UCA failure and leveling kits

[Flatblack83]

2 hours ago, 901at4 said:

got a link to pics...thanks

I sent the last 4 pics, 2 with a regular truck with a 2 inch and 2 bosses. That's a few, you do what u think u should do. Its just ones opinion.

 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Flatblack83

[901at4]

54 minutes ago, Flatblack83 said:

I sent the last 4 pics, 2 with a regular truck with a 2 inch and 2 bosses. That's a few, you do what u think u should do. Its just ones opinion.

 

 

thanks for sharing. you think the ball joint angle was the culprit for failure. any idea if the RC UCA would have prevented the failures. 

[Flatblack83]

24 minutes ago, 901at4 said:

thanks for sharing. you think the ball joint angle was the culprit for failure. any idea if the RC UCA would have prevented the failures. 

I think the rc arms are setup for the 3-3.5 lift range last I looked at them.  I actually had them last year with my icon stage 1.  With those it aligned fine at 2.5 inches of lift.   I sold them when I sent my icon back to be converted to stage 4.   The rc arms are really nice for the money 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Flatblack83

[Flatblack83]

https://www.roughcountry.com/gm-forged-aluminum-upper-control-arms-29501.html

 

 

Look down the bottom,  it says 3-3.5 lift. These i had to use a 1/4 spacer to clear 295 60 20s.  The ball joint was 1/8 inch away from the sidewall. 

 

I do think tho there is plenty of other companies around that price range.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Flatblack83

[RWTJR]

5 hours ago, Flatblack83 said:

There are so many on Facebook with problems with those arms from everything besides stock. Most of it tho is with the bigger tire like 35s.  If you never seen how bad a blown upper ball joint or one ripped off the arm looks you might want to. If it was me it would be a piece of mind to just do ucas. 

I would never fault anyone who desires to replace their UCAs. However, there are other factors to consider when it come to ball joint failures than just a lift, i.e., hard off road use/abuse, proper ball joint torque, torn/damaged boot allowing grease out-dirt in, tire size/weight, etc. After all, some non-lifted (and aftermarket) ball joints fail too.

 

The standard 1500 and the Trail Boss share the same factory upper control arms, so lifting a standard 1500 2" puts the UCA at essentially the same operating angles and forces as the Trail Boss. So if the 2" lift on the standard 1500 is causing the failures, why aren't the Trail Boss trucks, (without any aftermarket lift), failing with the same regularity? Could it be factors other than the 2" lift?

 

As for lifted Trail Boss/AT4s on factory UCAs, failure should be expected as the UCA is being taken out of it's designed/engineered conditions and parameters. The same applies to standard 1500 trucks with more than 2" of lift.

 

I would like to add, the stock suspension on all of these trucks is engineered and designed for OEM tire sizes. Considering this fact, anyone who exceeds the largest factory tire size, (about 32"), and weight (around 50 lbs) has taken the suspension out of it's factory engineered operating parameters.

 

These things considered, 2" of lift and 32" tires of around 50 lbs each, (like a factory Trail Boss) on a standard 1500 should still be within engineered specifications and, therefore, be fine. Any lift or tire size/weight increase on a Trail Boss/AT4 takes it outside designed parameters.

 

This is just my humble opinion and could be complete nonsense, you decide.

 

No expertise implied or expressed

 

 

[Flatblack83]

25 minutes ago, RWTJR said:

I would never fault anyone who desires to replace their UCAs. However, there are other factors to consider when it come to ball joint failures than just a lift, i.e., hard off road use/abuse, proper ball joint torque, torn/damaged boot allowing grease out-dirt in, tire size/weight, etc. After all, some non-lifted (and aftermarket) ball joints fail too.

 

The standard 1500 and the Trail Boss share the same factory upper control arms, so lifting a standard 1500 2" puts the UCA at essentially the same operating angles and forces as the Trail Boss. So if the 2" lift on the standard 1500 is causing the failures, why aren't the Trail Boss trucks, (without any aftermarket lift), failing with the same regularity? Could it be factors other than the 2" lift?

 

As for lifted Trail Boss/AT4s on factory UCAs, failure should be expected as the UCA is being taken out of it's designed/engineered conditions and parameters. The same applies to standard 1500 trucks with more than 2" of lift.

 

I would like to add, the stock suspension on all of these trucks is engineered and designed for OEM tire sizes. Considering this fact, anyone who exceeds the largest factory tire size, (about 32"), and weight (around 50 lbs) has taken the suspension out of it's factory engineered operating parameters.

