hi all can anyone please shine the light. I have fitted hj or hx stub axles and sterring arms on my lx hatch with standard lx upper and lower control arms with lowered heavy duty v8 springs.
first problem I have is the wheels now seem to be leaning inwards at the top I have taken out all the spacers and still seem to lean inwards, what have I done wrong.
Also front end still seems to sit up high. I have checked springs are seated properly top and bottom and assembled with all wishbone bolts loose. Do the front ends bed in once driven or should I be able to see the low ride height I wanted when assembled
any help appreciated
cheers mike
hq-hz stub axles
Started by
_fruitere0_
, Aug 07 2011 09:44 PM
25 replies to this topic
#2
dattoman
-
- Administrators
-
- 16,473 posts
Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
- Name:Neil
- Location:Perth Western Australia
- Car:LX SS , 76 Cadillac , 3 x dattos
- Joined: 04-February 07
Posted 07 August 2011 - 09:49 PM
The Torana and H series Holdens run different angles on the stub
One is 7 the other is 9 degrees
So yes its normal for the wheels to lay in
Get your wheel aligner to adjust when the cars settled
Yes the springs will drop alittle when the car settles from driving
One is 7 the other is 9 degrees
So yes its normal for the wheels to lay in
Get your wheel aligner to adjust when the cars settled
Yes the springs will drop alittle when the car settles from driving
#3
_fruitere0_
_fruitere0_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 August 2011 - 06:49 PM
The Torana and H series Holdens run different angles on the stub
One is 7 the other is 9 degrees
So yes its normal for the wheels to lay in
Get your wheel aligner to adjust when the cars settled
Yes the springs will drop alittle when the car settles from driving
Hi Dattoman thanks for the reply but how will the wheel aligner be able to make adjusments if all shims are removed and still leaning inwards. If he adds shims in this will pull wheels in even more
cheers mike
#4
View GaragePosted 10 August 2011 - 07:09 PM
He's telling you that the stub axles caused the excessive negative camber and you can't reduce it - you just have to wait and see if its tolerable. If its still too much at that stage you will need to look at bigger changes
#5
Toranamat69
-
- Members
-
- 2,117 posts
Forum R&D Officer
- Location:Brisbane
- Joined: 07-November 05
Posted 10 August 2011 - 08:21 PM
If you just dropped your car down off the jacks onto the wheels, it will be higher as the wheels need to separate to drop to ride height - you need to wheel it forward and back to do this. It will settle even more if the suspension is cycled up and down - take it for a drive as datto says - probably won't be much. I know you said you checked but the springs may not be seated up top - I have been caught by this - I pull the shock out and slide under and look through the shock hole to check if it is lined up properly. The spring will usually sit off to one side too and rub on the subframe and make a noise.
It shouldn't be sitting that high if you have lowered springs and Hq stubs though.
I run the same setup on mine and I can get mine back to zero camber with no shims - I run it at about neg 3/4 degree and that only has a few shims. These subframes do bend inwards.
If you go more than about 2" lower spring you will run into trouble with too much neg camber with all shims removed but that doesn't sound like the case from what you have described.
It shouldn't be sitting that high if you have lowered springs and Hq stubs though.
I run the same setup on mine and I can get mine back to zero camber with no shims - I run it at about neg 3/4 degree and that only has a few shims. These subframes do bend inwards.
If you go more than about 2" lower spring you will run into trouble with too much neg camber with all shims removed but that doesn't sound like the case from what you have described.
#6
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 10 August 2011 - 09:07 PM
I have fitted hj or hx stub axles and sterring arms on my lx hatch with standard lx upper and lower control arms with lowered heavy duty v8 springs.
You can not use HQ-WB steering arms on the Torana. You need either Harrop reproduction A9X steering arms ($335 a pair) or at a minimum the UC steering arms.
What are your reasons for fitting HQ-WB stub axles?
According to the shim chart you need to remove 0.51" of shimms from each bolt to alter the camber by 2 degrees which is the difference between a Torana 9 kpi stub axle and the HQ 7 kpi stub axle. If you have less than 0.51" of shimms on each bolt with Torana stub axles at your prefered camber and castor settings then you will not be able to align the HQ stub axles without further suspension modifications.
You will find that on some k-frames there are washer style spacers at the bottom of the shim stack. You have to remove the bolts to remove the washer spacers.
#7
Toranamat69
-
- Members
-
- 2,117 posts
Forum R&D Officer
- Location:Brisbane
- Joined: 07-November 05
Posted 10 August 2011 - 09:22 PM
Yes those washer spacers definately have to come out - they were fitted to the LX RTS front ends originally.
