To lower or not to lower???

-
Also, a 1.5 inch reduction in ride height as measured, say, at the wheel openings or at the K, does not translate to 1.5 inches at the bumpstop.
Aggressive cornering at a lowered ride height, even with 1.03s, puts my S on the stops, which actually isn't bad.
It's hitting speed bumps too fast that spits the stockers open, and is really harsh with polyurethanes. I quit doing that.
 
The travel at the wheel is about double what you see at the bumpstop. I've been running the little urthanes for years.
 
67autocross said:
I have not had one at stock height for any longer than an hour after I buy them so I never put much thought into the overall travel.
Interesting about your upper bump stop, I guess it would depend on the clocking of the torsion bar if it could fall off the adjuster bolt.
Click to expand...

It does depend on the clocking of the torsion bar. The problem with really large torsion bars is that the static weight of the car doesn't compress the suspension very much, so the ride height of the car is more sensitive to the actual clocking of the bars.

You can actually change how the LCA's are clocked on the torsion bars too. Typically you install the LCA's on the bars with them hanging down as far as they will go. But you can also install them one hex flat up from that, which results in the LCA's being pretty close to ride height. With the clocking on my 1.12" bars I found that there was only one way to install them, and to get as low as I wanted I needed to raise the upper bumpstops because the adjusters would unload at full extension. Not enough for the adjuster bolt to fall out of the LCA tab, but enough that I wasn't comfortable with it. If you look at the bumpstops that Hotchkis provides with their UCA's you can see they're taller than stock. I run the same ones on my car.

My next modification is installing tubular LCA's from QA1. That will do two things, one is that because the profile of the tubular LCA is shorter, I will gain back some suspension travel, about 1". The other is that because the LCA's are narrower as well I should be able to clock them differently than the stock arms. Although that may or may not work for my ride height, we well see.

AJ/FormS said:
Also, a 1.5 inch reduction in ride height as measured, say, at the wheel openings or at the K, does not translate to 1.5 inches at the bumpstop.
Aggressive cornering at a lowered ride height, even with 1.03s puts my S on the stops, which actually isn't bad.
It's hitting speed bumps too fast that spits the stockers open, and is really harsh with polyurethanes. I quit doing that.
Click to expand...

Good point! The actual wheel travel is different than the travel at the LCA where the bumpstop hits the frame because of the length of the LCA between the bumpstop and the ball joint.

Even with only about 1" from my bumpstops to the frame (maybe a smidge less) I rarely ever hit the bumpstops with the 1.12" bars. Occasionally with large pot holes etc it does happen. That should also be eliminated with the extra space I get with the tubular LCA's.
 
my front is so low that I can barely get my floor jack under the K, doesnt bother me. I dont autocross it and the streets around here are pretty smooth. No bump steer issues that I can recall although I dont drive it much. I got a 6 in it now so Ill probably be up another inch from where the 451 was. I have 1/4 shims under my 8 3/4 to correct drivetrain so its about 1/4 lowered in the back. I have 15 inch rims too so it makes the wheels look bigger, fills out the wells.
 
72bluNblu said:
It does depend on the clocking of the torsion bar. The problem with really large torsion bars is that the static weight of the car doesn't compress the suspension very much, so the ride height of the car is more sensitive to the actual clocking of the bars.

You can actually change how the LCA's are clocked on the torsion bars too. Typically you install the LCA's on the bars with them hanging down as far as they will go. But you can also install them one hex flat up from that, which results in the LCA's being pretty close to ride height. With the clocking on my 1.12" bars I found that there was only one way to install them, and to get as low as I wanted I needed to raise the upper bumpstops because the adjusters would unload at full extension. Not enough for the adjuster bolt to fall out of the LCA tab, but enough that I wasn't comfortable with it. If you look at the bumpstops that Hotchkis provides with their UCA's you can see they're taller than stock. I run the same ones on my car.

My next modification is installing tubular LCA's from QA1. That will do two things, one is that because the profile of the tubular LCA is shorter, I will gain back some suspension travel, about 1". The other is that because the LCA's are narrower as well I should be able to clock them differently than the stock arms. Although that may or may not work for my ride height, we well see.



