QA1 install on my Sons Truck. (Pics)

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by wesmigletz

I went with the QA1 front set-up on our 70 K5 because it would come close to stock ride height, supposed to be just one inch lower. It Will be a while before I drive it. We were recommended the 750 lb springs. We’re running a stock steel rim with 235/75R15 tires.

Not sure what were gonna do for the rear. I like the QA1, but I don’t want to lower the rear more than 1” to match the front.

Your going to love the difference. You don’t have to Go Low to go QA1 that’s the nice part.

[SkidmoreGarage]

This thread has quite a bit of attention so I wanted to offer a warning for other QA1 owners.

I recently drove over some rough road (steep downhill with undulating surface) and I had a surprise when the lower control arm hit the road. Needless to say it upset the truck in the middle of a corner and it was violent enough for my passenger to comment. The damage is cosmetic, but did expose that the lowest point of the suspension is the shock itself. It took a chunk out of the eyelet and scraped the mounting bars/bracket.

My takeaway is that you really need to run a taller tire than I have (27"), and be very aware of the road. If I had been driving more spiritedly, I could have lost control of the truck.

[wesmigletz]

@Skidmore, thank you for the warning. Are you planning to stay eith your WA1 set-up?

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by SkidmoreGarage

This thread has quite a bit of attention so I wanted to offer a warning for other QA1 owners.

I recently drove over some rough road (steep downhill with undulating surface) and I had a surprise when the lower control arm hit the road. Needless to say it upset the truck in the middle of a corner and it was violent enough for my passenger to comment. The damage is cosmetic, but did expose that the lowest point of the suspension is the shock itself. It took a chunk out of the eyelet and scraped the mounting bars/bracket.

My takeaway is that you really need to run a taller tire than I have (27"), and be very aware of the road. If I had been driving more spiritedly, I could have lost control of the truck.

Is your Truck Lowered?? I did mention this a few posts back. I said it was the only thing I didn’t like. If your running 2 1/2 drop spindles you will definitely run into this problem. I’m going from a 27” tire to a 28 1/2 “ tire and if need be will go back to Stock spindles. If you have the dual adjustable shocks you can adjust the compression which should help. I have the single adjustable and went to #8 (it goes to 16) and that help some but it did stiffen the ride some

[3767]

Would like to throw this question out there regarding tire size. I’m seeing that 20 inch rims are becoming more the norm, so would u b able to run a wider rim (say9 to 10 inch) on the front ? 1 of the more popular tire sizes I see are 275/40/20. This works out to b 28.7 inches n height. But would the bigger diameter of the rim it’s self allow it to sit inside the stock inner tub more and still work with this set up?

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by 3767

Would like to throw this question out there regarding tire size. I’m seeing that 20 inch rims are becoming more the norm, so would u b able to run a wider rim (say9 to 10 inch) on the front ? 1 of the more popular tire sizes I see are 275/40/20. This works out to b 28.7 inches n height. But would the bigger diameter of the rim it’s self allow it to sit inside the stock inner tub more and still work with this set up?

My wheels are in yet but will post pics ASAP. I’m going with 245/45/20 on an 8 “ wheel in the front at 28.68 “ and 275/45/20 on a 9 1/2 wheel in the rear at 29.74

[LakeAnna]

I ordered everything today from Summit so won't be long now. Here a pic of mine now sitting on 20x8.5 and 20x10. I went with 255/45 on the front and 295/40 on the rear.

Looking forward to seeing your sons truck on the ground and your wheels.

[3767]

My wheels are in yet but will post pics ASAP. I’m going with 245/45/20 on an 8 “ wheel in the front at 28.68 “ and 275/45/20 on a 9 1/2 wheel in the rear .

Thanks 4 the help. For reference I have the ridetech front & rear kit. I like mine for all the same reasons u listed. With the tubular front a arms, I believe there is more room to stuff a wider wheel n there. Looking at the spindles, a 20 inch rim may b able to fit around the front arm where I don’t think a smaller diameter can with out some grinding of the arm.
Also some one asked about wilwood spindles n an earlier post. They have 2 styles. A standard drop spindle and the pro spindle. The difference aside from cost is the pro spindles are 1/2 the weight of there cast iron counterparts. They have a single sealed bearing (think late model corvette style) .

[SkidmoreGarage]

I didn't want to be alarmist, I just wanted others to learn from my experience. I think another 1.5" of clearance would have prevented the impact I experienced. I also think the QA1 stuff is a good value. I do run drop spindles, as they allow for the greatest amount of shock travel. If you want the same amount of drop without them, you would decrease wheel travel by 2.5".

