83HOZ

I don't know if people are familiar with Spohn's new redesigned a-arms for 3rdgens, released in mid-2014, but supposedly "hundreds" of you have them, yet I've read nothing about them from anyone. They appear to be nice and strong, but they have an extra unnecessary feature, a "tube"(like an inner ring, shown in the attached pic) in the spring pocket for centering the spring within the pocket, which is a feature not found on any other aftermarket a-arm, nor on factory a-arms either, and that tube has turned-out to be a major problem, at least, for me, and possibly could be for other people too.

Using 3D technology, he's replicated the size and shape of the factory a-arms in a tubular design and has also made them strong enough for street use. They're complete with polyurethane bump stops, factory-style steering stops, and also have newly-designed spherical rod-end/poly sway bar end links attached(you can get these end links separately for factory front and rear applications too). But that tube in the spring pocket could render these a-arms useless with some aftermarket springs, regardless that those springs have been designed specifically for 3rdgens.

The rear spring perch has a tube that serves a similar purpose(and IS necessary), so one might think that adding such a feature to the front a-arms would be a good thing too, right? Unfortunately, the idea was poorly-executed, in that the OD of the tube used is too large to accommodate some 3rdgen-fitting springs. The springs are supposed to fit over the tubes, but the springs I have do not, so there's a good possibility that other aftermarket springs might not fit either. My springs were specifically designed for 3rdgens, and they will fit every other a-arm, factory and aftermarket, but they won't work with Spohn's new a-arms simply because of the unnecessarily-tight, zero-tolerance fitment he's created by adding that unnecessary tube.

Supposedly factory springs fit, which he demonstrates in a video. But how many people installing tubular a-arms intend to use factory springs? I'd guess many aftermarket springs might also fit, but for such a feature, wouldn't it have made more sense to use a tube with an OD that's a fraction smaller so it might account for slight variations in ID that might exist between various aftermarket 3rdgen springs, allowing ALL springs designed for 3rdgens to be accommodated by the a-arms? Sounds simple enough, doesn't it?

The tubes on the perches for the rear springs are part of the factory design, so ALL rear springs, factory and aftermarket, have been designed to account for those tubes. But factory a-arms were NOT designed with such tubes, so NO springs, stock or aftermarket, have been designed for such precise fitment because no spring manufacturer has had to account for such a feature. So if you intend to use aftermarket springs with tubular a-arms, and most of you probably are, then the potential is there that you might face fitment issues with these new a-arms from Spohn.

My springs are about 1/32" from fitting over the tubes; that's how unnecessarily-tight Spohn has made the fitment. So again, my seemingly-logical question is, was it really necessary to make this fitment so tight, zero-tolerance, especially since it was not a feature that any spring manufacturer has had to account for, nor ever a necessary feature?

We were exchanging messages about this, until he gave me the proverbial, "we've sold hundreds of these without any reported issues," which is what I was referring to in my opening paragraph. We've all heard this kind of vendor-crapola when a product's design or performance has been questioned, and it always means "you're screwed." So yeah, he went there, and that's when I checked-out of our exchange.

Regarding those "hundreds sold," as I've already stated, I'd searched TGO before I purchased these, but everything I read(and I'm not saying I read every result that came back) was negative feedback about his old-style a-arms, but nothing about the new a-arms. And we all know that 3rdgenners love to brag about their aftermarket parts, so surely somebody would've posted about these by now, right? I'm not saying, nor even thinking, that I'm the only person to have purchased these. But hundreds? Really?

Returning them would cost A LOT of money because there's no admittance of design failure on Spohn's part, so I'm considering tapering/chamfering the outside of the tube, which might allow the springs to slip down over them. Or I could cut the welds and remove the tubes(the tubes are not fully-welded around their perimeters). Grinding-down the tube might be another option. I'm probably missing some other simple alteration possibilities, so I am open to suggestions.

As I've said, they're very nice a-arms. But IMO Spohn went too far in his attempt to go beyond excellence with such a poorly-executed unnecessary feature. So if anyone was thinking of getting these a-arms, just beware that you might have an issue like I am having because it's not likely that he's going to be making the small necessary adjustment to this unnecessary feature.

customblackbird

iTrader: (15)

Hard to see in the pic. Looks like a good spot to mount a coil over setup…. in the stock spring location with a mount that gets welded to the spring pocket up top or in the opening of a aftermarket Kmember, thus keeping the suspension stress in the stock location on the front subframe. That being said… I got spohns front and rear coil over kit and the front support plate didn't fit my 87 formula 350… it kit the tower and wouldn't let me rest completely flat. Called them and complained and they said no returns unless I wanted to pay a lot to ship it back and restock etc... as they have sold hundreds and no issues. I decided to keep it and grind it down (easy fix) till it fit and got an extra set of plates to design my own coil over kit. I haven't installed the rear coil overs but they seem to be the best out there.

So my experience with spohn hasn't been that great.

I have UMI (first generation) front tubular control arms and the springs are a tight fit. Now I don't have to worry about that as Im going coil over. I also run full UMI double rod end, rear LCAs and PHB. Top quality stuff. I also just installed a race craft moly Kmember and its beautiful!

83HOZ

I wasn't sure how well people might be able to recognize the "tube," so here's the pic, cropped and enlarged to show it better. Part of the confusion is because Spohn refers to the feature as a "tube" because it's actually the end of a steel tube, sliced-off, laid down and welded into the spring pocket. Viewed from above, it's that inner ring, and it creates a "channel" within the pocket for the spring to sit in. The spring is supposed to slide down over that inner ring and into the channel, but mine won't, so my springs won't sit properly in the pockets. There's a chance other aftermarket springs won't fit either, due to that tube and such a restricted fitment.

