taller ball joint mcpherson strut

Neons don't lower well, so the ball joint will help.  You need to combine them with a coil over and a shorter strut, because they are also a bit travel limited.

At least that's my take on it.

Thats what I was thinking.  Keeping with the rule of having the lower control arm parallel top the ground, this will only help that when if I lower the ride height a little more

One thing is it reduces the amount that your camber curve sucks from lowering. With mcstrut you only gain a very mild amount of camber when the control arm goes from pointing down to level. If it ever starts going up you LOSE camber. Extended ball joint makes the control arm point a little lower at a given ride height. I wish it was extended by more than that, but it may have to do with wanting to be able to keep the ability to run 15" wheels. 

In reply to 79rex :

When lowering you also should consider a bump steer kit. It will lower your roll center. That combined with the taller balljoints will keep the tie rods in line with the control arms

79rex said:

Thats what I was thinking.  Keeping with the rule of having the lower control arm parallel top the ground, this will only help that when if I lower the ride height a little more

That's kind of a crappy rule.  What is important is not the control arm, but the bushing to ball joint pivot axis, and parallel with the ground is not necessarily where you'd want it to be, depending on all sorts of factors.  I prefer a higher roll center than that.

All that said.... what is the stud diameter on a Neon?  VWs are 17mm and 19mm depending on year/model.  Mazdas with this type of ball joint are generally 18mm, from the FC all the way up to the Mazda2 and 3.  There used to be a company that made extensions for stock ball joints, but for some reason they went out of business.  (Im guessing lots of knuckle breakage)

Vigo said:

One thing is it reduces the amount that your camber curve sucks from lowering. With mcstrut you only gain a very mild amount of camber when the control arm goes from pointing down to level. If it ever starts going up you LOSE camber. Extended ball joint makes the control arm point a little lower at a given ride height. I wish it was extended by more than that, but it may have to do with wanting to be able to keep the ability to run 15" wheels. 

Camber continues to go negative all the way up to the point where the control arm bushing/ball joint pivot/strut top forms a right angle.  Only then does camber start to go positive.  .

What DOES happen when the bushing-ball joint axis is sitting up like that the track width gets narrower in compression, so side loads will have a tendency to compress the suspension.  (This is independent of center of gravity height effects that cause weight transfer) The roll center drops below ground level.  Then it doesn't matter how much camber you have because you need to run springs and sway bars so stiff to prevent body roll that life just sucks in general.

In reply to Knurled. :

I'm not totally sure on the dia.  My only ones are on the car right now.  It's a press-in ball joint.  And it has the pinch bolt that locks into the flat on the stud

My experience is only with VW's. I race a Mk I chassis and I fabed up a set of taller ball joints using a mono ball set in a "pocket" with a tab welded to the side to mimic the stock ball joint. I then machined up a stud that locked into the mono ball using a snap ring.  The stud was about 5/8 of an inch taller.

The car handled much better with less under steer.  The other benefit was that I didn't have to replace the OEM style ball joints every 2-3 races! The OEM style used a plastic liner between the ball joint "pocket" and the ball. Under racing conditions the liner would deformed leaving the ball loose in it housing and allowing increasing deflection. The mono ball lasts much longer and stays tight.

Camber continues to go negative all the way up to the point where the control arm bushing/ball joint pivot/strut top forms a right angle.  Only then does camber start to go positive.  .

By lose camber i meant 'become less negative'.   

One interesting thing i'd like to see that i've literally never seen before is for someone to calculate the NET increased roll angle when you screw up the roll center by lowering the car with, dun dun dun... stiffer springs. Like, what happens 100% of the time.  I'm all for optimizing things for same/similar money (spring stiffness doesn't really change spring prices, for example). For me the optimum extended ball joint would get me more than 1/2" for $150/pr. It's a nice idea that nevertheless doesn't get done often. It seems best suited to racers who are leaving the suspension close enough to where it started that 1/2" is getting you 50+% closer to optimal rather than 20% closer. I on the other hand have frequently bottomed out stock struts right about where the car started to 'look right' to me and in spite of the control arms angle being so berkeleyered that a 1/2" ball joint doesn't begin to address my problem, I've always somehow (adding 50mm of tread width, for example) ended up with something doing closer to what i wanted it to than what i started with.  It sounds like a great idea in general but it ends up being niche.

In reply to Vigo :

That is what I meant too.  Draw it up, do the math.  The ball joint does move laterally inwards, but because of the angle of the strut, the camber still moves negative until the bushing/ball joint/strut top axis is a right angle.

I would not be nearly as concerned about camber change as I would be about having a stable roll center.  And any time you can make the springs softer, handling gets better, as long as the roll couple stays stable anyway.

To answer my question, Neons have a .700" stud.  And Howe are NOT the only people making extended ball joints.  They are also available for SN197s, which do have a 18mm stud, and I see myself making control arms soonish...

In reply to Knurled. :

Ive thought about making some control arms.  Adding heim joints starts to get pricey.  

https://www.moorespeedperformance.com/product-page/dodge-neon-tubular-front-lower-control-arms

I did come across these.  Thats a really high price point obviously

That is what I meant too.  Draw it up, do the math.  The ball joint does move laterally inwards, but because of the angle of the strut, the camber still moves negative until the bushing/ball joint/strut top axis is a right angle.

I see what you mean. My slammed k-cars are beyond a right angle. I can see why a Neon would have a fairly minor extension on the ball joint because they would want to run 15" race rubber and long ball joints increase your minimum wheel size. My Dynasty has room for more like 1.5" of extra ball joint since it has 17s on it. I'll have to make my own if i ever decide to care.  

My Nissan has the same issues. I ordered taller balljoints and bumpsteer kit from 2jracing. Once my coilovers get here within the next 3-5 weeks I'll see how they work out

The Neon I raced I replaced the inner lower control arm bushings with Heim joints.

I've put these on Hondas but never a Neon (mine were gone by the time i knew about these).   Basically a spherical joint that drops into the factory arm, for ~$30.

In reply to Vigo :

Not a ton of applications. For me I ended up putting in whiteline caster bushings for the control arm. I haven't seen anyone use heim links on FWD Nissan's but that would be an interesting idea to adjust camber and toe without top plates. However that wouldn't fix the bump steer issues on lowered McPherson. 

Mike Kojima boxed in the end of the control arm and installed a male heim link with a machined rod to eliminate the bj issues 

I have had a set in my car for months. It helped some with bump steer. It has a nicer camber curve and are rebuild able. 10/10 worth the price for a lowered car.