SPC upper control arms = waste of money
06-25-10, 10:40 PM
#33
SPC UCA
-Don't change ride height.
- Because they are thicker & taller, tucking tire = hitting in a few places
- Limits of ball joint are reached when running at a very low ride height (tucking tire).
- Don't work well with RCA's because of hitting issues but depending on how much tire you plan on tucking, you will always run into this problem no matter what UCA you run.
BC Racing Coils
- Unable to tuck front tires w/o use of RCA's
- Rears are able to tuck tires w/o use of RCA's
06-28-10, 10:25 AM
#34
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CO
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-09-11, 02:33 PM
#36
Bump I dont have RCA but when I installed these and new caster arm bushings it raise my car, Also My camber it about .02 but there is a steep angle I wanna go lower, and can I with RCA's?
Here are some pics with my coils maxxed out and the car sitting on the ground.
Here are some pics with my coils maxxed out and the car sitting on the ground.
06-09-11, 08:55 PM
#38
I guess you can go lower with roll center adjusters, but most likely your upper arm will start hitting the top of the wheel well even more.
also, you might want to be careful with that cotter pin...looks like its hitting your tires (last pic)
06-09-11, 11:14 PM
#39
i dont think the pin would scrape the tire since it moves with the whole suspension/whee/tire.
interesting how steep of the angle is on a lowered car lol. now im thinking.. what if there was a slight angle on the UCA where the balljoint is.. so that the mounting area + the spindle thing are parallel to eachother. would that be beneficial? i might give a tiny bit extra clearance. but obviously dont just go out n hammer the UCA lol... hopefully FIGs has something in mind
hint hint
interesting how steep of the angle is on a lowered car lol. now im thinking.. what if there was a slight angle on the UCA where the balljoint is.. so that the mounting area + the spindle thing are parallel to eachother. would that be beneficial? i might give a tiny bit extra clearance. but obviously dont just go out n hammer the UCA lol... hopefully FIGs has something in mind
hint hint
06-11-11, 08:47 PM
#40
i dont think the pin would scrape the tire since it moves with the whole suspension/whee/tire.
interesting how steep of the angle is on a lowered car lol. now im thinking.. what if there was a slight angle on the UCA where the balljoint is.. so that the mounting area + the spindle thing are parallel to eachother. would that be beneficial? i might give a tiny bit extra clearance. but obviously dont just go out n hammer the UCA lol... hopefully FIGs has something in mind hint hint
interesting how steep of the angle is on a lowered car lol. now im thinking.. what if there was a slight angle on the UCA where the balljoint is.. so that the mounting area + the spindle thing are parallel to eachother. would that be beneficial? i might give a tiny bit extra clearance. but obviously dont just go out n hammer the UCA lol... hopefully FIGs has something in mind
hint hint
07-21-11, 05:52 AM
#43
Driver
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: TN
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have both the front and rear SPC and they both work well...... bottom line here is if you are dumped it will put any UCA at an extreme angle..... this is not a specific SPC problem (although the extra banging IS a SPC problem)
what our cars need is an option for a shorter knuckle OR someone could go and convert the front suspension into a mcphearson setup and eliminate the UCA all together
what our cars need is an option for a shorter knuckle OR someone could go and convert the front suspension into a mcphearson setup and eliminate the UCA all together
07-22-11, 02:45 PM
#45
Heres how they sit out of the box, no adjustments made, springs havent even settled.
19x9 with a 225/40
And heres with a 19x9 with a 225/35
