Zach/90\irocZ

iTrader: (6)

I'm looking into the Howe

Is it the part number ending in 29s or 29 ?
https://www.howeracing.com/p-7938-ho...its-k6145.aspx

Also are they direct fit as into needing to team spindle or no ?

How did the handling feel changed ?

Does it really balance out the rear end I have PHB relocating brackets on both ends and it's pretty much level with axle

But I can tell the difference between the front and rear roll I can sense the front rolls alittle more compared to the rear .. There's no or little under steer on most corners of any at all really unless you push really hard in tight corners
Or I could be just talking crazy

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

Here's what Pablo wrote:
I run the tall howe ball joints on my car. You will not be able to buy them outright from Howe, you need to buy the stud, housing, cap, and dust boots and then assemble them. I think it was a little bit over 150 bucks all said and done. They are .5 taller than stock and are very low friction (you adjust the amount of friction on them).

The other option is to use ball joint from a mid 70s impala. The downside is the housing is smaller than the stock thirdgen housing so you will need to weld the housing to the control arm. The other thing is that apparently the spindle doesnt slide down as far as it should on the stud. So some posts I read suggested reaming the spindle to a greater depth (which then negates the taller joint anyway to a certain extent) the claims I read online were that this joint was 3/4 inch taller. You will also need to drill out the last 1/8th inch of the spindle to 5/8ths inch to accommodate the slightly larger threads on the impala ball joint. I figured this to be roughly .060 larger than the factory ball joint threads. I also saw some nasty pictures of bent ball joint studs on some circle track forums. Since I decided I didn't want to chance it I just went with the howe joints.

Lonnie used the 6145.5 part #.
Still have to figure out a good dust boot.
I was hoping DSE would make this, but not yet at least.

Zach/90\irocZ

iTrader: (6)

I want to get the Howe specifically and just wanted to know if the part number I have for the .75 is right

But I would like the part number for the .5"

Either way I want to run them just not much Info on part numbers part

Zach/90\irocZ

iTrader: (6)

I want to get the Howe specifically and just wanted to know if the part number I have for the .75 is right

But I would like the part number for the .5"

Either way I want to run them just not much Info on part numbers part

I seen in another thread that they got .75 but didn't go in to much detail about the spindle part

I'm aware of everything else more less

Alice89

iTrader: (6)

I'm certain i used the 22429 bj's. My experience with them: I noticed less positive body roll, and the car felt much better in corner entrances. Braking felt much better as well (less dive). You will definitely feel a difference. Regardless you will still need heavy springs & sway bars if your car is lowered quite a lot. Even with 900lb front springs & removing 40lbs+ in emissions equipment from the nose of my car... It still felt like the car had too much roll. But you have to consider that I was slammed at a 25" front fender height; resulting in poor A-arm geometry. My A-arm mount was only a 1/2 inch above my ext. ball joint mount, resulting in a poor caster/camber curve in corner roll.

If I were to do it over again with ext bj's, I would raise the front spring rates to at least 1100lbs. And I would also raise the ride height back up to a 25.5"-26" front fender height. Then you would at least have a decent A-arm geometry & an alright caster/camber curve resulting in less body roll, better tyre wear, etc.

Zach/90\irocZ

iTrader: (6)

Yea corner entrance is hard to explain

It's like there's slight no feeling then grip feeling comes in was car starts turning but there's no lose of grip when on initial turn in just no feeling I know it's hard to explain and make sense of

Yea what threw me off was the 22429S part number

nuggie

Sorry to interject but this appears to be the closest thread to what I am after. I have been looking into these extended ball joints and everything on that site says its for the second gen camaros. I wanna go this route and just wonder what I would need it sounds like the joints come in 2 different pieces the housing and stud. looking to get about an inch drop is it possible with these?
so just to clarify it's an effective way to lower the front end without sacrificing too much suspension, handling and paycheck?
Also I read on here for the .75 drop you also need new strut mounts is that correct?
I am unfamiliar with a weighjack what is that?

