Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Results 1 to 16 of 16

    Thread: cad drawing for balljoint extenders

    1. 09-29-2012 05:01 PM #1
      Does anyone have a cad drawing for mk2/mk3 ball-joint extenders I can have my buddy build me some, just need some dimensions.

    2. Member
      Join Date
      Jun 13th, 2009
      Location
      Simpsonville, SC
      Posts
      139
      09-29-2012 07:29 PM #2
      This may be a really dumb idea.......but:

      Why don't people use a solid piece of metal and relocate the ball joint mount to the top of the control arm? Seems like it would be a lot simpler and stronger ($15 worth of flat metal vs the $200 extenders)

      Here is a very crude drawing showing what I'm thinking about:
      Yellow blocks would be steel or aluminum and sandwich the balljoint mount. Get some longer bolts, and you can reuse the existing holes in the control arm. Thoughts?



    3. 09-30-2012 09:33 PM #3
      It would not correct the suspension geometry.

    4. Member gbisus13's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 16th, 2005
      Location
      Roc, NY
      Posts
      925
      Vehicles
      86 Scirocco 16V, 04 Jetta 1.8BT, 89 944 S2
      10-03-2012 04:52 PM #4
      Quote Originally Posted by Maxf31 View Post
      It would not correct the suspension geometry.
      Actually, it would.

      And you could use the plate to lengthen the control arm as well by drilling a second set of holes further out, the inner set bolts to the control arm, the outer set to the ball joint.

    5. Member Light on Fuel's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 1st, 2011
      Location
      North Jerzy
      Posts
      406
      Vehicles
      01,VW,GTI GLX
      10-03-2012 05:05 PM #5
      Quote Originally Posted by gbisus13 View Post
      Actually, it would.

      And you could use the plate to lengthen the control arm as well by drilling a second set of holes further out, the inner set bolts to the control arm, the outer set to the ball joint.
      I'm pretty sure that he's right. I can't remember where, but I've seen the extenders somewhere on the web for sale. I'm not sure if they were home-made or not because it was a couple of years back.

    6. Member
      Join Date
      Mar 24th, 2012
      Location
      Wappingers Falls NY
      Posts
      358
      Vehicles
      2008 Passat 2.0, 2012 Golf TDi
      10-04-2012 03:02 PM #6
      What would be accomplished by extending the lower control arm length, all else equal? If the lower control arm is parallel with the ground nothing else changes...Camber curve remains the same...instant centers remain the same...other elements do change, what is being corrected?

    7. Member Light on Fuel's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 1st, 2011
      Location
      North Jerzy
      Posts
      406
      Vehicles
      01,VW,GTI GLX
      10-04-2012 03:45 PM #7
      Quote Originally Posted by meboice View Post
      What would be accomplished by extending the lower control arm length, all else equal? If the lower control arm is parallel with the ground nothing else changes...Camber curve remains the same...instant centers remain the same...other elements do change, what is being corrected?
      It allows for more camber adjustment at the ball joint, which MKIV's currently do not have. Here's the thread. The part is manufactured from Ingalls Engineering, so I'm not sure why a CAD file is needed.

      Although, it seems that extending the ball joint further out would also reduce its range of movement. That's one of the reasons that I never really followed up on them. I prefer to try and set the suspension up in a way that makes them unnecessary. OP: Are you interested in making them to use in a motorsport application?
      Last edited by Light on Fuel; 10-04-2012 at 08:30 PM.

    8. Member
      Join Date
      Mar 24th, 2012
      Location
      Wappingers Falls NY
      Posts
      358
      Vehicles
      2008 Passat 2.0, 2012 Golf TDi
      10-05-2012 08:50 AM #8
      I was thinking about this modification this morning for a bit...I did play around with my drawing for a few minutes and without knowing the actual existing geometry and the change it's hard to see exactly how much camber gain/travel there is. But there may be some serious scrubbing forces at work here too as the suspension moves up and down...and I wonder what the influence is on roll center migration...I'll jump into this more later. Interesting though...not sure I've ever seen a ball joint extension...I've seen plenty altered to correct roll center height but that's in a vertical plane.

    9. Member Light on Fuel's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 1st, 2011
      Location
      North Jerzy
      Posts
      406
      Vehicles
      01,VW,GTI GLX
      10-05-2012 09:22 AM #9
      Quote Originally Posted by meboice View Post
      I was thinking about this modification this morning for a bit...I did play around with my drawing for a few minutes and without knowing the actual existing geometry and the change it's hard to see exactly how much camber gain/travel there is. But there may be some serious scrubbing forces at work here too as the suspension moves up and down...and I wonder what the influence is on roll center migration...I'll jump into this more later. Interesting though...not sure I've ever seen a ball joint extension...I've seen plenty altered to correct roll center height but that's in a vertical plane.
      I'm still a bit on the fence about it. Since the strut is fixed with a pinch bolt, that extra bit of adjustment means that something somewhere needs to compensate for that. In my thinking, that extra adjustment would mean that the angle of the ball joint, when at rest, would be increased and would therefore reduce its range of motion. I don't know though; it's merely speculation. Do you have that diagram in AutoCAD? If so, would you be able to email it to me?


