Tall ball joints for 1964 Buick Riviera ?

[Stevo64]

Greetings fellow Riviera friends,

 

I'm being reunited with my 64 Riviera after it sitting in storage for 40 years. After I pull the engine and trans I'll be rebuilding the front suspension. Does anyone make a tall ball joint for the 64 Riv ? Has anyone modified a tall ball joint for same ? I don't want to change control arms etc. but I would like to improve the camber on it if I could.

Thx.

S.

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, Stevo64 said:

Greetings fellow Riviera friends,

 

I'm being reunited with my 64 Riviera after it sitting in storage for 40 years. After I pull the engine and trans I'll be rebuilding the front suspension. Does anyone make a tall ball joint for the 64 Riv ? Has anyone modified a tall ball joint for same ? I don't want to change control arms etc. but I would like to improve the camber on it if I could.

Thx.

S.

While I'll admit that I don't know the details for a 64 Riv, on most GM cars the use of tall ball joints or spindles requires shortened upper control arms to allow the camber to be set to spec without excessive shim stacks that will put the cross shaft retaining bolts in bending. To be honest, I suspect you'd feel more benefit from increasing front caster.

[Frank DuVal]

Improve camber? You want the tires leaning in at the top so the sidewalls wear more? Or going to autocross and tire wear is not important? You want the tire leaning out at the top so the car feels (drives) like it is on tippy toes? ❓

 

Changing caster will cause the steering wheel to return quicker or slower.

 

What is your goal? ❓

 

BTW, depending on how the upper a-arm cross shaft is attached to the frame, adding or removing shims is an easier way to change camber. But as Joe says, excessive shim stack is not good either. 😉

[Stevo64]

Thanks for the input. I always learn something when I ask questions.

 

I've used tall spindles or tall ball joints to make a more optimal negative camber curve in the past to good effect. An offset control arm shaft fixes the shim stacking issue.

 

I've increased the caster to improve high speed stability before but not so much for camber curve. 

 

As I'm new to the Riviera platform I was curious if anyone has a simple solution.

 

I'm just trying to mitigate having a 215/75 15" front tire leaning on it's edge with a ton of understeer on such a tank.  ( A bit more control if a situation arises, and in the Bay Area the situation sadly is often ).

 

S

[joe_padavano]

9 hours ago, Frank DuVal said:

Improve camber? You want the tires leaning in at the top so the sidewalls wear more? Or going to autocross and tire wear is not important? You want the tire leaning out at the top so the car feels (drives) like it is on tippy toes? ❓

 

Changing caster will cause the steering wheel to return quicker or slower.

 

What is your goal? ❓

 

BTW, depending on how the upper a-arm cross shaft is attached to the frame, adding or removing shims is an easier way to change camber. But as Joe says, excessive shim stack is not good either. 😉

He's not changing the camber SETTING, he's trying to change the camber CURVE. The camber curve is the change in camber angle over the travel of the suspension. When cornering, the car body rolls to the outboard side of the curve, compressing the front suspension on that side and increasing the load on that tire. To improve cornering, the tire wants to remain vertical relative to the pavement as the body rolls. This means that the camber curve needs to move the top of the tire inboard relative to the body as the suspension compresses. Unfortunately most stock GM suspensions from the 1960s do pretty much the opposite of that, hindering cornering. Tall ball joints (or alternately tall spindles) change the rotation center of the front suspension, improving the camber curve. And as I noted above, tall ball joints typically require excess shims to get back to the correct camber SETTING at stock ride height, which is why most applications need shorter upper control arms as a result.

Edited November 12, 2023 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[Frank DuVal]

Got it! Not static setting while standing still,  but dynamic setting through out suspension travel. Yep, tire needs to lean in at top to help corner, but remain level-ish while going straight down the road to minimize tire wear. Long/short a-arms were to help with this dynamic change in camber. I see this can help more than stock long/short arms. 

[Stevo64]

you got it Joe. Just trying to see what my options are.

Thx

S

[Stevo64]

BTW, I put tall spindles on my 68 SS396 Elky a couple years back and it transformed it.

 

[joe_padavano]

3 hours ago, Stevo64 said:

BTW, I put tall spindles on my 68 SS396 Elky a couple years back and it transformed it.

 

Yup, the camber curve on the stock 64-72 A-body cars is just awful. I can't speak to the suspension design on the early Riv, however.

[Stevo64]

Does anybody have a Hollander Interchange Manual to cross reference what other stock spindles work on the 64 Riv? 

 

I see the manuals listed on Ebay, just trying to be cheap. ( and stubborn )

 

Attempting to unbury my Riviera and trailer home on the weekend of Dec 1st.  Do you think my wife will notice ?

 

S. 

[EmTee]

1 hour ago, Stevo64 said:

Does anybody have a Hollander Interchange Manual to cross reference what other stock spindles work on the 64 Riv?

Possibly a full-size Buick (i.e., Electra, LeSabre, etc.).  Just a guess, though.  99% certain no other GM of that era will interchange.  Each division did their own chassis and suspension back then.