HillbillyLes Posted January 21, 2005 Share Posted January 21, 2005 Patrick, Since I can't get on the board from work and I am gone 48 hours at a time, I'd be easier to catch at my work e-mail.... LHeitman@callawayambulance.org I got your message that you wanted to talk..... I'd kinda like to sell the Soob while it's pristine, again, before something else happens and I have to give it away or sink more dollars into it to fix it.... As long as I have it, though, it remains a project to become more refined....Keeps me out of trouble. I'd like to try the 4" on the front (leaving the 3" strut extensions) if that would allow less strut adjustment (Camber issue) and axle angle in the front but keep it level with the rear. I just don't know if that would work on the EA-82 as well as on McBrat's EA-81. Patrick, or anyone with any experience/ideas, gimme' an e-mail. I don't want to sink a lot into it and that should be fairly easy to accomplish. Patrick let me know what the costs would be of what I'd e-mailed you about and if that would be practical... HbL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanislru Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I'm not sur e if it's what you are talking about but I have 4" strut tower extensions and shock extensions on my 86 turbo wagon 3" lift otherwise. I think patrick factored in the effect on camber too cause it's perfect:). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HillbillyLes Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Wellll, I ran across McBrat's article about EA-81s and using the 3" strut extension and lift but adding an inch under the engine crossmember, effectively raising the front an inch but leaving the struts and front suspension at the same level. That changes the front suspension to transmission level differences by an inch thereby lowering the axle angle and allowing for the front suspension to be turned down to achieve the same height but not as much camber change and axle angle. I'd think that by also adding the 4" strut extension, you'd be able to lower the height adjustment in the front by an inch or so but would still have less camber than with the 3" extension on the strut. I haven't done an EA-81 but on my EA-82, if you add an inch (or whatever) to the engine crossmember, you'd also have to add to the tranny crossmember. However, on my 3" lift, the engine crossmember lift blocks are 3" but the tranny ones are 2" so I wondered if there would be a 1:1 ratio for extra lift spacers (engine crossmember:tranny crossmember) or if the same 3:2 ratio (engine crossmember:tranny crossmember) would have to be maintained for extra lift to prevent bind, strange drivetrain angles, etc. I had contacted Patrick (PKDavis) about this and for some input on the subject and he replied that we needed to talk but I have not had any further contact. While I'm waiting, if anyone else has any experience or ideas???? Now, for those with a little insomnia, read on..... My camber isn't necessarily that far out, but in order for it to sit near level, I have to turn the front susp up at least 1/2-3/4 of the total allowed which causes some outer CV clicking on sharp turns and enough camber issues that the front starts to feel a little like it wants to follow the road at high speeds especially on not so good black top and when the roadways are somewhat slick.....Not necessarily so much as to be dangerous, but noticeably more unstable feeling than when the front is down all the way. If I turn it up all the way, it is pretty level but the camber is very obvious, the CV clicking is continual on most turns (due to inner angles) and it bounces hard on any rough road/railroad crossing/etc. The spring rate is so high at that setting, there is almost no suspension play (like 1 ton suspension on the rear of an empty pick-up). As far as the front strut spacer, I don't see any improvements that could be made on the design. It's designed about as far in at the top as will go.The top of the strut spacer sits as far in as possible, even with grinding on it as suggested on EA-81s....I really don't see much improvement available to the 3" strut spacer as designed...there is not much space in the tower for much different on that end. I think the whole system is designed (on my EA-82) to the best it can be for "bolt-on" and the only way to change anything relating to the camber issue (other than possibly the 4"/3" setup like available on the EA-82s) would be to add an inch or two to the axles and an inch or two to the "lower control arms" which would be more trouble than it's worth. Thus my investigation into the issue. Whew!!! A whole lotta' talk but not much action. I know what I was saying, I sure hope those interested enough to start reading can understand what I'm trying to describe before falling asleep. Thank you for your time, if you've made it this far, and I apologize for the length...:-\ HbL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanislru Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 The trannie blocks are that size cause otherwise you'd have to extend the shift linkage, on my lift the majority of blocks are 3" but the trannie's are 2" and the struts and shock mounts are 4". What you are proposing will help your camber, but so will shimming your struts I think. Have you heard from PK yet? PS Your car looks really straight, very cool considering the damage and the fact you might have sold it after all that work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HillbillyLes Posted January 24, 2005 Author Share Posted January 24, 2005 Thanks for the compliments....It is nice but I'm gettin' an awful lot tied up in it. No I haven't heard back from PK...I imagine he's about as busy as I am. I doubt if I make any moves until I get all the info I can on the subject. HbL 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.