Skip to main content
Topic: Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street. (Read 4003 times) previous topic - next topic

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #15
What lowers are you running?

Between the Maximum Motorsports lowers, stock uppers, and quad shocks I've got no wheel hop.
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #16
....boxed with poly bushings. Could be the quads are shot.
84 COUGAR/90 HO, 1.7RRs, performer RPM,700DP, equal length shorties, stainless EXH ,T-5,Hurst pro-billet, KC clutch, 8.8/ 4.10s, line-lok, bla ,bla, bla.
71 COMET/289,351w heads, 12.5 TRWs, 750DP, Liberty TL, 9"/6.00s, 11.9x @112 , bla,bla,bla.

Never shoot your mouth off, unless your brain is loaded! ....I may get older, but I'll never grow up!....If you're not laughing, you're not living!  :laughing:

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #17
Interesting.  The quad shockshiznit the trash can the minute I installed the Maximum Motorsport lowers on my Couple.  Never had wheel hop after that and never put a set back on the car.  Some guys have removed them and then put them back on as they would still get a little wheel hop.  That was usually cured with good rear shocks and/or installing new UCA bushings.

I just wanted to clarify that by good rear shocks I do not mean stock replacements which is an issue for our cars as none of the quality damper company that I know of build rear shock for our cars.  I ended up getting a set of Chuck's rear shock adapters so I could run SN95 Mustang rear shock on my Bird.

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #18
These are the only "performance" rear shocks that fit our cars with out Chuck's bracket: http://www.oreillyauto.com/site/c/detail/KYB4/KG5556/03415.oap?year=1987&make=Ford&model=Thunderbird&vi=1140253&ck=Search_C0077_1140253_3405&pt=C0077&ppt=C0035#compatibilityTab_
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #19
I had a set waaaay back in the day and they are a really good stock replacement. They are not valves for anything more than that. Much better than the Monroe's and other offerings for sure if performance is what a person is looking for.

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #20
I had CHE arms and solid bushings (axle) and it was ed harsh. The slightest bump in the road would  "toss" it about...torque steer? Oh hell yeah...even with no throttle input, were the road rough enough. Maybe not torque steer, exactly....but....yeah.

Rubber and stock, are best for all but the most dedicated track only cars.
'84 Mustang
'98 Explorer 5.0
'03 Focus, dropped a valve seat. yay. freakin' split port engines...
'06 Explorer EB 4.6

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #21
Oh man, I F'd up and put poly's on the axle side of the uppers in my '85 TC one time and that was a huge mistake.  Rubber bushings went back in the next weekend and those six or so days were just miserable.  I still have rubber bushings on the axle side of the UCA's on my '83 but have spherical ends on the body side like the lowers.  It is definitely not quite but I am not giving up the performance.

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #22
Oh yeah lol.
When I did the rear in my notch I made ed sure to put (new) rubber in the axle ends. The little I drove it before I did the engine swap it felt more supple, but also quieter yet more responsive without the "washboard oversteer" that my sport had.

Never again. solid or poly axle bushings are just too ed much for a mostly street (let alone 6 miles of gravel roads) car..if you live in an area where the extent of the county road funding goes to widening bridges for the bigger trucks, tractors and combines, rather than crowning, gravelling, and maintaining the roads...hell, maybe I need to buy a horse. My luck, jesse james would steal him...


Yeah, poly sucks for the road. Track use, it's probably needed, though.
'84 Mustang
'98 Explorer 5.0
'03 Focus, dropped a valve seat. yay. freakin' split port engines...
'06 Explorer EB 4.6

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #23
If ploys were legit for daily driving then my F150 would have them in the front control arms and in the rear leaf spring bushings...ha ha ha!!!

83 351W TKO'd T-Bird on the bottle


93 331 Mustang Coupe - 368 rwhp

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #24
Spherical bushings/bearings ftw!
88 Thunderbird LX: 306, Edelbrock Performer heads, Comp 266HR cam, Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, bunch of other stuff.

Why NOT to use boxed rear UCA on the street.

Reply #25
Finally took the Cougar out for a decent cruise today with the wife, and she noticed how well it rode. This was with the poly bushings in the boxed LCAs and axle end in the uppers which I removed the "boxing" plate from. So far so good.
84 COUGAR/90 HO, 1.7RRs, performer RPM,700DP, equal length shorties, stainless EXH ,T-5,Hurst pro-billet, KC clutch, 8.8/ 4.10s, line-lok, bla ,bla, bla.
71 COMET/289,351w heads, 12.5 TRWs, 750DP, Liberty TL, 9"/6.00s, 11.9x @112 , bla,bla,bla.

Never shoot your mouth off, unless your brain is loaded! ....I may get older, but I'll never grow up!....If you're not laughing, you're not living!  :laughing: