Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

L34 Question

Started by yel327 , Feb 10 2008 07:55 PM

Prev

Please log in to reply

54 replies to this topic

#51 _CHOPPER_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2008 - 11:48 AM

I don't think that A9X and HX commercial stub axles (which share the same part number) are physically any different to the HQ stub axle - ie no extra 'meat'. I believe they are heat treated only, to provide more strength. I do know however that the A9X and HX onwards one tonner stub axles have subtle differences. Given that the HQ stub axle is so beefy though, I don't see how you could bend or break one anyway, without bending or breaking substantial parts of the car itself.

According to Damien at Harrop Engineering, there is extra meat there.

According to dattoman, they do flex under racing conditions. How he came to that conclusion, I don't know.

Back to top

#52 Toranamat69

Forum R&D Officer

Members
2,117 posts

Location:Brisbane
Joined: 07-November 05

Posted 14 February 2008 - 06:31 PM

In which direction does the KPI vary using HQ stubs over Torana? If using the Torana stubs increases the camber (ie makes it more positive) then it makes sense that the A9X would use lower upper control arm mounting holes than UC to lower the camber (make it more negative). I think this is how Holden achieved more -ve camber in phase 1 RTS ie by lowering the upper control arm mounting point.

YEL327,

The Torana Stub has 9 degree KPI, the HQ to HZ ones have 7 Degree KPI. some people tell me they are 9.5 and 7.5 degrees - I havn't found away to confirm either way (and not that it really matters) but I can certainly confirm they are 2 degrees different with the measuring gear I have.

I think you are confusing Static Camber and Camber Gain.

When you move the top control arm from the top to bottom set of holes without changing anything else, you will actually make the camber slightly more positive - approximately 1.5mm worth of shims in fact.
What it does do is make the camber go more negative as the suspension moves in the bump direction from that initial static camber setting.

It also has the added advantage that it moves the front roll centre higher which is a good thing on these cars.

Of the standard Torana setups - the A9X seetup is the best for handling.

M@

Back to top

#53 _lx5008_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2008 - 07:48 PM

L34 at the amcm 05
Posted Image

Back to top

#54 _lx5008_

Guests

Posted 14 February 2008 - 08:02 PM

Missed one point. Did L34 have holes in the rear crossmember arms for sway bar mounts? A9X should have I think. That would explain one difference.

Years ago I set up an LX hatch with A9X style brakes and suspension. I used a UC crossmember, UC control arms, UC rack, Torana steering arms, HQ stubs/discs and UC PBR alloy calipers with WB pad carrier. It was almost perfect geometry, with a maximum of -0.5deg camber. In which direction does the KPI vary using HQ stubs over Torana? If using the Torana stubs increases the camber (ie makes it more positive) then it makes sense that the A9X would use lower upper control arm mounting holes than UC to lower the camber (make it more negative). I think this is how Holden achieved more -ve camber in phase 1 RTS ie by lowering the upper control arm mounting point.

byron i still have some of those hx pad carriers

Back to top

#55 yel327

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Members
13,122 posts

Joined: 10-February 08

Posted 14 February 2008 - 08:20 PM

I probably would to. I sold and chucked away a lot of Torana stuff when I moved. I think there was nearlly 2 tonne of scrap steel on the tipper for that trip. Full of Torana suspension stuff but mainly LH and UC standard stuff. Also 3 or 4 253's in bits and a few hunded kilos of aussie 4 speed stuff.