L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Car: 1986 Plymouth Horizon (factory 13" wheels and 4 lugs)
Suspension: Koni Coilovers (purchased, not yet installed)
The Plan (parts in hand)
Knuckles: 93 Lebaron. Bolt in wheel bearings.
Brakes: 11 inch rotors w/ 60mm calipers and hawk pads (all 91+ car parts)
The knuckle width has been machined to fit the L-body strut already. I am to understand that one of the holes (preferably the top) needs to be slotted to correct the camber issue.
I finally got around to removing the factory knuckle to compare it to the Labaron one to see first hand what this camber correction issue is all about (this is obviously an error on my part) before i did any more machining.
First thing i noticed is the physical height difference between the two parts! Both holes for the struts are obviously much higher as well. Keep in mind, however, that this is a FOUR lug spindle. Not sure if there is a geometry difference between this and the factory 5 lug omni's. Left is factory, right is Lebaron.
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...psbujfa2qg.jpg
Also, the hole for the ball joint bolt is much larger on the Lebaron knukles meaning i cannot run the L-body ball joint/bolt.......(which has been purchased and installed already)
Has any body successfully installed 91+ knuckles on an L-body before?
Is this height issue going to screw me? (assuming i can resolve the camber issue?)
Can I run Lebaron ball joints in the Horizon A arms?
Hopefully I didnt waste all my time/money and effort into this.
As always thank you for your help.
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Many have. Hopefully they'll be here soon to chime in.
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
turbovanmanČ
Many have. Hopefully they'll be here soon to chime in.
Yeah i dint think i was doing anything out of the norm here....lol
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
the front end guys must be away this week ...
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
What year is the 4 lug from?
The ball joints were the same from 84-90 so I am pretty sure yours must be '83 or earlier...
In 91 they changed just slightly so that the snap ring height is shorter to match the cast control arms.
As for the height you need to compare the height from the center of the axle to the center of the axle.
The 91+ spindles push the ball joint lower so there is a 3/4" or so height difference below the axle.
If the spindle is older than 84 then perhaps there are some other differences in height and with the ball joint.
I am not sure if the 84+ ball joints fit in the older control arms or not but they probably do.
Worst case you could get one of each from a local parts store and measure them to see if they are the same.
If not then I would look for a minivan with the reinforced arms and swap them in which might be a good idea anyway.
-Rich
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
The 4 lug stuff is from an 86 (year of the car)
I did some quick and very crude measurements last night.
The strut mounting points of the new knuckles would raise the vehicle approximately 1 1/4 inches.
The C/L of the new knuckles would lower the vehicle approximately 1 inch.
Leaving ~.25 of overall lift. which should be no big deal with the height adjustable coilovers. So one issue i think is resolved.
For reference.
4 lug C/L
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...psnd6rly8d.jpg
5 Lug C/L
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...ps7a1lw5nf.jpg
4 Lug top strut mounting hole
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...psnfaqteed.jpg
5 Lug top strut mounting hole.
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q...pshdi0etre.jpg
Rich, what year for the van arms?
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AzShadow
The 4 lug stuff is from an 86 (year of the car)
Rich, what year for the van arms?
Actually the ball joint bolt won't be a problem. Just use the 91+ ball joint bolt, the ball joint its self should be the same and have a large enough cutout for either bolt.
I misunderstood what you meant by ball joint bolt and was thinking that you meant that the ball joint stud was smaller (which is the case on very early kcars and lbody cars).
If you do want to upgrade the control arms to the stronger minivan arms I would look for an 87-90 minivan. Pretty much any minivan with stamped arms should work. I am not certain that 84-86 have what you need but they are probably rare anyway. Just make sure they have the extra bracing on them or they will be the same as your lbody arms....
-Rich
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Ive done some research on this and my understanding is that any knuckle from a dual-pivot control arm car will not work on a stamped arm l-body. The differences in the knuckle will throw off your suspension geometry and push the wheel bearing further from the transmission by enough to leave too little axle splines in the transmission for safety from dropping an axle or twisting the splines on the trans end.
The only way to get bolt-in wheel bearings (from what Ive read all over the forums) is to narrow a k-frame from a dual pivot control arm car to fit the L and use the control arms, knuckles from the doner
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/j...r/P8080402.jpg
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/j...r/P4130351.jpg
- - - Updated - - -
These are 89 shelby daytona spindles on an l body. Lots of grinding and some machining
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
streetpirate
Ive done some research on this and my understanding is that any knuckle from a dual-pivot control arm car will not work on a stamped arm l-body. The differences in the knuckle will throw off your suspension geometry and push the wheel bearing further from the transmission by enough to leave too little axle splines in the transmission for safety from dropping an axle or twisting the splines on the trans end.
The only way to get bolt-in wheel bearings (from what Ive read all over the forums) is to narrow a k-frame from a dual pivot control arm car to fit the L and use the control arms, knuckles from the doner
Fortunately the information you used for the research is incorrect. It has been refuted in several ways.
There are no axle length issues when swapping GJKHPA body knuckles between years.
