True, but then again, my question is this - how many DSMers who do NOT race their cars will buy these? It just doesn't seem to me there is much of a market for tubular control arms on street driven DSMs. I would bet that most DSMers who buy these would want solid bushings - even the ones who would drive it on the street. Those who would want to drive it on the street and want a smoother ride probably wouldn't shell out the coin for a mod like this to begin with. At least that's what I would think.
Agreed. If I was going to spend the money for these I would still want the solid bushings. Even for my street car.
____________________________
Adam
96 Eagle Talon TSi
90 Plymouth Laser RS
Advertisement
To browse the forums without the advertisements above, Login/Register
I would love a set of these. i would be putting them on my galant gsx which is my daily driver and my weekend autocrosser. I think that they would be best with solid bushings just to make the suspension nice and stiff. I think another cool thing would be if there where some lock down bolts for the rear end. I know my buddy that has a 2.5rs had some and said the difference was night and day.
Excuse me if I get this all wrong, I'm on a caffeine buzz and could have this mixed up. Please take this as constructive criticism too. I'm glad to see new parts being made and hope this is helpful.
Aren't the threads in bending and in single shear on the one bushing? If so, that's not an if, but a when for failure. After seeing the picture of it on the car, it is in single shear where it meets the A arm and it is in bending. Feel free to correct me, but everything I've learned about using bolts says back to the drawing board with that part.
I'll reiterate, if the threads are in single shear and in bending it is dangerous and no amount of making the bolt bigger or threading further into the tube will make it not so. If you sell or use one like that, you will hurt someone, ask me how I know. The best way to have it is like the other one, where the bolt goes through the bushing with an A arm attachment on either side. That is double shear and keeps the threads out of bending.
To get the most strength out of chromolly and to get rid of any brittleness that may have been encountered, you do need to heat treat it after welding. Glen put it best, it's getting the metal to a uniform state. When you weld you have a heat affected zone that will be heat treated differently than the base metal and there is not really anything you can do about it except heat treat the whole part.
I didn't like the look of the welds, but I've had helmets and torches die on me too, so no big deal : D
1) Heim joint on the inner front mount.
2) Solid rear bushing (mine are delrin)
3) Move ball joint forward to add a few degrees of caster.
4) Make the ball joint hole accept a Howe rebuildable/adjustable height ball joint.
5) Make the sway bar mount a simple threaded bung that will use a rod end. This frees up space for brake ducts and allows preload adjustments (or not) on the sway bar.
6) No threaded attachment point at the rear bushing, weld a tube in there, and then you can make the bushing any diameter and material you desire.
For the people who want the compliance of softer bushings, this mod is of no use to you anyway.
i agree the bolt on rear bushing is a bad idea definitely have a tube extend into the bushing, it doesn't even need a bolt in the end of it just look at the stock arms. a rod end for the front attachment point would be awesome and i would say roll center adjustment would be a must for the road race guys. over all though awesome product. its nice to see some people still making parts for the 1g guys.
I only want to post in this thread about the negativity I am seeing. If the part is properly made and tested well (and there is proof of the testing, with positive results) then it is up to the buyer to decide if it's reliable / safe for him.
People seem to be forgetting our cars are 10 to 19yrs old now, there not making many new parts for our cars and a lot of the stuff that was being made is no longer being made. Custom fab and what not may eventually be our main source of good parts so I would lay off a guy trying to make suspension parts for our old cars. Besides there are still WAY to many "if's" to start saying anything negative.
Sooo do what the OP asked and help give him ideas to make the part better. Not criticize him for trying to make something. P.S. as a lower income guy that is trying to make his DSM into what I think "Mitsubishi should have made" meaning awesome street car. If I had the available funds and I knew it would help my car corner even slightly better. I would buy a set.
A buddy of mine owns a performance shop and he just made his first set of tubular control arms for the 1G. These are made of chrome moly tubing and include new balljoints and poly urethane bushings. He eventually plans to offer a design for the autocross/road race guys, and then a lighter version for the drag race guys.
I'm basically posting this to get some feedback to pass along to him. Tell me what you think about them. If you see room for improvement, then please share.
yeah the rear should notbolt on because it will bend or break the bolt
and i have one very bad thing to say about it I DONT HAVE THEM im gonna go cry now lol they look good
1) Heim joint on the inner front mount.
