dialing in the new suspension/tires

[kdanner]

Yeah, I think that Team Z kit drops the LCA around 1.5"... It has been a while since I have checked.

Are you running the UCA in the stock position? If so, maybe you could simply throw an UCA mount on it with a drop down position, and see what it does for you? Actually, I think that may be a good idea considering the 30" tires out back?

If that is already done - yeah....I definitely would not go lower than 1". More than that, and you are going to be relying on the sidewalls and shocks "too" much. Of course, this is all just guesswork - but dealing with it so often, it gets pretty easy to predict.

If you need any assistance, or rather, want to make some changes....let me know if there are any parts that we make that you could use/modify to make it all work. If you stick with the factory style bracket, and want that 1" drop - you will just need to run a narrower rear LCA end.

Yep, upper is already dropped down.

By narrower rear LCA end I'm guessing you mean the diameter of what touches the OEM bracket welded to the housing? If so, these are sphericals with the fairly typical lathe turned part that sticks into the spherical bearing, so those don't move against the housing bracket. I need to take a measurement to approximate what the least amount of drop for the lower would be to clear the factory bracket. That bracket may be a bit different on the 9" housing and allow less drop or even need more also.

 

[BMR Tech]

Our holes are 2,3,and 4.

The "highest" you can go (anyone) and retain stock style spec/geometry pieces and prevent the end user from modifying, is about 2". Event that 2" position can be a faulty location depending on the style of bushing/bearing on the LCA.



As you can see in this next picture, the 1" drop location would be next to impossible - unless you fill in the missing material and grinding it flush. Even then, it would be "iffy" in my opinion. Those LCA see some serious force pushing these cars forward.



Now, if it were me, and I were looking to lower 1" from factory - I would simply weld 3/16" or 1/4" plates to the inside or outside. Drill the holes out, and shorten the spacers on your arms 1/4" or so. With your skill, it could likely be done in a matter of a few hours.

If you do this, please keep us updated - I love to see people do this stuff.

 

[kdanner]

Now, if it were me, and I were looking to lower 1" from factory - I would simply weld 3/16" or 1/4" plates to the inside or outside. Drill the holes out, and shorten the spacers on your arms 1/4" or so. With your skill, it could likely be done in a matter of a few hours.

If you do this, please keep us updated - I love to see people do this stuff.

Now I understand what you were getting at. Yeah that would work, but if NHRA ever saw it they would pitch a fit. No welded on devices to change locations. I went ahead with ordering the CJ 9" housing, first step will be to see if that bracket is any different. What might end up working is a spring that drops the rear a bit, then dropping the lower 2" would be more appropriate.

 

[BMR Tech]

Agree on the drop + 2" Lower LCA.

Good stuff. Post a pic of the new goodies when you get them.

Also, what are the CJ guys doing about the UCA? Are they using that standard UCA that you see in the kits from Team Z?

Used to be, anyone who installed a 9" in these cars - with a lower than stock ride height, had to run our 9" Specific UCA. As a matter of fact, that is still the case with the Strange and Moser 9's that are "direct fit" (I use that loosely) for S197.

 

[kdanner]

Agree on the drop + 2" Lower LCA.

Good stuff. Post a pic of the new goodies when you get them.

Also, what are the CJ guys doing about the UCA? Are they using that standard UCA that you see in the kits from Team Z?

Used to be, anyone who installed a 9" in these cars - with a lower than stock ride height, had to run our 9" Specific UCA. As a matter of fact, that is still the case with the Strange and Moser 9's that are "direct fit" (I use that loosely) for S197.

I'm not sure what they are using, this is a fairly secretive game most of the time. I'd like to think they got rid of those bushed control arms and went to something spherical but maybe it isn't that big a deal for those blown cars. I just wanted everything as free as possible, lower power car like mine needs the pitch rotation.

 

[Bud]

I am running the racecraft upper on my CJ housing from strange, but admittedly have no clue what I'm doing. I've wondered about the location on the housing being a different height causing problems. Not sure how much of a difference in location it is

 

[kdanner]

I am running the racecraft upper on my CJ housing from strange, but admittedly have no clue what I'm doing. I've wondered about the location on the housing being a different height causing problems. Not sure how much of a difference in location it is

Yeah I wonder about both the upper and the lower locations. I'll be measuring close. So you got the actual CJ housing, where a 15x10 wheel needs about a 6" backspace?

 

[Bud]

Yeah I wonder about both the upper and the lower locations. I'll be measuring close. So you got the actual CJ housing, where a 15x10 wheel needs about a 6" backspace?

