It is well known that the b-body spindle swap is a great way to improve on the camber and handling limitations of the GM a-body. I have one simple question: how much taller are the b-body spindles than the stock a-body spindles? I'm referring to the ball joint to ball joint measurement if I've not been clear above.

TIA

B spindles are 8 3/4" b/j to b/j. A spindles are 7". Hope that helps whatever you are trying to figure out. It sounds like your thinking of spndle extenders. If handling is your goal they will work, not as well but work. The draw back is you are limited to brake choices with the stock spindle. With the B spindle you can anything from a stocker 11" set-up to 14" supercar brakes.

B-body spindles seem to cause a few problems as well such as bump steer and the need to change a number of pieces as well such as brake lines, caliper brackets, etc. Each has it's strong and weak points.

If stock spindles with extenders end up being the same height ball joint to ball joint as b-body spindles and with all other things being equal (such as a-arms), how could the handling characteristics (not including bump steer on the b-body spindles) be worse with the stock spindles with extenders? The geometry ends up the same. I'm talking handling, not braking for the moment.

I believe the reason is that the spindle extender will not extend it to the same length as the B-body spindle.

I've seen the bump steer problem with the tall spindles but I haven't seen any measurements comparing stock to the tall spindle to know how much it changed or how well the stock spindle works. This (http://www.chevelles.com/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=007745) is a good thread on this topic. I was going to try to shift my steering linkage myself but now I think I'll just buy that center link and be done with it.

Peter

Originally posted by Peter F.:
I believe the reason is that the spindle extender will not extend it to the same length as the B-body spindle.

I was going to try to shift my steering linkage myself but now I think I'll just buy that center link and be done with it.

Peter That a boy Peter-we are gonna have to compare notes one of these days. All I am missing to be done is the centerlink and lower arms with round bushings. Then I'll go teach those darn vette guys how real cars slalom.

Originally posted by Peter F.:
I believe the reason is that the spindle extender will not extend it to the same length as the B-body spindle.
Peter Well, the B-body spindles are 1.75 taller than stock and the extenders extend the stock spindle by 2 inches (and perhaps could be milled down to provide a 1.75 inch rise), so, again, my question still stands: if stock spindles with extenders is the same height as b-body spindles what handling difference would there be? I cannot see that there would be any but I am uncertain thus my question.

And concerning brake size, Baer makes a kit that will allow larger brakes to be installed on stock a-body spindles so larger brakes are available with the a-body spindles if you choose to go that obviously more expensive route.

Rich, I hear you. The spindle extenders seem like the way to go to me.

I've asked on here before, and someone did state that the steering arm on a tall spindle was in a different location then the stock steering arm. Which I would imagine is causing the bumpsteer issues.

But even when using s.e. with the steering arm remaining the same, the geometry of the camber curve will change, so maybe this could cause a bumpsteer issure also. I'm not sure. But I would put my money on the stock steering arm location for the least amount of bump steer.

And there are some good brake kits for the Chevelle spindle.

It seems you guys are looking to build true g-machine style cars and I am all for that, thats what I am building. You seem however to be trying to do it half-way. The spindle extensions are a band-aid fix. Bolting a spacer between the upper ball joint and the spindle is probably not the thing you want to do before going and pushing your A body to its handling limits. The bump-steer and slower steering rates are not really issues if you are going through the trouble of building better handling cars might as well do your own steering too and fix those issues. The spindle extensions were designed over a decade ago as a "poor mans fix" or temp fix to a very poor design by Chevrolet. Keep in mind using the stock spindles also limits you to the smaller wheel bearings(heat), so when your out tearing it up the bearings become a weak link. I also like the steering arm being a part of the spindle, I have twisted bolt on steering arms of the 60's.

I'm not trying to be difficult here but I am trying to determine if there is any handling difference between a b-body spindle at 8 3/4 inches tall and an a-body spindle with a spacer making it 8 3/4 to 9 inches tall.

The way I look at it is this:

a-body spindles with spacer:
CON: smaller bearings, stock with smaller brakes
PRO: all stock components can be used, brakes can be upgraded, no bump steer

b-body spindles:
CON: bump steer, need to by a number of additional parts to make the adaptation work, especially to cure bump steer
PRO: bigger brakes out of box possible

The spindle extenders are old technology? I suppose they are. But B-body spindles were not specifically designed for an a-body and they aren't exact new technology either. Each method has it's positive and negative aspects. I don't plan to be entering the wagon in any SCCA events so I'm considering the spindle extenders as a more cost effective alternative which would allow me to run the '69 disc brake set up I already have for the car.

