• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

DIY Camber... (2009-2016 bump)

Also those shouldn't increase your camber at all, they just recenter the ball joint when you run increased camber.
That is the conclusion I reached, too. I could never picture how this ball joint holder would increase camber.
 
Factory ones are good, it's the aftermarket crap that you have to worry about. I'd love some more camber, but I'd also love some ride/noise compliance and years and many many miles of no issues.

Honestly In the 240 I didn't notice any difference when going from stock to camber plates in any increase in noise.

the 240 strut mounts don't isolate that much.
 
Maybe I'm visualizing this incorrectly, but it seems that these extender plates make the control arm angle even higher on a lowered car. With a spacer between the spindle and balljoint, you're moving the control arm down, but this plate moves it up.
 
I'd love some more camber, but I'd also love some ride/noise compliance and years and many many miles of no issues.

Mine are not noisy or nasty in any way. They had about 50k on them by the time I parked the car. :e-shrug: I was killing volvo mounts at around a set per month. That gets frickin expensive.:rofl:
 
Maybe I'm visualizing this incorrectly, but it seems that these extender plates make the control arm angle even higher on a lowered car. With a spacer between the spindle and balljoint, you're moving the control arm down, but this plate moves it up.
On a lowered car, the chassis side of the control arm is low and the ball joint side is high. That's why we add spacers between the strut tube and the ball joint to lower the ball joint side of the control arm. These spacers drop the ball joint like we want on a lowered car, but this will introduce bump steer if the tie rod and/or rack is not spaced accordingly.

Mine are not noisy or nasty in any way. They had about 50k on them by the time I parked the car. :e-shrug: I was killing volvo mounts at around a set per month. That gets frickin expensive.:rofl:
Killing in what way? New or used? Broken, or just splitting & clunky?

I've found OEM Volvo strut mounts to last quite a while. I used them for a many miles with my Jamex front springs with no issues, and I'm running them now on my daily driver with ~250-300lb front springs. I've never bought new strut mounts, so all the ones I've used had some miles on them. I never used them with my 475lb springs, though.
 
On a lowered car, the chassis side of the control arm is low and the ball joint side is high. That's why we add spacers between the strut tube and the ball joint to lower the ball joint side of the control arm. These spacers drop the ball joint like we want on a lowered car, but this will introduce bump steer if the tie rod and/or rack is not spaced accordingly.

Not sure if you're referring to regular balljoint spacers or the ones in this thread.

The spacers in this thread aren't dropping the ball joint. They're moving the control arm up.
 
Not sure if you're referring to regular balljoint spacers or the ones in this thread.

The spacers in this thread aren't dropping the ball joint. They're moving the control arm up.

Only the control arm angle moved up at the ball joint, but the ball joint, steering arm and spindle stayed in the exact same position, so nothing changed height wise. You should just need long tie rods.

But, if the upper instant center for the strut is a line drawn 90 degrees from the strut at the top of the strut and you kick out the bottom of the strut making the angle of the strut larger in relation to vertical, the roll center must move even lower than the below the ground it already is. Not to mention tire wear?

rollcenterdiagram.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not sure if you're referring to regular balljoint spacers or the ones in this thread.

The spacers in this thread aren't dropping the ball joint. They're moving the control arm up.
I see now. I was visuallizing the spacers and didn't go back to look at the pictures again. ;-)

A better solution would be to weld some thick material to the control arm that would allow for new holes for the ball joint to be attached on the same plane, only moved out farther such that it increases track width and negative camber. There was a for sale ad a few months ago for some modified like this.
 
I see now. I was visuallizing the spacers and didn't go back to look at the pictures again. ;-)

A better solution would be to weld some thick material to the control arm that would allow for new holes for the ball joint to be attached on the same plane, only moved out farther such that it increases track width and negative camber. There was a for sale ad a few months ago for some modified like this.

Thats basicaly what I was talking about here:

My friend did the same by welding on a piece of flat steel the same thickness on the and of the control arm. Conformed to the same shape and filled the bolt holes and re-drilled them. Its actaully very effective and easy. The only hard part is exending the tie rod as well. we were gonna try and see if we could source another tie rod that would be an inch longer.

I'll try and get my friend Erik to post pics.
 
Maybe I'm visualizing this incorrectly, but it seems that these extender plates make the control arm angle even higher on a lowered car. With a spacer between the spindle and balljoint, you're moving the control arm down, but this plate moves it up.