Didn't pick up on the steering arms - I would just go straight to the Harrop ones myself after having tried both - but yeah, separate issue to the Camber one.
Didn't pick up on the steering arms - I would just go straight to the Harrop ones myself after having tried both - but yeah, separate issue to the Camber one.
#8
_fruitere0_
_fruitere0_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 August 2011 - 11:00 PM
I have fitted hj or hx stub axles and sterring arms on my lx hatch with standard lx upper and lower control arms with lowered heavy duty v8 springs.
You can not use HQ-WB steering arms on the Torana. You need either Harrop reproduction A9X steering arms ($335 a pair) or at a minimum the UC steering arms.
What are your reasons for fitting HQ-WB stub axles?
According to the shim chart you need to remove 0.51" of shimms from each bolt to alter the camber by 2 degrees which is the difference between a Torana 9 kpi stub axle and the HQ 7 kpi stub axle. If you have less than 0.51" of shimms on each bolt with Torana stub axles at your prefered camber and castor settings then you will not be able to align the HQ stub axles without further suspension modifications.
You will find that on some k-frames there are washer style spacers at the bottom of the shim stack. You have to remove the bolts to remove the washer spacers.
#9
_fruitere0_
_fruitere0_
-
- Guests
Posted 10 August 2011 - 11:05 PM
Thanks guys I thought the norm as per heaps of forum posts was to convert to hq stub axles.
I started out just wanting to put hq pattern 15 inch convo pros on the front with disc brakes and lowered springs, hope your not telling me there was an easier way to acheive this if so please advise. Why do you need to change steering arms to a9x or uc
cheers mike
I started out just wanting to put hq pattern 15 inch convo pros on the front with disc brakes and lowered springs, hope your not telling me there was an easier way to acheive this if so please advise. Why do you need to change steering arms to a9x or uc
cheers mike
#10
dattoman
-
- Administrators
-
- 16,473 posts
Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
- Name:Neil
- Location:Perth Western Australia
- Car:LX SS , 76 Cadillac , 3 x dattos
- Joined: 04-February 07
Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:22 AM
Take a look at the angle your steering rack ends are at now
They are supposed to be as level as possible
They are supposed to be as level as possible
#11
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:35 PM
HQ stud pattern and brake upgrade options using Torana stub axles
If you want HQ stud pattern with better brakes then the four cheapest options in order of cost are.
1. Torana disc brake stub axles with HQ discs machined down so the HQ style caliper can be fitted on the Torana stub axle. Fits 13" rims.
2. Torana drum brake stub axles modified to accept a Castlemain Rod Shop HQ disc brake caliper adaptor with standard HQ discs. 14" rims required.
3. Mr-spares/UPC/Romac 287 mm brake upgrade on Torana disc brake stub axles. 15" rims required. Cost $1000
4. Hopper Stoppers 290 mm brake upgrade on Torana disc brake stub axles. There are two choices in offset for the hub. There is a standard offset hub that does not alter the track and a 8 mm offset hub to suit Commodore rims that increases the track by 16 mm. 15" rims required. Cost $1350
Fitting HQ-WB stub axles
If you are going to fit HQ-WB stub axles then you need to fit the rest of the A9X front suspension setup.
I have quite a collection of front suspension components including A9X stub axles, Harrop steering arms, complete UC suspension and a complete LX RTS suspension. This is my understanding of the A9X front suspension based on what I have read on this forum and my own measurements. I am not a suspension or A9X expert, there may be errors in what I have said and I look forward to being corrected.
A9X Stub Axle
The A9X stub axle is the HZ One tonner stub axle. (Same geometry as the HQ-WB car stub axles just stronger). The axle is around 20 mm further from the lower ball joint than the axle on the Torana stub axle. This means that the car will be 20 mm lower with the same spring that was used with the Torana stub axle. The Torana stub axle has a KPI of 9� and the A9X stub axle has a KPI of 7�. This means that the A9X stub axles requires approximately 0.51" less shims on each bolt for the same camber settings with the Torana stub axle. If you have less than 0.51� of shims with Torana stub axles then you will not be able to get the same camber and caster settings with the HQ stub axles. Changing the mounting position of the UCA will have an effect on the thickness of shims required.
The A9X stub axle has no significant effect on track. If you measured the track on a car with A9X stub axles at the same ride height as a car with Torana stub axles I expect you will find the track is slightly reduced due to the difference in the angle of the LCA on the two setups. At the same ride height the LCA on the A9X will be 20 mm lower than the Torana LCA therefore in most cases the Torana LCA will be closer to horizontal than the A9X LCA.
