.9 or .5 tall ball joints in stock uppers on a body?

[Eric B]

I have stock dimension non adjustable tubular upper control arms on a GM a body. I want to run tall upper ball joints. Can I run .9 or will I run into geometry issues? Should I just stick with .5 on stock geometry arms?

I don't want to run the tall lowers because I don't want the car any lower to the ground.

This is a street driven car I am looking to improve the handling characteristics on.

[tt69camaro]

I would like to know the answer to this as well but I do want to run the 1/2" taller lowers. What brand UCA's do you have?

[Eric B]

I decided to go with the SCA fully adjustable uppers and go with the .9. If I am going to go to the trouble of tall ball joints I decided I wanted enough adjustability to set them up correctly and did not want to risk any geometry issues.

[hp2]

Ultimately, the best way to know is to plot out your suspension and see what changes the differing heights will produce. Since both will alter the roll center heights and camber gain produced, it is best to see how these all interact with the rest of your set up.

However, failing that, perhaps someone who has doen that type of analytical work on an A body can chime in with some data.

[BBPanel]

Where do you get "tall" ball joints - since they aren't a factory item correct? -Bob

Never mind - looks like Afco, Howe, Proforged for starters

[barrrf]

UMI has tested .5" tall BJs on stock control arms. I cant find the damn thread but I read it on Chevelles.com