Mikes65

I have installed new tubular upper and lower control arms on the 65 Cutlass project. I am having an issue fitting the shock as the upper control arm now hits the egg shaped bumper on the body it is allowing more travel in the suspension.This is causing the shock to be about an inch and a half short when trying to install. I believe the solution is a new rubber bumper that is a flatter shape on top so the upper arm could not travel too far down. I also am considering leaving the increased travel and finding shocks with the fit I need. Any advice/ suggestions? I know Richard has tubular on the 66.

Aceshigh

Just wanted to ask.......

Why are you putting tubular control arms on such a big car ??
You're not planning on road racing it are you ??
Is there a real performance gain on such a big car you've got in sight here ?

Just curious, because I put SC&C Adjustable UCA's on my 78 Z28 for road racing purposes.

stan 65 cutlass

65 cutlass is not considered a big car is it?

The Stickman

Geez I hope not cause my wagon is even larger An I hope to do track events with it. I am considering the ones from SpeedTech. Wish I could help with the problem but I am having trouble envisioning what you are trying to convey.

Mikes65

Why install tubular control arms? For better handling of course.The crate motor dynoed at 433hp/466tq so I would like al the help I can get---plus they look real nice. Stickman--basically what is happening is because the part of the upper control arm that contacts the bumper on the frame is a tube instead of the flat surface on the stamped stock arms the tube us digging in about an inch more than the stock arms--causing an inch more travel and the shocks cannot acommodate that much movement down--they are too short. So I would have to compress the spring just to install the shocks. I believe this would be a problem because the shock is not meant to be the stop for the suspension-- the rubber bumper is. I think I am going to fabricate a small angle bracket and weld it to the arm where the bumper hits to create a larger flatter surface like the stamped arms. It is a bummer though---they are sold as bolt on.They just left out the part that after bolting on you would have to customize and fabricate and weld and paint and re install!!

Mongoose

Wow... I would have never considered that the tubular a-arms would allow more suspension travel before the bumpstop blocked it either. Have you tried calling the manufacturer of the arms to see what they recommend?

And to AcesHigh's comment, yes, the 65 does have some length to it, but did your 78 T/A have less than the 3398lb shipping weight of a big block '65 F-85?

Mikes65

I did call the mfg--the guy I spoke with was hung up on the fact that the engine and body are not installed on the frame so "of course" they won't bolt on--when you install the engine and body the weight on the frame will cause the suspension to lower and then they will fit.I agreed with this in general but I had a hard time explaining that when the car is driven over a bump or you raise the car on a lift that the shock will be the only item trying to stop the suspension travel and would likely destroy the shock.also the frame is on jack stands so putting the weight of the engine and body on would simply be putting the weight on the stands---not the suspension. After a while he got it and suggested some shock extenders--basically it threads onto the top of the shock and makes the shock 2 inches longer---sounded good--only 9.99 each so I ordered them. Then after some more thought I realised that they would actually LIMIT the travel because as the suspension lowers from the weight of the engine and body it would "use up" most of the 5 inch travel on the shock and leave me with very little travel---quite a dilemma. I also went to KYB website which has dimensions of the shocks listed. After finding a few with the same top and bottom mount as stock I looked at them and the top of the shock is covered with a tube and it will not fit on top--the original shock is just the plain rod on top.

The Stickman

Actually now that I think about it I wouldn't worry about the shock. On my rear suspension the shocks limit it the same way. I need to pull my shocks in order to pull the springs. Without the shocks there is a lot more travel.

Mikes65

That is a good point--But the front springs are a lot thicker and more tightly wound--do you think they could hold the front springs in compression.? I could lean on a rear spring and compress it--no way with the fronts.

Oldsguy

Interesting dilemma, and I don't have an answer but I think I know someone who might. Richard (Gearheads78) has an aftermarket suspension on his convertible which admittedly is a few years newer, but the cars are similar. If he doesn't chime in you might PM him about this.

gearheads78

someone ring

Personally the only time I would worry about it is in a drag car that leaves wheels up all the time. We use travel limiters in those situations. Street car pretty much will never see the full travel. Only time I worried about it on mine was I didn't want to damage the finish on the frame so I put a cusion inbetween when its on the lift.

Aceshigh

That wasn't the shipping weight.

The base model 1965 Cutlass weighed 3440lbs with a 225ci Buick Oddfire V6 (414lbs). That was the standard engine in 1964 and 1965.
That's what the curb weight was based on. Not the tall deck 400ci (620lbs), or the low deck 400ci (560lbs)
But for a FULL SIZE car, that's not bad at all.

BTW - no T/A, it's a Z/28 with an all aluminum LS1 in it. Wanna bench race ???

Bryan59EC

For what it is worth
The front shocks on my 59 Elky were the real limiting factor for the front suspension.
There is/was a cushion that slowed the travel down, but the shocks stopped it.
(this was prior to suspension changes)

As for the rear---the shocks are what stops the travel.

Mongoose

I think it was...unless the marketing literature for a '65 442 was misleading (which there is speculation that the manufacturers sometimes did). Actually I think we're saying about the same thing, although I was referring to shipping weight, and you were referring to curb weight, which is what you were using to try to validate your point, and invalidate mine. You do know they are two different measurements, right?


Nah... my '65 is a cruiser and a straight-line car... with 540hp of attitude. I think my '05 C6 or my '08 135I might be an appropriate challenge to your LS1 modified Z28.

Aceshigh

Yeah shipping weight is dry. So it's a useless measurement because hardly anyone uses that for comparison.
For the most part everyone uses Curb Weight because that's how a vehicle is driven off the lot.
Yes, vehicle manufacturers mislead on quite a few things like weight with different engine options, and MPG.

MPG moreso on the trucks, single cab 2wd VS crew cab 4x4 seems they are all rated the same and we know they're not.

As for your 560hp '65, you'd kick my *** in a straight line LOL
Around the turns is where I'd get ya though. C6??? Nice.....another Chevy man.

firefrost gold

who' a arms are they?

Mikes65

They are Pro Comp-- marketed as Southwest Speed.

64Cutlass

On my 64 Cutlass I have tall spindles from a B-body. I'm using Hotchkis upper arms designed for the tall spindles. I have KYB shocks and they fit with no problems; in fact, I'll need to compress the shock about 1/4."

The simplest solution is to buy a taller snubber similar to the stock one to move the a-arm up. The one that came with my kit is only about 3/8" tall.

Craig