Yeah, the clearance between the control arm and disc was the same no matter
which motor & crossmember was in the car. Thanks !
Wardy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 2:19 AM
Subject: RE: lower control arms (long)
> Hi Wardy,
> Having looked under your 1600 on more than one occasion I would think that
> the closest that the control arm would be to the disc cover would be
around
> the parallel position, ie just about where yours is, however as you say
your
> control arms have heaps of clearance and are never likely to have contact
> with the disc cover let alone crunching the disc itself. You have the
import
> 200B hubs which I noted were different to mine but only the calliper is
> different, ie the hub height is identical.
>
> Just as a matter of interest, can you recall when you had the old xmember
> and L engine was the distance much the same as with the FJ and modified
> xmember in?
>
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mark Ward
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 September 2000 10:15 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: lower control arms (long)
>
>
> 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]/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
