Issues with more than -2.5 front camber

[tsunari]

So for any of you guys out there running more than -2.5* camber up front on your 2G. . . did you have any issues with the tie rods being too long (not enabling you to zero the toe out)?

I recently installed some modified front upper A-arms and can get -3.5* in the front, but it looks like I would have to shorten the tie rods to get the toe zero-ed out.

 

[jtmcinder]

I recently installed some modified front upper A-arms and can get -3.5* in the front...

Wow. How much shorter than stock are they? Can we officially declare your front suspension a vSA/LA? (as in: very short arm / long arm)

As to the tie rods, I had a bit to spare when I trimmed about 5/8" off my OE upper arms.

 

[arrowhead]

Wow. How much shorter than stock are they? Can we officially declare your front suspension a vSA/LA? (as in: very short arm / long arm)

As to the tie rods, I had a bit to spare when I trimmed about 5/8" off my OE upper arms.

How did you trim 5/8 off your control arms?

 

[jtmcinder]

On the inboard ends, I welded plates over the tabs and OE holes, trimmed the ends, and then drilled new holes about 5/8" over.

Proviso: I haven't yet heard from the guy who bought the car from me. For all I know, my modified arms snapped and he was killed. My official advice is, therefore, not to do this.

 

[tsunari]

Holy cow I thought JToby was gone for good . . .

I actually accomplished -3.5* without cutting the arms (shortening them). It was all done with bolt-on stuff and some minor clearancing. I keep telling myself that I'll do a quick writeup with pictures, but that hasn't happened yet.

So anyways . . . when I was fed-up with my SPC a-arms smacking the fender well, I started down this path:
http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/art...dd-more-adjustability-front-alignment-2g.html

But unfortunately, for me, that solution turned out to be just as bad . . . if not worse. Instead of the a-arms contacting the fender well, the a-arms will bind with the flipped anchor bolts, but only after the flipped sliding balljoint binds up.

I actually took measurements before installing everything and should post them later, but Rx3's solution ends up severely limiting a-arm movement. So my solution was to use the following:

SPC 87460 (Anchor Bushings)
SPC 67170 (1.5* Sliding Balljoint)

Lock the anchor bushings at full negative, and install the balljoint flipped backwards like Rx3 suggested with the 3* balljoint.

The trick here is, when the balljoint is flipped backwards and slid into the max negative position, the base of the balljoint comes in contact with the a-arm. If you clearance the underside of the a-arm and weld in a replacement piece, you stand to gain something like 20% more camber over an unmodified arm (I'll have to dig out my notes for accurate numbers)

Here are some photos of the arm modification:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/7wmffqlXXFQyzCtHMm5BrQ?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/0yPCySBPQddh7MBx11crgg?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/StZ-uKkwq_FACGE393Ge3w?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/4ivakSxgBjAGwsKF-RjLWw?feat=directlink

BTW . . . if anyone needs a brand new set of the 3* balljoints, let me know

 

[jtmcinder]

Funny how often my name appears in sentences that also contain "gone" and "good."

In any event, I should have known that you solved the backwards SPC issue, instead. There were many discussions of this, back when we were trying to figure out whether the eye of bolt or the hole in the chassis counted as the suspension mounting point for the SM rules. I went conservative and kept the stock eye-bolts and played with the A-arm. Later, IIRC, a clarification showed up saying that the holes in the chassis were the mounting points, so offset eye-bolts remained the rage.

 

[tsunari]

Hehehe . . . yeah I'm not entirely crazy about the 'bushing' material used with the eccentric eye-bolts, but this setup is by far the cheapest route to get a decent amount of camber and maintain suspension travel up front.

Now I just need to come up with a better way to get a touch more camber out back, but that's not nearly as critical just yet.

 

[arrowhead]

Wont the Moog ball joint give enough camber and clearence for maybe 2 1/2*?

 

[tsunari]

Wont the Moog ball joint give enough camber and clearence for maybe 2 1/2*?

I'm not sure I understand your question . . .

 

[arrowhead]

I'm not sure I understand your question . . .

Moog makes an offset ball joint which is suppose to give you more camber.

You are trying to get a lot of camber and wondering since I dont need as much if they would work without the problems with the arms.

 

[tsunari]

Moog makes an offset ball joint which is suppose to give you more camber.

You are trying to get a lot of camber and wondering since I dont need as much if they would work without the problems with the arms.

It's not really an issue with the arms, but with the length of the tie rods (in my situation). But even as such, I have -2.5* up front without modifying the tie rods, so if you desire less than that, then I would guess you should have no issues.

 

[jtmcinder]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue here.

The tie rods connect to the knuckle at a location that isn't much higher than the lower control arm. You'd have to have ridiculous amounts of camber via changes to the upper arms before the tie rods were too long. No?

If this is such a worry, why not look into way to move the inboard pick-up point for the lower control arm outwards with an eccentric bushing there?

 

[tsunari]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the issue here.

The tie rods connect to the knuckle at a location that isn't much higher than the lower control arm. You'd have to have ridiculous amounts of camber via changes to the upper arms before the tie rods were too long. No?

If this is such a worry, why not look into way to move the inboard pick-up point for the lower control arm outwards with an eccentric bushing there?

It's not much higher, no . . . but the tie rod end's connection point is far enough off of the knuckle center-line (made between the LCA and upper ball joint) that even small amounts of camber adjustment have significant impact on toe.

I really believe that the easiest thing to do would be to just shorten the tie rod a touch and cut some more threads on it so I'm not bottoming out the tie rod end. It probably won't take much, I just haven't gotten out there and measured yet.

I imagine I'm not the first to run into this, but those running more than -2.5* probably aren't trolling this board.

 

[pneumo]

Re: cutting more threads in the tie rod- I believe the threads are rolled into the tie rod, so if you cut more threads the new threads may not be thick enough for full strength. Look close at the OD of the threaded section and compare it with the OD of the unthreaded section.

 

[tsunari]

Uploading the photos from an earlier post since the links broke . . .

 

[Atuca]

Thanks for the photos!!