Adjustable upper control arm for rear camber adjustment!!

[MGV101]

Why does no body in the US or Australia (whiteline) produces an adjustable upper link for camber adjustment?

 

Most of the camber adjustment solution I have seen includes just the adjustable front lower links. These kit works by extending the front lower links which pushes the base of the wheel outwards generating more caber. By doing do, toe will also be effected but it can be corrected by the adjusting bolt on the trailing rear lower link. How much camber you can adjust is limited by the adjusting bolt at the rear link.

 

Recently whiteline had come out with a new kit with replaces both the lower links with an adjustable version which made more sense as you now extend both lower links at the same time without having to mess with the toe adjustment bolt. However, by adjusting camber at the base of the wheel, you are still going to change the wheel base.

 

If adjustment is made using the upper link, impact on the wheel base will be minimized as you are just moving the top of the wheel and you only need to adjust the length of a single link making adjustment much easier. So why does no body make such a kit?

 

I have actually found an adjustable upper link from a Taiwan manufacturer but is a little hesitant getting a set due to the fact that no one else is making one. Are there some inherent flaws on adjusting camber via the upper link? Is there a reason why no one else is making one?

 

Here is the adjustable upper link that I have found:

http://www.hardrace.com/products.asp?strClass1=9&strClass2=66&strClass3=122

[wcbjr]

The front wheelbase/track is wider than the rear. A smidge more rear width won't hurt anything.

[BAC5.2]

Track is width, wheelbase is length.

 

You are MARGINALLY changing track width when you adjust the lower links outward. You are talking on the order of less than a tenth of an inch overall.

 

You do know that Whiteline makes a bushing that replaces the crossmember mount bushing on the upper link that adds eccentric adjustment for camber, right?

[FredBeans]

You do know that Whiteline makes a bushing that replaces the crossmember mount bushing on the upper link that adds eccentric adjustment for camber, right?

 

Do you have the part number? This doesn't show up in my Whiteline catalog for BP/BL fitment.

[wcbjr]

Track is width, wheelbase is length.

 

You are MARGINALLY changing track width when you adjust the lower links outward. You are talking on the order of less than a tenth of an inch overall.

 

You do know that Whiteline makes a bushing that replaces the crossmember mount bushing on the upper link that adds eccentric adjustment for camber, right?

 

Quite the nitpicker, aren't we.

[BAC5.2]

Rightfully so. What good does incorrect information do anyone?

 

Mr. Beans, KCA399 is the part number: http://www.whiteline.com.au/product_detail.php?part_number=KCA399

[FredBeans]

Thanks!

 

http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/images/mr-bean.jpg

[BAC5.2]

Happy to help.

 

I only knew about them when one of the whiteline engineers told me in person. Otherwise I would have just gotten camber bolts or links.

 

At the end of the day, I didn't end up installing anything. My alignment came out perfectly without them.

[FredBeans]

BTW, I do have them listed for BP/BL applications and they are quite reasonably priced. I may install them with the KTA124 and see just how much negative camber i can get with the combo.

[whitetiger]

^man you and i have the same ideas! now why dont you list the spec b alu rear components on your website? i want the alu part that this bushing presses in to.

[BAC5.2]

I think you'll get a decent amount, upwards of 3 degrees on an otherwise stock Legacy.

 

The best thing about the KCA399 is that they aren't super expensive, and they aren't super aggressive, and they simply work.

[wcbjr]

Rightfully so. What good does incorrect information do anyone?

 

Mr. Beans, KCA399 is the part number: http://www.whiteline.com.au/product_detail.php?part_number=KCA399

 

Lol, I posted what I meant and the right word. Picky picky.

[MGV101]

Track is width, wheelbase is length.

 

You are MARGINALLY changing track width when you adjust the lower links outward. You are talking on the order of less than a tenth of an inch overall.

 

You do know that Whiteline makes a bushing that replaces the crossmember mount bushing on the upper link that adds eccentric adjustment for camber, right?

Ahh, track width! That's it! I knew wheelbase was the incorrect term to use but I couldn't think of the correct one. Figured people would understand what I ment anyway.

 

Just wanted to make sure it is safe to replace that upper link before I go ahead and replace it that was all (since I see no one else do it and thought there might be a reason behind that). So I guess it is safe to do so then? I am not that concerned about the track width really. Just that I think adjusting one rod is simpler than two.