Good point! The actual wheel travel is different than the travel at the LCA where the bumpstop hits the frame because of the length of the LCA between the bumpstop and the ball joint.

Even with only about 1" from my bumpstops to the frame (maybe a smidge less) I rarely ever hit the bumpstops with the 1.12" bars. Occasionally with large pot holes etc it does happen. That should also be eliminated with the extra space I get with the tubular LCA's.
Click to expand...


The bars in my car now are clocked 15 degrees if I remember and I think they are 1.14", they went in almost exactly where the ride height is, I would say that you could run them with no adjuster bolts, that reminds me I should shorten those bolts this winter as they hang low.
I will have to check out the QA1 lower control arms, I assume they bolt to the stock k member as well as the tubular ones they sell.
 
Well this thread has me pretty well confused, I don't think I will lower it, and I do not trust any of my local alignment shops to figure all this out.

BUT I apparently need to replace my Upper Control Arm bushings, so am now having to rethink my suspension options, once again... choices, choices, choices...
 
I don't know for absolute certain but I am getting a really bad squeak from my front passenger side suspension anytime I hit a bump or even simply push on the front end. I inspected the ball joint recently and they appeared fine.
 



something to think about...... bigger tires that fill up the wheel wells give the look of it being lower but actually doesn't drop it. my car is lowered quite a bit but i also have 28" tires in the rear and 26.5" up front.
 
There are many paces that a squeek in the front can originate from. The upper bushings are not the first place I'd look. I'd check the LCA bushing first to be sure the pin is still reasonably centered in the rubber, and that the pin-tube welds are OK. If those are OK, then I'd pull the shock off and retest.
I suppose you could sound out all the likely places with a mechanic's stethoscope.
 
I know one thing... if I don't fix the squeak, I may be the first person to commit suicide as of the result of noisy suspension... there are no peaceful cruises with that damn squeak.
 
My brother fixed his squeek with brake fluid once. I can't recommend that, as, soon after the T-bar broke. Now I'm not suggesting the two are related. I bought the car cheap, fixed the T-bar, and the squeek, and sold it to another brother, for a nice profit.When he was finished with it, I bought it back, and drove it for a few more years, then parted it out.The engine became my winter motor for my S, in the early years. Eventually my son bought it and hired me to install it in his 84 D-100. Eventually that truck came back to me, and is currently sitting in the compound.The engine ran well when it was parked, and may again see service.It's a 73, and has never seen new rings. I put new bearings and valve seals into it in 2000. It's been in the family nearly as long as I've been married, going on 39 years!
Yeah so, don't pull the trigger; find and fix the squeek.
 
Swies

How did you get a 15 x 8" rim in the back wheel well??
I was under the car the other day 74 Swinger and could never think of putting that large
a tire (245) in there... I'm on stock rims with 205 right now
I'm looking to upgrade to a 15 x 6 or 7" and a 225 if possible..
I am not much for tubing or moving the springs, although I might want to lower the rear
a bit... and drop the nose a bit
[email protected]
 
younggun2.0 said:



something to think about...... bigger tires that fill up the wheel wells give the look of it being lower but actually doesn't drop it. my car is lowered quite a bit but i also have 28" tires in the rear and 26.5" up front.
Click to expand...

I do the same with a 29.75 on rear....27.5 on the front......I did have to locate a fender opening stretcher.
 
Torrance00 said:
Swies

How did you get a 15 x 8" rim in the back wheel well??
I was under the car the other day 74 Swinger and could never think of putting that large
a tire (245) in there... I'm on stock rims with 205 right now
I'm looking to upgrade to a 15 x 6 or 7" and a 225 if possible..
I am not much for tubing or moving the springs, although I might want to lower the rear
a bit... and drop the nose a bit
[email protected]
Click to expand...
Torrance;
I didn't do anything. Stock Springs, no tub, nothing.
They fit like a champ. I will try to get pics this weekend and post them.
1.5" clearance on the outside and .5-.75 on the inside.
Currently I am trying to find a set of wheels with the back spacing I need to get my Hoosiers (27x11x15) put on. Width will fit as I have stuffed them up in there. Just need a wheel with the BS to center it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top