84 1LE

iTrader: (9)

Most springs (OE & aftermarket) vary somewhat in dia.This should've been factored in.
That said, how thick is the powder coat? Maybe grind it off the outside wall of the inner sleeve. Are the springs PCed too? Maybe grind the PC off the inner portion on the coil.

Personally, I don't see why this was necessary.The outer sleeve holds the spring inplace.Preventing it from moving around.That inner "tube" is just along for the ride.Unless Spohn knows something they're not telling us!
Nice a-arms though, i have their older design.

572_Rat

I sure like the way they did the sway bar end links

90firebird

1/32" of interference? That's only a gnat's fart over .030"... As was mentioned before, a good portion of that is likely the coating on the spring/arm anyway! Throw a stone on a dremel, take that off the inside of the bottom coil and call it a day. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal... What type of aftermarket springs are they?

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

I saw them done this way by hotchkis years ago at SEMA, always thought it was a good idea.

customblackbird

iTrader: (15)

Yea, love the sway bar end links. Maybe I can adapt them to my umi ones.

I don't see the issue 1/32 is less than the thickness of the powdercoat. Sand dOwn the springs and call it a day.

83HOZ

The sway bar end links are available for stock applications. I'd think they could be mounted on any aftermarket front a-arm, just as they can on factory a-arms.
http://www.spohn.net/shop/1982-1992-...GM-B-Body.html
http://www.spohn.net/shop/1982-1992-...-Firebird.html
http://www.spohn.net/shop/1982-1992-...-Firebird.html

People would be surprised at how thin paint coatings are. Paint always looks/seems thick, but it's not. The thickness of finished-coats of paint, including powder coating, is measured in mils, which can be broken down even smaller into microns. One mil = one/one thousandth of an inch, and the typical thickness of powder coat is 2 to 3 mils. So no, the thickness of the powder coating has no effect on the situation, and removing it won't make any difference either. Besides, if that microscopic amount was the difference here, the powder coat, alone, wouldn't be strong enough to support the weight of the spring. There would be no issue, as the spring would slide right down on it, destroying and removing it.

A difference of 1/32" between solid metal pieces, however, is more than enough to cause a problem. But I am thinking it's thin enough that grinding and tapering the outer edge of the tube will help; that was one of the possible solutions I'd mentioned in my original post, and probably the best action to take. It's just a shame that I, or anyone, should have to go to such lengths, when the design of the product should've been more liberal to account for possible variances in spring diameters.

At least one thing has been proven here: "hundreds" of people aren't using these yet. Not even one other person has spoken-up. For the rest of you, you've been advised that you might(or might not) have to work with a similar situation. Hopefully Spohn will revise his design, but don't count on it.

//<86TA>\\

iTrader: (14)

I know why the inner tube is there, the factory arms have a hump in the middle of the spring pocket, all the other tubular arms for these cars dont have that hump, the spring pocket it flat, except for umi who uses a springl ramp now. Anyway, when your installing the springs, they tend to slip a little before they are totally seated and the open end of the spring will pop through the opening in the bottom of the spring pocket. I ran into this issue In the past in my review thread of umi's new a arms years ago. I used household wiring to tie the spring to the back of the arm to prevent this slippage.

The problem with using this inner tube design like spohns is that most every spring rate uses a different thickness spring steel depending o spring stiffness, yet these spring are designed to always have the same outside diameter, not inside diameter.

Its nice to see spohns updating his arms, especially since there have been many reported issues with either his arms or k member moving the front wheels back a lot.

The sway bay hookup is nice, however im curious if it works properly on a lowered car. I made setups like these years ago and the problem was on lowered applications no matter how you do it, the end link is too long when using a clevis and rod end and the sway bar sits at the wrong angle.

Installed pics of the end links with the car at ride height would be nice to see.

customblackbird

iTrader: (15)

I was just about to say the same thing. My energy suspension endlinks are maxed out, I've cut the center tube as much as I can and don't have anymore threads left on the bolt to compress the bushings. My car is lowered and the swaybar still points upwards on the ends Alittle. Maybe some measurements of how long from the Aarm mounting surface to the lowest setting on the endlink. I might be calling spohn to get the specs.

I like the spohn ones alot as I hate the OEM style, I don't like the $80 price tag plus $10 shipping.

83HOZ

Based on the appearance of the end links, they look like they might be adjustable in height, though I haven't messed with them to see if they are. The design somewhat resembles the design of adjustable rear components, such as panhard bars and LCAs. A link with adjustability would help to correct most people's issues. So if these are not adjustable, then it looks like they're at least of a design that could eventually lead to an adjustable-style link.

Not sure what you mean by "hump," but the pockets of these a-arms do have ramps for indexing the bottom of the springs. That factory's design for indexing the springs is a "hump," so maybe you were referring to the same feature when you mentioned the hump?

Regarding the "channel" in the pocket that Spohn has created with that inner ring, the factory a-arm is recessed on the bottom to create a channel-like feature for its spring pocket. But the factory pocket is curved and its sides flare outward on both sides, so it gets wider as it opens-up toward the top, which allows it to accommodate a range of "approximately-correct" spring IDs and ODs. Whereas, the inner and outer sides of the pocket in Spohn's a-arms are squared and straight-up, severely limiting their ability to accommodate any spring with an ID that isn't an exact and "perfect" size.

customblackbird

iTrader: (15)

On a side note Ive contacted spohn about the end links and they gave me a measurement of 3.5" from the Aarm surface to the middle of th 2 bushings or the underside of the sway bar. They can NOT go any shorter due to the rod end. On a stock height car this would be a sweet setup.

Now I need to go measure my end links and see if that is shorter than what I got.