Simon (turbovanman) had posted that there was an issue with his van which he believed was due to the control arm spindle combination but it turned out that it wasn't the case. Simon had used a car intermediate shaft on his van which was not the correct length for a van. This meant that when he centered the axles both ended up short. This was 100% due to the wrong axle setup not the knuckle. The 91+ knuckle DOES NOT move the hub outward.
There was no change in the axle length from 84->91 when the knuckles were changed several times...
The 91+ knuckle does push the control arm downward but this does not require that the axle length change. Cars normally see this geometry if raised/lowered and axles are never changed when ride height is changed. Effectively lowering a car and using 91+ knuckles restores the axle geometry to stock.
The only thing that does change is that because the knuckle pushes the control arm downward there can be more preload on the swaybar.
When using the GJKHPA body knuckles on an lbody then there is a camber angle issue. Vans and cars also have an issue with a turning radius change due to how the tie rod mounting point is machined.
-Rich
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
My pictures above show what I did to solve the camber issues. It uses the stock camber bolts and I was able to get 3degrees negative camber which is more than enough. Some people don't use bushings in the spindles and just use the smaller l body bolts but I'm not into all that.
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bgbmxer
My pictures above show what I did to solve the camber issues. It uses the stock camber bolts and I was able to get 3degrees negative camber which is more than enough. Some people don't use bushings in the spindles and just use the smaller l body bolts but I'm not into all that.
I agree that the bushings should be a requirement on at least one of the spindle holes if the smaller lbody bolts are used.
Alternatively the holes in the struts could be enlarged to use the larger bolts.
-Rich
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bgbmxer
Those bushings look good. Remember where you got them/
Thanks for the replies guys
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AzShadow
Those bushings look good. Remember where you got them/
Thanks for the replies guys
Made them to fit. My old man is a machinist.
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Doesn't the higher strut/knuckle mounting hole location plus pushing the control arm down actually raise an L-body? Just talking normal struts and machining the spindle to fit the L-body strut.
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
black86glhs
Doesn't the higher strut/knuckle mounting hole location plus pushing the control arm down actually raise an L-body? Just talking normal struts and machining the spindle to fit the L-body strut.
It's excellent to know that bolt-in bearing knuckles will work on the L!
My understanding is that yes, it would raise an L if you kept the stock springs. Maybe the 1g neon struts would be better because they are shorter overall?
I'm lovin this thread! get bolt in bearings and options for better struts on stock single pivot control arms!
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by
black86glhs
Doesn't the higher strut/knuckle mounting hole location plus pushing the control arm down actually raise an L-body? Just talking normal struts and machining the spindle to fit the L-body strut.
It's excellent to know that bolt-in bearing knuckles will work on the L!
My understanding is that yes, it would raise an L if you kept the stock springs. Maybe the 1g neon struts would be better because they are shorter overall?
I'm lovin this thread! get bolt in bearings and options for better struts on stock single pivot control arms!
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
streetpirate
It's excellent to know that bolt-in bearing knuckles will work on the L!
My understanding is that yes, it would raise an L if you kept the stock springs. Maybe the 1g neon struts would be better because they are shorter overall?
I'm lovin this thread! get bolt in bearings and options for better struts on stock single pivot control arms!
- - - Updated - - -
It's excellent to know that bolt-in bearing knuckles will work on the L!
My understanding is that yes, it would raise an L if you kept the stock springs. Maybe the 1g neon struts would be better because they are shorter overall?
I'm lovin this thread! get bolt in bearings and options for better struts on stock single pivot control arms!
Yes, that is what I meant. With the stock L-body struts it should raise the car a good bit. I personally have BC coilovers so I can make adjustments for it. I might be heading to the yard to find some later model knuckles.:clap::nod:
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
im not sure how the newer spindle swap would lift the front end of an l-body?
in the very first pic, it "looks" like the strut mount on the 91 and up spindle is an inch higher, but thats only because the balljoint mount is an inch lower. i believe that the distance from the center of the axle hole to the top of the strut mount will be the same between the two. so when using the newer spindle, the difference would be the angle of the lower control arm, not the height of the axle center. the newer spindle acts more like and "rca" or roll center adjuster, so if you are lowering your l-body an inch, then the control arm will be in the proper roll center angle.
the only way i could see it "lifting" an l-body would be the extra pre-load of the swaybar assisting the coil spring.
Re: L Body + 91+ Knuckles Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OmniLuvr
im not sure how the newer spindle swap would lift the front end of an l-body?
in the very first pic, it "looks" like the strut mount on the 91 and up spindle is an inch higher, but thats only because the balljoint mount is an inch lower. i believe that the distance from the center of the axle hole to the top of the strut mount will be the same between the two. so when using the newer spindle, the difference would be the angle of the lower control arm, not the height of the axle center. the newer spindle acts more like and "rca" or roll center adjuster, so if you are lowering your l-body an inch, then the control arm will be in the proper roll center angle.
the only way i could see it "lifting" an l-body would be the extra pre-load of the swaybar assisting the coil spring.
I agree that it will not lift the car significantly. If the car is lowered then the sway bar preload should also be reduced.