Yup, part# on the strange order was for a CJ housing/axles/brakes. I should have measured but just slapped it in and went. Hopefully this winter sometime I can get a stocker and mine together to measure the differences in arm mounting points.

I went with a 15x10 w/ 6" backspace for 28x10.5's. They could probably stand another .25" or even a little more of backspace to tuck in a little better before hitting the shock

 

[BMR Tech]

Typically, the issue with using a straight UCA, instead of one like this:



....is that when the car is at "rest", the UCA is usually touching the 9" housing. If not, then, it better not squat!

In order to get around this with a straight UCA - it forces you to run the front mounting point of the UCA substantially higher than the factory position - which leads to the inability to experiment with a wide-range of AS% adjustment.

Ring Brothers used our full suspension system on that S197 they recently built. They put a 9" in the car. I was not aware of this. When Jim called me, to discuss some settings....he mentioned the 9" in the car. I said, "wait, you have a 9" on there with our standard UCA??!" He replied that he did, and everything was great. I told him to go check it, and when he came back to the phone, he was shocked - the UCA was resting on the housing at ride-height. The problem is that, even if you don't hear it....or just "blow it off" as noise from mods - it is extremely dangerous.

 

[Bud]

I'll have mine up on the trailer either today or tomorrow, will try to grab pic of how the racecraft upper sits. I have it in the rear/lower hole in the mount on the body side, so curious.

 

[BMR Tech]

Let us know!

IIRC, that piece is very thin (small diameter) - so maybe it clears okay? You also have a better chance of clearing, if the rear of the car is 28.5" or higher.

 

[CPRsm]

I am running the racecraft upper on my CJ housing from strange, but admittedly have no clue what I'm doing. I've wondered about the location on the housing being a different height causing problems. Not sure how much of a difference in location it is

The closer it is to the axle center line the more torque it will apply. Wears sphericals faster. "The spread" is debated on whether or not it has an effect if the IC is the same. I can't help but think it has to play at least a small role of the spread is changed.

 

[Bud]

Not touching, but my car sits about 28.75":

 

[kdanner]

You didn't happen to weigh your 9" assy vs the 8.8" did you? Based on some other numbers I've seen here, I'm thinking something like a 9" w alum carrier/pinion carrier, alum spool, alum yoke, lightened ring gear, and gun drilled axles, along with drag brakes ends up being a significant weight loss.

 

[Bud]

You didn't happen to weigh your 9" assy vs the 8.8" did you? Based on some other numbers I've seen here, I'm thinking something like a 9" w alum carrier/pinion carrier, alum spool, alum yoke, lightened ring gear, and gun drilled axles, along with drag brakes ends up being a significant weight loss.

I should have, but didn't. I also saw Paul's post about his 9" actually being a little lighter. I only did the aluminum carrier and pinion support (solid 35 spline axles and steel spool). If you added the other aluminum bits and gun drilled axles it'd have to be a good bit lighter, especially with the brakes. I've read about 9's eating more power, hopefully with the lightened ring gear it wouldn't be a huge difference. Being N/A every bit has to help.

Hindsight, with the car as light as it ended up being I probably woulda stuck with the 8.8. My wallet hates pro gears for the 9"

 

[CPRsm]

There's a pretty good HP loss w them though. Not sure how mich at your power level hut years ago we swapped a 9in w the same gearing and slowed 3 tenths in the 1/8

 

[kdanner]

I don't intend to actually run a 9" gearset for exactly that reason. There are a couple of different ways to put a 12 bolt GM gearset into one.

 

[CPRsm]

Will the gear set make a difference? I thought it was the relation of ponion to ring gear that caused the loss? A 12 bolt ring and pinion would have the same relation?

 

[kdanner]

Will the gear set make a difference? I thought it was the relation of ponion to ring gear that caused the loss? A 12 bolt ring and pinion would have the same relation?

That is what causes it. A 12 bolt has a higher pinion than a 9", same as an 8.8. A dana 60 is still even higher and has less loss believe it or not. Anyway there are special carriers made for a 12 bolt gear/spool into a 9" housing(they even made 8.8 ones at one time), and there are offset pinion carriers and special spools to use the 12 bolt gearset in a regular 9" carrier also.

 

[CPRsm]

Damn that's pretty cool. I'm guessing you lose bearing size to make room for the offset?
I wonder w all the custom made 3rd member they don't just offset the pinion there. Hmmmm. Unless they already do and I don't know it.