You missed my post...#26?
Aftermarket UCAs
- Thread starter SHAGGY101
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
You missed my post...#26?
What one considers a benefit for their setup, another might not need or require. I don't run aftermarket UCAs. I don't need them. That isn't to say that other people can't/wont benefit from using them. The point is that telling people on this forum that they are useless just because YOU say they are is not accurate. People need to look at what the UCAs can offer them and then decide if they are worth the money. If people want to buy stuff just to buy it without considering price vs benefit, that's ok too. Welcome to America.
Actually increasing the caster on our lifted (~2.5") front ends IS a pronounced benefit ON ROAD; getting just back to or close to caster spec on a lifted rig compared to a non-raised rig is not sufficient IMO; other factors at play that make increasing the caster (to a point of course) a benefit for steering stability, tracking and overall feel.
The current pair of aftermarket arms available from Carl's & TC do provide some caster correction. We were able to get to 3.79 degrees of caster with my new custo UCAs and its real nice I'll tell ya!
Do aftermarket UCA come without a negative? Of course not! Nothing comes without a downside; not even 74L's
. We designed our own UCA to provide greater range of adjustability for both caster and camber as well as superior long-term durability along with greater range of travel. The downside? Cost!
The current pair of aftermarket arms available from Carl's & TC do provide some caster correction. We were able to get to 3.79 degrees of caster with my new custo UCAs and its real nice I'll tell ya!
Do aftermarket UCA come without a negative? Of course not! Nothing comes without a downside; not even 74L's
. We designed our own UCA to provide greater range of adjustability for both caster and camber as well as superior long-term durability along with greater range of travel. The downside? Cost!
- Carls UCAs align to tighter tolerances than lifted OEM. Both are in spec but Carl's are more in-spec.
- Diff drop compensates some and high quality CV bands take care of the rest. More droop is better than less drop in the front of a 100. I never said it was "required". Carefully read my statements, they are without error.
- Stronger is better and is a free side-benefit when coupled with the other features the Carl's UCAs offer.
- Limiting tire choices takes away options that could benefit you according to the environment you drive in. The Carl's UCAs are considerably less costly than $1000.00. They cost $800.00 plus shipping but can be found on sale from time-to-time.
- You agreed to this point. There isn't just one model of this shock, There are at least six (Icon, Fox, King, Radflo, Profender, and Bilstein) with remote reservoirs. If only 1% of 100 owners run these types of shocks then these 1% will see the benefits of the UCA's hence reason for those 1% to buy them. Others not running these type shocks will still benefit from other Carl's UCAs features.
Now see there...that debate was fun! Folks can read various pros and cons and decide.
Trunk Monkey
Moderator
Wrong. Posting is a privilige and one for which you don't contribute to the site.
re_guderian
SILVER Star
Let me highlight a few relevant points to THIS particular rig. It is not a mod for a "mods" sake. The question is, if you have to replace them anyway, and the cost is the same, do the aftermarket ones provide enough of a benefit to warrant going away from OEM, IF, as the poster says, cost is about the same... All other BS about shocks, tires, droop, and John's opinion are irrelevant and hypotheticals only. If ya gotta buy new ones anyway, just answer the question, new or aftermarket?
Yes...given my MUD...not that dude.
hoser
SILVER Star
For the overlander who might travel thousands of miles of dusty/dirty, unimproved roads, I'd narrow my choices down to the UCA's that have a sealed ball joint. Oh... wait, there's only one choice at the moment.
Thanks Shotts! Normally I'd take a offense, but clearly there is no need for me to be upset by your comments. BTW, my Landcruiser rides better than yours.
They say any press is good press, and I think this would be a prime example seeing how the users praise, and you bash the products that you don't run, I'd say its a win for me
They say any press is good press, and I think this would be a prime example seeing how the users praise, and you bash the products that you don't run, I'd say its a win for me
Didn't mean to charge the atmosphere. I was just looking for some advice. :-/
I think I have what I need to make a decision. Good input, all. Thanks.
I think I have what I need to make a decision. Good input, all. Thanks.
No apologies necessary, Wes. The atmosphere changes whenever certain people get involved - no fault of yours there. Good luck with your decision. I for one would be interested in what you end up choosing, and why.
...which you could have just said from the beginning, as opposed to going on a BFG-esque tirade about how they are useless for most people and how you'll never run them on your truck...right?
Anthony.L
Looking for the end of the road...
I love how some people like Shotts jump on the internet, go to a private forum and think they have the 1st amendment right to spew any crazy BS they like. This isn't a public sidewalk, you can and will get banned if the owners/moderators don't appreciate your rhetoric. I know myself and others don't, especially the employees of companies that make their living manufacturing and selling products you so willingly call "useless".
Pure class my friend!