I'm keeping the QA1 front setup as it performs well. It is just unfortunate that the engineers didn't think more critically about actual real world conditions. The control arms should not have a low point that is also the support for the coilover and doesn't offer any impact protection (a chamfer or skid plate). They could have raised the top support for the shock and moved the bottom up. I have seen quite a few OEM control arms, none of them had a catch point below a straight line between mounting points.

I'd try to contact QA1 with my feedback but my experience with their customer service wasn't great when I tried to order some small parts. They just sent me to buy the entire sway bar kit.

[3767]

I don’t think u are an alarmist….more like realist. When I put mine on, I had no motor and just spun the spinner ring up enough to make contact with the spring. No real pressure. Had the 2.5 inch drop spindles on mine as well. Looked at it and I knew before we put the motor n the front was gonna literally b hugging the ground if we were to put 27 inch tires on it. So I know exactly where u are coming from. Customer service isn’t what it used 2 b that’s for sure.

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by SkidmoreGarage

I didn't want to be alarmist, I just wanted others to learn from my experience. I think another 1.5" of clearance would have prevented the impact I experienced. I also think the QA1 stuff is a good value. I do run drop spindles, as they allow for the greatest amount of shock travel. If you want the same amount of drop without them, you would decrease wheel travel by 2.5".

I'm keeping the QA1 front setup as it performs well. It is just unfortunate that the engineers didn't think more critically about actual real world conditions. The control arms should not have a low point that is also the support for the coilover and doesn't offer any impact protection (a chamfer or skid plate). They could have raised the top support for the shock and moved the bottom up. I have seen quite a few OEM control arms, none of them had a catch point below a straight line between mounting points.


I'd try to contact QA1 with my feedback but my experience with their customer service wasn't great when I tried to order some small parts. They just sent me to buy the entire sway bar kit.

This is all good info and people need to know these types of things before they buy
I absolutely love the performance and quality of the QA stuff. I too called the tech center to see if they had another mount or a solution and was told “Sorry we only have that mount” No Help. My wheels came in today so I’ll get the tomorrow and will up date then

[1970 CST Short Wide]

So the new wheels went on today and I Love um. Changed the whole look of the Truck. Also Helped on my shock to road clearance problems, I gained a good inch more clearance..

I have a set of Stock (NOT dropped) 73 spindles in case any of you are putting QA1 front suspension on your 67/72 as that’s what QA requires. I paid $50 for them and that’s what I’d like for them

[FRCvette]

Sent you a pm. Truck looks great.

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by FRCvette

Sent you a pm. Truck looks great.

Thanks. PM answered

[lolife99]

This is a great thread.
Finally some real world feedback on the coilover shock hanging low out the bottom of the lower control arms.
I’ve seen pictures and have ask others, but never got a response.

I think a coilover 60-87 c10 chassis has to have the front crossmember located higher in the frame rails to gain ground clearance.
RideTech and QA1 are still trying to get by using the stock crossmember,… which is fine unless you want a low ride height.
Of course there are other options like RoadsterShop, Porterbuilt, GSI, etc. that can solve these problems.

[cjohnson6772]

Something I've never understood: looking at the pictures for both QA1 and Ridetech, what is stopping them from moving the whole coilover and both mounting locations up by 1"? The upper mount looks like there is room above the coilover to go up which would allow them to move the lower mount up and gain ground clearance while maintaining overall shock length. Am I missing something?

[68Stepbed]

Originally Posted by SkidmoreGarage

This thread has quite a bit of attention so I wanted to offer a warning for other QA1 owners.

I recently drove over some rough road (steep downhill with undulating surface) and I had a surprise when the lower control arm hit the road. Needless to say it upset the truck in the middle of a corner and it was violent enough for my passenger to comment. The damage is cosmetic, but did expose that the lowest point of the suspension is the shock itself. It took a chunk out of the eyelet and scraped the mounting bars/bracket.

My takeaway is that you really need to run a taller tire than I have (27"), and be very aware of the road. If I had been driving more spiritedly, I could have lost control of the truck.

This is the limitation of the stock crossmember/control arm location setup. The only way to get a long enough shock/spring is to raise or lower the mounting location of the shock itself. Seeing that there's not much room for raising the shock location, lower is the easier option.

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

Something I've never understood: looking at the pictures for both QA1 and Ridetech, what is stopping them from moving the whole coilover and both mounting locations up by 1"? The upper mount looks like there is room above the coilover to go up which would allow them to move the lower mount up and gain ground clearance while maintaining overall shock length. Am I missing something?

