Cast Aluminum Ball Joint Spacers - Bad Idea??

Are cast aluminum ball joint spacers a bad idea?

I am working on an early Falcon right now, that I am trying to give a little attitude adjustment, while maintaining function. The front suspension has been setup with V8 control arms and spindles, but it still has the 6 cylinder coils with 90/10 shocks. As is, the suspension works great, not too stiff, with 5 inches of droop before the tires lift off, but the nose is a little too low at rest for my liking. Taller/stiffer springs will decrease the amount of suspension rise before bottoming out, affecting weight transfer.

I have an NOS set of Segal cast aluminum ball joint spacers from the 60's which give almost 2 inches of lift to the static ride height, without affecting the spring height, shock extension, or travel. (The Mustang/Falcon suspension mounts the coil to the upper A-arm, like a Chevy II).

I started to install the spacers, and checked the suspension travel, and there is no binding of the ball joints or tangental stress on the suspension anywhere that I can see; not at static height, full droop, or during compression, regardless of wheel direction. The spacers are vertical at static height, so there should be little stress on the fasteners (four grade-8, 3/8-inch bolts).

I have heard horror stories of Tri-Five chevies cracking upper control arms when using ball joint spacers, but the Tri-Fives mount the coil spring on the lower control arm. I assume the cracking happens when the suspension travel isn't limited, allowing the spring force to push the lower control arm down when the upper control arm travel is stopped by interference with the frame, which would stress the attachment point of the upper ball joint.

For years and years, cast aluminum lowering/lift blocks for leaf spring suspensions have been used sucessfully in cars and trucks, although I am aware that the U-bolts should be retorqued periodically. I am using longer bolts than I need, and will be installing jam nuts to prevent them from loosening up by themselves.

Bottom line is, will I be risking life and limb by using the cast aluminum ball joint spacers? I have almost conviced myself that they should be okay, but still have a glimmer of doubt.

Thanks

 

I am a little young, at 51, to give you this story, About 1970 those ball joint spacers were all the rage in the NHRA stock class cars. Then one Sunday all the big shots couldn't race. There were a bunch of problems with those spacers. They were made illegal over night. I would think new today aluminum spacers would be ok, but new ones from the day I would put on the shelf.

 

i know some one will come along and say yes they are good and work fine. maybe only 1 in a 1000. will break. do you feel lucky???

i rember them being outlawed. seams a few broke and more were found with cracks.

i would not run them.

 

if you have access to the machinery or a friend that does, I'd copy them.

 

I have a NOS set of aluminum Eelco's but I was thinking of just copying them in steel and selling my set on the 'Bay.

 

Tri-five has the spacer between the ball joint stud and the tapered hole it should fit in.
I think they were designed so that you also changed the caster/camber relationship simply by rotating the spacer.
Their use also changed the working geometry between the control arm pivot points by actually moving the balljoint balls farther apart.
In use, they actually became an extension to the steering knuckle/spindle...thus your knuckle had a U shaped cast aluminum extension on top.

Any and all of these factors were an accident waiting to happen in street use...IMHO.

The setup the OP is considering is a bit different.

The spacer is an aluminum block that sits between the ball joint main body and the control arm, being held with 4 G8 thru bolts as a sort of sandwich.
The tapered stud of the ball joint remains in the tapered steel hole it was in originally, NO caster/camber adjustability is provided, there is no cast Aluminum extension to the steering knuckle section and due to the thru bolt design of the spacer, its impossible to simply "spit it out".

Other than actually raising the car and the resulting handling change that itself would create, there would be no effect on working suspension geometry at all as the ball joint pivots and the inner pivots of the upper and lower control arms remain in the exact same relationship they had before.

The visual working angle of the upper control arm has changed but the working parts remain in the same relationship.
(imaginary lines between pivot points make the geometry...not the steel shapes holding them)

Am I saying you should use them?
No...just saying its a whole different style of spacer than the tri-five uses and comparing them to each other is comparing apples to oranges.

The design is much better on paper IMO...but YOU decide if it actually finds its way to your car!

Just to extend the discussion a bit...what would happen if you created a 1" STEEL spacer to place between the lower spring pivot and the control arm...designed to weld to and reinforce the upper control arm as well as space the pivot?
The pivot is half way between the inner pivots of the control arm and the ball joint....

 

I can confirm the Tri-Five's breaking the upper A-arm ball joint mounts out.
This came off the 57 Jr.Stocker that I have. It was parked after NHRA changed the year rules for 1973.



The ball joint had been hitting the frame in the area that the snubber for the upper a-arm.

 

I'm coming at this from a position of ignorance, but I have a mental image of the Falcon's front suspension and I'm trying to work out what you are trying to do. You want the static ride height to be an inch or two higher, right? But you also want to keep the current spring rate, shock valving and such and you don't want to be killed in a wreck.

Am I understanding this correctly?

Also, you are running a V8, and have the V8 style Falcon front suspension, except that you are running a set of the coil springs that were used with the slightly lighter 6-cylinder cars, right?

Okay, if all of that is correct, then here's what I am wondering. Could you get the ride height increase you want and everything else you are trying to achieve by using a spacer on top of (or perhaps underneath) the coil spring on each side?

That would lift the car slightly more than the thickness of the spacer (because of the suspension geometry) but keep your current spring rates, shock valving, and so on. You'd probably need to realign the front suspension afterwards (naturally), but I think you could get it to within specs.

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something here?

 

On a Tri5 that snubber block is supposed to be removed when installing ball joint spacers. Not only will the arm hit it, the spacer will also hit it on the inside edge. Somebody did a incorrect install, which lead to the arm cracking.
As for ball joint spacers becoming an extension of the spindle on a Tri5; yes they do, but they do on ALL ball joint spacer installs. The ball joint is an extension of the spindle in every car!

 

Thats the type of spacer the OP is talking about. I didn't know they were even available for Chevys! Always learnin'....LoL

Despite the issues that you obviously had, its a much better way to do it than using the U shaped ones in my opinion.
1971BB427 is quite likely dead on in saying the bracket should have been removed...but thats excessive for a street use car so again they might not be a good idea on tri-fives!

I disagree on this style spacer being considered an extension of the "spindle" though.
The balljoint "balls" are still the same distance apart, unlike the U style spacer which does move the balls farther apart!

The overall design is totally different as well in that the upper control arm is just a locating device on the tri-fives, while on the Ford assembly its the primary load bearing member. Therefore its of a much stronger design, as are the upper balljoints themselves.

 

I have been running my 65 Comet for 44+ years and have used different front end setups.DO NOT use the ball joint spacers!!!You say you checked for binding,did you look at the tie rod ends?They will be maxed out at rest,let alone when the front end rises up.You can get taller front springs from National Parts Depot for Mustangs[same front end],try 65/66,V-8 with AC,about $60.You can lower the mount for the top of the shock if you need more travel.I use travel limiters on my front suspension to stop the ball joints and outer tie rod ends from topping out!I installed the ball joint spacers,took them off before the car left the garage!!ROY.

 

Won't that effect camber gain, roll center and a bunch of other things? Maybe I'm not understanding this spacer correctly.

 

Thanks for the input so far. I guess I should have added pictures to the original post.

I am aware of the "C" type ball joint spacers that I think some people are imagining here. I am refering to a spacer that fits between the ball joint and A frame.

I have considered using a slightly taller spring, but I was trying to avoid increasing the spring rate, it rides so well now. I considered using a spacer under the top of the coil, where it contacts the coil tower, but how the spring seats on the coil tower, I am worried about losing some support.

Also, as the suspension cycles down, the upper A-arm gets closer and closer to the frame rail. Too much down downward movement, and I will get contact here. I am working on limiting straps to prevent overextension of the shock, as that is the suspension limiter in stock form.

Shmoozo, you interpreted my rambling correctly! I guess a well crafted spacer between the lower coil perch and the upper A-frame is an option.

Roy, when I looked at the tie rod ends, they appear to get close to their limit, but did not appear to go into bind? I even knocked 'em loose to check.

I was looking for a simple solution to a complex problem, but you guys have reaffirmed my apprehension about using these pieces. Looks I will be shopping for new springs now...

Thanks again for all the input!