 

These things considered, 2" of lift and 32" tires of around 50 lbs each, (like a factory Trail Boss) on a standard 1500 should still be within engineered specifications and, therefore, be fine. Any lift or tire size/weight increase on a Trail Boss/AT4 takes it outside designed parameters.

 

This is just my humble opinion and could be complete nonsense, you decide.

 

No expertise implied or expressed

 

 

Exactly why I said that its usually with bigger tires.  Like you said, stock running a 50lb tire and now an 80lb tire. Thats a big difference.

 

Plus people with stock trailbosses and at4 trucks do have those problems but it was with bigger tires and who knows with what kind of punishment..lol.. There was a few on Facebook,  they don't cry as much tho since its warranty work. They don't have cv problems tho since they have different lengths. I'm not arguing here who knows more,  I'm out after this. I just put pics up and things I've seen.

 

I'm not the guy to put a 12.00 leveling kit on my 40k dollar truck, especially seeing those pics. Each their own...carry on, thankyou.

Edited January 16, 2021 by Flatblack83

[Unclebud87]

I must say though. the factory ball joints do look very dinky once you remove the upper control arm. They really don't look to be up to the task of a larger tire than stock.

[RWTJR]

2 hours ago, Flatblack83 said:

 I'm not arguing here who knows more,  I'm out after this.

I apologize, I didn't realize I was arguing about who knows more. I was just sharing my thoughts, beliefs, questions and understanding of the subject being discussed.

 

When I use the term "you" I am using in the collective sense as in "everybody who reads this" not as a personal you.

 

Again, I apologize if I came off argumentative or alleging superior intelligence. That was not my intention.

 

 

No expertise implied or expressed.

Edited January 16, 2021 by RWTJR
can't spell

[Firehawk99]

So here is a side by side of my 2020 trail boss with the Moto Fab 1" leveling kit. Pic on the left is with it installed and the right is stock. I had mine on for 5,000 miles and zero issues.Although  the angles don't look that bad and the joints were still rock solid when I took  the spacers out.  I removed it today  because I don't want to take a chance of the uca ball joint failing and I personally  don't mind the rake. I know they pounded the snot out of a stock trail boss on the TflTruck channel on YouTube with no problems in 15,000 miles. I would much rather have the reliability!

[rico750sxi]

Firehawk, I am going to drop to 1/2” spacer or get UCA due to the same concerns. This is, like you, even though my angles look the same as my friend’s stock TB. 

Edited January 17, 2021 by rico750sxi

[C_low]

I have a three inch level on my 2020 rst I just ordered the rough county 3-3.5 inches of lift upper control arms after hearing about stock uca’s and ball joints failing I also ordered spacers with them because after those are put on I am going to be getting 35 by11.5 tires and don’t want to rub the new uca. I ordered 1.5 inch spacers but may go smaller after seeing where everything sits when it’s all said and done. Anyone have a similar set up more along the lines with the three inch level with the 3 to 3.5 uca’s from rough country

[Gangly]

Tire weight is near irrelevant in terms of engineering parameters for a UCA or LCA design.  The UCA's don't care (poor personification, I'm aware) if your tire is 50 lbs, or 15,000 lbs, its sole purpose is to keep the wheel hub vertically aligned during compression and extension operations, and the tire's weight has VERY little influence on its vertical orientation. 

 

However, the UCA has VERY defined critical operating parameters when it comes to suspension geometry, and that's why the ball joints fail when you get around that 3-3.5 inch lift area.  The ball joints exceed their angle constraints and snap.  

 

With heavy tires and wheels, its your bearings and hubs that you worry about, not your control arms.

[Busa22]

On 7/14/2020 at 11:01 PM, KRAS said:

Everything I’ve seen though has been with a 2.5”. Have you seen anything from a 2” puck system?  

Motofab 2.5 failed on my 2024 Silverado High country with less than 200 miles lucky to be alive 

[Vincej138]

Its not the actual lift height that kills the joints, its the over-extension. This is gonna happen with a lift spacer/puck. You taking the shock with a certain compressed and extended length that works with your suspensions capability. You then shorten the compressed length by whatever size spacer and now overextend the suspension by that length as well as the shock is now allowing it to droop out more causing bad angles/stress on joints as well as making your shock your bump stop. 

 

This is why the good aftermarket UCA's have high angle BJ's or Uniballs that are not only stronger but allow for more angle along with usually more caster built into the upper arm to compensate for not only the lift but the added travel. 

 

Moral of story. Don't use spacers, your just playing with fire.