2) Solid rear bushing (mine are delrin)
3) Move ball joint forward to add a few degrees of caster.
4) Make the ball joint hole accept the Megan 240SX roll center correcting ball joint.
5) Make the sway bar mount a simple threaded bung that will use a rod end. This frees up space for brake ducts and allows preload adjustments (or not) on the sway bar.
6) No threaded attachment point at the rear bushing, weld a tube in there, and then you can make the bushing any diameter and material you desire.
For the people who want the compliance of softer bushings, this mod is of no use to you anyway.
My 2% of a dollar.
Perfect analysis. These are all the minimum requirements I would suggest as well. 90% of the DSMers who would buy these would want most all of these things anyway - unless of course they were drag racers, then they'd just want them lighter.
____________________________
-Chris
FP3150-powered road racer!
Please use the "Site Problems" forum or the "Tech" forums instead of sending "help" questions directly to me or the Moderators/Wisemen.
Update of sorts, one of the commonly used tapers appears to be compatible with our spindle taper. This means that adjustable roll centers and super heavy duty, rebuildable circle track ball joints will only need the correct reciever, welded into the control arm. I'll be welding in a Chrysler threaded style into mine.
So, regarding the comment about the front inboard joint being a heims end, like this VV(not my pic BTW) .... I'd have to asky why? Besides adding additional cost and failure point, you won't get the proper adjustment you all are searching for. Given the way the a-arms mount to the subframe, if you crank the front inboard mount point in or out, you are loading the rear inboard mount. There is going to be no compliance with a stiff aftermarket bushing, let alone the OEM one. It's just not good practice. Leave the caster/camber adjustment to the strut plates.
That is more for the replaceability aspect, I'm thinking. As for it being a possible failure point, I don't think that is a likely scenario at all. I'd trust a forged rod end as much or more than a loop and bushing, plus it's a low stiction, mush-free pivot.
The total amount of camber angle you'd get from that wouldn't amount to much so, I'd agree for that reason also, that camber adjustments should be left to the other places. The shop that did my alignment tried to use that also. Silly rabbits.
Update of sorts, one of the commonly used tapers appears to be compatible with our spindle taper. This means that adjustable roll centers and super heavy duty, rebuildable circle track ball joints will only need the correct reciever, welded into the control arm. I'll be welding in a Chrysler threaded style into mine.
What exactly is the taper on the DSM balljoint? Is it 1.5"/ft or 2"/ft?
Do you have a part number of the balljoint that you plan to use? I warehouse dozens of different balljoints where I work (most for the circle track cars), but I haven't been able to confirm which one could interchange with our spindles.
____________________________
-Paul Volk-
'99 GSX
'91 TSI
It's whichever works out to 8*, I think the other common taper is 10*. My trig-fu is not strong, and I can't relate to those construction working type calculations. The P/N is a Howe 2232OS. I haven't decided how much offset I'm going with yet, I may just get the .400 long one. Go big or go home no?
Actually, as I was holding the tapers in a v-block when I compared them, I don't know what the actual taper is, just that it's the same as a DSM taper. Paul, the part number should cross reference the taper angle I'd imagine, then we'll all know for sure.
Thanks for the part number, Jim. The maintenance instruction sheet that comes with the Howe 22320S states that it's 1.5"/ft - so 7*. This info will open up alot of options and possibilities for different designs.
____________________________
-Paul Volk-
'99 GSX
'91 TSI
I'm Tyler Hassing, and am the friend of paul's which is working on these control arms.. sorry I haven't given any updates latley, we have become extremely busy at work with the up coming race season. as of now we have built a test stand to test the overall strengh difference between the factory arm and our control arm. we need a few peices to finished up the test "stand" then we will provide you with a video to check out, and also with % of strength increase over stock.. specifically testing the back part of the control arm where the bushing is attached. Also on the subject of how this rear bushing attaches, what the pictures don't show is that there is a sleeve through the bushing which the bolt tightens down on to. In this situation the bolt is then put into tension and the sleeve into compression, this combination adds the strength of the tube that which the bolt is bolted to.. at any rate when we get this test finised I will be able to tell you the percentage of strength increase over stock. As far as producing the arms, we do have a jig made, and have most of the material, but as stated, we are very busy with other work at this point in time.. we plan on making these avalible after our strength test, and some good road time on my personal car.
As far as the recomendations that you guys have all given for the solid bushings, and the adjustment of rollcenter, caster, camber, and anti dive. We have taken these ideas and have decided to offer the arm you see here as a direct replacment/drag race arm. We are hoping are test results will show us the abiblty to run a thiner wall tubing for this arm. For the road race guys, or just anyone who wants some adjustabilty, we are in the process of designing an arm which will acommendate most, if not all, of the adjustabily listed previously. this arm will be built more like a circle track control arm. We probably wont start working on these arms for a few weeks. but we are eager to get some put togather and see your opinions and further ideas to help us better cater to your needs.
Another product you might want to consider would be tubular subframes, front and rear for the AWD cars. The factory piece is stamped steel, and is IMO not as stiff as it could be, and unecessarily heavy to boot.
Once we get stuff moving again, we plan to offer tubular rear control arms and fronts for both 1G and 2G cars. After we get that far then we plan to build tubular front a rear subframes for both cars as well. It will take some time though do to the fact that this isn't our main source of work.
specifically testing the back part of the control arm where the bushing is attached. Also on the subject of how this rear bushing attaches, what the pictures don't show is that there is a sleeve through the bushing which the bolt tightens down on to. In this situation the bolt is then put into tension and the sleeve into compression, this combination adds the strength of the tube that which the bolt is bolted to.. at any rate when we get this test finised I will be able to tell you the percentage of strength increase over stock.
I understand what you are saying, but there is still a shearing load that is translated through that joint. I wouldn't be so worried about that load, but the fatique of the bolt and stress concentrations in the thread. I do think it was a cool, ingenius idea. However, that joint will fail before a solid rod will. In addition, it's an added joint to work loose.
If not for the peace of mind and the liability side, going to a rod, will at a minimum save you cost and time to manufacture it. Rod is cheaper than bolts. No holes to tap as taps are expensive and time consuming.
I just hope you understand that you might not sell as many of these initial control arms as you would hope due to them being designed for a part of the DSM crowd that probably won't benefit much from them and is less likely to spend the extra cash on them. Tubular control arms will mostly help the road racers and autocrossers - and maybe the drag racers if they're lighter weight than stock. But they're not a good street car product.
I only say this because I'm hoping you don't change your production plans after seeing low sales numbers on this product. Because there is more of a market for the road racing version of these arms, plus tubular sub frames, and other racing-specific tubular products. Making street versions of all of this stuff is a bit of a waste. Instead, the idea should be to build a race product that street car owners can use if they want, not the other way around.
____________________________
-Chris
FP3150-powered road racer!
Please use the "Site Problems" forum or the "Tech" forums instead of sending "help" questions directly to me or the Moderators/Wisemen.
I understand what your saying chris, this first arm is going to be targeted to drag racers, but will be a factory replacement for street cars, if there willing to pay for them. being able to change the ball joint with out changing the whole miht get some "street cars" interested..
Another option on the ball joint would be to use one from the 92-95 Hyundai Elantras. They are identical to the dsm ball joints but they bolt on instead of pressing in. I suggest picking up one from the parts store and giving it a shot. It may be easier in the end to build the arm to fit these as well.
I understand what your saying chris, this first arm is going to be targeted to drag racers, but will be a factory replacement for street cars, if there willing to pay for them. being able to change the ball joint with out changing the whole miht get some "street cars" interested..
Again, I just would hate to see you get discouraged by low sales and then decide not to pursue the stuff that has a better chance of selling. That's all. Hit me up when you're ready to become a Supporting Vendor to start posting more updates about your progress in the Vendor forum.
____________________________
-Chris
FP3150-powered road racer!
Please use the "Site Problems" forum or the "Tech" forums instead of sending "help" questions directly to me or the Moderators/Wisemen.
Another option on the ball joint would be to use one from the 92-95 Hyundai Elantras. They are identical to the dsm ball joints but they bolt on instead of pressing in. I suggest picking up one from the parts store and giving it a shot. It may be easier in the end to build the arm to fit these as well.
The problem with that is that you move to a similar ball joint without addressing the roll center issue. See the posts above in regards to this.
____________________________
-Chris
FP3150-powered road racer!
Please use the "Site Problems" forum or the "Tech" forums instead of sending "help" questions directly to me or the Moderators/Wisemen.
