upper control arms - GW vs TCP (rod end vs. del-a-lum bushing)

[chris82369]

I am shopping for upper control arms for my daily driver 1968 mustang. I'm trying to decide between Total Control Products or Global West (although I am interested to hear arguments in favor of others).

To cut to the chase I think my main question is what would be better for a daily driver: the GW's del-a-lum bushings or TCP's rod-ends ?

My desires:
* dependable/safe & good performance.
* not noisy -- i.e. no creaking or clunking.
* serviceable - preferably with non-proprietary parts.
* low maintenance requirements. i.e. last for many years before I have to replace parts.
* full 1.5" drop in control arm mounting point.

I think I've ruled out the "roller track" open tracker control arms because they are actually the most expensive ($675) and they are fixed at stock length. GW are slightly shorter than stock and the TCPs can be adjusted. Note I do plan to use some of the other open tracker stuff, like their strut rods and roller perch. I am not worried about being "vintage racing legal".

GW leads you to believe that shortening the arm helps with the camber gain and also better keeps wide tires from rubbing. I'm interested in feedback on that subject.

So between the TCP and GW I would say my main issue is what is better for a daily driver, the rod-ends on the TCP arms or the Del-a-lum bushings? I want something that will be reliable and quiet and last a while. My hunch is the GW bushings might last longer, but when it is time to replace I'll have to go back to GW for a new set of these proprietary bushings. I'll probably end up with rod-ends anyway on the strut rods...


TCP: $660.
http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/upper.html

pros:
* rod-ends should be easy to source/replace when needed.
* adjustable length - something else I can play around with if desired.
* possible upgrade to coil-over (not likely though) in future.

cons:
* cost
* rod-ends ?? -- how long do they last on a daily driver ?
* minor: requires the ball-joints with the grease zert on the bottom, instead of on side like original. these seem to be easy to find though (the last ball joint I bought at autozone was this style).


GW: $590 (dallas mustang)
http://www.globalwest.net/mustang_1964 -73 catalog.htm#Tubular upper control arms

pros:
* cost (relative to TCP anyway)

not sure pro or con:
* del-a-lum bushings better match for daily driver ? or not ?

cons:
* proprietary del-a-lum bushing means that when they wear out GW will be the only source.

 

[Rusty67]

I'm waiting for the results from the CCP suspension kit on my Mustang. They will have an upper arm for sale soon and I believe it will be a lot cheaper then those. The only thing is that they do use a proprietary bushing material but it is supposed to last a LONG time and I can't imagine replacement pieces being that expensive from them. Their arm is shorter then the stock arm and I believe it will come with shims to push it back out to the stock length arm if you wanted to. The only thing I'm not sure about is if it will work with a control arm drop passed 1". Danny at CCP said it shouldn't be an issue but he wasn't sure. I'm wondering if they want to try it out on my car or not. I'm going to give them a call about it next week. Wrestling season ends after this week so I'll have a lot more time to do stuff.

 

[Boo Boo Foo]

The only thing I'm not sure about is if it will work with a control arm drop passed 1". Danny at CCP said it shouldn't be an issue but he wasn't sure. I'm wondering if they want to try it out on my car or not. I'm going to give them a call about it next week. Wrestling season ends after this week so I'll have a lot more time to do stuff.

The cost difference between CCP's equipment and the others noted in the Opening Post is so great, so vast, that the Pro Motorsports Negative Wedge kit still would leave you with change to spare.

The unknown (at this point in time) is the longevity of the bushing material used in the CCP pivot points. In that context, the TCP gear is definitely the most "blingy" of the two options in the OP, but the costs of their equipment are out of this world. (Especially if you're living in Australia like I do!) If my choices were only TCP or GW's upper arms, I'd go for the TCP arms.

Personally, if the CCP bushing material passes the test, they're the first to offer a true double-wishbone system for a Mustang, and kudos to them. Clearly, the similarities between a 60's Nova and a 60's Mustang were pretty strong. Although, to be fair, Global West now offers a true one-piece lower wishbone too. There's just something elegant about the CCP system which appeals to me. It's so simple and strong.

 

[Jester67]

I picked the GW they have a life time warranty so if they do ware out you are still covered

 

[bnickel]

if the two choices are TCP and GW for just a standard arm i'd probably go with the GW, BTW the delrin bushings aren't proprietary, you can buy bulk delrin blocks in different sizes at just about any of the big industrial supply places like Grainger and just have it machined into a bushing. what is proprietary about the Del-Alum bushings is the delrin material in an aluminum sleeve, most likely the aluminum sleeve won't wear out if properly maintained and for that matter the delrin shouldn't either but if it does you don't have to go back to GW for replacements but with the lifetime warranty i don't see any reason not to.

personally i would prefer not have a rod end on the street, at least for a regular driver anyway so that's why i wouldn't go with the TCP arms, however, if you do plan on doing a coilover conversion at any time in the future then with the TCP arms you can just buy the coilover swap pieces from TCP and not have to buy a whole new control arm like you would with the GW arms.

i really like the CPP kit a lot, especially for the lower pieces and would like to use that with some Opentracker parts on my 69 cougar project and make a custom coilover setup with them.

 

[chris82369]

The CPP suspension kit looks interesting, but I need something now, and the CPP is not available yet. Also I would prefer something that has been proven/tested over time -- this car is my daily driver so I really want something that is more or less bolt-in and known to be reliable.

 

[chris82369]

Thanks for the feedback...

I am getting closer to pulling the trigger on the UCA purchase, and as of now I am leaning towards the GW arms. I have yet to find any complaints about the GW arms, and it seems these things have been available for many years. Safety/reliability is a key concern for me.

