so how does that affect the steering arms?? are they also pushed out further by the same distance? is this what leads to the bump steer issue?
Parts Bin suspension
Started by
_Sprog_
, Aug 11 2008 08:00 PM
76 replies to this topic
#52
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 07 June 2009 - 12:20 PM
so how does that affect the steering arms?? are they also pushed out further by the same distance? is this what leads to the bump steer issue?
Ok first off I did all this years ago and my comments are from what I have learnt from others I am not a wheel alighnment guy or a guru more of a sub-guru
the axle where the wheel actually faces up are further out but where the steering arm bolts on is close to standard position
the bump steer issue comes from the axle being lower hence the A9X had unquie steering arms (you can use reproduction ones)
#53
_BAILLIE_
_BAILLIE_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 June 2009 - 07:01 PM
Thanks everyone, this thread has been very informative. Nice to have some kind of summary for a front end set-up after 7 pages of LX vs UC, cheers cruiza.
Street Machine ran a tech article on converting LX's to H series stubs and brakes (HQ?) a few months back and they said that using a certain one (HX?) would mean more camber and bump steer and a slight ride height drop. I cant recall exact models and im not sure where the magazine is now but i've been meaning to write them and ask if there was a way around the bump-steer problem. I had it in my old VK whenever i had the 17's on it and dont wont anymore of that in the Torry. With the VK i just chucked 15in intercepters on for the street and improved everything except grip in corners.
So anyway, i want the extra camber but my ride height is already about as low as i want it. Now i know there's a bump-steer solution (the Harrop s/arms) even if they do cost a bomb it's nice to know they're there.
I forgot where i was going with this so will just ask 2 questions:
http://cgi.ebay.com....em=140325503739
^^^ Has anyone got brake kits from these guys? They go for about 800 or so on EBAY
Q2-- I can dial in more camber on an RTS LX by just removing shims equally from both UCA bolts, is this correct and what's the most i can get out of it?
Street Machine ran a tech article on converting LX's to H series stubs and brakes (HQ?) a few months back and they said that using a certain one (HX?) would mean more camber and bump steer and a slight ride height drop. I cant recall exact models and im not sure where the magazine is now but i've been meaning to write them and ask if there was a way around the bump-steer problem. I had it in my old VK whenever i had the 17's on it and dont wont anymore of that in the Torry. With the VK i just chucked 15in intercepters on for the street and improved everything except grip in corners.
So anyway, i want the extra camber but my ride height is already about as low as i want it. Now i know there's a bump-steer solution (the Harrop s/arms) even if they do cost a bomb it's nice to know they're there.
I forgot where i was going with this so will just ask 2 questions:
http://cgi.ebay.com....em=140325503739
^^^ Has anyone got brake kits from these guys? They go for about 800 or so on EBAY
Q2-- I can dial in more camber on an RTS LX by just removing shims equally from both UCA bolts, is this correct and what's the most i can get out of it?
#54
_Squarepants_
_Squarepants_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 June 2009 - 07:35 PM
Street or track car?
For street you don't need any more than 1.5'.
Removing shims is the way to do it but I don't know how much you can get, prolly depends on how distorted your cross member is.
Yes, H series stubs will give you a ride height drop (can't remember exactly how much, 1-2" I think) and 2' more camber and yes, you get more bump steer unless you use Harrop or A9X steering arms.
Read this: http://www.gmh-toran...showtopic=14102
Big read but lots of good info. This thread carries on from it.
Can't see your link, something wrong with it. But I bought a Hoppers kit, so I couldn't comment on it anyway.
For street you don't need any more than 1.5'.
Removing shims is the way to do it but I don't know how much you can get, prolly depends on how distorted your cross member is.
Yes, H series stubs will give you a ride height drop (can't remember exactly how much, 1-2" I think) and 2' more camber and yes, you get more bump steer unless you use Harrop or A9X steering arms.
Read this: http://www.gmh-toran...showtopic=14102
Big read but lots of good info. This thread carries on from it.
Can't see your link, something wrong with it. But I bought a Hoppers kit, so I couldn't comment on it anyway.
#55
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 June 2009 - 07:45 PM
Ok first question which HQ - WB stub axles to use?