      \X/

    10. 10-07-2012 03:59 AM #10
      Quote Originally Posted by Maxf31 View Post
      It would not correct the suspension geometry.
      What he said. Putting a spacer below the balljoint will only change the angle of the control arm. Its the virtual line between the balljoint pivot point and the inner control arm pivot point that matters

    11. Member zak's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 26th, 2004
      Posts
      2,159
      Vehicles
      99 1.8T Passat Variant, Audi B5 A4 Avant tqm, 98 1.8T Passat variant
      10-07-2012 09:05 AM #11
      Quote Originally Posted by Dturpin View Post
      What he said. Putting a spacer below the balljoint will only change the angle of the control arm. Its the virtual line between the balljoint pivot point and the inner control arm pivot point that matters
      This.

      You need to lower where the balljoint connects to the spindle/steering knuckle. On MkII & III Golf and Jettas, you can use a ball joint spacer. Someone in Colorado makes them; a search of this forum will find them.

      For the MkIV Golf and Jetta, the angle of the balljoint precludes using extenders, so you need to get spindles with lower attachment points for the balljoints, such as the Audi TT spindles or drop spindles produced by some Canadian company (again I forget the name, but search reveals all).

    12. Member
      Join Date
      Mar 24th, 2012
      Location
      Wappingers Falls NY
      Posts
      358
      Vehicles
      2008 Passat 2.0, 2012 Golf TDi
      10-08-2012 07:18 PM #12
      I was thinking about how in a daze my response above was...I still don't know what the OP is correcting or trying to change. But, moving the upper ball in or out relative to the car's centerline on an SLA design alters camber. Of course, altering camber also alters SAI.

      Extending the lower ball joint on a MacStrut will increase negative camber, but it also places the strut mount in an odd position...assuming there is a stock strut mount in place. If there is a spherical bearing then all is well.

      I'm on vacation and a bit buzzed so I'll not add anymore for now

    13. Member
      Join Date
      May 7th, 2009
      Posts
      3,737
      Vehicles
      01 TT 225 (daily), 01 TT 225 (project) 02 TT 180Q (donor), 03 GTI 20AE (daily) 03 GTI (dead)
      10-12-2012 03:45 PM #13
      There is a Mk1 TT user who has these types of plates. The purpose isn't to alter the control arm geometry. It's to add static negative camber as well as increase caster.

    14. Member
      Join Date
      Mar 24th, 2012
      Location
      Wappingers Falls NY
      Posts
      358
      Vehicles
      2008 Passat 2.0, 2012 Golf TDi
      10-15-2012 03:07 PM #14
      If the lower control arm is perfectly horizontal then static lower control arm geometry has not changed. If the lower control arm is at some angle, then adding to its length changes its angle...perhaps immeasurable within the context of actual driving...but it does change within the pure context of geometry.

      What this actual does depends upon the length of the control arm, the SAI angle, distance between the upper strut and lower ball joint.

      I imagine, as I wrote above, that altering the lower control arm as a way of altering static camber might place some unwanted thrust load on a stock strut bearing...perhaps this is meaningless as well.

      How does this part alter caster? I don't see, in side view, how the caster angle can be changed unless the ball joint pick-up point is offset. This isn't apparent in the photo.

      I'm not knocking this modification, just pointing out a few things I see...might be a lot more that I don't see.

    15. 08-26-2013 10:38 PM #15
      its because my car it low. I didn't plan on extending them outward, that WOULD cause dumb camber. I wanted to extend it upward like the PMW balljoint extenders so it would drop my control arm to get it parallel along with flipping my tie rods to reduce bump steer.

    16. Member chois's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 12th, 2000
      Location
      Chicagoland
      Posts
      4,603
      08-29-2013 01:24 PM #16
      Except, as stated above - the angle of the physical control arm is not what matters, it is the angle that a line drawn between the LCA to chassis bushing center line and the ball joint pivot center line makes that matters. This happens to be about the same as just looking at the control arm, so people talk about level control arms, but if you just put the ball joint higher up on the control arm, and leave it in the same location relative to the bearing carrier, then you did not change anything about how the suspension works (but you probably created a future failure point).
      Chris
      2007 GTI 16v, 4 door, 6sp (well really that one is Brandy's)
      2004.5 Passat Wagon 20v, 1.8t, 4mo, 5sp
      1986 GTI 8v road racer - DIYAutoTune.com

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •