Bill Kearley
Supporter
Yes, OK. I have chrome molly control arms, jam nut with 1 1/2" of 5/8" of fine thread inside. A whole different picture.
Last edited:
Let me clarify Howard, I thought that with all the engineering talent on this forum, my comment re bottoming out a rod end would be understood. Michael, with a short rod end with shoulder that is designed to be bottomed out and act as a jam nut may move the lower control arm in enough and allow you to move the top in as necessary. In your pictures it looks like you can move the lower control arm in and it would take nothing to make a new upper arm. How ever changing the geometry is never the best way to go. Why do you have so much thread showing on the lower? Before doing anything I would be checking the entire car for tracking, and being square. Some time with a laser, a good angle gauge and tape measure will tell you a lot.
Here is his photo on the truck bed, and using the bed grooves as a grid (enhanced by my yellow boxes), you can see that the front part of the right arm is too far forward, thus the arm has to be pushed rearward at the wheels, which rotates it (yellow arrow), causing the need to extend the rear Heim joint in order to make it work. Shortening it would make it even worse.
So....with that said, would a stout 1" or so spacer placed between the frame and the inner joint (thus pushing the entire arm rearward), allow you to rotate that arm back in the opposite direction, shorten the rear Heim, lengthen the front Heim, and get you back on the road? In other words, the arms would then be installed similar to how the original photo was taken, but with the Heims adjusted correctly (except the one arm would be spaced further back than the other side arm. The suspension would not know the difference. I know this is single shear, but that appears to be what it was originally. Yes, there is some cantilever with the spacer, but a wide spacer, and high quality bolt should be fine.
![]()