Makes no difference what so ever all Disc braked HQ to WB are the same casting more or less One tonners were heat treated for strenght Part numbers changed over the years as castings wore out but in key areas all the same part.
One trick I have seen but not sure how it work out, as in did it have the desired effect, was to lower the rear top arm mounting bolt more then the front top arm mounting bolt.
I used to run 2 degrees negative camber 1/2 degree negative? castor same as A9X and I still chewed outside edge of tires
and Yes need Harrops steering arms to combat bump steer
Makes no difference what so ever all Disc braked HQ to WB are the same casting more or less One tonners were heat treated for strenght Part numbers changed over the years as castings wore out but in key areas all the same part.
One trick I have seen but not sure how it work out, as in did it have the desired effect, was to lower the rear top arm mounting bolt more then the front top arm mounting bolt.
I used to run 2 degrees negative camber 1/2 degree negative? castor same as A9X and I still chewed outside edge of tires
and Yes need Harrops steering arms to combat bump steer
#56
_Squarepants_
_Squarepants_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 June 2009 - 08:47 PM
That would just add castor, wouldn't it???One trick I have seen but not sure how it work out, as in did it have the desired effect, was to lower the rear top arm mounting bolt more then the front top arm mounting bolt.
#57
Peter UC
-
- Members
-
- 765 posts
Forum Fixture
- Location:Emerald Vic
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 10 June 2009 - 08:52 PM
It adds anti-dive to the suspension.
#58
_Squarepants_
_Squarepants_
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2009 - 12:02 AM
Would wear bushes out faster though, wouldn't it?
#59
rodomo
-
- Members
-
- 17,999 posts
To advertise here, call 13TORANA
- Name:R - O - B Dammit!
- Location:Way out west of Melbourne Awstraylya
- Joined: 10-December 05
Posted 11 June 2009 - 12:54 AM
Would wear bushes out faster though, wouldn't it?
Who cares if it goes faster around corners?
#60
_BAILLIE_
_BAILLIE_
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2009 - 10:25 AM
yeh im not sure why the link doesnt work, could try this:
might work now
or just go to ebay and search for 'torana brake kit'. Im not used to the controls for this forum. But yeh, i might ask about it in the appropriate thread hey.
Yes, thankyou squarepants, thats how i ended up in this topic. Ideally i'd like a setup which would be a good compromise between street and track, but yeah, mostly street. I have a bit of a thing for negative camber and drifting etc. Around 2 degrees i think would be nice, and around 3 for the track.
I dont really care much about wearing tyres, but i guess it would shit me if i had a decent pair on the front. So, hmm, scratch that i do care about the fronts, just not the rear.
The anti-dive sounds good if you knew how to set it up properly.
might work now
or just go to ebay and search for 'torana brake kit'. Im not used to the controls for this forum. But yeh, i might ask about it in the appropriate thread hey.
Yes, thankyou squarepants, thats how i ended up in this topic. Ideally i'd like a setup which would be a good compromise between street and track, but yeah, mostly street. I have a bit of a thing for negative camber and drifting etc. Around 2 degrees i think would be nice, and around 3 for the track.
I dont really care much about wearing tyres, but i guess it would shit me if i had a decent pair on the front. So, hmm, scratch that i do care about the fronts, just not the rear.
The anti-dive sounds good if you knew how to set it up properly.
#61
View GaragePosted 11 June 2009 - 11:34 AM
I think just adding plenty of caster would eliminate the need for massive negative camber and sort the anti-dive, hence the appeal of the later RTS setup
#62
_BAILLIE_
_BAILLIE_
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2009 - 05:08 PM
ok. so i know that increasing caster has it's benifits, with the downside being heavier steering.
I didn't know what anti-dive was before today though. It's one of benifits of adding caster to the front end and it reduces the vehicles tendency to pitch it's weight forwards under heavy braking yes?
Thanks peoples,
now Toranas dont have strut towers therefore you cant fit a strut brace, unless it's some oddball shape right, just wondering if there is there any need for extra bracing of the frond end for track use?
Would something like that extra steel plate welded to the crossmember (mentioned earlier) be the torry equivalent?
I know CRS do chassis-make-strong-now kits, but they are mostly for the rear yeah?
