Make it handle

[cjohnson6772]

If someone was considering having a new spindle manufactured, what design improvements should be considered? What would be ideal?

Here is what I'm thinking so far:

-Weight optimized
-Bolt on sealed bearing hub from a late model Durango
-Bolt on steering arm to allow for tuning Ackerman and bumpsteer
-Taller for better camber gain
-2.5" or 3" built in drop

What loads would be reasonable to consider for purposes of FEA? Would there be any foreseen issues with billet aluminum instead of a forging?

[SCOTI]

-Bolt on sealed bearing hub from a late model Durango

How durable is the Durango hub? Has it been used in actual high load/stress apps (racing)? There's a reason the Vette hubs are commonly used.

-Bolt on steering arm to allow for tuning Ackerman and bumpsteer

This is a good idea. Bolt-on steering arms allow for tuning but will be harder for initial market introduction. Might have to start w/one & then other options w/increased adjustability @ a later date (unless several options can be built/tested prior to public release).

-Taller for better camber gain

C10 spindles are one of the tallest GM iron spindles for their time. How do they compare to modern spindles? With a taller spindle, would real estate become a limiting factor? Would a more current spindle/joint arrangement work better (BJ attached under the upper pad vs on top; basically similar impact of the Gulstrand mod)?

-2.5" or 3" built in drop

The more spindle drop, the greater the interference issues. Built in drop needs to be balanced w/possible issues.

Would there be any foreseen issues with billet aluminum instead of a forging?

Isn't forging done for increasing strength from an aluminum material life-span aspect (aluminum has a reduced lifespan vs steel)?

Just initial thoughts. I'm sure there's more....

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

How durable is the Durango hub? Has it been used in actual high load/stress apps (racing)? There's a reason the Vette hubs are commonly used.


This is a good idea. Bolt-on steering arms allow for tuning but will be harder for initial market introduction. Might have to start w/one & then other options w/increased adjustability @ a later date (unless several options can be built/tested prior to public release).


C10 spindles are one of the tallest GM iron spindles for their time. How do they compare to modern spindles? With a taller spindle, would real estate become a limiting factor? Would a more current spindle/joint arrangement work better (BJ attached under the upper pad vs on top; basically similar impact of the Gulstrand mod)?


The more spindle drop, the greater the interference issues. Built in drop needs to be balanced w/possible issues.


Isn't forging done for increasing strength from an aluminum material life-span aspect (aluminum has a reduced lifespan vs steel)?

Just initial thoughts. I'm sure there's more....

Thanks for the reply SCOTI. I was hoping that you might weigh in since it seems like you have been into the C10 handling scene for a long time and have a lot of good experience.

My thinking is that the Durango is a considerably heavier vehicle with a 5x5 bolt pattern by default. Could easily sub in Jeep Wrangler hubs which would have the same BP, be very common place, and have certainly been proven to withstand abuse. While the Vette is good for racing a 3300 lb car, I'm not sure it is the best for a 4,000 lb C10 and it requires custom bolt pattern to be drilled.

My thinking on the steering arm is the same for sure.

I know that taller upper ball joints were discussed earlier in the threads with good results so I was after a similar after. While it is taller for 60s GM, these spindles are super short compared to a modern truck spindle. The modern ball joint arrangement may be a good option. I see so many new cars where the upper ball joint is basically on top of the tire!

I agree on the forging being a better option for long life. It just seems cost prohibitive unless large orders. Wondering out loud if a billet aluminum machined spindle could be designed for sufficient strength and life. I know DSE'S new upright is forged but not sure about Wilwood Pro Spindle.

My biggest complaint with aftermarket options currently available is lack of a spindle with bolt on arm for tuning and also lack of "off the shelf" bolt on sealed hub in 5x5 bolt pattern. There has to be a way to incorporate those features and I figured that I may as well improve other geometry at the same time if possible.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

Thanks for the reply SCOTI. I was hoping that you might weigh in since it seems like you have been into the C10 handling scene for a long time and have a lot of good experience.