The angle of the control arm surface is irrelevant in comparison to the straight line drawn between and inner pivots and the outer ball joint
 
The angle of the control arm surface is irrelevant in comparison to the straight line drawn between and inner pivots and the outer ball joint

If you make the control arm longer, and the angle stays the same, then the ball joint rises, simple as that. It's a triangle, you should know that :)
 
If you make the control arm longer, and the angle stays the same, then the ball joint rises, simple as that. It's a triangle, you should know that :)

But the place of the ball joint in space is dictated by the strut tube and tire height.

Sure, as you push it forward the whole strut assebly will move in an arch pivoting from the top mount, and it will thus rise a bit in relation to the car, but the difference here will be miniscule.

But in reality the ball joint will remain almost at same height from the ground, as will the inner pivot point, Thus the line will remain virtualy the same, only longer.

The fact that it is longer does have some effect on the roll center position once the suspension moves. Static roll center will not move any significant amount.

EDIT

except...

if you move the lower ball joint outwards, the car also becomes slightly lower, as the lenght of the strut assembly will remain the same, which means that the line between the inner pivot point and the ball joint will be angled as well compared to stock configuration???

Change in height will be very small though.

Aargh, space is difficult.

EDIT EDIT:

kuva1.gif


In the lower picture the lenght x, being the lenght of the strut assembly remains the same, as it should, and the control arm becomes longer, as it does, so the line between pivot points will also be in an angle compared to stock.

Right?

The upper is not possible, unless at the same time the strut assembly is made longer.

The pictures are highly exaggerated, in real life the changes made are smaller in this case.
 
Last edited:
But the place of the ball joint in space is dictated by the strut tube and tire height.

Sure, as you push it forward the whole strut assebly will move in an arch pivoting from the top mount, and it will thus rise a bit in relation to the car, but the difference here will be miniscule.

But in reality the ball joint will remain almost at same height from the ground, as will the inner pivot point, Thus the line will remain virtualy the same, only longer.

The fact that it is longer does have some effect on the roll center position once the suspension moves. Static roll center will not move any significant amount.

EDIT

except...

if you move the lower ball joint outwards, the car also becomes slightly lower, as the lenght of the strut assembly will remain the same, which means that the line between the inner pivot point and the ball joint will be angled as well compared to stock configuration???

Change in height will be very small though.

Aargh, space is difficult.

EDIT EDIT:

kuva1.gif


In the lower picture the lenght x, being the lenght of the strut assembly remains the same, as it should, and the control arm becomes longer, as it does, so the line between pivot points will also be in an angle compared to stock.

Right?

The upper is not possible, unless at the same time the strut assembly is made longer.

The pictures are highly exaggerated, in real life the changes made are smaller in this case.

X isn't necessarily a constant length. The more angle you add the lower or shorter X gets as you have less veritcal component of the spring resisting the weight of the vehicle in static conditions.
 
Ok...not to be a dick or anything...BUT...


What does all this babble mean...sum it up for the retards that spend more time doing stuff than talking about it.
 
Ok...not to be a dick or anything...BUT...


What does all this babble mean...sum it up for the retards that spend more time doing stuff than talking about it.
It means you get more camber and wider front track which are pluses if you can tune the rest of the car to them. BUT you still have screwed up geometry because they would not move the control arm down. Visually they will move it up (wrong direction we want to go), but this does not change the geometry much in this case because there is an imaginary line from the inner pivot point (the bolt through the cross-member) to the ball joint and you haven't really effected this much.

It also means you have to re-adjust your car overall to account for the wider front track as this will make it more tail happy now. You could widen the rear track with spacers to offset the difference. That would probably be the easiest solution.
 
Last edited:
It means you get more camber and wider front track which are pluses if you can tune the rest of the car to them. BUT you still have screwed up geometry because they would not move the control arm down. Visually they will move it up (wrong direction we want to go), but this does not change the geometry much in this case because there is an imaginary line from the inner pivot point (the bolt through the cross-member) to the ball joint and you haven't really effected this much.

It also means you have to re-adjust your car overall to account for the wider front track as this will make it more tail happy now. You could widen the rear track with spacers to offset the difference. That would probably be the easiest solution.

oh god great. it already gets sideways at 60mph
 
Back
Top