My adjustable upper control arms
 

We fabbed these up today. After going to a wider tire/wheel up front it was a little tough to turn with a depowered rack. We tried to dial the caster back but were gaining too much camber. These should do the trick.

Not sure what heppened to the pics in the initial post. Let's try this again.

These look amazing. Do they use a stock miata ball joint or something aftermarket?

Finally a related thread (so i don't have to start a new one and make my ignorance plainly obvious).
When I bought my NB it had -3.2 as max camber in front and the only mod I can see if a slightly moved lower ball joint.
When I had to replace the UCA the max camber was -2.1 on that side. There was a clear difference in the CA length, but I could not see any mod on the old CA.

Is there a difference in CA length between NA and NB (so it is NA UCA I had from the beginning)?
In that case It's an easy swap to an used NA UCA to get my camber back (doh).
(but Keith@FM mentions a difference in Ball Joint...)

Going custom (as plain and nice as these look) will solve all problems, this version also look close to stock at a glance (sometimes it's nice to be able to fool the untrained eye).
Nice job! :)

rebuildable joints from V8roadster

Not that I know of but it is easy to tweak the stamped steel. Especially if you mess up while pressing out the bushings. Been there. Done that. Had to buy replacements. :facepalm:

It could also be build tolerances in the control arms.

Isn't it a common spec miata thing to have upper control arms that were "accidentally" bent in a "racing incident" in order to have more camber?

Older thread but I can't understand why someone STILL doesn't make these for sale, it's an autocrosser's dream come true.

Because they compromise tire clearance and extended lower ball joints now exist which are way cheaper and better for this.

Hmmmmm.....

They do compromise clearance but I'd debate that a 3 degree change from an extended lower ball joint is a better solution. I have a lowered car which has a range of something like -1 to -2 (for round numbers' sake). While I'd like to have a little bit more negative camber adding another -3 isn't going to work.

I would only look into producing an arm for the sake of caster. Camber is much better dealt with in the lower arm IMO.

In any case, my bushings only add 1.5*
http://sadfab.com/bushingpackages.html

An additional -1.5 would be just about perfect for me. Are there different extended lower ball joints? The reason I ask is because the ones I have seen all say they add another 3 degrees. Is your ride height standard?

I run 2.2* of front camber at 4.5" pinch weld heights on my NB street car with extended lower balljoints.

Thank you, that helps. I'll go check my pinch height on the front.... I think it's a bit less, but not much but my memory is not trustworthy.

I run -3* with the offsets and the camber adjuster ends up right about middle. I think im just under 4.5" at the front pinch weld.

Not sure how people miss that the ELBJs just add ~3° to the range of achievable camber, that doesn't mean you HAVE to run over -3° camber. The geometry difference between standard LBJs and the extended versions means you gain about 3° when you bolt them on but obviously you align the car after installing them. There is plenty of adjustment range to dial camber out. The ELBJs shift the achievable camber to a more useful range, instead of most of the range being useless such as +2° to -2° (I'm guessing on the min. camber, I haven't checked).

I mean if you auto-x adding 3° to your current number is probably excessive, but something that starts with a 4 is going to be faster on course than something that starts with a 3 for camber numbers (excluding courses with serious braking zones).

I really like this solution as well, one day I'd like to fab up something similar.

https://www.miataturbo.net/suspensio...le-arms-90385/