With GM (Cadillac) rear discs already part of my package I feel for my purposes braking capacity is more than adequate so now I'm focusing on handling applications. I will NOT at this time be going the full GW or Hotchkiss route as I don't see those as cost effective routes to go. Effective? Yes. Cost effective? No. I have a feeling that pretty exceptional handling can be had using mostly off the shelf GM a-body parts. If I'm wrong I'd like someone to quantitatively illustrate why that is so I can make informed decisions (regardless of cost if necessary).

Not trying to argue, and I'm not completely sold on the extender anyways, just looking for a possible better solution.

But if one had ever failed, I'm sure they wouldn't be still on the market, as there would be alot of liablity there.

The 1st gen Camaros races Trans Am back in the day with bolt on steering arms and stock sized bearings, if there were problems, they couldn't of been too bad, as I've never heard of them. From what I've heard, the bolt on steering arms are forged steel, where as the cast in ones are cast steel.

Go for it Rich. It has to help the same as the tall spindle. The reason many people go with the tall spindle is that they are upgrading from drum to disk anyways so they might as well go with the best front end improvements they can. The spindle extenders are $175 and then there's still the cost of disk brakes to put on the stock spindle so the tall spindles look attractive.

There are 2 other considerations when increasing the spindle height.

If you put a shorter control arm on you'll get more camber gain. Basically, the shorter the arm, the more camber gain.

If you use the stock control arm on a tall spindle you are very close to ball joint bind at full compression. I would check this carefully with the 2" extenders.

https://www.pro-motorsports.com/store/product.asp?id=66
http://www.hotrod.com/howto/50358/

Peter

Checkout Howe Racing (http://www.howeracing.com/Suspension/Index-BallJoints.htm) for thier Percision Ball Joints for extended length ball joints. They are not cheap, but you can order many different length studs and they will fit into the stock locations. This could be a reasonalbe way to increase the negative camber gain with stock spindles.

From the looks of that HotRod link, it does look like the upper control arm would limit wheel backspacing. Since the actual spindle on the upright remaings low. Might have to call them and ask about that.

That Hot Rod article is very interesting. I wonder if really tall wheels such as 17+ would eliminate some of the possible backspacing issues. I plan to run 15 inch wheels I might have to check out what will and won't work for me.

Wouldn't b-body spindles create the same backspacing issues if the install was done using stock upper control arms?

And in case anyone else was wondering, the price listed on the web site mentioned for the spindle extenders is indeed for a pair, enough to do both sides.

Wouldn't b-body spindles create the same backspacing issues if the install was done using stock upper control arms? I think the tall spindles have the machined shaft (where the wheel bearings ride) located higher on the spindle. This is why the "tall spindle swap" will drop the ride height a bit, and this will also will help reduce the interferance with the wheel/upper control arm (I think)...

Does anybody have an a-body spindle beside a b-body spindle picture they could share? I'd like to see what they look like next to each other.

1966-l78 is correct. The reason the tall spindles don't create any backspacing issues is because they also drop spindles campared to A body spindles. You will typicaly lose 1 1/4" in ride height.

Rich-L79, from left to right are B, G, A body spindles in a row. Sorry there is not that much detail.

http://www.skullmobile.com/pics/abgspindles.jpg


I have done the tall spindle swap on 2 abodies and have not experienced any horrible bumpsteer, at least is nothing compared to the bumpsteer on my 2000 durango!

Thanks for the picture.

It has been said that the b-body spindles provide a 1.5 inch drop or so because of how the spindle is configured. If this picture is any indication, it would appear the drop, if any, would be minimal as the distance from the lower ball joint to the spindle center line would appear to be almost the same between all spindles pictured. Unless the nature of the height of the spindle's upper ball joint location affects ride height?

Also, a-body spindles with spindle extenders have limitations when it comes to wheel back spacing. It is visible from this photo that the b-body spindles provide a greater distance from the upper ball joint center line to where the wheel bearings would be. Does this "wider" nature of the b-body spindles push the wheel further out (creating a wider track) thus perhaps REQUIRING a little more backspacing on the wheels in order to keep them in the same vertical plane when compared with a-body spindles all other things (a-arms) remaining constant?

This is a very interesting and informative discussion!

Yes Rich the track width does increase by about 1/2" per side and the drop amount is about 1". I will take exact measurements on the frame machine before and after the swap this time so I can archive the details for all to see.