Lower control arm stiffening plates?

[threewood]

It would be stiffer so I recommend it.

 

[dadsbee]

 

[DeltaV]

A brief intermission to add pictures. I like pictures.

***
Carry on...

 

[j-c-c-62]

A brief intermission to add pictures. I like pictures.

View attachment 1791402View attachment 1791403

***
Carry on...

Enjoy

 

[Moparfiend]

Guys I have a question regarding the stiffening plates. The center hole is for center access to the bumper.

What are the two other slotted holes for if anything? Are these for clearance for something or just to lighten them up?

Edit: Ok they are for the adjuster! I see that now!!

Thanks,
MF

 

[66 Sat]

The hole closest to the wheel is for the adjuster bolt, inner hole just for weight saving.

 

[j-c-c-62]

Or one could just have one single large whole and not add any weight at all, couldn't hurt, right?

 

[threewood]

A brief intermission to add pictures. I like pictures.

View attachment 1791402View attachment 1791403

***
Carry on...

 

[threewood]

Enjoy

View attachment 1791415

If the stock control arm is fine, why does this abomination exist?

 

[j-c-c-62]

If the stock control arm is fine, why does this abomination exist?

Well, I'm getting mixed signals here, some want me to drop the discussion for reasons unclear and your question here I believe deserves a fair accurate response.

First, I consider the description "abomination" here strictly personal opinion, and you have shared nothing engineering wise to support that claim, but I support 100% that you have every right to share it. Seems a few here do not feel the same towards me. Oh Well.
Next, I find it an interesting offering from a reputable established vendor in that in this day of computers, FEA, CNC, product liability lawyers, millions of Mopar OEM LCA's, driven likely billions of miles etc this offering is now available 60 years after the original LCAs appeared that are the topic of this discussion.

In light of above, I also cannot imagine in any way, even if the round main member pictured is a solid rod, this aftermarket LCA is stiffer than the stock OEM.
If like many you are mesmerized by the use of "real slick" round tubing as a holy grail solution in this application thinking that adds stffness on the LCA, you need to go back to school.
My conclusion is, it does not need to be, and nobody has shown it needs to be.
Actually, it appears with this expensive IMO new aftermarket LCA, it certainly does not need to be, and the world is still turning just fine.

But circling back to your description of looks, it should also be noted, it appears the whole seed that got planted that might have started this LCA "stiffening" craze was by an early well respected Mopar guru RE commenting in 1992 on something "Mopar Pro Rally" cars did in the 60's. I have no idea exactly what a pro rally car is, how they compare to anything we drive or what they were doing that required a LCA "stiffening" plate. Since the RE comment was made about mods made 30 years earlier, I am not sure he did either.
Here we are now reflecting 30+ years after his comment of a "real slick" mod noting he would incorporate them sometime in the future of his current 10-year-old project at that time the Green Brick.

"Real slick" is indeed often a useful pervasive marketing description.

My position from day 2 is nobody has made the case yet a Mopar OEM LCA needs to be "stiffer" (exception being maybe concrete wall contact at over 100 mph? ) and this modern-day iteration LCA "abomination" here seems to me to support rather well a less "stiff" LCA (and lighter?) is entirely acceptable and might have some advantages.

Whether the "stiffening plates" make anything stiffer here is frankly irrelevant as no need has ever been warranted and it seems the opposite may be the case.

 

[66 Sat]

Oh my!
Slow morning in SW Florida?

 

[j-c-c-62]

Oh my!
Slow morning in SW Florida?

I'll go take a nap, wake when you have something of significance to share.

 

[DeltaV]

The youtube video below by Jim Lusk shows some "interesting" slop at the torsion bar socket and how he reduced it before welding in the aftermarket stiffening plate.


***
Ran across the above video on FABO:
Post in thread 'LCA stiffener plates-why not?' LCA stiffener plates-why not?

 

[Moparfiend]

The youtube video below by Jim Lusk shows some "interesting" slop at the torsion bar socket and how he reduced it before welding in the aftermarket stiffening plate.


***
Ran across the above video on FABO:
Post in thread 'LCA stiffener plates-why not?' LCA stiffener plates-why not?

I just did this 3 days ago as one of my LCA’s had about a 1/4” slop in it on the driver side. The passenger side was fine. See here:
1970 Plymouth Sport Satellite from Junk to......

