Pay in installments of $66.50 with
,
and
Shipping Estimate
USA
- USA
- CAN
- USA
- CAN
Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Sep 27 - Oct 2
Promo Codes Available:
For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15
Description
Fits 1964-1972 Chevelle, GM A Body Upper & Lower Control Arms LCAUCA6472High Quality 1964 1972 GM Upper & Lower Front Tubular Control Arms Set. Fits all GM A Body Cars from 1964 through 1972 Black Powder Coated Front Tubular Steel, stronger than the factory arms Front Tubular Steel Set Upper Control Arms Set Lower Control Arms Set High Quality, Greasable, Delrin Bushings Built in positive caster for improved handling Ball Joints Included!!! (Replacement #'s Uppers : K 5108 Lowers: K 5103) Urethane bump stops Sway Bar
High Quality 1964-1972 GM Upper & Lower Front Tubular Control Arms Set. Fits all GM A-Body Cars from 1964 through 1972
- Black Powder Coated Front Tubular Steel, stronger than the factory arms
- Front Tubular Steel Set
- Upper Control Arms Set
- Lower Control Arms Set
- High Quality, Greasable, Delrin Bushings
- Built in positive caster for improved handling
- Ball Joints Included!!! (Replacement #'s Uppers : K-5108 Lowers: K-5103)
- Urethane bump stops
- Sway Bar Linkage
- Offset Billet Cross Shafts
- Clean welding and High Quality Powder Coating
- Direct bolt on for cars with disc brakes, no modifications
- Recommend for Stock Height Spindles Only
- Sold as complete set
- Inner Coil Retainer Design with Spring Pad Cushion (be sure compare to the competition, some do not offer this)
Specs:
| Adjustable | No |
|---|---|
| Ball Joints Included | Yes |
| Box Size | 11x7x7 |
| Bump Stops Included | Yes |
| Bushing Material | Polyurethane |
| Control Arm Style | Tubular |
| Finish | Powderocated Black |
| General Fitment | 1964-72 GM A Body Upper & Lower Tubular Control Arms |
| Grease Fittings | Yes |
| Hardware Included | Castle Nut & Cotter Pin & Sway arm linkage included. |
| Material | Steel |
| Part Number | LCAUCA6472KIT |
| Quantity | 4 |
| Spring Pad Included | Yes |
| UPC | 635648179162 |
| Weight | 42lbs. |
Application:
| Year | Make | Model | Submodel |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1964-1971 | Oldsmobile | 442 | |
| 1964-1972 | Chevrolet | Chevelle | |
| 1964-1972 | Oldsmobile | Cutlass | |
| 1964-1972 | Chevrolet | El Camino | |
| 1964-1972 | Pontiac | GTO | |
| 1964-1972 | Pontiac | Lemans | |
| 1964-1967 | Chevrolet | Malibu | |
| 1970-1972 | Chevrolet | Monte Carlo | |
| 1964-1972 | Buick | Skylark | |
| 1964-1970 | Pontiac | Tempest | |
| 1964-1972 | Oldsmobile | Vista Cruiser | |
| 1964-1972 | Oldsmobile | F85 | |
| 1964-1969 | Buick | Special | |
| 1967 | Chevrolet | Camaro |
Shipping Notes
- Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
- Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
- Delivery to the USA:
- Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
- If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
- We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
- Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
- To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
- Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
4.2 ★★★★★
Based on 28 reviews
Sort
Product Reviews
★★★★★ 3
Pretty Colors to Encourage Me to Walk!
Size: X-Large, Color: (601) Bittersweet Pink / Stone / Stone
Hum. Extra large does not seem extra large. I have a slender but size 10-10.5 foot. Will keep but was hoping for a looser fit. Bought to match an Under Armour walking outfit.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 16, 2026
★★★★★ 5
Socks
Size: X-Large, Color: (601) Bittersweet Pink / Stone / Stone
So cute
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 6, 2026
★★★★★ 5
I stay on your foot they don’t slip in your shoe
Number of Items: 3, Color: White/Neutral (3-pairs), Size: Medium
This is the only socks I wear Under Armour because they stay in place I wear a size 8, but they’re more comfortable with a large instead of a medium, but I wear both because I have them already and you can pull them to stretch them out a little bit
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on May 12, 2026
★★★★★ 5
Great fit, truly doesn’t slide off heel
Number of Items: 3, Color: White/Neutral (3-pairs), Size: Medium, Number of Items: 3, Color: White/Neutral (3-pairs), Size: Medium
I’ve scoured all the lands looking for a no-show sock that was 1) thin, 2) quality, soft, breathable material, 3) didn’t dig into my feet/heels, 4) doesn’t shrink, and most importantly 5) stays on the back of my heel without a bulky non-slip rubber piece and these check all the boxes! Perfect for low profile women’s work shoes like Keds, etc. Not low enough for most flats though. I wear a women’s size 9.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on April 19, 2025
★★★★★ 5
So good - I’m buying MORE.
Number of Items: 3, Color: White (3-pairs), Size: Medium
I’m gonna give you more detail than you need about why I’m buying these socks again.
I’ve been the mom of girl athletes. I’ve been a model and a fashion director. I’ve worn every brand of shoe on the planet and never found a shoe that did NOT find a vulnerable spot on my foot to rub raw. Even my beloved white Jack Purcell sneakers.
With that said - I don’t like socks. I’ve bought a TON of them in 35+ years.....all major brands.
They shift. They lose their shape. They get holes in them and wear out too fast. Not these.
I retired this year, and knowing I’d be in sneakers a lot, traveling, sightseeing ......
I bought these 6 months ago and have worn them constantly. I’ve traveled with them. I’ve washed them in hot water and bleach.
The socks are like brand new. They are exactly the right cut so as not to be seen in a basic sneaker. The little silicone patch on the heel stays put. Not once have I had to dig down into my shoe and pull the sock back up. The socks have stayed soft and EXACTLY the same as the day they were new.
Like I said - I am back to buy them again. Great quality!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on January 20, 2021