buZy Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Thanks everyone for all your knowledge and thoughts on these 240z offset front bushings. If I dont use these what would be a good high performance alternative? " hmmmm. ...wishing I had the $1200 for the AZ z car adjustable arms...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Search in this category for the thread where Dan Juday was making his own adjustable control arms... In it there is a parts list of things you could buy and put together/ weld to make your own adjustable suspension... That is the best way to go in my humble opinion... You need camber/ caster/ Toe adjustment and all you have from the factory is Toe... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
240Z2NV Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 A fellow Hybrider that I know had a front set-up like that pic that was posted from 'Scumdog'. He was MISERABLE driving it on the street. He said it was so harsh with every road imperfection, that it felt 'intensified' by a hundred fold...after driving another hybrider's "Energy" bushing'd(?) car, he felt that he just pissed away some big $$. That set-up may be sweet for the track; but, for beat-up roads and highways, ill-advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 It's a matter of personal preference. I put about 40K on a similar setup with camber plates up top with no complaints, but I never installed a stereo either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimZ Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I'd be a little leary of that setup for the street, too, but of course I live in Detroit . That setup has no compliance whatsoever, and I would be really concerned that you would be putting some very high shock loads directly into the unibody that the bushings normally would have absorbed. Compliance is not always a bad thing. If you do eventually go with that setup you would definitely want to check for cracks/tears/split welds at all of the suspension pickup points. Weekly. I'm not kidding. As far as the camber adjustment goes, do you know what you want to be able to adjust? Do you just want to be able to adjust out the negative camber from lowering and leave it? Do you want to add negative camber for the track and then put it back for the street? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 If you do eventually go with that setup you would definitely want to check for cracks/tears/split welds at all of the suspension pickup points. Weekly. As Tim said, race parts require frequent inspection which normally occurs when they are installed on a race car. Due to lack of inspection, race parts installed on a street car are an accident waiting to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I can only disagree and say that there must be THOUSANDS of AZC's control arms and Mike Kelly's control arms out there, and many more Z's with camber plates. I've only heard of ONE frame failure (not cracks but catastrophic failure), and that was on a rusted out car with rubber bushings. The frame behind the TC rod bushing literally exploded into rusty bits when the car hit a bump while turning. Being cautious is fine, but IMO you guys are a little over the top on this one. FWIW, I haven't found any visibly broken spot welds yet while I've been stitch welding the rear of my car. It got cold so I haven't been through the front of the car yet. I have a couple friends driving similar setups in 510s and Zs on the street and no one has ever had any structural problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 This picture begs me to ask a couple of questions, or at least pose a point or two that I'd like to discuss. The control arm pictured on the initial post shows the sway bar pick-up at a point off center of the control arm's centerline, a centerline that rotates a limited amount due to the sperical rod ends and ball joint. Thus, as I see it, the only thing keeping the control arm from rotating uncontrolled about this centerline is the T/C rod clevis. This would be my first concern (am I correct here?) in an inspection for fatigue as this is now a shear issue with the clevis and no longer limited to a tension or compression issue? With that said though, this same issue of off-center sway bar pick-up would appear to be an "amplifier" for the sway bar. As the arm drops to full droop, the arc that must be followed by the T/C rod then also swings the sway bar pick-up arm (even as short as it is) the same amount of angular change. Thus, for every movement up or down the control arm travels, the sway bar's pick-up point is amplified to a slightly larger amplitude of change (dependent on the pick-up's displacement off centerline), which would seem to cause a smaller sway bar to exhibit the same performance as a larger bar picked up on the control arm's centerline. (I suppose the actual effects will be slight, but just a topic to discuss) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 This picture begs me to ask a couple of questions' date=' or at least pose a point or two that I'd like to discuss. The control arm pictured on the initial post shows the sway bar pick-up at a point off center of the control arm's centerline, a centerline that rotates a limited amount due to the sperical rod ends and ball joint. Thus, as I see it, the only thing keeping the arm from rotating about this centerline is the T/C rod clevis. This would be my first concern (am I correct here) in an inspection for fatigue as this is now a shear issue with the clevis and no longer a tension or compression issue? With that said though, this same issue of off-center sway bar pick-up would appear to be an "amplifier" for sway bar. As the arm drops to full droop, the arc that must be followed by the T/C rod then also swings the sway bar pick-up arm (even as short as it is) the same amount of angular change. Thus, for every movement up or down the control arm travels, the sway bar's pick-up point is amplified to a slightly larger amplitude of change (dependent on the pick-up's displacement off centerline), which would seem to cause a smaller sway bar to exhibit the same performance as a larger bar picked up on the control arm's centerline. (I suppose the actual effects will be slight, but just a topic to discuss)[/quote'] I don't like the TC clevis on his setup either, and I mentioned this quite a while ago in another post but nobody had any failures to report. As far as the sway bar goes, take a look at your control arms. The stock sway bar position is way out at the end of the control arm, so I don't think that the effect of the sway bar would be amplified as much or at all, I