The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support Rix Racing
Please Support ExtremePSI

Aftermarket ball joints that change the roll center?

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

I guess I just don't understand what is going on here. Isn't the stock ball joint pressed in the control arm from the top? That pic looks like the new one is screwed in from the bottom of the control arm. So the point of this mod is to change the BJ pivot point from the top of the control arm to the bottom? I'm just trying to wrap my head around what is happening here.

The point is to correct roll center on excessively lowered first gen. DSM's. Roll center explained: Google Image Result for http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_rollcenter.jpg

Here's a great description from part 3 of Sport Compact Car's greatest tech series ever "Making it Stick":

Roll center affects many critical elements of a car's handling. The most critical are steering input, body roll, balance and mechanical grip.

The center of gravity location (CG) for each end of the car can be found by jacking the car up a known distance on each side while it's on corner scales, and observing the change in corner weights. This data can then be fed into an equation to give you the coordinates of the CG.

Since most people don't have a perfectly flat surface and expensive corner scales, it's usually safe to estimate the CG for the front suspension around crankshaft height in a front-engine car. In the rear, it's usually at the floor of the trunk.

The distance between the roll center and the center of gravity is called the roll couple. The roll couple is the lever arm that centrifugal force working on the CG uses to make a car lean over in a turn around the roll center. In a rear- or mid-engine car, these approximations apply to the opposite end of the car.

The longer the roll couple, the more weight is transferred to the outside wheels during cornering and the more the car will want to roll in a turn. A longer roll couple makes cars slower to respond to steering input. The resulting weight transfer from a long roll couple also uses the inside tires less effectively during cornering, thereby reducing the available grip.

The often-overlooked disadvantage to lowering is that roll center drops more radically than the center of gravity on most cars. This increases the roll couple and can cancel any weight transfer advantage. The huge roll couple created by overlowering will require an overly stiff suspension to control body movement.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.
 
Lastly, there's extended balljoint studs, not just fractions of an inch, but what would appear to be more than a full inch!
Howe Racing Enterprises - Extended Drop Ball Joint Stud

With the balljoints you use, is there one with super long ones like this? Also, would you want to? Or would that be overkill

Thanks!

These extended ball joints appear to be extended 1.5", which is a full inch longer then the .5 studs that people have been using. I would say that the extra inch would be overkill and may interfere with the wheel and/or the brake rotor.
 
They do look way-extra long, I guess I didn't look that closely at that picture. Is there any info on just how much extension above and beyond the "+.5 inch" units they actually spec out at? edit>> nevermind<<edit

There appears to be a bit less than an inch of space before the grease fitting touches the I.D. of a 17" wheel, using the "+.4 inch" studs.

edit>> Hmmm, if I'm deciphering the P.N. correctly, it does seem to be a "+ 1.5"-ish length. Might work with 18" wheels but doesn't seem necessary unless one was to lower their car to a point where sheetmetal would have to be cut. DTM-looking DSM's (I actually like this idea) anyone? Also, with all that additional height/leverage on the spindle, reinforcement may be a good idea.<<edit
 
Last edited:
Random thought of the night has lead to two questions for people.

1) If, hypothetically, I was able to produce a set of drop spindles that would A) fix the camber gain curve, and B) fix the bump steer and C) make it easy to add brake ducts, and D)keep your ABS if you wanted to... How many people would be willing to pay the ~600$ it would cost to make a pair?

If I made these, they'd be stout. They would be made for a standardized drop of 1.5 to 2(?) inches, stock strut mount, stock hub, utilizing the stock wheel bearings, stock brake mount etc... It would most likely require 17 inch wheels, but you'd be able to use all stock parts and benefit from good suspension geometry and a lowered car.

It's also possible to make a set that would be a bit more trick... hopefully using a beefier wheel bearing/hub assembly that would eliminate the pad knockback issues, and include much stronger wheel studs. I'd also be able to change the strut mount to a racing shock mount. I'd need to do more research to learn how modifying the mount location (and thus the king pin angle) could potentially (or not) benefit geometry over stock. Would anyone aside from me be interested in these at... let's say $1000 a set?

I'm pretty sure I could make a simple drop spindle for about 600$ a set (without wheel bearings or with new stock hub assemblies for ~+175$)

The "trick" set... I'd need to do a bunch more research on to really figure out the best approach (If I could design it to utilize a much heavier performance car's hub assembly that uses the same bolt pattern and axle splines... 3kgt VR4?). I doubt I'll find too many other people interested in these...
 
I would not. This may change if at some later date I were faced with hub/bearing survivability issues and then only the super-trick ones would interest me.

On the subject of the trickass ones, is a race shock based unit do-able in a McStrut application? I'd think it would require an upper control arm of some sort, no? FWIW, EVOVIII and possibly IX struts will bolt up to our steering knuckles.

P. S. Cutting away the swaybar mounts and making a longer link, may provide room for a 2" brake duct, I suspect.
 
The only thing you would have to watch out for with the evo shocks is the amount of travel they have compared to ours. I was actually thinking about trying to use the Ohlins shocks that came in my Evo 1 in my 1g but they are quite a bit shorter and have much less stroke. This is actually why Ground Control doesn't make coilover sleeves for Evo's as well.

Perhaps with a higher mounting point on the spindle and stiff springs you could make that work and that would open up a HUGE window of opportunity for us as far as aftermarket suspension products go. Food for thought I suppose...

Pete
 
The reason I mentioned the EVOVIII parts is, a local guy has them on his GVR4 winter car and it sits very close to stock ride height. The rears had to be modified and sit slightly higher than stock but, the fronts are undetectably changed height-wise.
 
I would not. This may change if at some later date I were faced with hub/bearing survivability issues and then only the super-trick ones would interest me.

On the subject of the trickass ones, is a race shock based unit do-able in a McStrut application? I'd think it would require an upper control arm of some sort, no? FWIW, EVOVIII and possibly IX struts will bolt up to our steering knuckles.

P. S. Cutting away the swaybar mounts and making a longer link, may provide room for a 2" brake duct, I suspect.

Yeah... the lack of interest is kind of what I figured... I might still make a set for myself depending on how my "ghetto" fixes work (taller ball joint and a bumpsteer stack)

It really would not be that difficult to solve most of our suspension problems with a drop spindle though. You wouldn't really save any weight (keeping the stock control arms and the new spindle/knuckle would need to be a very stout piece) but the geometry, bearing/hub, and other associated improvements may be worth it.

You might even be able to optimize the shock mount height and location to make EVO coilovers "bolt up". Not saying this would be an ideal solution, but it sure would open some doors.

The difficulty with making a race shock work in a mcstrut is knowing whether the shock rod was meant for bending loads. On something like Koni's 2800 series, you already know it is because they make a mcstrut version. You could build a shock bottom into the spindle. On other race shocks, I'm thinking that the seals would not like being subjected to bending loads.

Your thought on creating an upper arm though has made me think that it probably would be possible to convert the suspension to an unequal length A arm setup, but it's hard to see the ends justifying the means.
 
I don't have pic's yet but, in my current boredom I've been putting together a set of rear, lower control arms. They will be boxed, trimmed, incorporate mounts similar to pagosa's for the swaybar and have threaded sleeves for the Howe balljoints. :rocks::hellyeah:

I figure it can't hurt, even the standard length ones are .311 longer and WAY stronger plus, greasable and rebuildable.
 
I don't have pic's yet but, in my current boredom I've been putting together a set of rear, lower control arms. They will be boxed, trimmed, incorporate mounts similar to pagosa's for the swaybar and have threaded sleeves for the Howe balljoints. :rocks::hellyeah:

I figure it can't hurt, even the standard length ones are .311 longer and WAY stronger plus, greasable and rebuildable.

I would like to see what you did different from my control arms.It would be good if you posted some photos.
Rick
 
I plan to, as soon as I find camera batteries in this insanely tight budget.:notgood:

Rick, I just looked at your gallery, seems I forgot that you made tubular arms. I was actually referring to the brackets that were bolted in place of the stock biscuit-hole, to mount Heim joints. It may have been a previous setup, or even someone elses deal.
 
drivemusicnow: I would be totally on board for a set of your custom hubs, would you consider changing the brake mounting flange to accept Evo VIII calipers? It would open up a niche if you developed something like that, since you'd be CNC'ing these parts it should just be a matter of changing a few values to make adjustments for the bolt holes to fit the calipers (I think that sounds right, I have been sitting here trying to make sure this makes sense :banghead:). What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Update from below message:

Our 1g Control Arms and Tie Rods at least on Non-Turbo 90-94 are the same or within a half inch so bump steer should be minimal once you get the tie rod and control arm angle the same....if you lower the car too much definately bump steer it...


Well guys I have been following this thread and these are all good ideas. I am currently looking for the same fix as i have lowered about 1.5 to 2 inches. I was thinking of just modifying the spindle itself but i like the ball joint...tie rod modification.:thumb:

I have read alot on roll centers and front end geometry so just wanted to give some input and feel free to correct me if i go off base. Its important to keep in mind on our 1G's and even 2G's that another thing that affects bump steer is the relationship angle between the control arm and the tie rod. In an ideal situation they would move through the suspension travel at the same angle which means even as camber changes (control arm up and down) the tie rod also changes at the same angle so that toe does not change much. However our control arm is somewhere between 13-15 inches(Not 100% sure..sorry) and our tie rod is longer. So as the control arm moves through its range the tie rod will cause toe out or in naturally...the sharper the angle the more the change. So if we do lower our vehicle and want to fix it with the tie rod/ball joint fix to change the height. We probably will want to keep those angles as close as you can meaning one height (ball joint) will have to be a little different than the other height (tie rod) to ideally not affect bump steer. By just changing one height and not the other you might benefit by raising the roll center but could suffer by creating more bump steer....regardless if that bump steer is toeing in or toeing out bump steer is a bad thing.

I like the link posted above for the 240SX but our Hubs are different and couldnt use this but i love the idea because it doesnt put the stress on the bolt like a Ball joint extender would do.

Please let me know if anyone has updated pictures or ideas on anything that has successfully worked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:hellyeah: Im Loving this thread! But has anyone followed up on the EVO knuckles being another alternative?
 
Yes, using a tie rod spacer is a good idea to go along with a longer ball joint stem. Luckily, these are pretty easy to find. I know there's a kit for the 240sx, as well as some that are available through circle track catalogs. I know some DSMers have already come up with some solutions - and maybe they can share them here.
 
Please let me know if anyone has updated pictures or ideas on anything that has successfully worked.
I've used HD Heim joints as tie rod ends, employing spacers to correct the geometry, it works quite nicely. I do not have any pics of such and the car is in no position for me to get a shot of them. You can see the Heim joint in my post # 109, in this thread: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/custom-fabrication/324215-1g-tubular-control-arms-3.html

:hellyeah: Im Loving this thread! But has anyone followed up on the EVO knuckles being another alternative?

Like these? MSI &ndash; Manufacturer of Competition ComponentsClick on "Product", click "chassis", enjoy.
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top