I didn't know what anti-dive was before today though. It's one of benifits of adding caster to the front end and it reduces the vehicles tendency to pitch it's weight forwards under heavy braking yes?
Thanks peoples,
now Toranas dont have strut towers therefore you cant fit a strut brace, unless it's some oddball shape right, just wondering if there is there any need for extra bracing of the frond end for track use?
Would something like that extra steel plate welded to the crossmember (mentioned earlier) be the torry equivalent?
I know CRS do chassis-make-strong-now kits, but they are mostly for the rear yeah?
#63
Posted 11 June 2009 - 07:11 PM
I've only ever seen front ends braced with full roll cages, wouldn't imagine its necessary (certainly nothing like Commodore struts). The chassis kits are connectors to join the front and rear together, the factory only did so via the floor pan.
#64
_Squarepants_
_Squarepants_
-
- Guests
Posted 11 June 2009 - 08:38 PM
I think the biggest issue with lots of camber is that most road tyres don't provide enough grip to allow the car to lean over enough to make 3' camber viable. The idea is to get the outside tyre sitting flat around corners. With really good tyres you could prolly make it work, but only if you were going to throw the car into every corner at warp speed with maximum G's, which isn't practical on the street, or even on long sweepers.Yes, thankyou squarepants, thats how i ended up in this topic. Ideally i'd like a setup which would be a good compromise between street and track, but yeah, mostly street. I have a bit of a thing for negative camber and drifting etc. Around 2 degrees i think would be nice, and around 3 for the track.
I dont really care much about wearing tyres, but i guess it would shit me if i had a decent pair on the front. So, hmm, scratch that i do care about the fronts, just not the rear.
Remember, unless it's a purpose built car, there is always a compromise.
#65
_BAILLIE_
_BAILLIE_
-
- Guests
Posted 12 June 2009 - 04:45 PM
Thanks heaps guys,
got heaps to do on the car but will be getting a new half-decent camera this weekend so i can start a project thread and post heaps of pics, and ask a few questions along the way.
got heaps to do on the car but will be getting a new half-decent camera this weekend so i can start a project thread and post heaps of pics, and ask a few questions along the way.
#66
_Baronvonrort_
_Baronvonrort_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 June 2009 - 10:45 AM
I think the biggest issue with lots of camber is that most road tyres don't provide enough grip to allow the car to lean over enough to make 3' camber viable.
With good tyres grip should not be a problem.
Lots of camber reduces braking capability as tyres are tuned for corners so much easier to lock a front brake with excessive camber.
The right amount of negative camber will vary from vehicle to vehicle and when your tyres are wearing pretty much evenly across the tread it is about right.
Other variables also affect tyre wear and the trick is to get them wearing evenly so they last longer and this is the same from the softest slicks in racing to road tyres.
No magic numbers from me on this just look how your tyres are wearing and that should give you the answers.
#67
_Squarepants_
_Squarepants_
-
- Guests
Posted 17 October 2009 - 08:32 PM
Ive just fitted my new UC front end into my LH using the original LH LCA's (as they are made from thicker steel).
I've found that the UC steering arms foul on the LCA's when the suspension droops, therefore I think it necessary to include the steering arm stops like the UC LCA's have. I plan to make some and weld them on to the LH arms as I have already fitted the bushes and ball joints and ground out the shocky fitting clearance in the LH LCA's (like in the UC LCA's).
I'm just not sure yet if the design of the UC stops are the best. I'm thinking about doing the same sort of thing but fitting them upside down. Obviously I'll have to do a little more testing in the way the suspension travels compared to the angle of the front face of the LCA, but that's what I'm thinking from preliminary tests.
Anyone looked into this before?
I've found that the UC steering arms foul on the LCA's when the suspension droops, therefore I think it necessary to include the steering arm stops like the UC LCA's have. I plan to make some and weld them on to the LH arms as I have already fitted the bushes and ball joints and ground out the shocky fitting clearance in the LH LCA's (like in the UC LCA's).
I'm just not sure yet if the design of the UC stops are the best. I'm thinking about doing the same sort of thing but fitting them upside down. Obviously I'll have to do a little more testing in the way the suspension travels compared to the angle of the front face of the LCA, but that's what I'm thinking from preliminary tests.