Look closely at this pic. The top mount would interfere with upper control arm if raised

[3767]

Could u have ran a wider rim/tire combo on the front? How much turning room do u have now?

[cjohnson6772]

Thanks for the pic. I wondered about the UCA, but couldn't tell for sure.

For anyone who is interested I decided to check clearance under the LCA on my truck currently. Stock suspension and 28" tall (275/60R15) tires. 7-1/8".

I apologize in advance for the discussion that follows, but hopefully this will make sense:

So if I assume that 2-1/2" is lost by the drop spindles that is down to roughly 4-5/8". Your tires are 28.7" tall which would get you around 3/8" more lower ball joint clearance compared to my tires so that would be 5" of clearance. This all assumes stock spring height.

You're showing 3-1/2" of clearance which is only down 1-1/2" from where I believe you would be with factory arms, factory springs, those tires, and drop spindles.

Since we know that the coilovers are lowering the truck as well I'm going to more or less say that QA1 clearance below LCA is not very different that factory arm/spring clearance. The biggest issue in my mind is that the lower coilover mount is unshielded but the QA1 mounts are no worse than any static dropped factory crossmember truck in terms of clearance.

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by 3767

Could u have ran a wider rim/tire combo on the front? How much turning room do u have now?

No in fact I’m raising the front by 1/4 “ for more comfortable clearance.
No turning issue but a hard bump will make slight contact, I’m sure the 1/4 inch will do the job-plus I changed all the fender well bolts to a flat rounded head Allen to get ride of the sharp regular bolt head. I don’t believe it’s hitting the bolts , did it just in case

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

Thanks for the pic. I wondered about the UCA, but couldn't tell for sure.

For anyone who is interested I decided to check clearance under the LCA on my truck currently. Stock suspension and 28" tall (275/60R15) tires. 7-1/8".

I apologize in advance for the discussion that follows, but hopefully this will make sense:

So if I assume that 2-1/2" is lost by the drop spindles that is down to roughly 4-5/8". Your tires are 28.7" tall which would get you around 3/8" more lower ball joint clearance compared to my tires so that would be 5" of clearance. This all assumes stock spring height.

You're showing 3-1/2" of clearance which is only down 1-1/2" from where I believe you would be with factory arms, factory springs, those tires, and drop spindles.

Since we know that the coilovers are lowering the truck as well I'm going to more or less say that QA1 clearance below LCA is not very different that factory arm/spring clearance. The biggest issue in my mind is that the lower coilover mount is unshielded but the QA1 mounts are no worse than any static dropped factory crossmember truck in terms of clearance.

I get what your saying and pretty much agree. The ruler doesn’t lie. Before QA I had the 2 1/2 spindles plus 2 “ springs and had to be careful not to get to close to the curb coming into the driveway. I have the 700 lb spring where my son has an 800 spring and willwood drop spindles. His engine is still on the stand but he has ~ 5 “ clearance. We’re anxious to see where it sets once it’s in. It will be awhile as he’s busy theses days. Will keep you posted

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by 1970 CST Short Wide

No in fact I’m raising the front by 1/4 “ for more comfortable clearance.
No turning issue but a hard bump will make slight contact, I’m sure the 1/4 inch will do the job-plus I changed all the fender well bolts to a flat rounded head Allen to get ride of the sharp regular bolt head. I don’t believe it’s hitting the bolts , did it just in case

What is your brake setup? Any chance that it has widened your track width enough to give problems? Wheels are 0 offset?

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

What is your brake setup? Any chance that it has widened your track width enough to give problems? Wheels are 0 offset?

I have Stock Disc brakes from a 1972 truck. Not sure about the widening but I’ve heard some do. Front wheels are 8” x 20 with 4” off set (centered) same as the Rallies were. My front tires are just shy of a 1/2 “ from the wheel well at the top of the tire. There is a smooth lip just before the bolt area that makes contact on a hard bump. That’s why I raising the front anther 1/4 “ and Still have 3\4” rake

Will be doing the tomorrow and will take pics and measurements

[1970 CST Short Wide]

Originally Posted by 1970 CST Short Wide

I have Stock Disc brakes from a 1972 truck. Not sure about the widening but I’ve heard some do. Front wheels are 8” x 20 with 4” off set (centered) same as the Rallies were. My front tires are just shy of a 1/2 “ from the wheel well at the top of the tire. There is a smooth lip just before the bolt area that makes contact on a hard bump. That’s why I raising the front anther 1/4 “ and Still have 3\4” rake

Will be doing the tomorrow and will take pics and measurements

Moved the front up 1/4 inch. All is well