Fitting the HQ disc to a A9X stub axle or to a Torana stub axle does not alter the track either. I have read many times that the HQ discs increase track by 25 mm but I compared a HQ disc on a Torana stub with the Torana disc on a Torana stub today and the bolt up face on both discs where the same distance from the end of the stub axle so track would not be altered.
A9X Steering Arms
The tie rod end of the A9X steering arm is about 20 mm lower than the LX steering arms. The distance between the axle and the steering arm mounts is 20 mm lower on the A9X stub axle than the distance from the axle to the steering arm mounts on the Torana stub axle. If you use LX steering arms then the tie rod will be 20 mm higher than normal which will result in bump steer. The lower A9X steering arm corrects the steering rack geometry problems caused by the A9X stub axle. The increase in caster from LX to A9X also raises the end of the steering arm.
A9X Upper Control Arms (UCA)
The A9X uses the UC UCA with the mount holes on the k-frame around 25 mm lower than the standard UC position or 5 mm higher than the standard LX RTS position. The UC UCA has offset ball joint which makes it easier to get the 2� of caster used by the UC and A9X. The raised axle on the A9X stub axle causes the UCA ball joint end to be 20 mm lower than it is at the same ride height with the Torana stub axle with the UCA mounted in the UC position. This alters the angle of the UCA which then affects camber gain during suspension travel. The A9X UCA mount is lowered around 20 mm from the UC UCA mount position which corrects the changes made to the UCA geometry by the raised axle of the A9X stub axle.
A9X Lower Control Arms (LCA)
The geometry of the LCA is the same throughout the LH/LX/UC and A9X models. The LH and LX LCA are identical with the exception that the LH arm is made from 4 mm pressed steel and the LX is made from 2.5 mm pressed steel. The LCA on the UC is made from 3 mm pressed steel. The LH and LX LCA do not have steering arm bump stops. The UC LCA has steering arm bump stops. The UC LCA has a larger hole for the shock absorber to fit through. The LH and LX LCA shock hole can be enlarged to the same size as the UC.
A9X Lower Control Arm Bump Stop
A steel stop is welded to the k-frame where the lower control arm bump stop contacts. The raised axle position on the A9X stub axle means that the lower control arm will have around 20 mm more compression travel than the lower control arm with the Torana stub axle. The steel bump stop extension limits the A9X compression travel to the same as the compression travel with Torana stub axles.
Why Fit A9X Stub Axles
As far as I can see the two main reasons for fitting the A9X stub axle are increased maximum camber range and a stronger stub axle which is worthwhile on a track car. However on a street car the increased maximum camber can cause problems and the stronger stub axles have little value if any.
If you want HQ stud pattern with better brakes then the four cheapest options in order of cost are.
1. Torana disc brake stub axles with HQ discs machined down so the HQ style caliper can be fitted on the Torana stub axle. Fits 13" rims.
2. Torana drum brake stub axles modified to accept a Castlemain Rod Shop HQ disc brake caliper adaptor with standard HQ discs. 14" rims required.
3. Mr-spares/UPC/Romac 287 mm brake upgrade on Torana disc brake stub axles. 15" rims required. Cost $1000
4. Hopper Stoppers 290 mm brake upgrade on Torana disc brake stub axles. There are two choices in offset for the hub. There is a standard offset hub that does not alter the track and a 8 mm offset hub to suit Commodore rims that increases the track by 16 mm. 15" rims required. Cost $1350
Fitting HQ-WB stub axles
If you are going to fit HQ-WB stub axles then you need to fit the rest of the A9X front suspension setup.
I have quite a collection of front suspension components including A9X stub axles, Harrop steering arms, complete UC suspension and a complete LX RTS suspension. This is my understanding of the A9X front suspension based on what I have read on this forum and my own measurements. I am not a suspension or A9X expert, there may be errors in what I have said and I look forward to being corrected.
A9X Stub Axle
The A9X stub axle is the HZ One tonner stub axle. (Same geometry as the HQ-WB car stub axles just stronger). The axle is around 20 mm further from the lower ball joint than the axle on the Torana stub axle. This means that the car will be 20 mm lower with the same spring that was used with the Torana stub axle. The Torana stub axle has a KPI of 9� and the A9X stub axle has a KPI of 7�. This means that the A9X stub axles requires approximately 0.51" less shims on each bolt for the same camber settings with the Torana stub axle. If you have less than 0.51� of shims with Torana stub axles then you will not be able to get the same camber and caster settings with the HQ stub axles. Changing the mounting position of the UCA will have an effect on the thickness of shims required.
