ATS tall Ball-joint

[superpro787]

I was planning on doing the G-mod to the upper Control arm mount. Can i get away with just using the tall ball joint or should i do the G-mod + tall Ball joint?

I'm trying to do this on a budget + i would like it to appear as stock as possable.( no new control arms ).

Sorry this is on a 67 Firebird, soon to have a SBC and 700r4. This car will be a daily driver and will never see a road course.

[Teetoe_Jones]

You can do both if you want lots of camber gain, but the G mod by itself should be fine.

Tyler

[superpro787]

The tall ball joint alone wouldn't be enough?

[Teetoe_Jones]

Yes, you can do it 3 ways-
Tall upper and lower ball joints, G mod, or a combo of both.

Tyler

[Marcus SC&C]

Actually 4 ways. No tall lowers on 1st gens BTW,bad bumpsteer mojo. :unibrow:

Short answer: Yes you can use just the tall ball joints rather than the G mod.

Long answer:Either the G mod or the tall ball joints alone will improve the camber curves and RC location to the point that the geometry isn`t really bad,but it`s not what you`d call "good" either. The tall ball joint with the G mod will give you an RC about +2" and a nice negative camber curve. Now you`re really talking. The newest option is the SC&C Severe Duty tall ball joint. Taller and more beefy than even our "standard" tall ball joints it`s effect falls between the G mod or std. tall ball joint alone and the combination of the two. Any of the above will work well on the street. But there`s a catch (isn`t there always? :rolleyes: ). You mentioned you`d like to use stock upper arms. Here`s where front end alignment comes in. It plays as much of a role in a really good handling car as the geometry does. Think of the geometry as a steak and the alignment as the cooking method. Take a good steak,overcook the hell out of it and the end result won`t be too great. Same here. It`s hard enough to get a good modern performance alignment on a dead stock 1st gen. Lower it and it gains + camber that`s hard to get rid of (you run out of room for shims on the rear studs) without really compromising the caster. Add taller ball joints,G mod etc. to the mix,they add more + static camber and it gets harder still. Example I recently aligned a `70 Nova in our shop that had been lowered about 1.5",had the G mod and offset cross shafts (which will help you align it properly but only do so much). I was only able to get -.25* camber and +3* caster with a maximum stack of shims on the rear stud (BTW that puts the rear bushings pretty close to two header tubes on the drivers side and one on the other) and two 1/8" shims on the front one. I would have liked to go -.5* camber and +5* caster for that car. Bummer. Also if you drop the car a lot and alter the geometry while using stock upper arms they`ll end up angled much differently than stock and the ball joint may end up very near bind at ride height. That could eventually ruin the ball joints or arms not to mention your day... :eek: It`s not to say that you can`t make a good handling 1st gen with stock arms,it`s just much harder. That`s why we like to spec specific adj. upper arms for different packages,you can alter the geometry and ride height all you like and still nail your ideal alignment specs every time. Mark SC&C

[superpro787]

Thanks guys for all the info. I think i'm just going to do the G-mod. I really don't think I need to do all this. The car will be driven only on the street maybe a trip to the drag strip now and then and never road raced. If it can ride and handle like a late model Trans-am/Z28 then i think i'll be happy. I think money spent on better brakes will be the way to go.

You guys really helped me make up my mind. The alignment info really helped. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Jerry