not that its going to handle the best anyway with the front runners, but looking at it, id say it has about negative 3.5 degree camber, i have to take it to work and wack it on the wheel aligner, its just too much ill get a pic so you can see what i mean
HQ vaTorana Stub axles
Started by
Toranamat69
, Nov 28 2005 06:41 PM
34 replies to this topic
#27
_CHOPPER_
_CHOPPER_
-
- Guests
Posted 08 February 2006 - 06:00 PM
You can dial in too much negative camber. I was chewing out the outside edges of the front tyres on my LX. I went to -5 camber, but the top bump rubber was fouling all the time. It reset it to -4.5 camber and it seemed good there. Outside edbes of the tyres didn't touch the ground, but they wore fairly even and cornered fantastic.
#28
Toranamat69
-
- Members
-
- 2,117 posts
Forum R&D Officer
- Location:Brisbane
- Joined: 07-November 05
Posted 08 February 2006 - 08:11 PM
2wild4U,
I have been thinking the same thing as I have a front end out of a UC I have been measuring and the front end is not vertical on the section you redrill when you lower these mounts, hence your UCA mounts will widen as you lower them.
How low your car is will effect how much but I just did a measurment on my spare front end and the front end in my car (which uses the HZ stubs and lowered UCA mounts) to give you an idea.
As you lower the UCA mounts 1", the mounts spread approx 11mm wider (or 5.5mm per side). The effective horizontal shortening of the UCA due to the fact it is now at a sharper angle is approx 1.6mm so the diff between the 2 is about 4mm.
The front end in my car has 1 x 1/8" spacer and 1 really thin fine tuning one in each front shim pack and I am running approx 0.5 to 0.6 neg camber.
It is possible your front end has sagged/bent as well.
As the tops bend in, they gain negative camber.
M@
Btw, the LX RTS is the one with the UCA in the lower spot, UC have them back up the top.
ok, im having a problem with my suspension at the moment as ive got too much negative camber and thats still with taking out all the shims, does lowering the top control arm to the uc setup help camber at all or not, ive been reading this discussion, and im feeling positive??????
I have been thinking the same thing as I have a front end out of a UC I have been measuring and the front end is not vertical on the section you redrill when you lower these mounts, hence your UCA mounts will widen as you lower them.
How low your car is will effect how much but I just did a measurment on my spare front end and the front end in my car (which uses the HZ stubs and lowered UCA mounts) to give you an idea.
As you lower the UCA mounts 1", the mounts spread approx 11mm wider (or 5.5mm per side). The effective horizontal shortening of the UCA due to the fact it is now at a sharper angle is approx 1.6mm so the diff between the 2 is about 4mm.
The front end in my car has 1 x 1/8" spacer and 1 really thin fine tuning one in each front shim pack and I am running approx 0.5 to 0.6 neg camber.
It is possible your front end has sagged/bent as well.
As the tops bend in, they gain negative camber.
M@
Btw, the LX RTS is the one with the UCA in the lower spot, UC have them back up the top.
#29
_2wild4u_
_2wild4u_
-
- Guests
Posted 08 February 2006 - 10:50 PM
thanks for that toranamat69, i might have to give it a go. seems it will work then
#30
_Herne_
_Herne_
-
- Guests
Posted 08 February 2006 - 11:19 PM
Thats true CHOPPER, a number of LX people I know run -4 neg camber to give superb handling and not too much excess wear.
We think mine is running -3 neg but that has yet to be confirmed as the guy who had it done can't be sure what he had it set at.
Not sure if this applies to all conversions using HQ/HZ stubs but it seems that they all???? (read maybe some) have a piss poor turning circle, you certainly do not get that using modified HQ discs on Torana stubs
Cheers
Herne
We think mine is running -3 neg but that has yet to be confirmed as the guy who had it done can't be sure what he had it set at.
Not sure if this applies to all conversions using HQ/HZ stubs but it seems that they all???? (read maybe some) have a piss poor turning circle, you certainly do not get that using modified HQ discs on Torana stubs
Cheers
Herne
#31
_CHOPPER_
_CHOPPER_
-
- Guests
Posted 09 February 2006 - 06:02 PM
If I transport this engine for you ( I haven't recieved confirmation yet ) I can have a look at your front end and give you a guesstimate by eye of where it's sitting.
#32
_Herne_
_Herne_
-
- Guests
Posted 09 February 2006 - 06:14 PM
Sure thing CHOPPER, and please accept this as confirmation of Sat 18th Feb.
The guy works odd shifts but is arranging to be home ready for you to load and collect.
Cheers
Herne
The guy works odd shifts but is arranging to be home ready for you to load and collect.
Cheers
Herne
#33
_CHOPPER_
_CHOPPER_
-
- Guests
Posted 09 February 2006 - 06:41 PM
Time we swapped contact numbers. PM on the way.
#34
Peter UC
-
- Members
-
- 765 posts
Forum Fixture
- Location:Emerald Vic
- Joined: 08-November 05
Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:13 PM
I know this is a little off topic, but it seems to me that using a panhard bar isn't benificial for a Torana back end as the panhard bar would make the top arms bind. It seems to me that a watts linkage would be far superior for the Torana back end.
#35
_CHOPPER_
_CHOPPER_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 February 2006 - 06:27 PM
I remember somebody else posting a similar comment on the phpBB.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