[BAC5.2]

350Z guys get adjustable upper links, I think, so you should be fine.

 

I see no reason to do it, though. The KCA399's are dirt cheap, and will likely work much better.

[LittleBlueGT]

I think you'll get a decent amount, upwards of 3 degrees on an otherwise stock Legacy.

 

The best thing about the KCA399 is that they aren't super expensive, and they aren't super aggressive, and they simply work.

 

 

Our rear suspensions have a decent camber curve already. I was getting the best wear running about -1.3 static camber in the rear. I could see some advantages running -1.8 or so, maybe -2.0, but any more then that will be detrimental IMO.

[BAC5.2]

Toe wears tires far faster than camber ever will. Orders of magnitude faster. "Too much" is relative.

 

There are trades. 3 degrees of static on a stock car is going to have problems. Even at zero static toe, you'll gain toe through compression... which is going to wear tires.

 

Given sufficiently stiff suspension, such as the case when you'd run that much camber, toe gain becomes less of an issue and the appropriate upper camber limit increases.

 

I run 7k/8k spring rates right now and around -1.2 degrees with a hundredth of toe out.

[whitetiger]

for us r-comp tire people, more camber is b3t4r!!!

 

though i have the lower camber arms. to have both options to adjust and keep the wheel in the same spot without changing track is nice option especially since these are so cheap.

[MGV101]

350Z guys get adjustable upper links, I think, so you should be fine.

 

I see no reason to do it, though. The KCA399's are dirt cheap, and will likely work much better.

Yeah, that's what I think I am going to do.

 

The last time when I had my wheels aligned (a long time ago), the difference between my left and right rear camber were somewhere around 0.5 degrees. Now that my suspension mods are substantially complete, I am going to get another alignment done and fix that rear camber.

 

I am aiming for -1.8F/-1.5R for my camber settings right now (subject to change based on the numbers I get after measuring my current alignment). Running r-compound tires and coilovers right now.

[LittleBlueGT]

for us r-comp tire people, more camber is b3t4r!!!

 

though i have the lower camber arms. to have both options to adjust and keep the wheel in the same spot without changing track is nice option especially since these are so cheap.

 

I still don't think your cornering will be better w/ 3 degrees static rear camber. 3 degrees static front, yes, but our front suspension doesn't have near the camber curve our rear has. I would bet that at 3 degrees rear camber, your actual camber at full cornering G would be about 5 degrees, too much IMO. And your braking will suffer even more.

 

Heck the new Impreza chassis' rear suspension has tooo much rear camber when lowered, and it is somewhat similiar to ours.

[whitetiger]

^my suspension is set up with very little overall travel with my coilovers. my rear static right now is at -2.3. and my rear never steps out during autox. with the amount of travel my rear susp has, i dont think im gaining any more than -.5 of camber at most.

 

The real issue for me is that ive reached the limits of my factory rear toe arms since the camber arms push the bottom of the wheel out too far to compensate. the KCA399 bushing will allow me to bring the top of the wheel in along with being able to push the bottom of the wheel out and keep the toe arms in the right range. But whiteline's KTA124 toe arms will help this issue as well.

[LittleBlueGT]

^my suspension is set up with very little overall travel with my coilovers. my rear static right now is at -2.3. and my rear never steps out during autox. with the amount of travel my rear susp has, i dont think im gaining any more than -.5 of camber at most.

 

The real issue for me is that ive reached the limits of my factory rear toe arms since the camber arms push the bottom of the wheel out too far to compensate. the KCA399 bushing will allow me to bring the top of the wheel in along with being able to push the bottom of the wheel out and keep the toe arms in the right range. But whiteline's KTA124 toe arms will help this issue as well.

 

I reached the limits of my rear camber (same issue) at about -1.6 or so. but I really don't think I need much more.

 

I want the WL KTA124 kit just for ease of rear toe adjustment, that stupid eccentric washer is imprecise IMO.

[BAC5.2]

How do you find it imprecise? I haven't noticed any problems or inconsistencies. My rear toe is exactly as I set it 7,000 miles ago.

 

There is a "trick" to setting up eccentric bolts and washers, just gotta get used to it. No doubt the KTA124 would make it easier though.