Replacing Your Upper Control Arms? Take a Look at the Raybestos Replacments

9

95blklsc

New member
As you may have seen in my other threads I'm doing some much overdue work in preparation for the winter on my 95. One of the things on my list was to replace all of the control arms, I knew the lower ball joints were bad and I'm sure the uppers were on their last legs too. A few years ago I had ordered some parts for my friend 93. We ordered some Raybestos upper control arms. When they arrived, one was big an heavy duty, one was identical to the stock ones. It turns out that they had just started making those heavy duty type at the time and there was still some old stock on the warehouse, so they got mis matched.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago, I decided to order those same parts since they seemed to be much more robust than the factory units. Rock auto did the same thing to me, sent one heavy duty one, one regular one. They said the reason was the heavy duty ones were not being produced right now. I refused to put mismatched parts in so they located a matching one and sent it. Here are the pics!

It may not be obvious in this pic, but the arm is much thicker on the new one:


The boot is thicker and replaceable:


The bushings look similar:


Here is the kicker, look at the ball joint diameter:
 
B

beerdog

New member
I have been told that the sealed units are better. When I rebuilt sharon's front end a few months ago i went through the same experience. I would bet the thicker ones are a weker cast iron grade with the result being more weight. Without the proper testing methods we will never know. You can always replace the ball jints and bushings ont he stock units. Might have abeen a good idea to save a few.
 
S

snub

New member
95blklsc...any chance you could measure your old stock ball joints as shown in the chart below? My ball joints are fine but the boots are split. It would be much appreciated.





 
jamies98lsc

jamies98lsc

New member
i hate to tell you but that thicker c.a is garbage. its a chinese control arm and the reason why the ball joint is so big is because its a cheap chinese replacable ball joint. i have been through all the suspension threads and disputes over he years, i even made a post on another forum with all the factory TRW part numbers for our cars, listen, from the factory they came with TRW, most of our cars saw well over 100k on factory suspension before we had to replace, that control arm you have there, will get you a year if you are lucky, trust me, i have used them, i have been there, i have even put them in customers cars because " they saved money by buying these parts " and they all came back to me to replace them again, in 2 years or less and thats when i told them, this time we get the right parts. the first thing you will notice when you put it on the car, is when you lower the front of the car off the jack those control arms are gonna bind as the weight of the car comes down on them. i'll be waiting here to say " i told you so "
 
9

95blklsc

New member
jamies98lsc said:
i hate to tell you but that thicker c.a is garbage. its a chinese control arm and the reason why the ball joint is so big is because its a cheap chinese replacable ball joint. i have been through all the suspension threads and disputes over he years, i even made a post on another forum with all the factory TRW part numbers for our cars, listen, from the factory they came with TRW, most of our cars saw well over 100k on factory suspension before we had to replace, that control arm you have there, will get you a year if you are lucky, trust me, i have used them, i have been there, i have even put them in customers cars because " they saved money by buying these parts " and they all came back to me to replace them again, in 2 years or less and thats when i told them, this time we get the right parts. the first thing you will notice when you put it on the car, is when you lower the front of the car off the jack those control arms are gonna bind as the weight of the car comes down on them. i'll be waiting here to say " i told you so "
Click to expand...
Well, its too bad I hadn't seen anything posted about these before. Although the only thing that does give me some confidence is they have been on my friends 93 for 2-3 years already, and he does a lot of driving, he hasn't had any issues....yet. I didn't put these on the save money, they were the same price as the moog units. They were listed as the professional grade on rock auto. I did take the car for a spin tonight, no binding, no issues. The front end was nice and quiet and smooth. It just needs an alignment.
 
B

beerdog

New member
No....actual Ford Motorocraft parts. You can get 5 or so brands from Rock auto. The MEvotech's look the closest to OEM. Never heard of Mevotech.
 
9

95blklsc

New member
I always figured most of the aftermarket ones were refurb factory ones. Weren't the factory ones stamped with TRW or am I thinking of another part?
 
B

beerdog

New member
I think the Ford ones did say TRW but they are not refurbed. The UCA's are not a part you return a core on. I guess this is another case where if you are going to keep the car for a long time it is better to spend a little for the better parts so you are not replacing it again in a few years.
 
B

billcu

Head Moderator
I'm currently running a bit of a durability test on a non original casting, lower control arm, on my black winter beater Mark. It's similar, thicker, looks like it's not forged all the way, and has that huge greaseable balljoint.

My past experience with original lower control arms was failure due to just the rubber boot failing and causing corrosion and balljoint wear. These new ones look like they may have addressed that at least.

My past experience with upper control arms is worn bushings causing a clunk. I have seen photos of ripped boots on those balljoints too though.

Your bushings look different than original. The originals, when bolted in at the bushings, pivot and move up and down relatively easily. I was helping someone put in some similar to yours, and they didn't pivot after being bolted in. This might be the binding that Jamie talks about. They probably need to be fully tightened with the wheel at ride height like the original non pivoting lower control arm bushing. This prevents bushing wind up.

If you check the service manual, the original uppers don't need to be tightened with the wheel at ride height like the lowers do.
 
jamies98lsc

jamies98lsc

New member
you got it bill thats exactly what i am talking about. the trw c.a's have rotating bushings, almost all the aftermarket ones available have pressed bushing that dont move, thats what makes them bind is when you tighten the bolts the control arm is in a sense " stuck there " and wont move up and down with your hand moving it, the trw's will move freely by hand up and down after you tighten them. the closest i have seen aftermarket to the factory original are the ones that Arrnott sells. i dont suggest anything from arrnott except upper control arms or rear air bags, or a coil conversion thats all i would buy from them.
 
B

beerdog

New member
I noticed this when I put a pair of Moogs on sharon's car recently. They moved, but it seemed very tight. I assumed it was because they were new and not broken in. I am going to put some new bags on her car soon. Should I retighten them? The car seems to ride fine.
 
B

billcu

Head Moderator
I'd give it a try Mike.

Loosen them, then tighten them, when the wheels are at ride height. I would think it would ride better and the bushings would last longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top