Author Topic: Front control/A-arms:  (Read 6905 times)

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3324
Front control/A-arms:
« on: May 03, 2008, 11:57:49 pm »
Do any other model's a-arms(for example, monte carlo) bolt up to the 73-91's frame?

There are several reasons for my asking which i will discuss in depth in a tic.

Offline VileZambonie

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19180
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2008, 08:56:05 pm »
The G vans are the same I believe
,                           ___ 
                         /  _ _ _\_
              ⌠ŻŻŻŻŻ'   [☼===☼]
              `()_);-;()_)--o--)_)

74 GMC, 75 K5, 84 GMC, 85 K20, 86 k20, 79 K10

Offline Dragon

  • Junior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 642
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2008, 11:47:14 pm »
You mean to use on a 2wd or 4wd truck???  For a 4wd drive, only Trucks/Vans/Burbans/Blazers/Jimmy's interchange as far as I know...

Now if you were referring to a 2wd truck, some 1977-1996 Ex-Taxi/Police/Fleet B-bodies used the majority of the same front suspension pieces....
Dragon
08 Magnum-New Toy
96 Caprice 9C1-Who Knows
96 GMC ECLWB & 92 Chevy ECLWB
77 GMC K25 HS-Gone but Not Forgotten

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3324
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2008, 02:33:34 am »
i mean 2wd to 2wd.  And yes, i think the 71-96 vans are the same, but i don't think helps the situation as described below:

My main reason for asking is i saw (and i know what i saw---no hallucinations, drugs etc) in the neighborhood over from mine a truck with one wheel very tucked in several inches inboard and the other wheel was in the stock position.  (?)  The difference was at least 4-5 inches but possibly more.

At first, i was thinking that a different wheel offset was used, but i don't think this was the case because: a) i believe both front wheels were ralley wheels and i believe they only came in one offset, b) Even if the offset was different(negative offset?),i doubt it could locate the wheel  that far inboard.

2) The other reasons is, i believe (perhaps erroneously) that having the wheels tucked in inboard helps mpg, and i just think it looks cool anyways, so i was curious.

3) In the case of when a car goes "pro-street" or is "tubbed out," what will often happen is that the rear track is narrowed--the rear tires are located a few inches inboard which is ok.  But the front is left in the stock position and i personally don't think it looks right;  i like the front tires a few inches inboard from stock as well---so that you get that "funnycar" look.

So really, i'm wondering how to change the front track, not only for 73-91's, but all cars in general.

Offline eventhorizon66

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2008, 02:51:11 pm »
I don't think it will help mpg at all.  In fact, I bet having the outer edge of the tire perfectly flush with the edge of the fender's wheel opening would minimize drag.

The only noticeable differences will be worse handling, more body roll, and a larger turning radius.  Pro Street cars/trucks simply use a very small, narrow front wheel/tire, in an effort to reduce front end weight to improve energy transfer to the rear wheels.  I really think you should avoid this for a street driven vehicle, especially a truck.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 02:55:40 pm by eventhorizon66 »
'85 C10 SWB 350 700R4 TKO600

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3324
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2008, 06:22:42 pm »
It might not help, in fact it intuitively would seem to harm mpg due to the seemingly extra turbulence in the wheel wells caused by tucking the wheels inboard.

But consider this:
1)  Having the wheels flush with edges of the wheel openings may be more harmful aerodynamically due to the spinning tire/wheel's added turbulence against the passing air.

2) all funnycars and pro-stocks have the wheels tucked inboard.  Remember, these cars are wind-tunnel tested.

At any rate, i just think it looks cool; i'm not too concerned about mpg in this aspect.

Offline eventhorizon66

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2008, 06:37:51 pm »
The amount that the smooth surfaces of the wheel and tires are going to interact with passing air would be negligible compared to drag from air flowing deep into the wheel well, I think.  On the other hand, the flat nose of our trucks probably creates a low pressure area around the front wheel well, so it may not make a hill of beans difference either way.  The Pro Stock and Funny cars are wind tested more for optimizing down-force vs drag relationship rather than minimizing drag at all costs, and the wheels are tucked so far inboard for no other reason than to make the car more straight-line stabile, not more aerodynamic.  Not an NHRA engineer, but I think this is correct.

Even if you think it looks cool, consider the detrimental effects to handling on a street driven vehicle.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 06:41:30 pm by eventhorizon66 »
'85 C10 SWB 350 700R4 TKO600

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3324
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2008, 07:48:07 pm »
Now that i think about, you may be right because if you look at the latest dragsters, they have their front track really narrow, much more than in previous years.  And of course dragsters have no wheel wells.  So it might very well be for stability reasons.

Offline Dragon

  • Junior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 642
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2008, 12:10:41 am »
Even if the offset was different(negative offset?),i doubt it could locate the wheel  that far inboard.

2) The other reasons is, i believe (perhaps erroneously) that having the wheels tucked in inboard helps mpg, and i just think it looks cool anyways, so i was curious.

So really, i'm wondering how to change the front track, not only for 73-91's, but all cars in general.
Locating the wheel inboard gives it a Positive Offset(Towards the frame, with mounting surface towards the curb) like most newer FWD American/Euro/Japanese, as opposed to a Negative Offset like most Drag/Prostreet Wheels have(Wheel itself is towards the curb, and the mounting surface is towards the frame)....  Our trucks and most eariler Fullsize American Cars have more of a Zero Offset for the front wheels(Mounting Surface is centered within the rim) at least, as the steering componets and rest of the suspension would interfer with them...

You might be able to change your offset from a Zero front, to more of a Positive, by using new tubular control arms.. Then you would need to swap the current steering, to a more compact Rack and Pinion setup...

Changing over to a more Positive Offset won't give you any MPG benefits, adjusting or modifying your truck so it is less of a brick would...  Easiest way to do that, would be to use a bed cover, as opposed to running without one(Sorry dropping your tailgate doesn't improve the Aerodynamics, but it does make for a great hazard for the driver behind you :o)...
Dragon
08 Magnum-New Toy
96 Caprice 9C1-Who Knows
96 GMC ECLWB & 92 Chevy ECLWB
77 GMC K25 HS-Gone but Not Forgotten

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3324
Re: Front control/A-arms:
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2008, 09:29:44 am »
i've been thinking more about this lately, and i've come up with another plausible explaination:

If we look at the following picture, and i know it's a "mitsupar" but it still looks cool anyways,



We notice that the really fast drag cars are built low.  But if the wheels were located in the stock positions, the top of the tires would scrape against the bottom of the fender lip openings.  Therefore, in order to be able to have a low ride height, the tires must be located several inches inboard to clear fenders.

i just think it looks so cool irregardless.