The A9X stub axle has no significant effect on track. If you measured the track on a car with A9X stub axles at the same ride height as a car with Torana stub axles I expect you will find the track is slightly reduced due to the difference in the angle of the LCA on the two setups. At the same ride height the LCA on the A9X will be 20 mm lower than the Torana LCA therefore in most cases the Torana LCA will be closer to horizontal than the A9X LCA.
Fitting the HQ disc to a A9X stub axle or to a Torana stub axle does not alter the track either. I have read many times that the HQ discs increase track by 25 mm but I compared a HQ disc on a Torana stub with the Torana disc on a Torana stub today and the bolt up face on both discs where the same distance from the end of the stub axle so track would not be altered.
A9X Steering Arms
The tie rod end of the A9X steering arm is about 20 mm lower than the LX steering arms. The distance between the axle and the steering arm mounts is 20 mm lower on the A9X stub axle than the distance from the axle to the steering arm mounts on the Torana stub axle. If you use LX steering arms then the tie rod will be 20 mm higher than normal which will result in bump steer. The lower A9X steering arm corrects the steering rack geometry problems caused by the A9X stub axle. The increase in caster from LX to A9X also raises the end of the steering arm.
A9X Upper Control Arms (UCA)
The A9X uses the UC UCA with the mount holes on the k-frame around 25 mm lower than the standard UC position or 5 mm higher than the standard LX RTS position. The UC UCA has offset ball joint which makes it easier to get the 2� of caster used by the UC and A9X. The raised axle on the A9X stub axle causes the UCA ball joint end to be 20 mm lower than it is at the same ride height with the Torana stub axle with the UCA mounted in the UC position. This alters the angle of the UCA which then affects camber gain during suspension travel. The A9X UCA mount is lowered around 20 mm from the UC UCA mount position which corrects the changes made to the UCA geometry by the raised axle of the A9X stub axle.
A9X Lower Control Arms (LCA)
The geometry of the LCA is the same throughout the LH/LX/UC and A9X models. The LH and LX LCA are identical with the exception that the LH arm is made from 4 mm pressed steel and the LX is made from 2.5 mm pressed steel. The LCA on the UC is made from 3 mm pressed steel. The LH and LX LCA do not have steering arm bump stops. The UC LCA has steering arm bump stops. The UC LCA has a larger hole for the shock absorber to fit through. The LH and LX LCA shock hole can be enlarged to the same size as the UC.
A9X Lower Control Arm Bump Stop
A steel stop is welded to the k-frame where the lower control arm bump stop contacts. The raised axle position on the A9X stub axle means that the lower control arm will have around 20 mm more compression travel than the lower control arm with the Torana stub axle. The steel bump stop extension limits the A9X compression travel to the same as the compression travel with Torana stub axles.
Why Fit A9X Stub Axles
As far as I can see the two main reasons for fitting the A9X stub axle are increased maximum camber range and a stronger stub axle which is worthwhile on a track car. However on a street car the increased maximum camber can cause problems and the stronger stub axles have little value if any.
#12
_rob350hatch_
_rob350hatch_
-
- Guests
Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:26 AM
nice reading however one thing i found was the tie rods did not contact with the standard steering stops on the lca when i put the h series stubs in ,even with the harrop arms.and the standard a9x height king springs. we had unchecked steering lock until the tyres hit the firewall which was a pain in the neck until we welded big 7mm plates to the lca to limit the lock.as this is a track only car it is not an issue.but you just have to remember no to force the issue when in tight spaces.
the lock issues also resulted in the hq cast iron callipers hitting the uca and meaning you had to pump the brakes to regain pedal.since we have installed the bigger stops we have never had an issue.
also it preserves the diff as at limits your turning circle.
im lead to believe the a9x had bigger steering stops can anyone confirm this for me.
the lock issues also resulted in the hq cast iron callipers hitting the uca and meaning you had to pump the brakes to regain pedal.since we have installed the bigger stops we have never had an issue.
also it preserves the diff as at limits your turning circle.
im lead to believe the a9x had bigger steering stops can anyone confirm this for me.
#13
_A9XOSS_
_A9XOSS_
-
- Guests
Posted 12 August 2011 - 04:59 PM
i have used hq stub's, disc, caliper's with all LX RTS bits i'am guessing it will not work now.
so any chance of pics how to do it right for the dummies.
so any chance of pics how to do it right for the dummies.
#14
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:57 PM
I wrote this about four years ago coping an article I wrote nearly 20 year ago these days I just cut and paste but here it is my thoughts and understanding of setting up a decent Torana front end
Improvements are
Sway bars L34 and A9X, Used front mounted bars in front of engine, Road cars normally used rear mounted bar, behind engine.