 

It may not be "period correct" but Speed Direct sells a coil-over conversion for the early Mustang, which bolts right to the Falcon/Comet suspension and it is affordable and and gives you the adjustment and ride you are looking for. It may not be the solution you are looking for, but it is an option.

I wouldn't use those spacers, but there is another option. A coil spring spacer at the top of the spring and the shock tower would give you some lift without being dangerous, it isn't going to fall out.

If you want the simplest fix, V8 springs and an adjustbale shock, which will give you the ability to change the dampening rate of the shock for a smoother ride.

 

With the C type between the balljoint and the knuckle yes...but with the type that goes between the arm and the balljoint housing...no.
All pivot points stay in the same relationship to each other.
The key is that the balljoint goes with the spindle.
Draw it out on paper....

You ARE lifting the car so it changes from stock, but it would be exactly the same if you just added taller springs to lift the car the same amount.

All that said....I'm just discussing what I'm seeing here and I'm not saying these should be used for the street.
I'm simply saying that the type Frankenfords is talking about is the lesser of two evils. The C style I wouldn't even consider for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

If forced to use Frankenfords style on the street for some reason, I would prefer shorter ones and would likely add a steel plate reinforcement to the area between the spacer and balljoint that would tie into the control arm to prevent stress cracks over time.

Street is a LOT more stressful on parts than a smooth dragstrip.

 

Okay, yeah, new springs might be the best solution. The key would be to try to find some springs with the same diameter, and as close as you can find to the same spring rate, but slightly longer, I think.

I wish you the best of luck with that. I wouldn't know where to begin with a search like that other than to contact a company that specializes in springs and hope they have somebody really knowledgeable who can poke through some spring specs and find something that would do the job for you.

 

I had Eelco 2" aluminum balljoint spacers in my '66 Chevy II on the street for years... I installed them myself and the most difficult part of the installation was drilling out the holes in the case hardened ball joint housings for the oversized bolts. I never had any of the problems that these "experts" are talking about... I thought they were pretty trick and wouldn't hesitate to use them again...

 

This was a good read, I have a 65 falcon that I've been considering a straight front axle...but I want the afx look with the lower control arms and tie rods pointing down (love that look) 65COMET you nailed the look. As far as being a safe street car, that is allways the turmoil. Seen the 1" coil spacer on e-bay the add said it would equal 3"s of lift on the car. Maybe an option.

 

That is the kind of spacer that was outlawed by NHRA in the early 70's.
I had a friend running a 70 442 at the time they were outlawed. I was only about 10 years old. I was at the track with my father and remember him and my friend in a panic taking them out so he could keep up his points. ( land of NED, east coast guy will know that). Some guy didn't race that day.
There were some bad castings. As I said before I would put the old ones on the shelf. New today should be ok. We have come a long way in 40 years.
Yes in the 70's a 10 year old could be his fathers pit crew.

 

I disagree that installing longer springs produces the same results as the spacers. The spacers, as described, move the spindle/hub downward in relation to the control arms thereby raising the car as desired. It seems to me that installing longer springs to change the static height of the car will necessary cause the upper and lower control arms to "droop" at an angle. The springs will change the ride quality and the drooping arms in effect "use up" the available downward control arm travel that the stock length springs provide and which the OP wants to retain for weight transfer.

Now, that said, I do agree that the particular cast spacers may be problematic and I also think the suggestion made in a prior post about tying in the base of the spacer and the top of the ball joint with a gusset or bracket that is welded/bolted to the control arm would be a teriffic improvement in this setup and eliminate any weakness in the original manner in which the spacer was used.

Lastly, I too had a concern about what happens to the outer tie rods and joints as they will be angled downward from their original position, even though the control arms are not, and I think that would have a significant effect on bump steer. Perhaps if the outer tie rod end tapered shanks were installed from the top of the steering arm instead of the bottom, that would alleviate some of that problem. It would require modifying the steering arm tapered holes and possibly a tapered shim or a tie rod end with a larger diameter tapered shank.

Alternatively, a new outer tie rod could be fabricated with a "dropped" end on it to allow the tie rod to maintain it's original position relative to the control arms and still connect to the steering arm in it's lower position.

Ray