New Upper Wishbone 1998 1999 2000 2001 CG Accord Coupe

[welland99]

2 hours ago, hughezee said:

Dave is spot on, the UK accord with same year has a smaller sized setup, shocks springs upper and lower arms are bigger on the 2.0, 3.0 coupes...

The new Qdrive arm looks identical to the old one I removed.  The only way in which it looks different is in the distance that the spigot pulls through the hole.  I even measured the taper with a vernier and compared it to my old one.  The small end of the taper was the same size too (I didn't measure it at the wide end).  It's baffling isn't it?

Stu, which brand of upper suspension arms have you been fitting?   

[Laird_Scooby]

Have you measured the tapered hole in the knuckle the tapered pin fits into?

[welland99]

9 hours ago, Laird_Scooby said:

https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/honda,1999,accord,3.0l+v6,1389382,suspension,control+arm,10401

Maybe another option?

Just been looking at these moog suspension control arms, and further confusion arises.  From the link at rockauto, I can see that the Rock part no RK620284 is for the left front upper wishbone.  Clicking through this part cross references 51460S84A01 which is indeed referenced on Lings Honda.  What is does not say is the Moog part number.  

Looking at the online catalogue on moogparts.co.uk, I have looked up a CG2, a CG4, and all the Mk7 hatchbacks from 99 to 02 (CH & CL).  They all show the same moog part number for left hand upper: https://www.moogparts.co.uk/catalogue.html#fitment_id=10027 part number HO-WP-0823.  

Deep sigh!

[welland99]

2 hours ago, Laird_Scooby said:

Have you measured the tapered hole in the knuckle the tapered pin fits into?

Erm.... no.  

[hughezee]

3 hours ago, welland99 said:

Stu, which brand of upper suspension arms have you been fitting? 

I generally refurbish the old ones with genuine or blueprint bushings, ball joints 👍

[hughezee]

1 hour ago, welland99 said:

all the Mk7 hatchbacks

Just for reference, all 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 accords are sixth-generation not the 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007/8 accords which are a 7th generation, MK7 or CL7. CL9 😉

1 hour ago, welland99 said:

I have looked up a CG2, a CG4, and all the Mk7 hatchbacks from 99 to 02 (CH & CL)

Also for reference, not all CG models are USA spec cars, this is too often the reason why aftermarket suppliers think they are in interchangeable if they share part of a model code, basically all the CG1-CG6 models are the same apart from the sedan & coupe variations. However, the CG7-CG9 models are the same as the UK CH model which virtually nothing is interchangeable with the USA CG models, FYI the CL models are the later year petrol accord.

[welland99]

43 minutes ago, hughezee said:

I generally refurbish the old ones with genuine or blueprint bushings, ball joints 👍

Stu, 

which blueprint catalogue do you use?  I'm trying to see if the ball joint for the CG4 is different to the other UK models.  

You said earlier that the UK models have a different control arm - do you mean that the control arm itself is different, or different ball joint?  

[welland99]

51 minutes ago, hughezee said:

Just for reference, all 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 accords are sixth-generation not the 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007/8 accords which are a 7th generation, MK7 or CL7. CL9

Thanks Stu.  I forget the generation numbers and lifted the number 7 from the moog catalogue.  They must have it wrong, as they have 6th gen as the early to late 1990s.  

[welland99]

Stu, 

a question about Blueprint.   Are they connected with Febi Bilstein?  

With your good experience with blueprint, from the febi bilstein online catalogue, they show:

OEM 51460-S84-A01 = Febi 42171 = Blueprint ADH28651.  Would you agree that these two look a suitable replacement?

Now to find a stockist where I can get one of these ASAP at decent price.  They're on ebay around £36 with delivery later in the week, but I could do with one quicker from a local stockist.  Do you know of a febi / blueprint stockist finder?

I'm not confident with the Moog catalogue findings, as the following cross references don't work properly.   

OEM 51460-S84-A01 = MOOG HO-WP-0823.

But the other way around, MOOG HO-WP-0823 = OEM 51460-S1A-E01= BLUE PRINT ADH28630 = FEBI BILSTEIN 23755

[Laird_Scooby]

8 hours ago, welland99 said:

Now to find a stockist where I can get one of these ASAP at decent price.

I've tried most of the tricks i know online to find a Bilstein Group stockist (as it would appear Blue Print are now part of the Bilstein Group) to no avail but i do know many independent motor factors stock Febi-Bilstein so the implication is they should be able to get hold of Blue Print as well. I know when i've phoned my local independent factors for a part, very often they've told me it will be a Blue Print item, they also stock Febi-Bilstein so my suggestion would be to phone your local independent factors and ask the question.

