Javascript Disabled Detected

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

slight problem with frontend

Started by _355lxss_ , Apr 10 2006 01:37 PM

Please log in to reply

4 replies to this topic

#1 _355lxss_

Guests

Posted 10 April 2006 - 01:37 PM

After installing the rebuilt uc front end into my hatch ive noticed that the upper arms rubs against the cup thingy where the bushes go under the rails. Has anyone experienced this problem before? Would it be rubbing because theres no weight on the frontend allowing the upper arms to be at the angle they are? I was thinking of bashing the cup thingy a little to clear the top part of the arm? Any thoughts?

Posted Image

Back to top

#2 _HB1200_

Guests

Posted 10 April 2006 - 04:44 PM

I checked mine (UC cross member in LH) and it only has a little bit more room than yours. The photo is taken with the front off the ground as well.

HB1200

Posted Image

Back to top

#3 LXCHEV

Lotsa Posts!

Members
3,510 posts

Name:Brett
Location:Melbourne
Car:'76 LX - 383 Chev
Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 12 April 2006 - 10:29 AM

I had a look at my LX front-end this morning for you. (Original LX K-frame fitted with UC upper control arms). The very tops of the upper arms have a good 10 or 15 mm clearance at least. (ie. they sit a fair bit lower than both pics posted so far.

Looking at HB1200's pics there, I would also say my bolts are slightly lower too (ie. positioned maybe a further 10mm lower than his), explaining why I have so much more clearance.

It does ring a bell that when you compare LH / LX / UC front ends (early, late, nonRTS and RTS), there are many variations in the positioning of those bolts. It's common practice for people to lower them too by re-drilling the holes down further.

I can't recall if this info is in the Sticky front-end thread or not, it may pay to have a read through it, although the discussions I remember may have been lost on the old forums...

Hopefully some of the guru's on here may be able to tell you which front-ends from which models and years, had which bolt positioning......

Cheers,
Brett.

Back to top

#4 _HB1200_

Guests

Posted 12 April 2006 - 06:03 PM

Maybe the UC steel cup for the front bush is a different height. I'll have to check.

HB1200

Back to top

#5 _QIKSLR_

Guests

Posted 19 April 2006 - 08:13 AM

I had a look at my LX front-end this morning for you. (Original LX K-frame fitted with UC upper control arms). The very tops of the upper arms have a good 10 or 15 mm clearance at least. (ie. they sit a fair bit lower than both pics posted so far.

Looking at HB1200's pics there, I would also say my bolts are slightly lower too (ie. positioned maybe a further 10mm lower than his), explaining why I have so much more clearance.

It does ring a bell that when you compare LH / LX / UC front ends (early, late, nonRTS and RTS), there are many variations in the positioning of those bolts. It's common practice for people to lower them too by re-drilling the holes down further.

I can't recall if this info is in the Sticky front-end thread or not, it may pay to have a read through it, although the discussions I remember may have been lost on the old forums...

Hopefully some of the guru's on here may be able to tell you which front-ends from which models and years, had which bolt positioning......

Cheers,
Brett.

You must have a late RTS LX then. They have the bolt holes lower. As far as I know your setup is ideal, late LX subframe (lower mount point) and UC arms and steering rack.
I've got a UC crossmember and I redrilled the mount points lower. I don't trust it so I'm trying to hunt down an LX subframe with the factory lower mount points.

LX35SS, are you sure the crossmember is seated properly? If your motor isn't in, you could try backing off all the bolts and see if theres any adjustment in it.

Edited by QIKSLR, 19 April 2006 - 08:17 AM.