The LH/RH adjuster bolts are a QA1 product that I got from Summit.  Speedway carries them as well and Summit is also where I got the bungs and the female heim joints.

Very nice. Wouldn't mind a set of those.

Read photo captions.

BB

looking good let us know how it handles 

Greg B wrote:

Do you think you are going to have any issues with the ball joint binding?  From the pics,  there seems to be a difference in the arc of the arm in stock form vs. your modification.  I do like the ball joint mod, though.  I think that was a very slick way to install the threaded bung.

Should be correct. That’s why I made the jig so I would maintain all the OEM angles.

Very Nice!

Bearing Bob wrote:

What up with the double jamb nuts?

It's there to set the length and allow for 3/8" adjustment less than stock.  Besides the fixture I wanted a way to make them both identical length wise. 
 

Have you considered what the ride quality will be?  When I installed the TCP strut rods, I could feel every stone in the road, and the car creaked and groaned a lot to the point where I went back to stock.

With all of those solid joints,  Your car will handle a road course very well, but 2-tracking will be out of the question.

lowercasesteve wrote:

Have you considered what the ride quality will be?  When I installed the TCP strut rods, I could feel every stone in the road, and the car creaked and groaned a lot to the point where I went back to stock.

With all of those solid joints,  Your car will handle a road course very well, but 2-tracking will be out of the question.

The car had roller perches and adjustable strut rods before I went this direction and I was very happy with ride quality even on crappy MT roads.  Also by having the coil over attach to the LCA a lot of that road vibration will be absorbed and I can run a softer spring so as a whole ride quality should be good.
 

What I don't like about them being adjustable is that these cars aren't exactly precision built and throw in 50 years of use it's hjghly probable once you adjust camber you're going to end up with lower arms that are two different lengths. Camber curve is going to be different side to side as well as everything else as the suspension cycles. What adjustments you do to one side you must do to the other side and keep the arms the same. I have Street or Track control arms. Their uppers are adjustable but are adjusted the same. Then you shim to make caster equal. That's what they say in their instructions and what is said in suspension books

Huskinhano wrote:

What I don't like about them being adjustable is that these cars aren't exactly precision built and throw in 50 years of use it's highly probable once you adjust camber you're going to end up with lower arms that are two different lengths. Camber curve is going to be different side to side as well as everything else as the suspension cycles. What adjustments you do to one side you must do to the other side and keep the arms the same. I have Street or Track control arms. Their uppers are adjustable but are adjusted the same. Then you shim to make caster equal. That's what they say in their instructions and what is said in suspension books

That is a good point but I don't think it will be an issue.  First of all we are not dealing with massive length changes.  A lower control arm that is 1/8" or 1/4" longer, on an arm that is roughly 10.5" long will still have a very similar arc and only minor changes will be made to the camber curve.  Second roads are far from perfect and the settings will be identical at ride height.  Whats my point? with the settings being identical at ride height they will start out the same but will begin to change as the suspension travels, the more extreme the suspension travel the bigger the camber change from side to side.  Most suspension travel is minimal so the camber will be very close most of the time.  With that said even of everything WAS equal on both sides the camber would still be different one wheel compared to the other because road imperfections will make make it so that both wheels are almost never at the same suspension height so camber is always going to be different one side to the other.  I think your point is valid from a design standpoint but I do not think it will cause any issues in practical application.  I could be totally rong, we will see

John Ha wrote:

I will start out by saying that I'm not a structural engineer but I would be concerned about the bolt that attaches the strut rod end to the plate that attaches to the control arm (center of your photo).  It looks to me like it would be subjected to large bending and shear loads - a single point of failure.  The original design attaches the strut rods to the LCA using 2 bolts and additionally uses the flattened end of the control arm applied as a plate to help resist control arm twist.  It looks to me like you're design allows more twist since the control arm ball joint end is now attached to the the up-down pivot by a shaft along the axis of the twisting motion.

Thats a good catch.  The picture is old and the problem has already been addressed with a larger solid rod end using a bigger bolt and then I will also fabricate a bracket that ties the rod end bolt to the lower shock mount so that the bolt is in double sheer.
 

While we're awaiting Daze to reply, I'm gonna jump in here. UCA shims are usually used for caster and camber adjustment. While using UCA shims to adjust caster does change the toe setting, I've never heard of setting toe that way. I set toe after caster and camber by turning the steering arm adjuster.