I keep going back and forth on this and need some help.
I want handling and I like to drag race.
I have looked at every maker of tubular arms and decided "for sure" on a few different ones but chnage my mind shortly after. I keep coming back to the SPC uppers with Tall upper BJ (for travel) to go with my short spindle for the top.
For the lowers I am torn between UB Machine oe style and all the other tubular arms. I like the beefy GW lowers for strength coming off wheels up launches but I know they are major coin at $787. I even considered going GW all the way at $1500 for upper and lower Gplus. I like having bump stops on the uppers. The TRZ are nice but seem spindly- more for race use only. I am also looking not to lower my car so I don't really need dropped spring pockets. I thought the SPC lowers might be nice but have not heard enough positive yet.

OK- that's the stuff that has been running through my head for months and I need some clear ideas and insight. I know everyone loves the SC&C stage 2 kit and many run stock lowers.

I want to order parts next week!

SPC lowers give a 1" drop due to lowered spring pocket.
I'm pretty sure the GW stuff have a similar drop.

I have an SC&C stg2 w/tall upper bjs, std lower bjs w/SPC lowers. I've had sort of a bouncy ride at low speed and at high speed, a low frequency vibration, but that might be due to SPC lowering spring combined w/Edelbrock IAS shocks designed for a standard, non-lowered suspension.
Had a 'too low' issue w/68-72 lowering springs combined w/tall lower bj and SPC LCAs.
Removed tall lower bj and ran 64-67 lowering springs [taller than 68-72 by at least 1"]; gained at least 2" with those 2 changes.
All the while, using stock spindles on otherwise totally stock 70 Elcam.

I think the SPC LCAs, tall lower bjs, combined w/Stg 2 SC&C pkg is too much lowering. The assertions made by Marc at SC&C is that this combination is the best way of optimize steering geometry and correct alignment. Maybe so if running autocross and not daily driving over standard streets and highways. Unfortunately, the combo is too low to be practical, thus I ran std. ht. bjs on the lca's and taller 64-67 springs.
The SPC lowers are very well made and the design of the ball joint plate doesn't interfere with my disc brake dust sheilds. The only minus, in my opinion, and I'm only a user and observer, is that the spring pocket is designed such that its bottom is 1/2" lower than stock. That design minimizes ground clearance to a vital part of the cars' suspension. [as in inadvertantly finding a larger than expected pot hole or rut].
Of course if the vehicle is being 'lo-boyed' around to weekend rally's, I presume it 's not an issue, but realistically, how many of us do that. When you spend time and money on resto-modding, you want to drive it to work or on a weekend trip occasionally. How fun is it to drive in 'tip-toe' mode studying every undulation in the road/driveway ahead?

Also, with the SPC lca's, at least on the 68-72 apps, there have been a few posts about sway bars not mounting squarely. To be fair, that may depend on sway bar and endlink manufacturer too. Not sure since I'm nut running a front sway bar yet.

I think the CPP LCAs will be what I'm going to try out before summer is over. I like the CPPs since they don't try to do anything more than just be a robust tubular LCA. Stay tuned if you're looking for a pair of SPC LCAs w/less than 500 miles on them.

Thanks for the replies. I have decided to spend my money on the shocks, springs and other stuff then upgrade my factory arms with good stuff. I want my car to be the best it can but I just can't justify the expense of the arms for my needs. I sure am glad I take as long as I do to decide on this stuff because it saves me a lot in the long run.

I just did my 68 stock arms with PST bushings very happy
did 67 Elcamino 12 bolt rear arms with same bushings. $10.00 total cost for metal to box them Jay