SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
The bolts hadn't changed from that 1st picture to the 2nd - yet somehow the driveshafts actually are at a different angle.
SBG's C3
- Thread starter SuperBuickGuy
- Start date
Kid Vette
Master-Baiter
well, continued with the finish-it-up list
to remind, here is the rear end before, note the driveshafts go down to the wheels?
now - much better
the theory being, with the driveshafts as the upper control arm, you want them to pull in and the bottom to push out (more camber) in a corner.... now it'll finally do so correctly.... sad thing, I've no idea how I managed to get it lower - car sits at the same ride height
and the interior... new steering wheel, and now full dash lights (special, huh?)
I just need to find a new brake console (will check with friend tomorrow).... finally down to the last little bit list :thumbs:
You may have improved your camber gain but you definitely made your toe steer much worse.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
phantomjock
Well-known member
My observation - 
Maybe jump on it, roll around the shop. bounce the rear, etc. They may be threaded the same - but not riding the same on the TAs - at least in that composite of before/after - admit they are left/right too - but i expect they ride symetrically - just looking at the spring.
As an overall ROT - longer bolts will lower the ride height with the monospring.
Good Luck and, Cheers - Jim
Maybe jump on it, roll around the shop. bounce the rear, etc. They may be threaded the same - but not riding the same on the TAs - at least in that composite of before/after - admit they are left/right too - but i expect they ride symetrically - just looking at the spring.
As an overall ROT - longer bolts will lower the ride height with the monospring.
Good Luck and, Cheers - Jim
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
well, continued with the finish-it-up list
to remind, here is the rear end before, note the driveshafts go down to the wheels?
now - much better
the theory being, with the driveshafts as the upper control arm, you want them to pull in and the bottom to push out (more camber) in a corner.... now it'll finally do so correctly.... sad thing, I've no idea how I managed to get it lower - car sits at the same ride height
and the interior... new steering wheel, and now full dash lights (special, huh?)
I just need to find a new brake console (will check with friend tomorrow).... finally down to the last little bit list :thumbs:
You may have improved your camber gain but you definitely made your toe steer much worse.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
Probably not - the bushings were absolutely toast and allowing the passenger side tire to hit the inside of the wheelwell....
That said, this is step one, next step is lowering the control arm to parallel with the ground
.... and I'm not a pro, and would like to hear why there would be a toe problem with this set up
My observation -
Maybe jump on it, roll around the shop. bounce the rear, etc. They may be threaded the same - but not riding the same on the TAs - at least in that composite of before/after - admit they are left/right too - but i expect they ride symetrically - just looking at the spring.
As an overall ROT - longer bolts will lower the ride height with the monospring.
Good Luck and, Cheers - Jim
actually, it rode at the same height with or without the sway bar..... though, sharp eye :thumbs: - I was looking for an illustrative picture rather than an exact picture .... and that picture does illustrate the difference in driveshaft angles before and after. Also, it's a different spring.... what is the same is the lip of the fender to the ground..... so I still don't know why it changed so much
Also, I actually raised the rear to get more travel.... so no need for longer bolts.
phantomjock
Well-known member
Different spring rate between the two springs. They are differing thicknesses... Just sayin'
As to the toe issue - all stock C3 TAs have an inherent toe problem - Revolutionary design for its time -- BUT.
Consider the center of rotation at the forward mount - as the TA swings up and down, the fixed length half shaft and lower strut do their thing -- but the forward rotation point of the TA, changes the toe setting as the IRS moves through an entirely different arc during its up and down motion.
We are stuck with this challenge - until moving to a different set up. The Giovanni - does a lot to improve the set up - but still does not deal well with Toe setting change. Likewise some of the Greenwood setups as I recall still don't eliminate toe change well. The C5/6 setup and some other home-builds include Toe Control rods.
All in all, we make (and chose) our compromises.
Cheers - Jim
As to the toe issue - all stock C3 TAs have an inherent toe problem - Revolutionary design for its time -- BUT.
Consider the center of rotation at the forward mount - as the TA swings up and down, the fixed length half shaft and lower strut do their thing -- but the forward rotation point of the TA, changes the toe setting as the IRS moves through an entirely different arc during its up and down motion.
We are stuck with this challenge - until moving to a different set up. The Giovanni - does a lot to improve the set up - but still does not deal well with Toe setting change. Likewise some of the Greenwood setups as I recall still don't eliminate toe change well. The C5/6 setup and some other home-builds include Toe Control rods.
All in all, we make (and chose) our compromises.
Cheers - Jim
Last edited:
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
yes but, I take the other comment as specific to my set-up.... incorrect?
also, I understand what you're saying about the spring.... except - the car is at the same ride height.... somehow the differential moved down.... and I'm not sure why
and please focus on the words - car is at the same ride height....
Kid Vette
Master-Baiter
John Greenwood explains it better than I ever could. Look in Part 4 of the VIP article.
