Dan Baldwin Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 http://www.thezstore.com/page/TZS/CTGY/PSDC08 I just replaced the 30+ year-old strut mounts/insulators in my 240Z with new ones from Nissan. Unfortunately, the new ones are SUPER-SQUISHY! And the old ones (which had elongated holes instead of "D" shaped holes for the struts) are, um, gone... At Watkins Glen last Tuesday, I couldn't believe the amount of shimmying (loose-ish inner tie rods didn't help in this regard). Turn in, and then saw back and forth at the wheel over undulations in the tarmac, a la Tazio Nuvolari... So, in the interests of eliminating compliance AND gaining some negative camber, I'm ordering the MSA kit above. Unless someone here talks me out of it... Looks like a good cost-effective solution to me, and should get me up to where I wanna be camber-wise (currently at 2.0-2.2 front, 1.8 - 2.0 rear, would like to be ~2.5-3.0 F/2.0-2.5 R). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Bad idea. The isolator is there to allow the strut to change angle as the suspension goes through it's travel as well as to reduce NVH. Poly is so stiff that it won't effectively do this. It's kind of akin to using poly TC rod bushings, and similar to the TC rod failures we've seen here, I think John Coffey has posted about seeing strut failures as a result of those insulators. Get some camber plates already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage42 Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 Since MSA has sold these for quite some time and if there were tons of issues, you'd think they would pull them. I've also noticed that they do have torque settings for the setup (for both the 3 bolts and the strut nut) and I wonder how many just "crank them down" and over tighten the setup to a point where they don't move. Just as poly T/C rod bushings have been bought & sold for decades and there are a few failures here & there, but doesn't seem to be a huge number of failures in all that time. Just my 2 cents on the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeleriousZ Posted April 27, 2009 Share Posted April 27, 2009 you'd think that if MSA's 'universal for z' anti-sway bar endlink kit didn't actually work whatsoever for 87-89 z's they'd note that on the page somewhere. Buuut they don't, so don't assume just because it's still there it works well. /bitterness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
260DET Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 On that MSA camber kit, it doesn't have a pillowball/spherical bearing set into the poly that the top of the strut shaft fits in eh? Any aftermarket ones I've seen do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Bad idea. The isolator is there to allow the strut to change angle as the suspension goes through it's travel as well as to reduce NVH. Poly is so stiff that it won't effectively do this. It's kind of akin to using poly TC rod bushings, and similar to the TC rod failures we've seen here, I think John Coffey has posted about seeing strut failures as a result of those insulators. Get some camber plates already. TC rod has to move around a bit more than the top of the strut does, no? Actual angular movement at the top of the strut must be pretty small even throughout the entire range of suspension travel. How 'bout if I leave out the inboard of the three nuts and only tighten the other two Seriously... I'd love to go the coilover route, but the price difference is pretty extreme even prior to factoring in the labor I'll have to pay to do the work. Sectioning and welding strut tubes is not in my repertoire. Actually I can cut things up pretty well, it's the getting things back together part that is beyond me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I think the advantages of monoballs in camber plates is pretty clear: less side load on strut insert which means less stiction on the strut shaft, easier to adjust camber, less friction in general than the rubber or poly isolators, will lower the car another 1.5" or so without compromising available travel; it's all good stuff. It's even lighter to boot. Sectioning the strut is not required for camber plates. Cutting the stock perches off and welding on a new one is necessary, but that's simple stuff and it sounds like you can cut the perches off and get the new ones situated. Then just take it to any shop with a welder and they could weld the coilover perches on for you. 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.