OlderThanMe Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 well as I dissassembled my strut assembly and I had parts just laying around...I had this idea. My Z is the early 260 so it has the 240 type suspension... so I thought why not just take the top hat mount and mount it inside the car? I am doing coilovers with 225f/250r,evil-bay illuminas(most likely), poly bushings... well just for kicks I put the cap on the inside of the car and stuck the insert through it and I think it could possibly work...would just have to figure out the upper spring mount but that would extend your struts like an inch and a half or two inches... The only problems I could see is that you are pulling on the mounting studs rather than using them to hold the whole thing in place... I would probably end up better fabbing some camber plates but I was just wondering...can something be that easy???surely there is something wrong with it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 The rubber insulator gives as the suspension moves through its range. This give allows the strut shaft to pivot. Without that pivot the strut will bend and break in short order. So if I understand what you're talking about correctly, installing the top hat upside down inside the car, then that would eliminate the rubber, and thus the pivot. So you're right, that is a bad idea. Camber plates have a bearing in them to allow the top of the strut to pivot. You would need to incorporate something like that in order for it to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted March 29, 2006 Author Share Posted March 29, 2006 oh...well I was just looking at the rear...I wasn't thinking about the front. That would definitely not work on the front. I was thinking of the rear where there is no pivoting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 That's not what I mean. Take your car at stock ride height, control arms pointing down, think particularly of the angle of the strut. Compress the springs so that the control arms are now level. Now the end of the strut is farther from the vehicle centerline than it was when we started. The angle of the strut also has to change. If you have the strut bolted to a piece of metal, the strut cannot change it's angle. This basically binds the crap out of the suspension, and leads to broken parts very quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Isn't he talking about using the stock rubber top hat, just above the sheet metal rather than below it? Why wouldn't that still have the flexy rubber? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Then you just have the issue of vulcanizing a plate with studs to the bottom of the insulator I guess. Besides that I don't think the rubber insulators were designed for that kind of pulling force. Normally the strut top would be there on top, and they get a pushing and twisting force more than anything. It would literally be easier to cut the strut tops OFF, extend them up, and weld them back together and run the insulator in the normal fashion, but higher up in the chassis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlderThanMe Posted March 29, 2006 Author Share Posted March 29, 2006 that is what I was thinking...using a part made for compression in tension...not a good idea... ok we can delete this thread now...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Juday Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Please don't delete this thread! While flipping the isolator over is a bad idea, the concepts here are interresting and creative. I have yet to section my rear struts (I don't have near the bottoming problems I had with the front) and raising the rear strut towers may be a better way of lowering the rear of the car. PREFACE: I am no suspension expert! But compared to strut sectioning, this would give you more suspension travel. And wouldn't this allow for less camber change over the same vertical travel? John, Jon, and all others who understand this stuff better than me, please chime in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Sectioning the struts allows just as much travel as raising the strut top would. When you section the strut, you use a shorter insert, but that insert should have the same or close to the same travel as the stock unit. So you don't give up 2" of travel to get a 2" shorter strut, instead the internals of the strut are the put into a shorter case. The whole idea of sectioning is to get the car lower while retaining the same travel. If the strut went through the same amount of travel from the same ride height the camber changes would be nearly identical. What would change them more would be if you could change the lower control arm angle. If you get that pointing down, then you have more camber change as the suspension compresses than if it's already level or pointing up. My understanding of this issue comes basically from Terry, but I think I understand it after his explanation and pictures. I had thought that the negative camber increased until the LCA went level, then it decreased. He showed me that the negative camber continues to increase all the way through the travel, but it slows down quite a bit after the arm goes past level. So if you just wanted to keep camber consistent then running the arms pointing up would be the way to go, but that causes other issues that then have to be dealt with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Juday Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Hum...right. I see your point. And yes, like you I thought the camber changed direction at the point the LCA's go level. I'll have to dig through Terry's old posts and get edgamacated. So by raising the strut towers all you are doing is relocating the upper pivot point. That may give the camber curve a different characteristic but wont necessarily buy you anything beneficial. It may actually make things worse by increasing the distance between the upper pivot point and the LCA inner pivot point. It would save you the cost and work associated with strut sectioning for what that's worth. Man this gets complicated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Sectioning struts is actually pretty darn easy. Rebuilding the strut top would be a big PITA, and I'd be really reluctant to take on that project. But that's me with my current skill set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 29, 2006 Share Posted March 29, 2006 Dan, Olderthanme, put your top hats down, take your hands off your tools, and walk away from the car... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleMX Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Since I have Konis in the rear, and since they have a 2" metal spacer on the bottom I have thought about cutting 1" off of the spacer and shimming the top with rubber and seal it all up. That should gain an 1" of travel and keep the strut intact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 That should gain an 1" of travel and keep the strut intact. Uuuuh, no. Unless you also shorten the strut tube the same 1" the bump stop will still be hitting the gland nut in the exact same place. You will have just reduced droop by 1". Shocks should ALWAYS be positioned in the strut at the very top of the tube - that's why the spacer is there on your Konis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaleMX Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 Good to have a reality check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARZ_ Posted March 30, 2006 Share Posted March 30, 2006 I see your point. And yes, like you I thought the camber changed direction at the point the LCA's go level. I'll have to dig through Terry's old posts and get edgamacated. Jmortensen you are correct! Visualizing a front view looking aft thru the car, Draw 3 simple points that represent the pivots of the front suspension. Position 1 is where the control arm attaches to the cross member. Position 2 is where the ball-joint at the bottom of the strut is. Position 3 is the nut at the top of the strut (believe it or not that "IS" a pivot and not only axially about the strut axis either). Now draw 2 lines, from 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3. Now compress the suspension (move point 2 up). From the time point 2 goes above point 1 (you are correct JM) you still gain camber. The area below horizontal will have a "rising rate" to the camber and the area above will have a "falling rate" to the camber. Above, you will still gain camber, just not as fast, matter of fact, the higher you go the slower you gain it. If it was possible to compress the suspension far enough you could "loose" camber but point 2 would have to be raised high enough to make the angle between the lines greater than 90 degrees. I dont think this is possible on either end of the S30 suspension. BTW I have cut and torched those insulators apart and they would never withstand a tension load for very long, if at all. I have thought about cutting 1" off of the spacer and shimming the top with rubber and seal it all up. You would never want to install rubber inside the strut cartrige tube. Maybe delrin, maybe an untra high durometer rubber almost plastic. But then you arent putting 100% of the road forces into the strut. And to make it effective thats what you need to do. 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.