My thinking is that the Durango is a considerably heavier vehicle with a 5x5 bolt pattern by default. Could easily sub in Jeep Wrangler hubs which would have the same BP, be very common place, and have certainly been proven to withstand abuse. While the Vette is good for racing a 3300 lb car, I'm not sure it is the best for a 4,000 lb C10 and it requires custom bolt pattern to be drilled.

True. There's a big difference between Vette vs truck weights; especially on the front hub. I know my research on comparable aftermarket high end spindles suggested there is a tug-o-war going on about the reliance of sealed bearings.

The spindles using the C5/6/7 sealed bearing set-ups recommend only using the top tier Zr1 parts because of short life span on alternative replacement parts. Those suckers are ~$400 a pop; pricy if you're replacing things more frequently. Thus the old stand-by wheel bearings w/their easy serviceability & 'common-folk' friendly purchase price are a value to those that have limited resources.

I see value in both. But, w/o having first-hand exposure on the lifespan of unit-bearings I'm @ a disadvantage of how 'worthy' they are in the scheme of things (return on investment).

I know that taller upper ball joints were discussed earlier in the threads with good results so I was after a similar after. While it is taller for 60s GM, these spindles are super short compared to a modern truck spindle. The modern ball joint arrangement may be a good option. I see so many new cars where the upper ball joint is basically on top of the tire!

I have tall upper BJ's on my C10's. I just know from my previously mentioned research that the disc brake style C10 spindles were taller than most for their era. From my notes:

67-72 A/F/X/& G body 'short' spindles ~7-7.5"
70-81 F/B-body & 73-87 C10 'tall' spindles ~9"
C4 Vette ~11"
ATS & Wilwood aftermarket spindle ~9"

*I can confirm the 73-87 C10, G-body, & C4 Vette spindle heights as I own them & actually measured for the research when trying to source something better for a g-body. The other numbers were from online look-up & could be suspect/incorrect.

I agree on the forging being a better option for long life. It just seems cost prohibitive unless large orders. Wondering out loud if a billet aluminum machined spindle could be designed for sufficient strength and life. I know DSE'S new upright is forged but not sure about Wilwood Pro Spindle.

This is true & apparently time consuming (I'm still waiting for ATS spindles paid for in June). The ATS spindle is forged & I believe the Wilwood is as well. But, even the forged versions have an expected lifespan (x-miles/x-years) before they SHOULD be replaced. It's a limitation most don't even think about for their steel spindles

My biggest complaint with aftermarket options currently available is lack of a spindle with bolt on arm for tuning and also lack of "off the shelf" bolt on sealed hub in 5x5 bolt pattern. There has to be a way to incorporate those features and I figured that I may as well improve other geometry at the same time if possible.

I confess I haven't really studied the Wilwood spindle because I'm a fan of being able to source the parts used from OE applications (Have a brake part issue in Podunk, TX. Pop into Oreillys/Auotzone/Advance Auto & ask for a Wilwood pad/caliper/master cyl/hose etc....). However, you can usually do the same for PBR & Brembo parts & they'll have something.

I'm 100% w/you on a spindle designed for optimum set-points of the geometry & tuning for the steering. I'm on the fence about the sealed hubs being 'better'. I assumed they were until reading about the alarming failure rate for typical store-bought replacement parts.

[93Polo]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

True. There's a big difference between Vette vs truck weights; especially on the front hub. I know my research on comparable aftermarket high end spindles suggested there is a tug-o-war going on about the reliance of sealed bearings.

The spindles using the C5/6/7 sealed bearing set-ups recommend only using the top tier Zr1 parts because of short life span on alternative replacement parts. Those suckers are ~$400 a pop; pricy if you're replacing things more frequently. Thus the old stand-by wheel bearings w/their easy serviceability & 'common-folk' friendly purchase price are a value to those that have limited resources.

I see value in both. But, w/o having first-hand exposure on the lifespan of unit-bearings I'm @ a disadvantage of how 'worthy' they are in the scheme of things (return on investment).


