Does this angle even need to be 'set'?
Won't the angle of the UCA depend on the height of the axle at the time?
Parts in - MM XD RLCA's, panhard bar, Roush UCA
- Thread starter Tob
- Start date
Does this angle even need to be 'set'?
Won't the angle of the UCA depend on the height of the axle at the time?
Bumpalupagus
My apologies. I never noticed that the thread had been bumped for a question.
The arm does need to be adjusted (or at least checked) or you may end up preloading where and when you don't want to. I simply had to loosen/adjust/retorque in order to avoid preloading the bushing. It was close as supplied by Roush, but not a perfect match for my stock ride height GT500.
Adjusting it to match the stock arm only took a minute or two.
Tob
The arm does need to be adjusted (or at least checked) or you may end up preloading where and when you don't want to. I simply had to loosen/adjust/retorque in order to avoid preloading the bushing. It was close as supplied by Roush, but not a perfect match for my stock ride height GT500.
Adjusting it to match the stock arm only took a minute or two.
Tob
On a lowered car with a stock upper arm, would I still want to match the new UCA to the factory angle?
I have to strongly disagree. My 2010 GT500 required an adjustable panhard rod to bring the rear back to center using FRPP springs.
No. Once the vehicle is at the newly established ride height [read:lowered] you could then torque the bolts at the rubber bushing locations to the factory specifications. As the suspension either compresses or unloads, the rubber bushings 'twist' until the suspension cycles back to your original static ride height adjustment setting. If you were to tighten the bolts at either UCA rubber bushing (the axle housing bushing or the arm to chassis bracket bushing) without first ensuring you are at static ride height you would be introducing preload into either/both pivot location(s). You don't want to do this as it will accelerate bushing wear and add some quirky and potentially dangerous characteristics to your suspension.
Having the opportunity to adjust is almost always a good thing. I believe that in this case you don't have the luxury of an adjustable UCA that utilizes a factory style bushing. The Roush arm is a bit of a compromise there, if drag racing or extreme lowering were in your repertoire. It does work very well for the bolt it on and forget about it crowd as well as allowing you to avoid the newly induced NVH that a solid joint all but guarantees.
Tob
How could I torque the bolts at static height?
Measure then compress the axle when the car is back on stands?
That is precisely what I did.
I measured and noted dimensions from a couple of different locations (ie, wheel to quarter panel wheel well lip) with the vehicle on the ground. Once the vehicle was in the air I replicated those dimensions. It was at that point that I torqued the UCA fasteners.
Are you adding a Roush upper?
I measured and noted dimensions from a couple of different locations (ie, wheel to quarter panel wheel well lip) with the vehicle on the ground. Once the vehicle was in the air I replicated those dimensions. It was at that point that I torqued the UCA fasteners.
Are you adding a Roush upper?
+1
Thinking about getting one. Currently have Steeda lowers only. Was considering adding their adjustable upper.
I wish MM was a little quicker on the trigger for these S197 parts.
Sorry to bring this thread back from the dead, but if this wasn't done correctly could it cause the rear end to by 5/8 inch higher on frpp springs by not adjusting to new ride height?
Ok thanks! Diff springs needed
As Tob said, but I will improve upon it; absolutely not.
FYI, I have a substantial amount of customers running our rear springs in combination with the FRPP Front Springs on the GT500, and the feedback is incredible. We sell the fronts, SP011 and the rears, SP012, seprately for people having similar issues.
Good luck!
Tob, great thread. It is always good to see people bumping old, good threads to the top.
One question I have about the MM PHR, is that aluminum? Also, do you know what type of rod-end that is on the PHR? It appears they use a much nicer rod-end on the LCAs, but, maybe you can shed some light on that?
Do they (MM) not offer a poly/rod-end LCA similar to our TCA021?
Just got the BMRs and was wondering if race ramps would be a bad idea to use for this install since the suspension would not be properly/evenly loaded....
Michael, it is always best to have the vehicle safely supported and up equally on all fours. In this case, I'd follow BMR's instructions carefully. Maybe Kelly can further elaborate and suggest a recommendation.
Kelly, first off - my apologies. I didn't notice that this thread had been brought up and as such I failed to respond to you. Sorry for that.
The MM S197 panhard bar is indeed aluminum (as are their fox offerings). The 'type' of rod end used is a three piece with Teflon liner. I can't comment on the alloy or heat treatment as I don't have the number for that rod end in front of me. If you'd like, I could contact my good friend Jack Hidley at Maximum to find out more detail. If it matters, I have two fox bodies, each with MM torque arms, LCA's, aluminum rod ended panhard bars, etc. Never had an issue. No rattling, banging, etc. So for me using their panhard bar for the S197 was a natural.
The rod ends on their Extreme Duty LCA's are from FK (as I believe their panhard bars use as well). The specs for the RSMX12T/RSMXL12T....three piece, alloy steel, heat treated, and zinc plated-chromate treated. Listing is second from bottom...
http://www.fkrodends.com/Downloads/2013 FK Automotive Catalog low-res.pdf
Note that Maximum specs the Teflon liner for their rod ends as well.
IMHO, I choose MM for their no nonsense approach. They continue to use high quality fasteners/materials as opposed to designing for the "best or most competitive price." They don't offer a poly/rod ended arm for S197's such as the one you mentioned.