Zach/90\irocZ

iTrader: (6)

Yes there Rebuilable so you can buy parts separately
Part number above for everything

Summit racing free shipping and cheaper think like by 10 bucks or so

Are you putting stock springs or lowering springs or weightjack setup because you don't want to lower car to much to affect handling weightjack setup you have ability to keep same ride or raise and lower to compensate ball joint

Jason89RS

iTrader: (2)

Anyone use these?
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-77-1130003

They look like a direct replacement and are 1" rather than .75"

InfernalVortex

iTrader: (4)

I remember the problem with the summit ones being the lack of a good dust boot.

And I thought Howe made dust boots for their ball joints? Has no one tried those?

SlickTrackGod

Just put some aftermarket ES (Energy Suspensions) dust boots on them.

https://www.energysuspensionparts.co...dust-boots.asp

DBLTKE

iTrader: (1)

I have those on my car. I just used Howe dust boots. Not a perfect fit but the have stayed put and done their job just fine with the base of the boot zip tied for a tight fit.

UNGN

I'm going to put Koni struts on and while I'm there I was going do the lower ball joints.

Trying to decide between the proforged +.5's or these Summit +1.0's. The internet seems strangely quiet on tall lower ball joints for 3rd gens.

I run +.5's on my T-type and +.75's 2+2 ORR car and love them as they seem to completely remove any bumpsteer on a G-body and lower the car .5" -1".0 with zero effort.

Thirdgen89GTA

iTrader: (5)

The extension you run is based on your A-arm angle, and clearancing issues.

You want to maintain the factory droop angle. Aka, the A-arms angle on level ground with the stock springs.

When you lower a stock car, the A-arm angle changes so that instead of hanging a bit, or being perfectly level, its slightly upwards.

I'm sure someone can explain it better that that, and tell you what the factory angle is. Or, if your car is bone stock, and your springs aren't sagging you can go out there and measure it with a angle finder.

My car is not stock, and lightened on the front end that unless I go with custom springs I'll have to cut the springs just to bring it back down to a factory ride height. Right now since I haven't done anything with that, my car has positive camber. But I dont' drive it much as I'm working out other things.

UNGN

There doesn't appear to be any clearance issues running a taller lower on an 3rd gen. On a G-body, the dust shields need to be opened up by the dimension of the extension, to avoid it hanging up on the LCA, but that doesn't seem to be a problem with the factory 12" brakes on my TTA.

Ideally, the lower outside of the lower control arm should droop as much as practically possible without excessive bumpsteer or positive camber, to induce additional negative camber on compression.

The TTA's intercooler scoop makes it hard to drop the car much, but I should be able to make it out of my driveway with an additional inch drop from the balljoints.

Thirdgen89GTA

iTrader: (5)

Extended ball joints won't drop ride height. They will restore the A-arm geometry in a lowered car.

novaderrik

you are moving the spindle up farther away from the balljoint pivot: the car gets lowered by however much you increase the distance. you get a lower ride height (which means lower center of gravity and better aero) while still maintaining full suspension travel... you are also moving the steering arm up the same amount relative to the tie rods, which also has some benefits in those angles..

on cars with upper control arms (G body, etc) it also has the effect of making the spindle "taller", which puts the upper arm in a better place for a performance suspension.

UNGN

That may be true with coilovers, but with stock suspension, tall lowers should roughly lower the car the same height as the balljoint extension.

They may be used to fixed screwed up geometry from lowering the car, but they should be able to improve the geometry over the stock geometry at any ride height, by lowering the outside pivot point.

SlickTrackGod

Guys, what you are shooting for is raising the front roll center so you can use a smaller front sway bar and/or make the current swaybar more effective against body roll.

#2- you are affecting the roll axis angle and the overall balance of the cars weight leaning on the outside front and rear tires in a corner.

