pfft i dont see whats so ultimate about these they look like (design concept) any other chinese factory made arms other than being able to use bushings which has been incorporated with some other arms anyway... as mentioned the problem with these arms are the centre piece being the weakest link...
what about using a length adjustable lower arm instead of the adjustable upper arm? the handling arm pivots on the cradle and has a ball joint on the knuckle, looks like it takes more axial load than it would bending/twisting, you could then keep the standard upper arm. just eyeballing the upper arm and you can tell nissan designed it to take bending/twisting since they've used a shape with the cross sectional area away from the centreline (just like those stillen box section arms which don't really seem to have the bending/twisting issues) whereas the arms with the centre threaded adjustable section can't take those loads with the rod/thread in the centreline.
I never understood lowering a car to the point it not only compromises parts, but handling and driveability. I have a mate with an MX5 who can't even do speed bumps at anything less than a 45 degree angle now and he wants to go lower as its still not low enough. WHY?!?!?!?
we don't go around telling you guys that you're running pussyfoot shit chinese wheels in crap widths and weak offsets or that your 20 year old OEM blown shocks are a disgrace so kindly shut the **** up and keep it to yourself that you think it's stupid to go super-low on coilovers and legit wide-ass wheels. keep it on topic. kthxbi. (not aimed at anyone in particular)
lol beans. your all part of the aus4wd association, having a sook yet again because a few guys like the look of a low car than a raised up bunky that you so called 'drive hard' on the streets ! to the dude with the mx5 mate, I bet his car looks a craptonne better than your zed even for a hairdressers car. we, the low brotherhood (hahah) don't build our cars to look stock, and handle as factory spec, we quite frankly lower our cars because that's the look we want. my zed handles better low than it did high, maybe half the 80 year olds on here need to actually drive rather than blame the zed. onto the FUCA's, another piece of shit fancy looking waste of money. flawed as all the other adjustable arms it's a complete waste of time. one day someone will get it right, till then if your low, use stock it's the best. so once again, let's not turn this into your cars too low ul scrape on a stone vs careful going into you garage your Z will scrape the roof kinda argument and keep on topic of the shitty product being pushed out.
They will bend at the thread for sure just like UASs v1 and like the UAS v2 is going to if they just repeat there design with a thicker thread, it's just simply comes down to the design and engineering the material strengths they use. If I was z1 I'd look into not having the adjustability so much, just made to measure 1 degree 2 positive or negative camber and just having the twist motion with a slip socket design over thread made out of stronger material like titanium! lubricated and sealed. I'd pay the difference for a quality over engineered product which is safer. Than what we have to chose from now, !!!!
http://www.300degree.com/hard_parts/camberkit/ Stock arms with these,you want less camber than these can provide, add a couple shims. This is the ultimate fuca setup for a street car that doesnt need its camber adjusted in 5 mins. Hell, you dont even need to spend the $100 to buy the kit, get some 12.9 grade bolts 15mm longer than stock, a fist full of 10mm flat washers and go nuts. I intend to use my adjustable fucas to determine the length of change from stock in the upper arm, then add the longer bolts and washers to the bracket using the stock fuca.
