spindle is say, from a 70 with factory disc brakes, the rotors for the 66 won't fit like the rotor for the 70. Hang in there. I emailed Tony and he has a set of stock disc brakes off my 70 and can measure the rotor face-to-hub distance.

I'm doing the C5 conversion and its a well known fact that using the earlier drum hubs increases the track width. Conversely, a rotor made for the drum spindle would sit deeper on a disc spindle. The pics you posted from Pozzi illustrate this. You need rotors from the same year as the spindles.


First, I measured the "rotor face to hub" distance, and it was 2-1/8"...

Regardless, even IF they were "1966" spindles, the "correct rotors should still fit fine... You can convert "drum" spindles to work as "stock disc" spindles, by grinding the upper boss.... BUT the rotor will still be the same in relation to the ball joint, regardless of whether they are drum or disc spindles, as long as thye are A-body... so thats NOT the problem...

Others have mentioned "drum hub" versus "disc hubs", but these weren't used with A-body discs... yes, Kore3 and other use the "drum" hub, but stock A-body rotors have the "hub" and rotor as one piece (or at least bolted together)...

If I remember correctly, Kore3 uses the same brackets and rotors (C5 swap) for either drum or disc spindles (all three spindle choices shown in the pictures)... Kore3 simply wants to know Which spindle you have, so as to include the correct hardware (the brackets are the same, but the bolts and spacers will vary, depanding on which upper mount-style of spindle you are using)..

IF you have a separate hub and are sliding the rotor over the studs, you have some miss-matched parts...

I saw above where you might have bought rotors for a 1967... that MAY be your problem... 1967/1968 rotors are different from 1969+... I am not sure what the differences are...


I would measure the distance from the dust cap to the "wheel mounting surface/hub", as well as the distance from the mounting surface to the rotor surface, and also the thickness of the rotor... take those measurements to the parts store, and ask to see a 1969 or 1970 Chevelle rotor, and compare...

Because of the "flaoting" caliper, you still might be able to fit the caliper on (as you mentioned)...

I bet you have drum spindles b/c their "J" is about 9/16" shorter than 2-piece and 1-piece cast rotor hubs w/o the rotors.

In other words the rim mount drum hub face is 9/16" closer to the centerline of the car than the disc ones are!


I think the "J" referred to is what was originally called the 'Joe" measurement (after Joe,"72SSAbody"). the "Joe" is the distance from the outer end of the hub (where the dust cap goes ) to the wheel seat area... the Joe on my rotors (off the car) is about 0.835" (between 3/4"and 7/8")...

I just glanced under my 1970 Chevelle, and while i couldn't tell for sure (because the tire/wheel is in the way), it does look VERY close... IF I used the tall BJs with stock lower arms, it might also rub... I have stock BJs, and the arm does kind of tuck into the recess in the rotors...



Good Luck...

First of all I want to thank everybody for all the help. I measured my rotors again and here are the results.
Dust cap surface to wheel mount surface - .835"
Wheel mount surface to braking surface - 2.125"
Rotor thickness - 1.035"
Since I couldn't find my receipt for my rotors I am questioning what application I told the parts store. It was quite a while ago when I bought them. It seems that my rotors match what you guys are measuring on yours. I just happened to get a very healthy gift certificate for National Parts Depot for my birthday recently. Even though they are overpriced, I bought some Global West lower control arms. They are some extremely nice units. They are smaller around the ball joint area so they gave me some clearance now. I guess that the tall ball joints might be the main contributing factor since they move the rotor up next to the tip of the lower arm. I know this setup has worked for some people but I don't know what else to think. At least it is solved now. Well I guess I should say that at least it is working now. Again thanks for all the help. Hopefully I'll be posting some pics soon of it finished.

Also I wanted to mention that my calipers are just about up against the caliper brackets where they bolt on because I have new pads. In other words there really isn't any float for the caliper to move outwards. It will only be able to move inwards as the pads wear.

I'll update this post when I have everything back together to let you know what happens.

Thanks again.

Problem solved but I'd still like to know why that rotor is touching the a-arm. I'm surprised Mark hasn't chimed in since he sells those tall ball joints and would have more experience than anyone with any problems encountered when they're installed. oh well.....

Probably need to alert Mark to this thread. I only see him in the Pro Touring forum. I agree with you, Scott. I bet he could shed light on this subject from end to end but wont see it here.

From what I've read, on Pro-Touring and here, this is not a widespread issue... but maybe Mark @ SC&C might know what it is, as he's got more (ALOTmore) experience messing with A-Body suspensions than I do... :p

It does sound like more of a suspension issue than a brake issue, though it lends to seem more like brakes at first glance.
If I was in the OPs positions I would upgrade the brakes as he's extensively modified just about everything else. It's pretty important to upgrade your safety equipment with just as much fervor as the performance mods, IMO.

I'll definitely talk to Mark about it. I left him a message a few days ago and when he returned my call I wasn't available to answer. So I just need to get back with him. I finished putting the front suspension back together tonight and so far so good. There isn't a lot of clearance with the new arms but there's enough. I just eyeballed the camber so I still need to do a proper alignment but I don't foresee any problems. Your right about the brakes Dan. There's probably nothing more important than good brakes. I want to do the Kore3 swap soon. I want to get it running first but I won't wait too long.