[atari4x4]

Good Evening Ladies & Gentlemen of Auszookers,

I was pulling the old ball joints of the Calmini front control arms today so I could clean them up, paint & replace the old ball joints when I had the thought of flipping the balljoints so they sit under the control arm as per the standard 1.6l control arms to get a small amount of free lift.

This is how they have been mounted for the last 6 years.


Ball Joint mounted to the top side of the arm.


This shows the underside of the arm.


I'm thinking bolting them on to the underside of the control arm, the ball joints have a mounting surface on both sides around the bolt holes...

Apart from a tiny bit more angle on my CV's, can anyone see any problems in doing thins?

Cheers
Gus

[fordem]

Yeah ...

1 - if I'm not mistaken the ball joint has a taper on it where it passes through the spindle - it won't seat properly
2 - the hole in the spindle leans top inwards, and the ball joint sits at a corresponding angle - with the ball joint flipped, the angle on the joint will lean top outwards.
3 - I THINK the angle of the joint in #2 above will result in the bottom of the spindle sitting further in, reducing the track, creating negative camber and possibly "squishing" the CVs - not real sure on this last one.
4 - Possible safety issue - impact stress/strain on a worn ball joint may result in the ball pulling free, as designed those stresses force the ball deeper into the socket

On second thoughts - you're not flipping the actuall ball joint - you're just unbolting it and moving it underneath the arm - ignore everything I just said - I see no reason why it shouldn't work and give you another half an inch or so of lift.

You might have to watch the clearance between the turned up portions of the arm and the CV boot.

[got_bar_work]

I think he means the arm side
It shoukd work just check ur cv dont hit the arm anywhere now

[Flx11e]

One thing to consider, the load is primarily taken by two bolts in tension as it is now and when you mount it underneath the single bolt will have a greater tension load than it currently has. It seems to me that the leverage loads on the bolts will be reversed. Looks to be an easy way to get a little more lift though, haven't seen it suggested for the Calmini arms before.

[Chop]

With the ball joint underneath the bolts will cop the upward load instead of the ball joint body, that would be the only problem i can see.

[speedyblue]

I'd be talking to Calmini as they were the ones who designed it. There may be a perfectly good reason they didn't.

Biggest issue I can see is that the cast body of the ball joint mounting would no longer be protected by the steel plate of the arm. A decent blow to a rock and you may damage the part or snap the ball joint off.

It also looks like the top mating surface would need to be machined flat as it currently doesn't look to be perfectly flat.

[Gwagensteve]

Pretty sure we tried this with one of cj's cars and it won't work, but happy to be proved wrong. I think is was a clearance issue (arm vs cv)

Steve.

[atari4x4]

cheers guys, i'll mock it up when i'm putting it back together, but i think steve is right about clearance issues... i vaguely remember trying it during the initial build.

i can't see a problem with mounting them the other way as they're designed to be used like that & have a raised mounting surface around each bolt hole.

damaging them isn't really a problem as i'm a web wheeler & the vit is a maller.


:edit: looking at these pics i think i might shelf that idea.

this is how they mount in the stock 1.6L arms (full droop)


stolen from darkhorse's build thread,