- Thread starter
- #75
Back to the "debate":
from Shotts in post 60:
- 1"+ increase in droop (You can be up higher and still get your minimum 2 inches of recommended droop).
Extra droop not required. Extra droop would be a plus IF it did not come at the cost of extreme CV angle...and the angle is already extreme as CV leakage is already an issue.
Why do you say that the extra droop in the front is not required when you went though the whole debacle to put the L shocks on for an extra inch or two of down travel in the rear? This only allowed you to swing your ass end sky high and pop it like its hot all day while only doing wheelies in the front. It has also already been said that these "extreme" CV angles are only seen while at max articulation anyway and not while at ride height.
from Shotts in post 60:
- 1"+ increase in droop (You can be up higher and still get your minimum 2 inches of recommended droop).
Extra droop not required. Extra droop would be a plus IF it did not come at the cost of extreme CV angle...and the angle is already extreme as CV leakage is already an issue.
Why do you say that the extra droop in the front is not required when you went though the whole debacle to put the L shocks on for an extra inch or two of down travel in the rear? This only allowed you to swing your ass end sky high and pop it like its hot all day while only doing wheelies in the front. It has also already been said that these "extreme" CV angles are only seen while at max articulation anyway and not while at ride height.
It seems to be an accepted fact that the aftermarket design of the UCA is stronger because it uses a stronger grade steel. But, being a non-engineer, I would think that the advantages of the stronger steel might be offset by what appears to be a stronger design in the OEM. The OEM is a single piece, shaped like a Bow, where as the aftermarkets that I've seen are three piece welded, so all the stress goes through the center ring. For example look at this comparison from the just differentials website
Wouldn't the OEM be a stronger deign? Not that I am hearing any reports of either OEM or aftermarket failure, it's just that I am questioning having "stronger" on the "pro's" column of the pro/con sheet.
I do however think the extra droop is a big advantage, and not just for rock crawlers. If a wheel is in the air it's not pulling and the internet is full of photos/videos with 100 series IFS pulling wheelies, which may be great for photos but does not help you with traction. To me, an aftermarket UCA is the only option to help increase droop short of converting to a solid axle (ignoring increases tire height) (which by the way I can't find any good info on how big a challenge converting a 100 to a solid front axle would be).
So, to the OP, if it were me, given that I haven't heard of any aftermarket failures on the UCA, and if I'm replacing anyway, I would go aftermarket. I don't mind having to lube occasionally (but hope future runs will figure out a way to minimize this issue), and would want the extra-droop.
Wouldn't the OEM be a stronger deign? Not that I am hearing any reports of either OEM or aftermarket failure, it's just that I am questioning having "stronger" on the "pro's" column of the pro/con sheet.
I do however think the extra droop is a big advantage, and not just for rock crawlers. If a wheel is in the air it's not pulling and the internet is full of photos/videos with 100 series IFS pulling wheelies, which may be great for photos but does not help you with traction. To me, an aftermarket UCA is the only option to help increase droop short of converting to a solid axle (ignoring increases tire height) (which by the way I can't find any good info on how big a challenge converting a 100 to a solid front axle would be).
So, to the OP, if it were me, given that I haven't heard of any aftermarket failures on the UCA, and if I'm replacing anyway, I would go aftermarket. I don't mind having to lube occasionally (but hope future runs will figure out a way to minimize this issue), and would want the extra-droop.
Trunk Monkey said:
Is going against the grain not contributing? If you look closely, Shotts remains composed with his position, simply stating his opinion, albeit right or wrong. It's you guys who are going bananas and attacking him. I don't see him attacking any of you. Just my unsolicited opinion.
While the additional droop does offer some benefit for rock crawling, that is not the main purpose. If you have stock length shocks and 2"+ lift, you dont have much droop. And when it is drooped there is still a lot of preload from thetorsion bar forcing the shock to full extension, this is bad for shock and bad for ride quality. The arms allow a longer shock, which gives more droop and relieves some of the preload that would be forcing the shock to full extension, better for shocks and ride quality. Cv angle is not an issue, i dont think 177k miles on lifted awd vehicle that tows, wheels, etc is too bad. The std length ome setup is great for most people, as long as you dont run the frontend too high.
Is going against the grain not contributing? If you look closely, Shotts remains composed with his position, simply stating his opinion, albeit right or wrong. It's you guys who are going bananas and attacking him. I don't see him attacking any of you. Just my unsolicited opinion.
I agree, opinions and replys to both sides do contribute. I think a bunch of great discussion came forth, and we now have a more robust plus/minus list!
I for one hope people with and without experience with the aftermarket UCAs comment on their insights to help develop and add to the list.
From the forum read me:
"Here you'll have to stay civil. Disagreeing on Tech topics with somebody is just fine, but do it politely. Personal attacks or insults will not do. "