[hughezee]

12 hours ago, welland99 said:

I'm not confident with the Moog catalogue findings, as the following cross references don't work properly. 

The MOOG numbers for both upper arms are CK620284 & CK620285 for the USA spec are different to HO-WP-0823 the bushing ailment, ball joint etc. However, when you say Q-DRIVE is the same as what you removed is odd as the Honda 51460-S0A-003 &  51460-S84-A01 have different engineering spec's. Also coincidentally I have to replace one on a UK version soon and will compare it and see if they're interchangeable, as aftermarket suppliers do mess with specs to make things more universal, which could be useful for coupe owners...

[welland99]

Here are some pics to compare my old arm of unknown manufacturer, possibly original,  with the new Q-Drive unit from ECP.   They both have the code S84L stamped into them, whatever that means...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Laird_Scooby]

In the second pic, both upper wishbones side by side, the "new" one appears to have a greater distance between the centre lines of the ball joint and the bushes. Not sure if it's because it isn't exactly parallel to the lino pattern as the "old" one is but might be worth measuring. If i'm right, it'll reduce the camber angle which could upset the handling.

[welland99]

10 hours ago, Laird_Scooby said:

In the second pic, both upper wishbones side by side, the "new" one appears to have a greater distance between the centre lines of the ball joint and the bushes. Not sure if it's because it isn't exactly parallel to the lino pattern as the "old" one is but might be worth measuring. If i'm right, it'll reduce the camber angle which could upset the handling.

Dave, you are right - that photo does make it look like they are not the same length.  I've just had a good look at them again (they're in my kitchen right now!) and it's a really difficult thing to measure.  But, so far as I can tell, they are the same.  It's just the perspective in the photo that makes them look different lengths.  I've put a length of bar through both bushes and tried to measure the perpendicular through the centre of the ball joint.  If they are of different lengths, the difference is tiny (a couple of mm), and I cannot detect this.  

At the present time, I have three of these arms.  😆.  The old one and a new Q-drive one which I got from ECP at £8 today are in my kitchen.  The other Q drive one with the stripped threads is on the car.  The wheel camber does not look off, and the car handling seems unchanged. 

After I got the new Q drive one, I found a blueprint ADH28651 on the tinterweb for £36 and ordered that too - should be here on wednesday.  Wierdly, none of my local parts factors could get the blueprint item. 

The plan is to try the blueprint one on Wednesday.  If that's OK, I'll return the Qdrive ones to ECP.  If they're not happy to refund the one with stripped threads because I broke it, I'll return today's new one against the original invoice from last month, for which I paid about £35.  

[Laird_Scooby]

A couple of mm can make a huge difference to the camber angle but if you can't discern any difference then there probably isn't - the persepctive of the photo can make a huge difference.

6 minutes ago, welland99 said:

If they're not happy to refund the one with stripped threads because I broke it, I'll return today's new one against the original invoice from last month, for which I paid about £35.

I like your thinking!

[welland99]

15 minutes ago, Laird_Scooby said:

I like your thinking!

If they want to play games with prices, I will too!😁

[welland99]

So, the blueprint arm is due for delivery this morning, and I'll try to have a go at fitting it this afternoon.  I hope it fits better than the Qdrive one.  

Stu, did you get chance to have a look at the ADH28651 to see if you think it is the correct part?

Couple of questions about fitting the ball joint:

1) When tightening the nut, is the aim to cause any deformation of the tapered spiggot?  I mean is it meant to be a perfect fit as manufactured, or is it meant to deform into the hole to make a perfect fit?

2) Does anybody know the correct torque setting for the nut?  If I still have the same problem as before (insufficient thread through the hole), I may just leave it at that as long as I can get the correct torque without stripping the thread, and if I can find a way to get the pin through the hole too (possible enlargement of the pin hole).  

I found reference to some torque values for a different Accord here - wondering if they are OK on my coupe:  

3)  Should the taper be greased before assembly, or left dry?  

[Laird_Scooby]

The answer to #1 & #3 is NO, definitely not!

#2 - a rough guide is 35-40lb/ft (45-50Nm~) as i don't know the figure exactly but that shouldn't be too far off.

You should find the taper pin sits in the hole with enough thread to fit the nut with threads to spare - before you even fit the nut! The idea of the taper is it should perfectly match on both the pin and the hole. This gives an increased contact area (back to school now, Pythagoras' Theorem, the square of the hypotenuse is the sum of the squares on the other two sides) which gives a stronger hold but equally once released by reversing the pressure on the pin by using a ball joint splitter (preferably the scissor type) should release comparatively easily. Look at this diagram and imagine the thick end of the pin is at the top of the triangle (largest triangle) and the thin end is at the thin end (bottom) of the pin :

As you'll see, for a given vertical distance, the length of the actual taper is longer. This is where the increased contact area comes from. It also needs to be smooth on both the taper and the hole.