I have tall upper BJ's on my C10's. I just know from my previously mentioned research that the disc brake style C10 spindles were taller than most for their era. From my notes:

67-72 A/F/X/& G body 'short' spindles ~7-7.5"
70-81 F/B-body & 73-87 C10 'tall' spindles ~9"
C4 Vette ~11"
ATS & Wilwood aftermarket spindle ~9"

*I can confirm the 73-87 C10, G-body, & C4 Vette spindle heights as I own them & actually measured for the research when trying to source something better for a g-body. The other numbers were from online look-up & could be suspect/incorrect.


This is true & apparently time consuming (I'm still waiting for ATS spindles paid for in June). The ATS spindle is forged & I believe the Wilwood is as well. But, even the forged versions have an expected lifespan (x-miles/x-years) before they SHOULD be replaced. It's a limitation most don't even think about for their steel spindles


I confess I haven't really studied the Wilwood spindle because I'm a fan of being able to source the parts used from OE applications (Have a brake part issue in Podunk, TX. Pop into Oreillys/Auotzone/Advance Auto & ask for a Wilwood pad/caliper/master cyl/hose etc....). However, you can usually do the same for PBR & Brembo parts & they'll have something.

I'm 100% w/you on a spindle designed for optimum set-points of the geometry & tuning for the steering. I'm on the fence about the sealed hubs being 'better'. I assumed they were until reading about the alarming failure rate for typical store-bought replacement parts.

If you are going to C5/C6 bearing, I would only run ZR1s or SKF X trackers. They do take much more abuse than the OEM bearing. LG replies in post 10 listing how long they used bearings. They are about $400 and you'll likely have to go to a shop that supports the Corvette HPDE/ race community. The x tracker is basically the same design as C6 Zr1 bearings. Splines and abs signal change.

https://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...e-upgrade.html

The post was for World Challenge Racing which was aero, big brakes, basically heads and cam LS6s, wheel to wheel, hard racing. Failure rates for various parts were higher than what most club racers experience now. I also assume this was for SKF x trackers as SKF also offers a more OEM replacement bearing which is what you'll get at NAPA, Autozone etc. Corvettes were also running world challenge before the x tracker came out and the regular SKF is an improvement over stock.


His reply:
For us on one of the World Challenge cars.....closest to what you guys run on track this is what we would see time wise out of the bearings on track.

OEM GM bearings
1 weekend event (80 mins practice, 20 min qual, 50 min race) Approx 2.5 hrs track time

GM blueprinted "race" bearings
3-4 weekend events, approx 10 hrs total run time on track

SKF bearings,
28-34 hrs total run time on track
...
I help a friend maintain a C5 HPDE car which has a Nine Lives wing and splitter on 100 tread wear tires and he has been a few seasons on X trackers. I believe they would last a long time on C10 especially on the street. I'd have more faith in them than Silverado bearings. As posted above they are 5x4.75. If I went that route I'd set the rear up to use the same. DSE is likely using the X tracker in their front suspensions for F-bodies, Novas etc. AFX spindles have also used X trackers on 64-72 A-bodies.

I agree with you on parts which you can find in OEM applications. I have toyed with idea of a No Limit wide ride and CPP tall spindles (2 gen fbody) for the C5 bearings. But, then you're mixing parts to run a few OEM parts but using aftermarket control arms etc for their suspension.

Aluminum spindles/knuckles do have a life span. Another part that changed thanks to the C6 ZR1 was the spindle. The early spindles have had the ears which mount the caliper break off. GM discovered flex in the spindle and changed the manufacturing process when the ZR1 came out. I have not heard of the later knuckles failing. The failure on the original design were after many seasons of racing. I do know of one that failed on a 72 Charger with an aftermarket suspension using C5/C6 spindles and big Baer brakes with many autox days.

[Custom 68]

Scoti, you have probably said in the past but what tall ball joint did you use? Did you like that mod? It sounds fairly simple I thought I had looked in the past and didn't find an option for that swap but it has been so long I don't remember.

And to add to this I am running the CPP modular spindles and am almost certain at the time I went with the 71-72 spindles, I don't remember why but did.
Thanks,
Dave

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Scoti, you have probably said in the past but what tall ball joint did you use? Did you like that mod? It sounds fairly simple I thought I had looked in the past and didn't find an option for that swap but it has been so long I don't remember.

And to add to this I am running the CPP modular spindles and am almost certain at the time I went with the 71-72 spindles, I don't remember why but did.
Thanks,
Dave

I'm using the CPP 'modular' spindle on my current built ('64). I used the QA1 tall BJ for the upper.

[aggie91]

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Scoti, you have probably said in the past but what tall ball joint did you use? Did you like that mod? It sounds fairly simple I thought I had looked in the past and didn't find an option for that swap but it has been so long I don't remember.

And to add to this I am running the CPP modular spindles and am almost certain at the time I went with the 71-72 spindles, I don't remember why but did.
Thanks,
Dave

Just for FYI, the spindles are all the same when looking at the unfinished casting used. The only difference between the 71-72 and the 73-87 spindles are in the size and taper of the ball joint holes and the tie rod hole on the steering arm. So, I am guessing you bought the 71-72 spindles so that you did not have to changes ball joints and/or tie rod ends.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by aggie91

Just for FYI, the spindles are all the same when looking at the unfinished casting used. The only difference between the 71-72 and the 73-87 spindles are in the size and taper of the ball joint holes and the tie rod hole on the steering arm. So, I am guessing you bought the 71-72 spindles so that you did not have to changes ball joints and/or tie rod ends.

We are discussing this in PM's now so I wanted to put it here as well....

I recall the 71-72 vs 73-87 spindle differences were the TRE's. Drum brake spindles use different UBJ's/LBJ's vs disc brake spindles. I've always used the 73-87 platform when modding the front suspension so I have no knowledge of the 71-72 model specific parts. I swapped things to whatever the 73-87 spindles required (arms/steering/etc).

[Custom 68]

Thank you guys for the info, I had PM to Scotti as not to completely muddy this great thread. I had stuck with the 1972 spindles so it appears the tall ball joints referred to will work on the 73-87. The older spindles don't seem to have an option for those, that said I may have missed it somewhere but they don't seem to be around.
Thanks,
Dave

[aggie91]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

We are discussing this in PM's now so I wanted to put it here as well....

I recall the 71-72 vs 73-87 spindle differences were the TRE's. Drum brake spindles use different UBJ's/LBJ's vs disc brake spindles. I've always used the 73-87 platform when modding the front suspension so I have no knowledge of the 71-72 model specific parts. I swapped things to whatever the 73-87 spindles required (arms/steering/etc).

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Thank you guys for the info, I had PM to Scotti as not to completely muddy this great thread. I had stuck with the 1972 spindles so it appears the tall ball joints referred to will work on the 73-87. The older spindles don't seem to have an option for those, that said I may have missed it somewhere but they don't seem to be around.
Thanks,
Dave

It appears from my research that the LOWER ball joint is the same from 1971-1986 ('87 R10 also). But the UPPER ball joint is specific to the 71-72 and then a different one for the 73-87.


I would think that mounting the UPPER ball joint to the underside of the upper arm will give you a slight increase in ball joint height (it moves the pivot point of the ball about 1/2" to 5/8") vertically referenced to the plane of the arm. I my head, that tells me you would get some benefit similar to a taller ball joint...

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by aggie91

It appears from my research that the LOWER ball joint is the same from 1971-1986 ('87 R10 also). But the UPPER ball joint is specific to the 71-72 and then a different one for the 73-87.

Thanks. That makes sense. The upper BJ & the TRE's were the changes.

I would think that mounting the UPPER ball joint to the underside of the upper arm will give you a slight increase in ball joint height (it moves the pivot point of the ball about 1/2" to 5/8") vertically referenced to the plane of the arm. I my head, that tells me you would get some benefit similar to a taller ball joint...

I bolted the uppers under the a-arm before I knew 'tall' BJ's were available.

[Custom 68]

Originally Posted by aggie91

It appears from my research that the LOWER ball joint is the same from 1971-1986 ('87 R10 also). But the UPPER ball joint is specific to the 71-72 and then a different one for the 73-87.