Use a complete UC for true RTS LX did come with RTS but this was not really RTS at all just swaybars
Or A9X Basic guide
Sub-frame, Use any use LX, LH mounting point for Upper control arms, UC use a high mounting point, so will need to change if using a UC Sub-frame
Lower Control Arms, Any, LH � LX are thicker material, stronger
Upper Control Arms, UC
Stub Axles, any HQ to WB Holden, One Tonner axles were heat treated to harden, strengthen them, and what the A9X used. Swap left to right, some claim that one tonner were thicker, but the ones I measured were the same, so I will call that a myth until someone shows me otherwise.
Steering Rack, UC has solid mounts but slow ratio, LH / LX faster ratio but need to make solid bushes up.
Steering Arms, Harrops reproduction A9X arms are the only choice here expect to pay $350 - $400 for these from http://www.harrop.com.au/
Brake Disc, HQ - WB
Brakes Calliper�s Ok this one lots of different ideas. A9X used HX calliper�s swapped left to right so bleed nipple at top, but these need a bit ground off for clearance, Alternatively, that I prefer, keep alloy bit from Torana calliper (PBR brand) and throw away cast steel bit then find a set of PBR brand calliper�s from HQ - WB and throw away alloy bit bolt cast steel bit to Torana alloy bit. Now given that both HQ - WB and Torana calliper�s seem to fit either way you go I think ( but need to confirm) that aftermarket 2 pot or 4 pot conversion not an issue
A9X Setup Advanced
Any sub-frame, weld bracing plate to underside, relocate upper control arm holes to lower position, (LH or LX) race teams experimented with different locations Brocks 79 car was 27mm however wheel diameter can mean this figure needs to be revised.
Lower control arm any, can enlarge hole so as to be able to drop shock for easy removal.
Upper control arm UC only with setback ball joint.
Steering rack UC has solid mounts but slow ratio, LH / LX faster ratio but need to make solid bushes up.
Stub axles, any HQ to WB, they are all the same, part numbers changed when moulds wore out, one tonner were heat treated so the go if racing the car. Swap these left for right so as to keep standard mounting location for brake calliper. Whichever way you go I suggest you get them crack tested. This change will lower the car 25 - 30mm and widen track by about 50 mm as well as giving an extra 2 degrees of negative chamber, this means you will use less shims for wheel alignment.
Brakes Calliper�s Ok this one lots of different ideas. A9X used HX calliper�s swapped left to right so bleed nipple at top, but these need a bit ground off for clearance, Alternatively, that I prefer, keep alloy bit from Torana calliper (PBR brand) and throw away cast steel bit then find a set of PBR brand calliper�s from HQ - WB and throw away alloy bit bolt cast steel bit to Torana alloy bit. Now given that both HQ - WB and Torana calliper�s seem to fit either way you go I think ( but need to confirm) that aftermarket 2 pot or 4 pot conversion not an issue
Disc brakes Standard HQ - WB or even better slotted new ones, I have heard but not confirmed that drilled rotors prone to cracking.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"
Springs Firm and standard height, lowest point on front sub-frame will be approx. 100mm from ground as it is mine on 14 inch rims was exactly 100mm
Shocks I used Koni adjustable on hardest setting but was told by Harry Firth told me to throw them away and get custom Blisteens.
Steering arms UC Torana (RTS) better then LX LH but replica A9X ones from Harrops considered being by far the best with this setup.
Final comments I think the UC (RTS) upper control arm, HQ - WB stub axles and Harrop A9X steering arms should be looked upon as a setup, i.e do it all or not at all. If doing it all is a bit too much work then just use a complete UC Torana front end.
Hope this helps there are other setups etc out there with custom bits etc but you really need to know your stuff to do that.
Improvements are
Sway bars L34 and A9X, Used front mounted bars in front of engine, Road cars normally used rear mounted bar, behind engine.
Use a complete UC for true RTS LX did come with RTS but this was not really RTS at all just swaybars
Or A9X Basic guide
Sub-frame, Use any use LX, LH mounting point for Upper control arms, UC use a high mounting point, so will need to change if using a UC Sub-frame
Lower Control Arms, Any, LH � LX are thicker material, stronger
Upper Control Arms, UC
Stub Axles, any HQ to WB Holden, One Tonner axles were heat treated to harden, strengthen them, and what the A9X used. Swap left to right, some claim that one tonner were thicker, but the ones I measured were the same, so I will call that a myth until someone shows me otherwise.