 

[Moparfiend]

So for me the question is: Does the stiffening plate help reduce the deflection that causes this wear? The wear is real.

 

[threewood]

Well, I'm getting mixed signals here, some want me to drop the discussion for reasons unclear and your question here I believe deserves a fair accurate response.

First, I consider the description "abomination" here strictly personal opinion, and you have shared nothing engineering wise to support that claim, but I support 100% that you have every right to share it. Seems a few here do not feel the same towards me. Oh Well.
Next, I find it an interesting offering from a reputable established vendor in that in this day of computers, FEA, CNC, product liability lawyers, millions of Mopar OEM LCA's, driven likely billions of miles etc this offering is now available 60 years after the original LCAs appeared that are the topic of this discussion.

In light of above, I also cannot imagine in any way, even if the round main member pictured is a solid rod, this aftermarket LCA is stiffer than the stock OEM.
If like many you are mesmerized by the use of "real slick" round tubing as a holy grail solution in this application thinking that adds stffness on the LCA, you need to go back to school.
My conclusion is, it does not need to be, and nobody has shown it needs to be.
Actually, it appears with this expensive IMO new aftermarket LCA, it certainly does not need to be, and the world is still turning just fine.

But circling back to your description of looks, it should also be noted, it appears the whole seed that got planted that might have started this LCA "stiffening" craze was by an early well respected Mopar guru RE commenting in 1992 on something "Mopar Pro Rally" cars did in the 60's. I have no idea exactly what a pro rally car is, how they compare to anything we drive or what they were doing that required a LCA "stiffening" plate. Since the RE comment was made about mods made 30 years earlier, I am not sure he did either.
Here we are now reflecting 30+ years after his comment of a "real slick" mod noting he would incorporate them sometime in the future of his current 10-year-old project at that time the Green Brick.

"Real slick" is indeed often a useful pervasive marketing description.

My position from day 2 is nobody has made the case yet a Mopar OEM LCA needs to be "stiffer" (exception being maybe concrete wall contact at over 100 mph? ) and this modern-day iteration LCA "abomination" here seems to me to support rather well a less "stiff" LCA (and lighter?) is entirely acceptable and might have some advantages.

Whether the "stiffening plates" make anything stiffer here is frankly irrelevant as no need has ever been warranted and it seems the opposite may be the case.

All opinions, no facts. Thank you.

 

[Charged440]

Way back when I rebuilt my front end, I found the passenger side loose just like in that video. I more or less corrected it the way he did with what I had on hand and added a piece to the driver's side for good measure. At the time I didn't know about the stiffening plates, it just made sense to fix what I found.

 

[Moparfiend]

Way back when I rebuilt my front end, I found the passenger side loose just like in that video. I more or less corrected it the way he did with what I had on hand and added a piece to the driver's side for good measure. At the time I didn't know about the stiffening plates, it just made sense to fix what I found.

So if the stiffening plates prevents this issue then the question is answered.

 

[j-c-c-62]

All opinions, no facts. Thank you.

Really?
Strange when this claim is made, it's never if ever backed up by the claimant, they just throw it out there and then run away, like here.
Seems if the claim was indeed true it would be a piece of cake to back it up. Explain that conundrum. Do forget, you used the word "all".

 

[j-c-c-62]

/So if the stiffening plates prevents this issue then the question is answered.

Prevents or solves? Another discussion ought to cover why the "wear" is observed in the first place, or was it possibly that the way it came off the production line? We don't know it seems. The use of a mislabeled "stiffening Plate" to solve an unrelated wear problem is rather misleading especially for a problem that is rather undefined and that "RE" had little interest(?) in it seems 30 years ago. Further, anyone that follows the KISS mantra is not likely to solve the "wear" problem with a "stiffening plate" when there has NEVER yet been case the LCA needs stiffening in the first place, to repeat myself.

Let's cut to the chase here, the biggest proponents here of "stiffening plates" are those that have already followed the herd and are stuck in a confirmation bias loop with their installed "stiffening plates", and those on the sideline yet are problem solving by majority rule, and in that case, they should just be driving the most popular brand with an LS motor and be happy.