UCAs vs. Ball Joint Spacers

[ebayfish]

I put a JGC springs & torsion crank lift a few weeks ago. I'm currently running 33x11.50 tires. Using new MOOG variable rate springs in the rear, I'm still sitting 2.75" taller in the rear after its settled some, with 3.25" lifted in the front(squats the rear after settling). It still rides surprisingly well & is comfortable. I still plan to put a 2" body lift on. With the torsion bars cranked fully, the front gets about 2" droop & 3" up travel, making the rear do more than its fair share of pivoting when flexing. After putting the body lift on I plan to take some of the tension off the torsion bars, taking it down to maybe 2" of lift to level or give a sight rake to the rear. I assume when doing this I will get more front travel, primarily droop. For a 2" crank, should there be any advantages for aftermarket UCAs or 1/2" or 1" ball joint spacers? I'll be replacing at least the upper ball joints too, what brand do y'all prefer, MOOG? Thanks for the help, this is my first IFS truck that I've really messed with.

[RedPath88]

UCA over BJS every time.

 

Your not going to get more travel out of your suspension by lowering it... unless your tires are hitting the fenders and preventing full compression ...what you will get is different proportions up and down than you have now. When you tight them (crank them "up"), you give up downward travel, while gaining upward travel for the sake of lift. Loosen them (crank them "down") and you give up upward travel and gain down travel while at the same time you are lowering the front of the truck.

 

Either way, the full range of movement of the arms does not change. It is limited to what was designed into it and ultimately by the cv joint angles. And those CV angles are the final limiting factor on lifting, via TB Crank, the stock suspension.

 

You say that are cranked them "3.25in" and either are now or you plan to crank them "fully" I find this hard to believe because if they were changed that much or fully, you would be riding on or at the least, very close to the bump stops and that would drastically affect the ride quality. Now that said you could feasibly attain that 3.25in if they were sagging before you started. To me it sound like you need to re-index your torsion bars (it's in the Garage > How To's section) so you know where your really at and get the most effect out of them, and by that I do not simply mean "lift"

 

 

One more question, if your truly lifted to the max, have you used 4WD since lifting it? You may be seriously risking your CV's.

[ebayfish]

Thanks, I'll check that thread. Yes, they were sagging before, and they are currently cranked nearly full, sitting 3.25" higher than before. Befotr I put my bigger tires on, I did take it wheeling on the stock 28's. I say its a comfortable ride, but I've been driving a f450 for 4 years, so maybe its a bit rougher than I think. I want to crank the torsion bars down about 1/2-1" after I install the body lift. When I read the description on 4x4parts, their UCAs say they are designed for proper ball joint angle at full crank, but I don't want the front to sit quite as high as it currently is(in reference to the rear).

[RedPath88]

Unless they changed the design, they do not "correct" angles, but do maintain approximate stock angles. People have been able to align them after installing the UCA's but they are actually the only currently produced UCA that is not designed and built to correct angles for lifting to the higher range. Superlift, Rough Country and Calmini are specifically designed to correct those angles.

 

There were others, including Rancho and Jim Connor Racing but they no longer make them. JCR made at least three different arms and two of which were tubular construction. One of the tubular models I know did correct the angles, but they also required new shock towers because of other changes these arms incorporated. The other model of tubular arms from JCR, and I believe the more common, appear to be where the AC (4x4Parts.com) ones came from, either directly or cloned... but I cannot say for sure either way. But in JCR's old literature they said that they provide 2in of lift, as far as I know AC does not say one way or the other. If kept to 2in the likelihood of being able to align it is much higher than going up to 3in or anywhere in between.

 

Personally I believe that if your planning 2 inches or less, then the AC ones should be fine but if you plan to go over 2in then go with one of the other three.

[ebayfish]

I've been looking around the internet. I found the Superlift 6066 UCA kit with bushings & bumpstops for a Nissan Hardbody for about $200. Will this correct ball joint angle?

[Bubbley11]

The superlift are one of the UCA'S that are designed to sit flat when cranked. Yes they will work.

[Nefarious]

Super lift or Rough Country ucas will correct your camber and ball joint angle, AC control arms won't correct anything and I would take stock arms over them personally.

 

The only way to increase front end suspension travel is to install low profile bump stops and/or ball joint spacers. If you use bj spacers, then don't use 1" spacers with the stock controls arms. They will crack the metal at the end of the control arm. .5" spacers shouldn't cause issues with stock control arms.

 

Any aftermarket control arms will be strong enough to handle ball joint spacers of any size but you risk damage to your cvs when using 4wd. If you use aftermarket arms and 1" ballpoint spacers, then make sure you install diff drop bushings to help alleviate the aggressive cv angles.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Nefarious

[ebayfish]

Thanks Nefarious, in your opinion, will I gain much with the Super lift UCAs over stock with a .5" spacer? Also I was looking at the bump stops. Would the low profile or ultra low profile be best?

[Nefarious]

I use ultra low profile bump stops from energy suspension as well as .5" ball joint spacers. I use Napa lifetime cv joints and haven't gone through a set in 5 years of driving. I wheel a decent amount, maybe once every week or two.

[northbynorthwest]

Reviving an old thread here because I have a couple of new questions specifically related to ball joint spacers...

 

1) It says in this thread that you shouldn't run 1" ball joint spacers on STOCK UCAs because they will crack the mount. AC says the 1" ball joint spacers are ONLY for stock UCAs - any idea why? Has anyone tried the 1" spacers on aftermarket UCAs? (I am aware that one would have to be very careful with regards to CV angles at full droop)

 

2) Nefarious.. (or someone else who is running the combination of .5" spacers and ultra-low bumpstops) have you ever measured the increase in wheel travel over stock to put a real number to it? What length of shock are you running and what is your resultant total wheel travel?

[ahardb0dy]

The original suspension lift upper control arms sold were reinforced stock arms with ball joint spacers welded in ( they boxed the bottoms), I had them on my 87 Hardbody way back. The spacer allows you to crank in more lift than with the stock arm as it moves the upper control arm up the thickness of the spacer.

 

That was fine to get lift but made aligning the truck harder.

 

Later Jim Connor Racing came out with the tubular arms which were designed to give lift while still being able to align the front end.

 

I think a 1" spacer is a bit much, the original Jim Connor Racing arms had at most a 1/2" spacer welded in. As I mentioned they fully boxed the open bottom of the arms to give them more strength, I never had a problem with my control arms, ball joints, CV axles or the ability to get the truck aligned.

 

I tried to keep about a half inch of space between the upper control arms and the bumpstops, and my lower control arms were almost sitting level, angled down slightly.

 

If you ever see a lifted Nissan truck and the lower arms are angled like this - / \ than it is cranked up too high.

 

I would recommend aftermarket torsion bars as they tend to hold the cranked in lift longer than the stock bars.

 

I had two stage bars ( no longer made)