Spacer plate in front of leaf spring hanger

-
famous bob said:
Never seen one w/ 3" offset engine. Mine is 1 3/8" . --- ??????????
Click to expand...
OK, I'll admit I never actually measured anything anywhere other than the a-bodies trans tunnel location ( 2.5 inches at front seam, centered at rear seam ). Regardless what the driveline offset is exactly... it is there.
 
RustyRatRod said:
He said it was never hit. What he doesn't realize is, someone could have hit a post in a parking lot and done what I am talking about. It doesn't take much.
Click to expand...
Unless he owned the car from day one, no way to know if it has been hit or not.
 
And unless he gets it checked out a figured out, the crappy spacer should go back on the rebuild. It was ran like that for sometime more then likely.
 
RustyRatRod said:
He said it was never hit. What he doesn't realize is, someone could have hit a post in a parking lot and done what I am talking about. It doesn't take much.
Click to expand...
The car was 100% original with no signs of damage including the area that the spring perch hanger mounts.
 
imo350 said:
The car was 100% original with no signs of damage including the area that the spring perch hanger mounts.
Click to expand...
The spacer is there to correct thrust, plain & simple, no mystery at all. The axle was not square to the longitudinal of the chassis, WHY is another matter entirely. A modern
alignment machine like the one I use daily will show wheel positions in squareness, offset, set-back(an intentional diff in wheelbase rt. to left for stability), plus all the norm.
align specs including the rear thrust angle. A trip to a quality align shop where they're not flat rate "toe&go" driven, and You will have Your answer.
On another note, We're not trying to malign Your pride & joy, but dealers have fixed and sold cars that fell off the top racks of carriers Dude, as new, Caddys...... so don't
assume the car is somehow virginal. Even if nothing befell Her, the quality control on subframe manufacture sometimes was, well, a little wide..................................
 
I am done with him. We've done our bestest to let him know what may be the problem and he has argued every step of the way. Having a vintage car's frame or unibody checked on a dedicated frame machine is a no brainer to make sure everything is right and square. Assuming everything is, is simply dumb, especially when evidence to the contrary, like that leaf spring bracket shim has been found. It was put there for a reason, but honestly, I really don't give a **** anymore.
 
imo350 said:
Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. If one side sits more forward in the wheelwell, does that mean the body is not the same from left to right? I would assume if the rearend was not square to the front end that the car would dog track down the road and not drive straight. I did a quick string job and the wheelbase was off from side to side by over 1/2" without the spacer, so I can only assume it was done to square up the rearend in the car.
Click to expand...
Quick string from where to where? First there is setback, second the spindles can be moved a bit fore/aft just from the caster diff, third the spindles have to be perfectly
even in relation to each other i.e. steer-ahead at -0-.
 
RustyRatRod said:
I am done with him. We've done our bestest to let him know what may be the problem and he has argued every step of the way. Having a vintage car's frame or unibody checked on a dedicated frame machine is a no brainer to make sure everything is right and square. Assuming everything is, is simply dumb, especially when evidence to the contrary, like that leaf spring bracket shim has been found. It was put there for a reason, but honestly, I really don't give a **** anymore.
Click to expand...
Your reply is a bit off there bud and I have spoken to the original owner that put 50,000 miles on the car and said it drove straight and ran N50/15 tires without the spacer in there. I have read all of my replies and I have not argued ****. I have merely said the car was not wrecked and it did not make sense that the plate was put there to add bigger tires. I was questioning if the factory would have done this to correct a production flaw. I confirmed with the original owner that it was not a factory install. Once I get it back from paint, I will be stringing the car to confirm what it is out and adding a plate back in to correct. I'm glad you don't give a **** anymore and you can stop reading this post anytime.
 
If it's never been wrecked, why are you going to string it to see "what's out"?
 
imo350 said:
Your reply is a bit off there bud and I have spoken to the original owner that put 50,000 miles on the car and said it drove straight and ran N50/15 tires without the spacer in there. I have read all of my replies and I have not argued ****. I have merely said the car was not wrecked and it did not make sense that the plate was put there to add bigger tires. I was questioning if the factory would have done this to correct a production flaw. I confirmed with the original owner that it was not a factory install. Once I get it back from paint, I will be stringing the car to confirm what it is out and adding a plate back in to correct. I'm glad you don't give a **** anymore and you can stop reading this post anytime.
Click to expand...

how many owners in between you and him?

and just curious, how could the original owner be certain about the spacer, unless he pulled the bracket and i dont see why he would
 
You could wait until you get to alignment rack. Thrust angle correct might have required that spacer.
All we know is somebody put it there for some reason. You've read all the possible reasons. Good luck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top