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
I've read the article, good stuff.... so your comment was a general one - cool :thumbs:
Tonight, most hated work.... finishing sheet metal
Tonight, most hated work.... finishing sheet metal
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
more work
tried to save the rear emblem
nope - crooked, and didn't stay together... so unless I solder it (which probably won't work either) it looks like a new one is in order
some interference issues with the shifter
a bit of spacing and some heat - fixed
getting closer.... still waiting for the e-brake cover.... but close
and polished/grained air cleaner
tried to save the rear emblem
nope - crooked, and didn't stay together... so unless I solder it (which probably won't work either) it looks like a new one is in order
some interference issues with the shifter
a bit of spacing and some heat - fixed
getting closer.... still waiting for the e-brake cover.... but close
and polished/grained air cleaner
toe issue
When the inner u-joint is lower than the outer any bump motion raises the wheel. This motion does increase the camber but it also moves the hub closer to the vehicle center line (as the angle between the half shaft and ground increases the cosine decreases) The fancy pivot on the trailing arm accomodates the motion but the shim packs fix its position. The trailing arm pivots around your ball joint and since the hub moves in the wheel toes out. Increased toe out is not a desirable condition.
When the inner u-joint is above the outer the first part of the bump moves the hub out (smaller angle bigger cosine) so it induces more stable toe in error. Once past center in the bump the toe change with travel reverses back through the start setting and then to increase toe in as above.
The initial setting of the ride height so the inner piuvot is higher than the outer give a range of motion where the toe change isn't evil. We can't overcome all the problem but we minimize it.
Grampy
When the inner u-joint is lower than the outer any bump motion raises the wheel. This motion does increase the camber but it also moves the hub closer to the vehicle center line (as the angle between the half shaft and ground increases the cosine decreases) The fancy pivot on the trailing arm accomodates the motion but the shim packs fix its position. The trailing arm pivots around your ball joint and since the hub moves in the wheel toes out. Increased toe out is not a desirable condition.
When the inner u-joint is above the outer the first part of the bump moves the hub out (smaller angle bigger cosine) so it induces more stable toe in error. Once past center in the bump the toe change with travel reverses back through the start setting and then to increase toe in as above.
The initial setting of the ride height so the inner piuvot is higher than the outer give a range of motion where the toe change isn't evil. We can't overcome all the problem but we minimize it.
Grampy
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
so the net effect is it induces (more) oversteer?
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
this should light someone up
more refinements
new alternator
installed, but, of course, nothing goes easily - those wires look terrible so I'll have to do some rewiring (ugh)
there used to be a company in the Pacific Northwest that changed its name about every 5 years or so - coincidentally with them being sued for the crappy alternators and starters they sold to the chain auto part stores. It's name was Powermaster at one point.... recently, I found out there is another Powermaster... they make quality stuff (solved a problem with one of my Search and Rescue trucks).... anyway... :hi::waxer:
more refinements
new alternator
installed, but, of course, nothing goes easily - those wires look terrible so I'll have to do some rewiring (ugh)
there used to be a company in the Pacific Northwest that changed its name about every 5 years or so - coincidentally with them being sued for the crappy alternators and starters they sold to the chain auto part stores. It's name was Powermaster at one point.... recently, I found out there is another Powermaster... they make quality stuff (solved a problem with one of my Search and Rescue trucks).... anyway... :hi::waxer:
mrvette
Phantom of the Opera
this should light someone up
more refinements
new alternator
installed, but, of course, nothing goes easily - those wires look terrible so I'll have to do some rewiring (ugh)
there used to be a company in the Pacific Northwest that changed its name about every 5 years or so - coincidentally with them being sued for the crappy alternators and starters they sold to the chain auto part stores. It's name was Powermaster at one point.... recently, I found out there is another Powermaster... they make quality stuff (solved a problem with one of my Search and Rescue trucks).... anyway... :hi::waxer:
Some years ago, I had the main power wire from the alt to the horn relay break off and start flashing/arcing with the engine idle, it caused the FI computer to fry....damnit....
SO one of the best moves I have done is wiring the car totally differently on that point, the wires go inward to the valve cover valley, rearward to the firewall, and out to the horn relay on the fender....the way Pontiac wired all their engines, years ago....that relieves any stress points off the wiring....
:crutches:
denpo
Carburated Nihilist
That explains a lot of things, isn't it TT? :noworry:
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
they were out of Chinese alternators :rofl:
bobs77vet
Well-known member
seems like you can chase wiring forever and everywhere you touch it can be replaced
mrvette
Phantom of the Opera
Chick I used to know about 20 years ago, had a '63 Convertible, and her wiring was a DISASTER and her fuse block could not hold fuses on account of the rusted fuse holder spring clips, taking it apart, I found all the stuff was heated to the point of melting in spots, the steel and copper did not get along well, so I rewired the entire car for spade fuses, them plastic jobs....
but funny, that my '72 vert has never had the issue, :bonkers:
427Swede
Well-known member
When you´re having electrical issues, theese come in handy :lol:
I used quite a few of them on my last project, the Volvo P1800 with a lucas system...
I used quite a few of them on my last project, the Volvo P1800 with a lucas system...
SuperBuickGuy
Well-known member
When you´re having electrical issues, theese come in handy :lol:
I used quite a few of them on my last project, the Volvo P1800 with a lucas system...
That's genuine Lucas Electronics smoke, it's completely incompatible with AC/Delco smoke. In fact, use of Lucas smoke will immediate result in the immolation of the ac/delco harness because Lucas is just so much better at making things dark.
1Michel
Well-known member
When you´re having electrical issues, theese come in handy :lol:
I used quite a few of them on my last project, the Volvo P1800 with a lucas system...
Damn, If I only knew that was commercialy available....
I could've made a fortune with the old Fruehauf trailers we had.
Always shorting and smokin.
Lost opportunity.
