FTO AUSTRALIA

Do the Evo III cast iron arms fit the FTO?
And the aluminum Evo 5/6 arms from what I remember only fit if using the Evo hub carrier?

spetz wrote:Do the Evo III cast iron arms fit the FTO?
And the aluminum Evo 5/6 arms from what I remember only fit if using the Evo hub carrier?

I think the E3 ones should go straight on, they have same design ball joint as the FTO. At least pretty sure someone had posted on the Facebook group who had done it.

Yeah, 5/6 arms need Evo hub, that's what I'm having done at the moment mostly for the Brembos.

3rd gen Magna hubs accommodate Brembos and I feel the balljoint should be the same (from a visual inspection I did, never tried).
The problem with so much mixing and matching is that there are all these geometries that a suspension requires to work that may cause a backwards step rather than forward step.

spetz wrote:3rd gen Magna hubs accommodate Brembos and I feel the balljoint should be the same (from a visual inspection I did, never tried).
The problem with so much mixing and matching is that there are all these geometries that a suspension requires to work that may cause a backwards step rather than forward step.

Yeah Magna guys have it good with the spacing being the same. I remember Ben reported a reasonable improvement in handling with the combination of the Evo 3 arms and Evo 5 hubs. Not sure if he determined whether or not the E3 arms increased the track like the 5 apparently do. I'll be finding that out in due time though. Couple of the Lancer and Mirage guys have already done it with combinations of Evo gear though.

The mixing can lead to problems like what Vectose had with the Evo 4 arms and GTO hubs, ran out of adjustment on the tie rods I believe, had to get them shortened and rethreaded so his alignment wasn't out of whack.

I don't think E3 LCAs will take E5 hubs.

Widening the front track though and not the rear means more understeer in theory. Is there a way to widen the rear as well to even things out?

They do, just need to swap the ball joint to an EVO 5 one. Bennoz has done it.

spetz wrote:I don't think E3 LCAs will take E5 hubs.

Widening the front track though and not the rear means more understeer in theory. Is there a way to widen the rear as well to even things out?

I don't know about suspension dynamics much, but it is only like a 10mm difference. Could use spacers if particularly concerned, but I think rear track on the FTO is already slightly less than front.

Vectose wrote:They do, just need to swap the ball joint to an EVO 5 one. Bennoz has done it.

Aren't E3 and FTO ball joints the same though? Meaning that the E5 ball joints would theoretically fit FTO LCAs?

Yup, should. But may need to machine a new groove in ball joint for the circlip as the surface area where it presses into is less than the EVO 5 arms.

Yeah the E5 ball joint should theoretically press straight in FTO arms.

It's when you go the other way & try put the FTO/E3 ball join into the E4 or 5 arms where you need to machine a new circlip slot in. A service they apparently provide at Meek, where I got most of the information to do my conversion.

From what I understand though, FTO ball joints are not replaceable, in the sense that you can only buy complete LCAs from Mitsubishi as they claim the metal is stretched and weakened by pressing ball joints in and out.
There are of course aftermarket replacements available

Hey guys just to revive this thread...

I am looking at the picture that Bennoz posted where the FTO and Evo III front LCA are visible.

The lower ball joint and the steering link are in different positions which would change the roll centre at the front which for lowered cars might be beneficial.


@Bennoz, did the Evo III LCA + hub assembly seem like a worthwhile combo to run?
I am not sure how (if at all possible) the PCD of the Evo III arm could be changed to 5 stud

It's been a while since, but I think I felt an at least noticeable improvement with the Evo V arms and hubs. But having said that, I also had the GPvR subframe and Whiteline sway bar put in at the same time, so not a very direct comparison there.

Thanks BJK but yes the comparison is contaminated since most of the difference would be from the whiteline swaybar.

TBH I think that most of the improvement from going the Evo III LCA will be from using the round bush as there is so much less rubber there that can flex over the square bush

spetz wrote:Thanks BJK but yes the comparison is contaminated since most of the difference would be from the whiteline swaybar.

TBH I think that most of the improvement from going the Evo III LCA will be from using the round bush as there is so much less rubber there that can flex over the square bush

If that's most of the aim, at least you have options to find what works best between the FTO facelift arms, or Evo III, IV, V etc. Are the Lancer hubs more like the FTO ones or the Evo?

The Lancer hubs are like the FTO ones but 4X100.
So same caliper bolt spacing and same ball joint etc.

I'll see how I go but it's a fairly expensive exercise for what should be a small difference.
Cost of arms + new bushes + wheel alignment would be around the $500 mark I would expect.

I accidentally ripped one of the ball joint boots when swapping hubs and even though that's fine for now it'll need to be replaced so just considering the cost/benefit between just pressing in new ball joints Vs changing the arms