There was one post here about a failed TCP UCA (older design)...
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?p=3784539

That said the (now "mark II") TCP arms are probably just fine, and I did find that they are less expensive if ordered through Mustang Depot ($600). Another minor negative for the TCPs is they do not include the metal drilling template (extra $), and it looks like that is included with the GW arms.

To my eye the GW arms look super heavy duty. Here is a link to a GW installation article in car craft magazine, with some good shots of the GW arm.
http://tinyurl.com/39hefr

And as mentioned before the GW arms have a "lifetime warranty", including the bushings -- "racing or not".

Chris

 

[CraigMBA]

The Global West template is wrong and should be disgared on sight.

It only locates the holes down, not down and rearward. Makes it necessary to more shims in the front to get enough caster, sometimes at the expense of camber.

I like the GW arms, but I don't like the GW template.

 

[garner67]

The Global West template is wrong and should be disgared on sight.

It only locates the holes down, not down and rearward. Makes it necessary to more shims in the front to get enough caster, sometimes at the expense of camber.

I like the GW arms, but I don't like the GW template.

I could be wrong, but I believe the 67-68 Mustangs do not need the dropped UCA arm moved back, only the 65-66 cars need the lower holes to be moved back a bit.

Can someone confirm/deny this note?

 

[bnickel]

I could be wrong, but I believe the 67-68 Mustangs do not need the dropped UCA arm moved back, only the 65-66 cars need the lower holes to be moved back a bit.

Can someone confirm/deny this note?

that is absolutely correct. when ford redesigned the shock towers in 67 they inluded the backwards move in the UCA location for better/more camber already. it is not necessary or even recommended to move them back any further because you will go out past the shock tower reinforcement plate where the arms bolt through.

 

[Jester67]

The Global West template is wrong and should be disgared on sight.

It only locates the holes down, not down and rearward. Makes it necessary to more shims in the front to get enough caster, sometimes at the expense of camber.

I like the GW arms, but I don't like the GW template.

You have got to be kidding right?

The GW arms pre date all the other enhanced geometry arms out there, if they had a problem it would have been corrected long before now. I had no problem what so ever with mine.

 

[CraigMBA]

On the '64-66 cars the template is absolutely wrong. I can't speak for the '67 and newer cars, I've never owned one and never worked on one.

I drilled mine with the GW template and now I'm stuck with the holes in the wrong postition. Setting the arm back 1/4" makes a huge difference if you're trying to get caster over 3 degrees and camber over 1 1/5 degrees. Those are the max settings I can get with my current holes. If I set the holes back 1/4" to begin with, I could get (around) 5 degrees caster and 3 degrees camber without adjustable strut rods.

Opentracker (and others) go to the trouble of disassembling the stock arms (when he uses them) and reclocking the shafts to maximize arm setback and minimize shims needed to get enough caster in the car.

I have the GW arms and they work fine. I wish I knew then what I know now about the template. The 1 3/4" down isn't the problem, it's the lack of 1/4" BACK that is.

 

[Jester67]

Did you call GW about the problem?

 

[CraigMBA]

They claim it's no problem.

About six months ago, I had a customer who runs the best alignment shop I've seen get a '65 Convertable with an all GW front end complain to me about the same thing. Before I could open my mouth, he told me the template was wrong (you can tell when you look at the new template - it increases caster gain, but it also is setting the front end up for more static positive caster) and GW told him there was no problem.

I think GW is afraid to put the correct template in the kit because if some user drilled it the wrong way (holes down and FORWARD) they'd really be in a world of hurt. At least this way, nobody can get it on backwords. That might make it great for easy installation, but it doesn't make it right.

 

[gsxrken]

I saw in their new catalog that TCP just came out with some arms that have a lowered crossbar, so you don't have to drill the holes at all and still get the increased camber gain of the the shelby drop. In other words, there are ears on the top of the crossbar for the bolts to go through the tower in the stock holes.

What I don't know is whether they also thought to "slide" the bar back a little to add some caster like you mention you can do with off-centering the shaft like you're talking about. Might be worth a call to TCP.

 

[mustangdave]

Speaking as an owner of a 67 with GW upper arms, they are a high quality piece but there is one design item that makes me nervous. When using their template to lower the mounting points, the new holes are below the shock tower reinforcement plates (engine side). Actually, the drill will hit the bottom of the plates as you are drilling so go slow and careful or it will rip the drill out of your hand... or break your wrist.
I wonder about the decreased strength of the new mounting points as you have half the metal to hold them. Comments welcome.

 

[Psydwaze]

... What I don't know is whether they (TCP) also thought to "slide" the bar back a little to add some caster...

Yes, the early pivot shafts and drill jig templates are offset rearward 1/8" with a 1" drop. You can see the offset in the image; arrow always points toward front of vehicle.
http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/upper_dropped.html

Early Template - 1" down, 1/8" rearward
View attachment 343363

Late Template - 1" down, symmetrical
View attachment 343365

 

[bnickel]

Yes, the early pivot shafts and drill jig templates are offset rearward 1/8" with a 1" drop. You can see the offset in the image; arrow always points toward front of vehicle.
http://www.totalcontrolproducts.com/upper_dropped.html

Early Template - 1" down, 1/8" rearward
View attachment 343313

Late Template - 1" down, symmetrical
View attachment 343315

hmm, that's interesting. that might sway me towards some TCP arms but i don't still don't partcularly like the rode ends for a daily driver

 

[CraigMBA]

The TCP template isn't a lot of help if you're trying to center those holes up without the aid of a set of transfer punches................

 

[Psydwaze]

The jigs are 1/4" steel so that a full-size drill bit can be used without drilling pilot holes.