Anyone looked into this before?
#68
_Matty_torana1978_
_Matty_torana1978_
-
- Guests
Posted 04 August 2011 - 05:49 PM
i know I'm adding to an old thread but if anybody reads this they will have some more information. LH torana and possibly pre RTS LXs steering racks had 3.3 turns lock to lock. RTS LX steering racks had 3.6 turns lock to lock. The UC steering rack has 3.9 turns lock to lock. The LH steering rack makes your steering really responsive but a little heavy when parking. The LX steering rack reduces the response a little but lighter to turn when parking. The UC steering rack reduces response even more but is even lighter for parking. Of all the choices I prefer the RTS LX rack. It's the best of both.
#69
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,541 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:23 PM
i know I'm adding to an old thread but if anybody reads this they will have some more information. LH torana and possibly pre RTS LXs steering racks had 3.3 turns lock to lock. RTS LX steering racks had 3.6 turns lock to lock. The UC steering rack has 3.9 turns lock to lock. The LH steering rack makes your steering really responsive but a little heavy when parking. The LX steering rack reduces the response a little but lighter to turn when parking. The UC steering rack reduces response even more but is even lighter for parking. Of all the choices I prefer the RTS LX rack. It's the best of both.
Early production LX Torana had the 18:1 ratio steering rack. Later in 1976 (exactly when I do not know) the ratio was changed to 20:1.
#70
AbsynthHatch
-
- Members
-
- 732 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Mark
- Location:Cairns, Qld.
- Joined: 10-March 09
Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:26 PM
So is it possible to have the internals of an LX RTS rack into the housing of a UC rack?
The internals should be interchangable, shouldn't they?
I want to have a solid mount rack but I want to have less turns lock to lock then the UC ratio offers, or would the difference in the 2 ratio's be negligable?
The internals should be interchangable, shouldn't they?
I want to have a solid mount rack but I want to have less turns lock to lock then the UC ratio offers, or would the difference in the 2 ratio's be negligable?
#71
its Paul
-
- Members
-
- 1,577 posts
Formerly lx8vd77
- Name:Paul
- Location:Gold Coast
- Car:LXSS, VUSS, VESSv & the mighty HB
- Joined: 07-January 08
Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:34 PM
Just solid mount the LX rack Mark, will be easier, after all if you compare LH to UC you are talking about half a turn from full lock to full lock, is that really an issue????
Just my thought.
Just my thought.
#72
Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:39 PM
I had those two apart on the bench not long ago, same internals with the same tooth countSo is it possible to have the internals of an LX RTS rack into the housing of a UC rack?
The internals should be interchangable, shouldn't they?
I want to have a solid mount rack but I want to have less turns lock to lock then the UC ratio offers, or would the difference in the 2 ratio's be negligable?
#73
AbsynthHatch
-
- Members
-
- 732 posts
Forum Fixture
- Name:Mark
- Location:Cairns, Qld.
- Joined: 10-March 09
Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:55 PM
Thanks Paul and 76lxhatch but where would I acquire the bushes to solid mount a LX RTS rack?
#74
rodomo
-
- Members
-
- 17,999 posts
To advertise here, call 13TORANA
- Name:R - O - B Dammit!
- Location:Way out west of Melbourne Awstraylya
- Joined: 10-December 05
Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:53 PM
I'm pretty sure the difference in steering arm length comes into play here with regard to "ratio".I had those two apart on the bench not long ago, same internals with the same tooth count
Edited by rodomo, 04 August 2011 - 10:54 PM.
#75
S pack
-
- Members
-
- 15,541 posts
Scrivet Counter
- Name:Dave
- Location:Luggage Point
- Car:73 LJ
- Joined: 25-January 10
Posted 05 August 2011 - 01:00 AM
I'm pretty sure the difference in steering arm length comes into play here with regard to "ratio".
I had those two apart on the bench not long ago, same internals with the same tooth count
Longer steering arms won't change the physical ratio built into the rack and pinion. What they will do, through the laws of leverage, is reduce the amount of effort required to steer the car. Also an increase in the amount of turns from lock to lock would be required to maintain the same turning circle.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