suppose it might change just a bit depending on how you had the length of the arm adjusted, but the same would be true of your arms or mine as well, and this isn't specifically an AZC arm issue. http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?userid={7DC317B0-8EDB-4B2E-A837-F708D07C9769}&ndx=8&slideshow=0&AlbumId={17E71651-3EF8-4704-9954-22956DF10FCB}&GroupId={3B8751D4-D564-4405-8017-F14E1CDA9AF0}&screenheight=768 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 I'm even more of a crumudgeon when it comes to the subject of adjustable LCAs for the 240Z. I think they are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The stock parts are light, strong, and, with just a little fiddling, work very well on a road race track even with 10" wide wheels and 300+ horsepower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted January 3, 2005 Share Posted January 3, 2005 Here is an illustration of what I was refering to: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I'm even more of a crumudgeon when it comes to the subject... Main Entry: cur·mud·geon Pronunciation: (")k&r-'m&-j&n Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown 1 archaic : MISER 2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man John, I had no idea!! Lots of smilies if I could figure out how to attach them to the post!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimZ Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 This picture begs me to ask a couple of questions' date=' or at least pose a point or two that I'd like to discuss. The control arm pictured on the initial post shows the sway bar pick-up at a point off center of the control arm's centerline, a centerline that rotates a limited amount due to the sperical rod ends and ball joint. Thus, as I see it, the only thing keeping the control arm from rotating uncontrolled about this centerline is the T/C rod clevis. This would be my first concern (am I correct here?) in an inspection for fatigue as this is now a shear issue with the clevis and no longer limited to a tension or compression issue? With that said though, this same issue of off-center sway bar pick-up would appear to be an "amplifier" for the sway bar. As the arm drops to full droop, the arc that must be followed by the T/C rod then also swings the sway bar pick-up arm (even as short as it is) the same amount of angular change. Thus, for every movement up or down the control arm travels, the sway bar's pick-up point is amplified to a slightly larger amplitude of change (dependent on the pick-up's displacement off centerline), which would seem to cause a smaller sway bar to exhibit the same performance as a larger bar picked up on the control arm's centerline. (I suppose the actual effects will be slight, but just a topic to discuss)[/quote'] It took me a second to see what you were referring to, but I believe that you are correct on both counts. The clevis connecting the TC rod to the LCA does appear to be the only thing that keeps the LCA from rotating about the axis between the inner rod end and the ball joint. I suppose that if the clevis were strong enough it wouldn't be a problem, but I don't think that this is how a clevis joint is supposed to be used, and forces are being applied to it where it is not designed to be strongest. Does anybody know if the bolt in that clevis is used to clamp it to the LCA and prevent movement, or is it more of a pivot joint? Also, the gain factor on the sway bar from it's off-center mounting is real - it's the same basic mechanism as moving the pickup farther outboard on the LCA. As you mentioned, probably not a huge effect though, due to the short additional moment arm. And, if that clevis allows much movement at all it will be negated by the rotation of the LCA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
260DET Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Check the BMW M3 ones here http://e30m3performance.com/installs/installs-3/control_arms/index.htm A lot of bending load on the center of that control arm from the tension rod, looks like there is a bolt instead of a clevis pin at that simple flanged joint. Wonder if there is a bush in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 2 : a crusty, ill-tempered, and usually old man That be me. Puls I cna't spill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 OK, someone owes me for a monitor on that one... Hope it sheds water well... Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I'm even more of a crumudgeon when it comes to the subject of adjustable LCAs for the 240Z. I think they are a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The stock parts are light, strong, and, with just a little fiddling, work very well on a road race track even with 10" wide wheels and 300+ horsepower. I originally did the TC rods to get more caster, but I found when I dialed in more caster it flexed my poly LCA bushings really hard. Then I modded the stock LCAs so that they have the rod end inner pivot. Now I have bind free suspension and I can choose whatever caster angle I want without worrying about bind or stiction or stressing parts. So in my case a problem did exist, and I fixed it. I do agree about the people who are buying control arms to save weight. There isn't that much weight to be lost. Maybe 2 lbs on a rear arm and 1 on a front arm, I doubt you could lose much if any weight on a TC rod. I will say this though. I've NEVER heard of anyone having a problem with a custom TC rod (aside from Mike's prototype 5/8" aluminum ones and 74_5.0's TC's which actually hit the frame rail and failed because of that), but we found something like 6 or 7 people ON THIS FORUM who had a TC rod break in half under the strain of poly bushings in a previous thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Jon, Weren't most of those TC failures on the ZX models? Also, I think Steve and Ian's setup is a bit extreme, but we errored on the side of caution since I was selling these things to people. On the weight savings comment, I agree 100%. My older "Ugly" square tube rear arms were bomb proof and experienced no reported failures.... The pretty, lighter units failed on two occassions. Sometimes lighter isn't better! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I think a lot of them were on ZX's, which have tension on the rod vs the Zs compression, but several were on Zs which suprised me at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Weren't the failed TC rods also on modified suspensions? I thought the one common factor was poly bushings which did not pivot and caused the TC rod to flex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.