Steering Rack, UC has solid mounts but slow ratio, LH / LX faster ratio but need to make solid bushes up.
Steering Arms, Harrops reproduction A9X arms are the only choice here expect to pay $350 - $400 for these from http://www.harrop.com.au/
Brake Disc, HQ - WB
Brakes Calliper�s Ok this one lots of different ideas. A9X used HX calliper�s swapped left to right so bleed nipple at top, but these need a bit ground off for clearance, Alternatively, that I prefer, keep alloy bit from Torana calliper (PBR brand) and throw away cast steel bit then find a set of PBR brand calliper�s from HQ - WB and throw away alloy bit bolt cast steel bit to Torana alloy bit. Now given that both HQ - WB and Torana calliper�s seem to fit either way you go I think ( but need to confirm) that aftermarket 2 pot or 4 pot conversion not an issue
A9X Setup Advanced
Any sub-frame, weld bracing plate to underside, relocate upper control arm holes to lower position, (LH or LX) race teams experimented with different locations Brocks 79 car was 27mm however wheel diameter can mean this figure needs to be revised.
Lower control arm any, can enlarge hole so as to be able to drop shock for easy removal.
Upper control arm UC only with setback ball joint.
Steering rack UC has solid mounts but slow ratio, LH / LX faster ratio but need to make solid bushes up.
Stub axles, any HQ to WB, they are all the same, part numbers changed when moulds wore out, one tonner were heat treated so the go if racing the car. Swap these left for right so as to keep standard mounting location for brake calliper. Whichever way you go I suggest you get them crack tested. This change will lower the car 25 - 30mm and widen track by about 50 mm as well as giving an extra 2 degrees of negative chamber, this means you will use less shims for wheel alignment.
Brakes Calliper�s Ok this one lots of different ideas. A9X used HX calliper�s swapped left to right so bleed nipple at top, but these need a bit ground off for clearance, Alternatively, that I prefer, keep alloy bit from Torana calliper (PBR brand) and throw away cast steel bit then find a set of PBR brand calliper�s from HQ - WB and throw away alloy bit bolt cast steel bit to Torana alloy bit. Now given that both HQ - WB and Torana calliper�s seem to fit either way you go I think ( but need to confirm) that aftermarket 2 pot or 4 pot conversion not an issue
Disc brakes Standard HQ - WB or even better slotted new ones, I have heard but not confirmed that drilled rotors prone to cracking.<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"
Springs Firm and standard height, lowest point on front sub-frame will be approx. 100mm from ground as it is mine on 14 inch rims was exactly 100mm
Shocks I used Koni adjustable on hardest setting but was told by Harry Firth told me to throw them away and get custom Blisteens.
Steering arms UC Torana (RTS) better then LX LH but replica A9X ones from Harrops considered being by far the best with this setup.
Final comments I think the UC (RTS) upper control arm, HQ - WB stub axles and Harrop A9X steering arms should be looked upon as a setup, i.e do it all or not at all. If doing it all is a bit too much work then just use a complete UC Torana front end.
Hope this helps there are other setups etc out there with custom bits etc but you really need to know your stuff to do that.
#15
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:01 PM
To sum all that in really simple terms
Complete LX front end
UC upper control arm
Harrop repo Steering arms
Hq series stub axlesand rotors
extras
fancy calipers slotted rotors
custom solid bushes for the steering rack
front mount sway bar good springs and shocks and springs
and good bushes
Complete LX front end
UC upper control arm
Harrop repo Steering arms
Hq series stub axlesand rotors
extras
fancy calipers slotted rotors
custom solid bushes for the steering rack
front mount sway bar good springs and shocks and springs
and good bushes
#16
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 13 August 2011 - 01:38 AM
Stub axles This change will lower the car 25 - 30mm and widen track by about 50 mm as well as giving an extra 2 degrees of negative chamber, this means you will use less shims for wheel alignment.
What makes you think the track is increased by 50 mm?
What benefits do you see in running the A9X setup as opposed to the UC setup?
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 13 August 2011 - 01:40 AM.
#17
_nemo355v8_
_nemo355v8_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 August 2011 - 02:15 AM
Toss the HQ stubs and put the torana ones back on, get the HQ discs machined down 6mm on the outside edge and bolt the HQ discsand calipers on.
Cheapest easiest way to go, you wont loose much brake over the full size HQ set up and will cost a shit load less than buying harrop arms and having no camber adjustment
Cheapest easiest way to go, you wont loose much brake over the full size HQ set up and will cost a shit load less than buying harrop arms and having no camber adjustment
#18
TerrA LX
-
- Members
-
- 14,241 posts
Fulcrum Fixture
- Location:Sid 'n' knee
- Joined: 31-May 06
Posted 13 August 2011 - 02:22 AM
^ some hq-hz callipers do not bolt straight on, even with the disc trim.
