Rear Alignment Issues (Lifted 2.25/1.75)

[Moundaineer]

Well Its been a little over 6000 miles on the lift and I love it, great improvement over stock. The front alignment is dead on, great tire wear even with the cut and lowered control arms . However I'm starting to notice issues with the rear camber, it seems to be a bit negative and causing the inner tire to wear. Has anyone experience this issue before?
I haven't poked around a lot yet and from what I see the rear upper control arms are non adjustable? Has anyone installed a adjustable kit on them?

Thanks,
Adam

 

[Fuller]

I don't have any input on your problem, mine aligned arrow straight after the lift. But I am very curious about your control arms. Do you have a thread somewhere about how you did them?

 

[Styx]

Yes please do tell of your control arms...

 

[Moundaineer]

Hey guy's, Sorry it took so long for me to respond, I've been fairly busy with school work.

When first doing my lift I planned on waiting to get the BTF control arms for a short period of time till I saved up the money. Poking around on the site I found a post from somebody explaining the way they modified the upper control arms so that they would be at a (Safer) angle temporarily.

This is an image I grabbed off of this site so I apologize for using someone else's drawing.
The back mounting bar gets the spanning bar between the mounting studs taken out. Therefore you can rotate the studs 180 degrees so they are vertical. Then bolted down from the top with all of the hardware.

This is NOT a permanent solution for the upper control arm issue however It has worked very well for me. My reasoning was that this would be at least half the stress take off when withing +or- 5 inches of ride height, and much better then riding with the stock location.

This is where they sit currently under normal loaded conditions.

My truck sees off road trails almost weekly. I check the bolts and ball joints religiously and make sure everything is tight.

Thanks,
Adam

 

[Styx]

Very interesting... I will have to look into this for mine... I went 2.5" and 2" my rear alignment is spot on and my front is cambered in a bit too much... I was going to modify the mounting area rather than the UCA's but this gives me a new direction to go in...
Thanks for the info...

 

[Moundaineer]

No problem. I'm guessing that you have the stock arms too? I was having a few issues at first with alignment upfront but I caught it when I checked all of the bolts. I'm and 6000 miles as of now with the lift and I love it, however the arms still give me a bit of a worry when beating on it off road, that's the only time I have heard of someone breaking a stock arm.

 

[Ronin8002]

No problem. I'm guessing that you have the stock arms too? I was having a few issues at first with alignment upfront but I caught it when I checked all of the bolts. I'm and 6000 miles as of now with the lift and I love it, however the arms still give me a bit of a worry when beating on it off road, that's the only time I have heard of someone breaking a stock arm.

From what I've seen, the more likely failure is going to be the ball joint itself separating (i.e., the stem pulling out of the joint and staying attached to the knuckle) or the lip of the ball joint getting loose in the arm and wallowing out the hole enough to pop out. The most recent instances I have observed that happening, the owner of the vehicle had it happen while driving on pavement (or discovered it when trying to diagnose a rattling noise).

That seems to me the main benefit of the BTF arms...a more durable joint. The extra length does help some with alignment from what I've seen. It won't get you all of your suspension travel back because the uniball cup/spindle can (and will) still hit the spring as the suspension droops out. I saw this even with 1.25" spacers. Only way around that I can see (beyond some setup that uses extended spindles and lower control arm drop brackets) is to install custom coilovers with a smaller diameter spring that gives you more clearance for the upper control arm.

Mounting the stock upper control arm on the underside of the original mounting points helps relieve the ball joint angle some, but as you said is probably a temporary measure at best.

I know you are changing the arc that the upper arm moves through relative to the lower arm when you relocate them like that, but don't know if it's enough to cause problems with binding at certain angles since the overall travel is fairly limited. My concern is more that the crossbar is there to prevent the possibility of each mounting stud from pivoting/swiveling (which they could theoretically do now that the crossbar has been cut) in the event that one of those nuts gets a little loose, but that may be a remote possibility since the nuts are pretty tight when torqued to spec.

On the upside, it will be easier to assemble your BTF arms with the cut crossbar vs an intact one.

 

[Moundaineer]

You are correct, the only issue I've had so far was that those studs without the crossbar rotated in place. When first installing the lift I did torque them to spec, however re-using the lock nuts and not using locktite probably had something to do with it. I noticed it when driving because the camber was affected, thus pulling the vehicle slightly to one side. I fixed it immediately and haven't had a problem since.

Even with full articulation at different steering angles I haven't had any issues with binding. But the spindle does contact the spring on full drop, just barely. I haven't seen a full drop in person with completely stock uca's in person, so its difficult to compare.

Here's a photo at full drop, thanks to a little sticky situation.

I'm currently studying automotive engineering, and having access to a full machine shop does have its perks. I have been trying to come up with a cheaper way to make the upper control arms using heim joints. The problem I've run into is that in between the stock mounting location (plate) and the frame, there is a large gap where nothing can mount to easily. Making any of a lower(bend) UCA then BTF does I think would create a great deal of binding, however nothings always certain until a proof of concept is made :O