I would think that mounting the UPPER ball joint to the underside of the upper arm will give you a slight increase in ball joint height (it moves the pivot point of the ball about 1/2" to 5/8") vertically referenced to the plane of the arm. I my head, that tells me you would get some benefit similar to a taller ball joint...

Karl and Scotti that's a heck of an idea on mounting the upper ball joints. I agree that should simulate the taller ball joint to a degree.
Thanks for the great suggestion.
Dave

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Karl and Scotti that's a heck of an idea on mounting the upper ball joints. I agree that should simulate the taller ball joint to a degree.
Thanks for the great suggestion.
Dave

I made a trim/backing plate for the top side of the a-arm as well.

[cab4word67]

Ok I have a question, my truck has a 5.5/7 ride hight with springs and spindles in ft and leafs and a flip kit in the rr. I am running .5degs camber and 4.5 degs caster with cpp upper control arms and leafs in the rear. I have 255/35 20s in ft and 275/40 20s in the rear. It will go around 50 mph corners at 70 with no roll and no slip. Am I doing somthing wrong here?

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by cab4word67

Ok I have a question, my truck has a 5.5/7 ride hight with springs and spindles in ft and leafs and a flip kit in the rr. I am running .5degs camber and 4.5 degs caster with cpp upper control arms and leafs in the rear. I have 255/35 20s in ft and 275/40 20s in the rear. It will go around 50 mph corners at 70 with no roll and no slip. Am I doing somthing wrong here?

Other than exceeding the speed limit? Sounds like your combo works for you.

[Rob Fisher]

I have a 1964 GMC with Porter Built Air ride suspension front and rear.
I recently swapped out the generic mustang 2 front power steeering rack for a Detroit Speed rack. I was having some steering issues which I thought where related to the rack, it turns out that it must be power steering pump as the problems still persists after changing racks. The issue I am having is that the steering is very knotchy, easy, hard, easy, hard as you turn the wheel left to right or vice versa.
I did take out the washers I put in to reduce pressure for the Mustang rack that runs at 1100 psi to 1300 psi that the Detroit Speed rack requires.
I think it is the Saginaw pump which I am unsure of it’s condition.
The question I have is do I fix or replace the Saginaw pump or do I take this opportunity to switch to a type 2 pump.
Your thoughts please
Thanks
Rob Fisher

[SCOTI]

I would switch to the Type=2 set-up if making changes.

[Custom 68]

Make sure you don't have any binding in your steering column. As I'm sure you know the u joints have a limit on angles. If you are over that you will get some notchy binding.
Dave

[SCOTI]

That's a good point.

[Rob Fisher]

I took the tires off and have the suspension at Ride height and it cycles left to right as smooth as can be. With the tires back on and driving around it returns to being knotchy.

[cab4word67]

Question with caster. I have a 67 stepside with tube up control arms and the truck sits very low. 245x35 20s. it has about .5 degree of of camber and close to 4 degrees of caster. What I notice is when backing out of my driveway the front tires seam to drag? is that the caster? it drives nice a straight, and handles the corners like on rails.

[Rob Fisher]

Can you offer some advice on brake pads.
I don’t take the truck to the track so mainly looking for something that will give me good bite when cold and still perform well when driving a little more spirited.
I have Wilwood brakes front and rear and a 1” bore master brake with no booster. I have contacted EBS and they recommend their Yellow Stuff and Hawk Performance recommends their HPS 5.0.

[aggie91]

Originally Posted by cab4word67

Question with caster. I have a 67 stepside with tube up control arms and the truck sits very low. 245x35 20s. it has about .5 degree of of camber and close to 4 degrees of caster. What I notice is when backing out of my driveway the front tires seam to drag? is that the caster? it drives nice a straight, and handles the corners like on rails.

It is not caster causing the drag.

How much toe it or toe out does your set up have?

[cab4word67]

Originally Posted by aggie91

It is not caster causing the drag.

How much toe it or toe out does your set up have?

It has 1/8" of toe in, thats a 1/16 on each
Drive strait as an arrow with no pull on the highway