Square vs tubular rear control arms - Chevelle Tech
UMI Performance

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 9th, 19, 1:27 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Eric
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Poteau, Ok
Posts: 4,349
Square vs tubular rear control arms

1967 Olds Cutlass. Is there a real difference between them outside of looks and price? I can't find any pictures of tubular arms with a sway bar.

Your just jealous because you can't hear the voices!

1967 Olds Cutlass 468 BBC/T400
1963 Plymouth Fury 440/Torqueflite
2007 Ford Mustang GT (momma's car)
oldcutlass is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 11th, 19, 10:29 PM
Senior Tech Team
Greg.
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ottawa, On, Canada
Posts: 4,863
Garage
Re: Square vs tubular rear control arms

They have the Holes for a Sway Bar

1964 - 1967 GM A-Body Tubular Upper & Lower Control Arms [401518] - $299.99 : UMI Performance, Inc.

click on the " larger image "

I bought these from UMI Perf and Installed them on my 67 Chevelle

1964-1967 GM A-Body Rear Control Arm Kit, Fully Boxed Lowers, Adjustable Uppers [402126] - $539.99 : UMI Performance, Inc.


67 Chevelle Malibu SS Cdn
Born 283 / PG / A51
468/TH400 2,500 stall/ S60 3.70 Gs
Prev Best on M/T ET S/S #3454 street Tires/Dress 2018/05/20
60' = 1.664
1/8 = 7.532 et / 91 mph
1/4 = 11.814 et / 115 mph
NEW Best with 3,500+ Stall TC 2019/09/08
60' = 1.547
1/8 = 7.311 et / 91.76 mph
1/4 = 11.595 et / 114.28 mph


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kirk's67SS is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 11th, 19, 11:25 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Eric
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Poteau, Ok
Posts: 4,349
Re: Square vs tubular rear control arms

Thanks for the reply, but I was wondering how much difference there was in strength between the UMI tubular lowers vs the UMI boxed. I've seen all the pictures and kits. I'm going with the fixed length as my cars pinion angle is fine and have no wheel hop. The red is starting to grow on me, yours look great.

Your just jealous because you can't hear the voices!

1967 Olds Cutlass 468 BBC/T400
1963 Plymouth Fury 440/Torqueflite
2007 Ford Mustang GT (momma's car)

Last edited by oldcutlass; Nov 11th, 19 at 11:54 PM.
oldcutlass is online now  
 
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 11th, 19, 11:34 PM
Tech Team
Rame
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Abbeville Louisiana
Posts: 886
Garage
Re: Square vs tubular rear control arms

Tell you in a few days, just bought lower tube UMI bars and a rear sway bar, upgrading from square arms. Car is still in the air, issues with the trans seal. Send me a message if i forget to follow up.

.
sampoerna415 is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 11th, 19, 11:52 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Eric
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Poteau, Ok
Posts: 4,349
Re: Square vs tubular rear control arms

Will do, thanks. My winter project this year is to refresh the rear suspension and install a powertrax type locker in my type O rear end. Since my car has no rear swaybar, the UMI kit seemed to be a reasonable solution.

Your just jealous because you can't hear the voices!

1967 Olds Cutlass 468 BBC/T400
1963 Plymouth Fury 440/Torqueflite
2007 Ford Mustang GT (momma's car)
oldcutlass is online now  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 12th, 19, 12:33 AM
Lifetime Premium Member
Tom
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Firestone, CO
Posts: 1,399
Re: Square vs tubular rear control arms

According to UMI the difference boils down to what look you prefer. I have tubular but I think I prefer the square for looks. You can mount a sway bar to either.

70 Camino...Roller

69 Malibu Stock 307, Reverse Manual TH350, 4,500 Stall Edge Converter, 4.56 Spool 35 Spline 12 Bolt

76 C20 VortecPro 496 628HP 655 lb/ft TH400 Edge Converter, 4.10 14 bolt
Tommy the Cat is online now  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 12th, 19, 9:49 AM
Super Mod
Rich
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Waverly, NE USA
Posts: 15,631
Garage
Re: Square vs tubular rear control arms

The strength probably has more to do with the thickness of the material used than anything else.

NCOA member #220
ACES member #1670
Team Chevelle #998

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Rich Cummings
Rich-L79 is offline  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old Nov 12th, 19, 10:53 AM
Senior Tech Team
Claude
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Saint-Eustache, QC Canada
Posts: 3,344
Re: Square vs tubular rear control arms

I have some square (steel rectangular tubing) lower control arms with urethane bushings in them made by Edelbrock which were already on my car when I bought it and I decided to keep them when I had my car restored. I'm not sure Edelbrock still makes them though… :confused.

Claude.

1971 Chevelle SS
1987 Buick Grand National 9.48 @ 142 mph
toofastforyou is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome