Thread: Adjustable B13 Rear LCAs, gauging interest.

Hey man, you've been a champ! I have just one last thing I'd love to see before I place an order for a set.

Can you get a picture of the links next to the stock one setup to the same length?
Like this picture maybe but with the stock unit in there and everything set up the same length.

I'm basically looking to see how much of the threaded shank of the rod end is exposed in a typical stock camber setup.

Sure, I'll snap one tomorrow. Most of the rod end mfg companies recommend that the min thread engagement is 1.5 times the major thread diameter. My first set was a little on the short side so I am redoing the OAL to meet that requirement while keeping adequate adjustability.

That's all I was checking. We don't think most people will want to go too much shorter than stock, right? And that mostly they'd want to go longer, so keeping that in mind we'd only want a little bit of adjustability to go shorter, and the majority of the adjustability to go longer. And still keep it structurally sound.

It is nice that these components shouldn't be under any stress other than compressive and tensile.

I'd think that there might be people with lowered suspensions who would want to shorten the arms to correct excessive negative camber (at least for the street).

Remember that lengthening the arms not only increases negative camber (which in the right cases and right amounts can be a very good thing), but also increases the track of the rear wheels. You want the rear track on a FWD car to be the same or narrower, or you end up magnifying all the negatives of a FWD setup.

In my case, I'm *raising* the car, so making the arms a little longer will just correct positive camber and because it's raised, the rear track is already a little narrower than stock, so I can widen it back out without issue. My situation is not the typical use for these, however.

The biggest gain of these arms is in the lack of bind. That's 95% of the reason to do it. It's just that once you build them, there's no reason, and it would actually be harder, to build them without the ability to adjust. Most people shouldn't make more than small adjustments either way.

Now, make up some lengthened tubular control arms for the front, extended parallel links for the rear, custom make trailing arms and some fender flares . . .

When I've seen these (and no, I don't have a good source), they've had a set of flats, rather than a full hex.

I have also seen hex stock bored out and then welded onto the tubes, rather than hex ends.

Yah that's a good point Vector. They'd be tiny adjustments either way for most people. I can see the hella tuck crowd going pretty long, and you I guess, but yah even the lowered guys might want to bring them in some.

You're right, getting rid of the bind is exactly why I'm getting them. And to get rid of the play in the bushings. Being able to adjust camber independent of toe is the icing on the cake.

Yeah, I could see someone going really long for a show car, but not for something actually driven. Even for me, I can't picture using more than maybe 1/4" of adjustment.

ima have to do mine long for the wheels ima be running now.

hey javier just set mine aside to pickup.

Alloy.

mevans, about the ES bushings... You will be able to use ES bushings on the control links. The links that run forward and backward along the length of the car. Those you could go with ES on both ends and not experience any binding once you get these parallel links.