#19
_A9XOSS_
_A9XOSS_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 August 2011 - 07:31 AM
Toss the HQ stubs and put the torana ones back on, get the HQ discs machined down 6mm on the outside edge and bolt the HQ discsand calipers on.
Cheapest easiest way to go, you wont loose much brake over the full size HQ set up and will cost a shit load less than buying harrop arms and having no camber adjustment
i like this way, as i have detailed all my front end.
plus i can't afford to start again. anyone want swap hq-z stubs for a set of lx ones
.
#20
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 August 2011 - 07:46 AM
Stub axles This change will lower the car 25 - 30mm and widen track by about 50 mm as well as giving an extra 2 degrees of negative chamber, this means you will use less shims for wheel alignment.
What makes you think the track is increased by 50 mm?
What benefits do you see in running the A9X setup as opposed to the UC setup?
Because I have actually done the conversion, and not just once!
UC has good handling but you are still stuck with small solid disc brakes
A9X has even better bump steer characteristics and vented discs, and from my own personal experience vented disc are so much better then non vented it is not funny, apart from a AMG Mercedes nothing else I have driven has brakes as good as what the setup in my hatch was with vented disc on all four corners 1 in bore master cylinder etc
#21
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 13 August 2011 - 01:39 PM
UC has good handling but you are still stuck with small solid disc brakes
There is no shortage of better brake options than HQ discs for either stub axle. One advantage of the Torana stub axle is that the Hoppers 290 mm kit will not alter the track but the track will be increased by 16 mm with the Hoppers 300 mm kit on HQ stubs.
A9X has even better bump steer characteristics
At what wheel alignment settings is the A9X bump steer better than the UC?
This change will lower the car 25 - 30mm'
The difference between the axle height on the Torana and A9X stub axles is 20 mm. How does this lower the car 25 - 30 mm?
You have not explained how the track is increased by 50 mm.
Edited by ls2lxhatch, 13 August 2011 - 01:42 PM.
#22
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 August 2011 - 02:43 PM
UC has good handling but you are still stuck with small solid disc brakes
There is no shortage of better brake options than HQ discs for either stub axle. One advantage of the Torana stub axle is that the Hoppers 290 mm kit will not alter the track but the track will be increased by 16 mm with the Hoppers 300 mm kit on HQ stubs.
The A9X setup was the best setup that the factory came up with for the Torana, so by by replicating it you are have a simple easy to do upgrade, I am not knocking the after market gear, just saying this is what the factory came up withA9X has even better bump steer characteristics
At what wheel alignment settings is the A9X bump steer better than the UC?
all of them, there are a couple of guys on here who have built test rigs and played with different setups (Toranamatt, spelling) comes to mindThis change will lower the car 25 - 30mm'
The difference between the axle height on the Torana and A9X stub axles is 20 mm. How does this lower the car 25 - 30 mm?
Personal experience form having done this mod on a few different cars, you are forgetting that top control arm height is also being altered, King pin angle, caster is being altered etc too small differences to be sure, and at the end of the day I did not get a tape measure and measure it but I stand by my eyeballed measurement of the drop on the car height of 25 to 30 mm, on each car I have done this on it has worked out as expected
You have not explained how the track is increased by 50 mm.
I was not aware I had to
As Stated before I have done this a few times, I have being playing with Torana's for 25 something years, I wrote my first guide on this about 20 years ago, and I am still waiting for someone to prove me wrong. Actually no I retract that, I don't give a shit anymore I have been there done that and have nothing to prove, and if someone wants to prove me wrong well good for them
I put the information that I have out there for people to read and hopefully find useful, most who make the changes are also changing wheels, as stud pattern changes from Torana to HQ and wheel diameter and tires and springs etc all at the same time, and when changing springs bushes etc things take a while to settle So just taking one measurement that of the different axle height in and of itself does not tell the full story
Righto I am off to think happy thoughts
#23
ls2lxhatch
-
- Members
-
- 5,332 posts
- Location:Perth
- Car:LX Hatch
- Joined: 29-May 06
Posted 13 August 2011 - 04:36 PM
An eyeballed measurement of 25-30 mm and a physical measurement of 20 mm ( it is probably actually 3/4" ) are near enough the same so there is no real debate there.
I was hoping you could explain the increase in track so I could see where I have gone wrong with my measurements.
