Modified upper ball joint??

93fsb
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:14 am
Bronco Info: '93 fsb Camburg beams, king C/O's, deavers
Location: New Mexico

Modified upper ball joint??

Post by 93fsb »

Hey everyone have any of you guys seen this before? It's a set of 4.5 beams built by Baja Race Shop, I've only seen where the lower ball joint is moved never the top. Any pros or cons on moving the upper ball joint?


Image



Image


Image
User avatar
Wrightracing.net
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:58 pm
Bronco Info: 1972 Bronco with an 86 chassis, full cage and Long travel coil-over suspension.
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Post by Wrightracing.net »

I have a question, could they have been modified to use another knuckle, like a Dana 50 knuckle. I don't have any experience with them, but just a question.

David...
93fsb
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:14 am
Bronco Info: '93 fsb Camburg beams, king C/O's, deavers
Location: New Mexico

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by 93fsb »

I'll have to ask, I was told it was designed for a bronco set up but I guess we can't rule out a dana 50 setup.
User avatar
funinthesun95
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 2:06 pm
Bronco Info: 1992 Bronco MAF UsShift
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by funinthesun95 »

Dana 50 or 44HD would change the spread between the two ball joints if it is not larger then the stock ( it would be a good amount) it is not for Dana 50 or 44HD

your sure the lower does not look like it be moved at all?
Good people + Great info = GFB
@csracingteam
@Cockstarmotorsports
93fsb
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:14 am
Bronco Info: '93 fsb Camburg beams, king C/O's, deavers
Location: New Mexico

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by 93fsb »

So I measured the gap between ball joints and they're the same. The lower has not been cut or moved. The top was moved inward opposite of what a standard cut and turned beam would have done. I talk with the seller and he said thas just how that particular shop sets there beams up. I'm get some hubs on and see what it looks like.
User avatar
Wrightracing.net
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:58 pm
Bronco Info: 1972 Bronco with an 86 chassis, full cage and Long travel coil-over suspension.
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Post by Wrightracing.net »

It will be interesting how it works. I wonder what height lift it was made for. My concern would be the cv joint binding.
Let us know how it works. I have a new set for mine that the lower is just pushed out. Going wider 3" per side on mine.

David...
93fsb
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:14 am
Bronco Info: '93 fsb Camburg beams, king C/O's, deavers
Location: New Mexico

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by 93fsb »

I've been slammed at work and to tires to mess with it. Maybe this weekend I can get in on the bench and assemble aspare set of knuckles I have and see what it looks like. I have some stock width cut and turned beams from camburg so ill try to get a comparison. Either way I'll let you know. I hope they work it'll save me some time trying to cut mine up to extend them.
User avatar
ChaseTruck754
Spy/Ninja
Posts: 9194
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:46 am
Bronco Info: Don't have one - just old Ford trucks
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by ChaseTruck754 »

If they are extended beams while moving the top ball joint isn't common it seems it would give the same affect = correct the camber at a given ride height. Bind at the furthest out joint/stub axle COULD be the one possible detriment as pointed out. I'm interested to see what what you find. Not sure I remember hearing of anyone moving the top balljoint only. It's typically either moving out the bottom or V cutting the beam & angling both ball joints together.
Owner of only dead and forgotten projects
93fsb
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:14 am
Bronco Info: '93 fsb Camburg beams, king C/O's, deavers
Location: New Mexico

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by 93fsb »

Here's an update with the beams. I got it all torn down yeterday and the passenger side new beam put up with a tire on it. At ride height, and measuring straight down the frame rail to the beam it's at 6.5" with 4 degrees negative camber. If I go to 7.5" frame to beam it's at 0 degrees camber. I haven't started the driver side yet so I'll be back with that info as I get it.
93fsb
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:14 am
Bronco Info: '93 fsb Camburg beams, king C/O's, deavers
Location: New Mexico

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by 93fsb »

Got the driver side up and same numbers. This is with a 0 degree cam, no shocks and no vehicle weight on it.
User avatar
Wrightracing.net
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:58 pm
Bronco Info: 1972 Bronco with an 86 chassis, full cage and Long travel coil-over suspension.
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Post by Wrightracing.net »

So did you move the upper joint in? I would think it would go in by .50" to .75" ???

Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
93fsb
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:14 am
Bronco Info: '93 fsb Camburg beams, king C/O's, deavers
Location: New Mexico

Re: Modified upper ball joint??

Post by 93fsb »

Yeah the upper is moved in, not exactly sure how much I'll check it out when I get home.
Post Reply