Wardy,
Strut spacers get the arms back below horizontal and solve some straight
line bump stability problems at the same time.
A local 120Y 2 door Z18GT (gas turbo) had the same problem with lower
control arm angles and resultant toe/camber change on bumps. After fitting
spacers & an alignment no more problems. Brakes from 100km/hr dead straight
no hands required on wheel.
So which is less desirable? Having a car that doesn't handle on the road
due to incorrect arm angles that can get you into trouble? Or having a car
that has good steering stability, but is fitted with an item that may be
illegal for road use. The wisdom of Solomon is required here!
Cheers, (with high level vested interest as I sell strut spacers!)
Feral Errol
----------
From: Mark Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: lower control arms (long)
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 10:15
I've been thinking about this too and had a look at my 1600 which is fitted
with 200B struts. At the moment my control arm angle is less than ideal,
being parrallel with the ground. Nevertheless, I've never had any problems
with the tip of the control arm coming anywhere near the disc. I still run
the backing plate over the discs and even still, there is 12-15mm gap
between the tip of the control arm and the backing plate.
I think that Terry is on the right track with the two different hub heights
available on 200b struts. Also wear on various suspension parts would be a
contributing factor.
However I think ride height is also a factor. Looking at 200b strut
conversion photos from the adelaide datsun website, apart from the obvious
that the tips of the control arms are mighty close to the disc, that car is
lowered heaps. So much so the control arms appear to be about 30 degrees
up
above the horizontal.
This suggests to me that extremely lowered vehicles are likely to
experience
clearance problems between the disc and control arm, resulting from the tip
of the contol arm now swinging though a new arc, bringing it much closer to
the disc.
Combining a "very lowered" car and the lower 200b hub height would
definately become an issue.
Perhaps I am wrong, but food for thought ?
cya,
Wardy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Overend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: lower control arms (long)
> I suspect your theory might be correct. I have seen the same problem
> with 200B struts and an even more severe with early 240K 40mm hub
> height. As you say suspension wear can also come into it. I have
> experience with 240K 270mm discs with backing plates slightly scoring
> the disc which was due to either lower ball joints.
>
> Craig.
>
> Terry Rudd wrote:
> >
> > Simon,
> > This problem comes up now and again on the list and as it seems like we
> > haven't collected enough data or quite worked out exactly why it
happens
on
> > some cars and not others to give you a precise "this is the way to fix
the
> > problem" type answer.
> >
> > I have a theory that it only happens when you use the 200B rotors that
have
> > the smaller hub height of 43.6 mm as opposed to the more common 48 mm
rotors
> > but it's only an observed hunch with little to back it up. I have never
had
> > the problem but one Datto that I saw that did actually had the 48 mm
rotors
> > but the tie rod end and the ball joints were absolutely rooted and that
was
> > the cause of the contact which was mainly occurring under heavy braking
and
> > not going around corners with a high load on the wheel. The front
suspension
> > was brand new on this car and there was no flex in this area so the
control
> > arm must have been moving outward under brakes. We replaced the worn
> > components ($$) and then the control arm didn't even come into contact
with
> > the dust cover and if everything is in good shape under there nor
should
it.
> >
> > A lot of us grind the ends of the control arm which will usually fixes
the
> > disc scoring problem but I'm sure there is a more serious problem with
the
> > combination of components used or wear in other components that's not
being
> > addressed with that solution. Another thing is that a lot of us don't
fit
> > the dust cover and this exposes the disc to this sort of damage.
> >
> > The minimum thickness of the 200B disc is 10.5 mm. Unfortunately you
could
> > need quite a lot of replacement parts and have it checked out by a
> > suspension place to get a second opinion if you don't know anyone that
could
> > do it for you - don't tell them anything, it's just in for a checkup -
> > Pedders do a 28 point suspension check for $14 every now and again.
> > Obviously you will need replacement rotors but 200B stuff is dirt cheap
> > either at the wreckers or even in the local paper. You have to match
the
hub
> > height of the existing rotors as there are 2 types and the
callipers/pads to
> > suite each type are slightly different.
> >
> > regards
> > Terry
> >
>
>
>
--membersozdat-------------------------------------------------------
OZDAT Mailing List Please Note:-
Send (un)subscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No unauthorised redistribution of this email
http://www.ozdat.com/ozdatonline/index.htm
http://www.ozdat.com/ozdatonline/listindex.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
