Infiniti G20 Nissan Primera Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Lord Crodz
Joined
·
7,233 Posts
My understanding is these are intended for cars with McPherson Struts design suspension as the lower you go, the lower control arm angle is almost directly proportional, putting the LCA at angles that actually raises the roll center. These can help correct that because they space the knuckle and the LCA allowing you to further correct the angle, while maintaining your ride height. With our multi-link setups, the LCA angle is NOT directly proportional to the ride height, as there is a median component, what we typically refer to as the "3rd Link" which is attached to Upper link. My guess is they would do more harm than help, in the case of our multi-link design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
I was thinking that the third link would prevent this type of modification from benefiting our cars. Thx Javi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Thanks for your reply's! I use the car (P11) as a trackdaycar, so it's al with performance in mind.

I understand that it all works a bit different with our multilink suspension, but still, a P10/P11 which is lowered quite a bit, has his LCA's pointing upwards. That can't be a good thing either?

This wheel-/suspensiongeometry is difficult to understand sometimes... :shifty:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I understand what you saying. It's not that if the LCA's point downwards with these balljoints, it's an guaranteed upgrade.
Things could get really messed up, that is what i understand.

Just thinking about every option there is available to make my car handle better, so i came across these raised ball joints.

With our multilink suspension, is it actually that bad when the LCA's are pointed upwards a little?
My LCA's are now perfectly horizontal when the car stands on a flat surface.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,873 Posts
We just did this on our shop Evo, makes a WORLD of difference with the suspension and geometry with being lowered, however:

The geometry isn't solely the lca, uca is also involved in the situation. If you radically go changing one aspect of what's going on there without understanding what the end result is that can be a worse thing.
This.

On our cars with the multi-link setup, if you adjust the lca, the uca will have to be adjusted in retrospect. Since they move together, by spacing the lca you are effectively binding the uca upward causing travel restrictions.
 

·
Pining for "DMSentra"
Joined
·
5,559 Posts
I understand what you saying. It's not that if the LCA's point downwards with these balljoints, it's an guaranteed upgrade.
Things could get really messed up, that is what i understand.

Just thinking about every option there is available to make my car handle better, so i came across these raised ball joints.

With our multilink suspension, is it actually that bad when the LCA's are pointed upwards a little?
My LCA's are now perfectly horizontal when the car stands on a flat surface.

Nowhere near the problem it is with the McStrut cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
I was just thinking about this. To understand our suspension I tend to look at what mods work for the Nissan GTRs, Mainly the R32 as it is the most similar. They do lower the control arm with an extended ball joint, reason being that although you lower the center of gravity by lowering the car, you also lower the roll centre a bit more. Lowering too much can extend the roll centre too much and increase the roll couple.

When you look at the angles of a lowered G20 they are not parallel to the ground. I honestly think we need to stop thinking that the g20 suspension is magic and does not need anything to be great. Like what huugoo said, it is a trackday car, which might mean he wants to go lower than recommended, and I do believe installing a extended ball joint will improve the roll couple when lowering.

I just recently raised my car up another 3/4" and there is a good difference in feel so I do see some benefit to using something like this.
The bad part is these ball joints do not exist to my knowledge for our cars. Maybe we can part swap from another car?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
251 Posts
I am looking into this too. Interesting thread. I would try the longer stud balljoint if i could find one, maybe there are spacers conical to conical? .

I'm tracking the p11 and body roll is present. Switching to new coilovers 600/600, this will help but i know that suspension geometry is out of spec.. i will probably raise the car a bit more but i'd prefer put geometry back at lower height.

As for the upper arm it would not be difficult to just slot the holes or weld an extension to the bracket holding the UCA, mooving it the same amount as the LCA... putting everything back on but lowered as we like :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
174 Posts
The 600/600 combo is a good setup, I went from running at mid-rear of the pack at our local auto-x to top contender and winning most improved for 2013.
Here is a comparison shot of my car with the stock tein 7k front springs and 600lb eibach rear:

With 600lbs eibach front and rear: This was actually a faster entry speed if I remember as well while braking for the left turn.

not really the same camera angle but it looks to have similar tire deflection and wheel turning angle. A very good difference.
 

·
Registered
P11, DET/VE, Custom gt2871 setup, Custom suspension, Custom bushings, CalumRT ecu, [email protected]
Joined
·
77 Posts
2jracing actually has extended ball joints for the b15, I saw a tread that the b15 ball joints do not have the same taper. can someone confirm? would be sweet if it will work for the p10/p11 too.
2J Racing Shop
Thoses ball joint wont do it as it is fao McPherson struts...



Anyone has found a extended ball joint for our cars (for double control arm)?? or maybe the taper spec to source for maybe Honda or else...
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top