Anyway, enough of the maths lesson, check the hole in the knuckle hasn't got grit or pitting, shouldn't have grease as it relies on dry friction to grip so the nut can be fully tightened.

[welland99]

29 minutes ago, Laird_Scooby said:

Anyway, enough of the maths lesson, check the hole in the knuckle hasn't got grit or pitting, shouldn't have grease as it relies on dry friction to grip so the nut can be fully tightened.

Thanks Dave.  

On my first attempt, I did grease the taper for corrosion protection, and even then, the friction did hold.  On later attempts, I had cleaned all the grease off, and will keep it dry today.  I did look inside the hole and it was all clean and shiny, without any trapped debris.  

The blueprint arm has just arrived, so will have a go at fitting it after lunch.  

[Laird_Scooby]

42 minutes ago, welland99 said:

The blueprint arm has just arrived, so will have a go at fitting it after lunch.

Can i suggest you measure the length of the taper pin before you start and compare it to the old one? Then just release (if you haven't already) the taper from the knuckle and try the new one "for size" before dismantling the rest? Would save all the extra work of removing the existing one only to find the pin isn't long enough and reduce any risk of marking the new one if it won't fit.

Hope it goes ok and you can finally get your beast back on the road.

[welland99]

59 minutes ago, Laird_Scooby said:

Can i suggest you measure the length of the taper pin before you start and compare it to the old one? Then just release (if you haven't already) the taper from the knuckle and try the new one "for size" before dismantling the rest? Would save all the extra work of removing the existing one only to find the pin isn't long enough and reduce any risk of marking the new one if it won't fit.

Hope it goes ok and you can finally get your beast back on the road.

On my kitchen floor, I now have three suspension arms and an extra ball joint, plus the complete arm with stripped threads on the car.  I've carefully examined all the items in the kitchen for differences.......

It looks like the diameter of the thin end of the taper on the blueprint ball joint is a little smaller than the Q drive unit.  That may be the key.  

I note that the Blueprint unit has coome with a nyloc nut instead of a castle nut.  The friction of the nyloc is greater than the friction in the ball joint:  so when tightening the nut by hand in my kitchen, the taper is turning.  The end of the thread does not have a hexagon to hold the taper still.  What is the technique for holding the taper from rotating until the friction in the joint holds it still?

 

[Laird_Scooby]

13 minutes ago, welland99 said:

It looks like the diameter of the thin end of the taper on the blueprint ball joint is a little smaller than the Q drive unit.  That may be the key.  

 

Hopefully the pin is a bit longer too?

14 minutes ago, welland99 said:

What is the technique for holding the taper from rotating until the friction in the joint holds it still?

Several techniques take your pick!

#1 - use the castellated nut (assuming it's the same thread) to pull the taper into the knuckle, when it's tight enough to overcome the Nyloc, remove the castellated nut and fit the Nyloc and tighten to the torque figure.

#2 - use washers to pack out the distance between the knuckle and the Nyloc until you can tighten the nut against the washers to the specified torque, remove the Nyloc and washers, refit the Nyloc and torque up.

#3 - Use a long bar on top of the wishbone to push down so the taper binds in the knuckle and you can do the Nyloc up.

#4 - Use an open-ended spanner (10mm i think is the thread size so a 10mm open-ender) as packing to pull the taper in with the Nyloc, slacken the nut half a turn, remove the open-ender and then tighten the Nyloc.

Those are the 4 safest methods, there are others but it starts getting a bit hairy with some of them!

With the exception of #3, they all rely on using the non-friction part of the Nyloc or a different nut, just to get things going. If you use the castellated nut, make sure it goes all the way onto the new thread easily before trying to fit it on the car, no sense damaging the new thread when other methods will also work.

Good luck and hopefully the next report will be that it's all done!

[welland99]

2 minutes ago, Laird_Scooby said:

Hopefully the pin is a bit longer too?

That's difficult to determine because the wide end is hidden inside the boot.  However:

the length of the threaded part looks the same on all of them

The overall length of the ball joint from tip of the threads to the outside face of the cup does seem longer on the blueprint one - but I realise this may not be conclusive. 

Fingers are crossed.  

[hughezee]

38 minutes ago, welland99 said:

What is the technique for holding the taper from rotating until the friction in the joint holds it still?

Shouldn't be a problem if the arm is pushed up from the lower arm pushing the knuckle into the upper arm, don't forget both outer bushings need to be set in the normal ride height position before tightening them in place or they won't last long. 👍

[welland99]

Blueprint on the right.  QDrive on the left.  Fingers crossed.... off to get my overalls on.