#3 is a by product of this, you are somewhat gaining more favorable camber curve depending on the ride height of the car "hopefully". (In most cases you will, in some cases you will NOT)

#4- Even with Coilovers you are lowering the ride height of the vehicle if the coilovers remain constant in your pre adjustment height.

#5- Upper extended ball joints (Which 3rd gens do not have) do NOT affect ride height.

UNGN- I just viewed a few of your ORR videos, Very cool stuff you are doing.

PS to add- Yes steering geometry will change with the addition of any extended balkl joint. The Tierod angles will need to be adjusted with shims possibly (In most cases yes) after the addition of lower extended ball joints. The tie rod archs need to match the control arm arch so as not to gain or loose toe in articulation. This will also happen if too much caster is used. WHY? Because the top strut mount is in fixed position the more static caster is the more dynamic increase in caster it will yeild. The spindle moves up and rocks backlwards so as to move the tierod back and in essence shorten the swing distance vetrically and pull the tierod into toe-in.

SlickTrackGod

Technically in this diagram the one with the red X is more favorable between to two when looking at it in scale. The a-arm angle is less that perpendicular to the strut shaft. With about 3 inches articulation it will be 90*- It will not invert. If the drawing where to actual IA (Included Angle) of a 3rd gen strut (which is less then shown here) the control arm would invert past 90* and then lose camber in the camber curve. A little bit of invert is OK as long as travel is limited to not passing 90* of the strut shaft in full suspension articulation.

Why is the red X one more favorable in the angles we are viewing in this sketch? (Remember this sketch is not to scale of an actual 3rd gen strut angle [IA] ) I personally like a car that does NOT have to rapid of a camber "gain" in the camber curve. WHY? Because if you are going straight at high speed and come down hard on the brakes? the front suspension squats and a massive camber curve will insude camber gain in straight line braking - your car will loose grip ability under braking if its only using the inside half of the tire footprint. Too much camber gain can be bad. Again: Do testing to see what your particular application is doing.

All of this is done with testing and data acquisition as to how much the body roll angle is and what the suspension travel is combined. Raising the front roll center using extended ball joints is a method to limit positive body roll forces created by suspension arm geometry. You are trying to reduce positive roll rates to maintain an adequate size swaybar as not to lock up independent wheel travel- YET, you also never want to get the roll axis too close to nuetral because the chasiss will then not load the outside wheels for grip. All of this again is balance and testing based on how violent or docile the car cornering loads are pertaining to traction. Obviously a car with less traction will not roll 3 degrees if the chassis is too close to positive and the swaybars too stiff. Put wide sticky tires on that same car and now the car could load to possible 5 degrees for example. Every car is different based on parts, settings and grip.

WHy is too much camber gain bad? (as in the example of the angles shown above in the green check mark vs red x- Green being quicker camber gain in camber curve) Because when the car is undergoing high speed straight line braking, the nose of the car will squat suspension travel and yield a high camber gain pulling the outside half of the tire contact patch out of grip. You loose braking traction of the entire tire width quicker with too much camber gain. This again is where testing needs to be done to determine straight line grip vs cornering grip. You need to maintain the best proportion of both combined- not just favor one or the other. Depends how much the car squats AND how much the car rolls. Testing!

SlickTrackGod

Final note: Trust me when I tell you that you can not get the front RC high enough. Use the 1" extended ones if they are available.

3rd gens suffer notoriously from too low a front RC. This is where their famous push/into/snap oversteer characteristics comes from.

UNGN

Thanks for the insight, STG, this is very helpfull!

I am a huge fan of caster so even if I didn't use tall lower ball joints, I'm likely looking at some bumpsteer correction if I use strut mounts and shoot for max caster.

SlickTrackGod

At the high speed you run I can see why. Caster is your friend.

SAI does the same thing though without as much bumpsteer. Fudge the spindle to strut angles a little.

TEDSgrad

iTrader: (4)

Lots of cute fudge-ness going on.