If you found that fitting HQ stubs and discs increased the track by 50 mm then it would be nice to know which components were responsible. One possible explanation for the change in track you observed could be a combination of different offset rims, ride height and wheel alignment settings.
The stub axles will be responsible for a small change in track as a result of the different KPI and LCA angles. The only way to accurately measure the effect of the stub axles and discs on track is to setup the suspension on the bench at the same axle height and wheel alignment settings then compare the measurements from BUF to BUF.
I was hoping you could explain the increase in track so I could see where I have gone wrong with my measurements.
If you found that fitting HQ stubs and discs increased the track by 50 mm then it would be nice to know which components were responsible. One possible explanation for the change in track you observed could be a combination of different offset rims, ride height and wheel alignment settings.
The stub axles will be responsible for a small change in track as a result of the different KPI and LCA angles. The only way to accurately measure the effect of the stub axles and discs on track is to setup the suspension on the bench at the same axle height and wheel alignment settings then compare the measurements from BUF to BUF.
#24
rexy
-
- Members
-
- 3,602 posts
Lotsa Posts!
- Name:Rexy
- Location:Melbourne
- Car:Kia grand carnival!!!
- Joined: 03-November 09
Posted 13 August 2011 - 04:53 PM
You know, this all seems to have got a bit out of hand.
There may be ideal set up combos but the reality is that thousands of cars over the last 30 plus years have had HQ type stubs and brakes put on them without any of the other changes and the owners have been happy.
I currently have the milled down disc version and the HQ stub version on the cars and both handle fine for my needs. The HQ stub version does seem a little better braking wise but its marginal and not really relevant on a street car.
Best part of the HQ stubs version is that it will cost you nearly nothing as the bits are often found free to good home.
There may be ideal set up combos but the reality is that thousands of cars over the last 30 plus years have had HQ type stubs and brakes put on them without any of the other changes and the owners have been happy.
I currently have the milled down disc version and the HQ stub version on the cars and both handle fine for my needs. The HQ stub version does seem a little better braking wise but its marginal and not really relevant on a street car.
Best part of the HQ stubs version is that it will cost you nearly nothing as the bits are often found free to good home.
#25
_cruiza_
_cruiza_
-
- Guests
Posted 13 August 2011 - 05:41 PM
An eyeballed measurement of 25-30 mm and a physical measurement of 20 mm ( it is probably actually 3/4" ) are near enough the same so there is no real debate there.
I was hoping you could explain the increase in track so I could see where I have gone wrong with my measurements.
If you found that fitting HQ stubs and discs increased the track by 50 mm then it would be nice to know which components were responsible. One possible explanation for the change in track you observed could be a combination of different offset rims, ride height and wheel alignment settings.
The stub axles will be responsible for a small change in track as a result of the different KPI and LCA angles. The only way to accurately measure the effect of the stub axles and discs on track is to setup the suspension on the bench at the same axle height and wheel alignment settings then compare the measurements from BUF to BUF.
Agreed
You know, this all seems to have got a bit out of hand.
There may be ideal set up combos but the reality is that thousands of cars over the last 30 plus years have had HQ type stubs and brakes put on them without any of the other changes and the owners have been happy.
I currently have the milled down disc version and the HQ stub version on the cars and both handle fine for my needs. The HQ stub version does seem a little better braking wise but its marginal and not really relevant on a street car.
Best part of the HQ stubs version is that it will cost you nearly nothing as the bits are often found free to good home.
Agreed
I think if you look at where I have come from then understanding what I am saying makes more sense too, back in the day the A9X was it it was the best setup there was and if you wanted you car to handle then that is what you did all the aftermarket stuff was not available and cost a fortune by comparison when it was.
In fairness if one looks at the cars by modern standards then LH LX and UC handle like crap and the A9X like overpriced crap. However with the right modifications great improvements can be had. One car I had a bit to do with was build for Targa, the owner was fairly confident that he had done everything there was to do and changing to HQ stubs relocating the top control arm and using a UC was worth while, however after finding UC arms and HZ one tonner stubs (this was a race car so heat treated stronger stubs worth the extra effort) he forked out the extra for the Harrop steering arms and was completely surprised at the difference it made. His comments were along the lines of springs shocks etc were great but the A9X setup made it work, that car came second in class at Targa NZ, so perhaps I do talk a better quality of bullshit then some might think.
I know my own car handled extremely well and I found I was able to out corner any new Holden or Ford up to current cars and on occasion showed a EVO or two how to do it, but that might be driver over car, although I am too modest to suggest that.
Bottom line it is horses for coarses, some want the ultimate some want to cruiz
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