I did take a look at your TCA020 to compare to MM's Extreme Duty arms. I see mention on your online catalog that the TCA020 uses "Teflon lined, XR series rod ends by QA1." Perusing QA1's online catalog, I don't see any 'XR' rod end (I do see XMR ends listed though...). Looks to be a two piece rod end instead of a three. Can you point out which QA1 rod ends that your TCA020 arm is using? I'm interested to see if it is a two or three piece as well as its listed radial static load. I believe this to be the appropriate page from their catalog...
XM Chromoly Steel Series Rod Ends | Endura Series Rod Ends | QA1
Tob, as you are probably aware, we use several different style of bushings, bearings and rod-ends for various applications.
As for the S197 LCA and UCA, we use a mixture of QA1, Viking, and FK for the rod-ends and bearings.
The BMR PHR's, TCA020 and TCA021 feature the XMR12 Endura Series rod-ends. We chose these, as they are simply one of the best "bang for the buck" rod-ends on the market. They are not the bottom of the barrel, and they are not the highest of the high-end. That being said, they should not go without merit; they are used on many of the world's best performing cars. Here is the info for the XMR12:
XMR12
S/Load lbs. - 28081
Weight - .570
We also use FK for the products that we make, that feature "spherical-bearings". We are one of the few, maybe only companies in the S197 world that use these styles, as they are much more costly to make here in-house.
Here is an example, on the UCA and the LCA:
Those parts use the FK Spherical Bearing:
HIN12T
S/Load lbs. - 53716
Weight - .315
This is very comparable to the RSMX that you mentioned above, except, the "third-piece" is made by yours truly. We make the outer housing, so essentially these are 3-Piece spherical bearings.
One thing unique about BMR is that we offer most of our components in any way you like. If you want them uncoated, you got it. If you want them without hardware, rod-ends, etc....you got it.
As you probably know, there are many factors that weigh-on how to offer a product - design, price, etc.
The reason I asked you about the PHR Rod-Ends, is, the picture you showed appears to be a 2-piece version? It appears to be significantly different in design, compared to the Rod-Ends on the LCA that you pictured.
As for the S197 LCA and UCA, we use a mixture of QA1, Viking, and FK for the rod-ends and bearings.
The BMR PHR's, TCA020 and TCA021 feature the XMR12 Endura Series rod-ends. We chose these, as they are simply one of the best "bang for the buck" rod-ends on the market. They are not the bottom of the barrel, and they are not the highest of the high-end. That being said, they should not go without merit; they are used on many of the world's best performing cars. Here is the info for the XMR12:
XMR12
S/Load lbs. - 28081
Weight - .570
We also use FK for the products that we make, that feature "spherical-bearings". We are one of the few, maybe only companies in the S197 world that use these styles, as they are much more costly to make here in-house.
Here is an example, on the UCA and the LCA:
Those parts use the FK Spherical Bearing:
HIN12T
S/Load lbs. - 53716
Weight - .315
This is very comparable to the RSMX that you mentioned above, except, the "third-piece" is made by yours truly. We make the outer housing, so essentially these are 3-Piece spherical bearings.
One thing unique about BMR is that we offer most of our components in any way you like. If you want them uncoated, you got it. If you want them without hardware, rod-ends, etc....you got it.
As you probably know, there are many factors that weigh-on how to offer a product - design, price, etc.
The reason I asked you about the PHR Rod-Ends, is, the picture you showed appears to be a 2-piece version? It appears to be significantly different in design, compared to the Rod-Ends on the LCA that you pictured.
Last edited:
Just the kind of information I'd be looking for were I ready to hand BMR some of my hard earned cash. Thanks for the detail Kelly.
You have me wondering. Looking at the photo of the UCA up above, at what point is the tube at the fore end machined for the bearing, retaining clip etc? Before or after TIG welding the threaded portion of the arm to it? I ask because while I know that TIG welding introduces 'less' overall or more controlled heat into the assembly there may still be some distortion. I could see where machining everything and THEN welding could cause some difficulty when trying to insert the bearing race, etc.
Just wondering.
You have me wondering. Looking at the photo of the UCA up above, at what point is the tube at the fore end machined for the bearing, retaining clip etc? Before or after TIG welding the threaded portion of the arm to it? I ask because while I know that TIG welding introduces 'less' overall or more controlled heat into the assembly there may still be some distortion. I could see where machining everything and THEN welding could cause some difficulty when trying to insert the bearing race, etc.
Just wondering.
Keen eye, sir.
The race/housing is fabricated, then the piece is tig-welded afterwards.
The tricky part is not distortion from welding, rather, it is building the housing with enough precision to ensure the bearing needs "just" the right amount of pressure when installing.
We have never noticed any distortion to the housing, after welding was performed. If it were Mig, then, my guys would be cussing a storm anytime those pieces rolled through the assembly dept.
The race/housing is fabricated, then the piece is tig-welded afterwards.
The tricky part is not distortion from welding, rather, it is building the housing with enough precision to ensure the bearing needs "just" the right amount of pressure when installing.
We have never noticed any distortion to the housing, after welding was performed. If it were Mig, then, my guys would be cussing a storm anytime those pieces rolled through the assembly dept.
Users who are viewing this thread
