approximate effect of torsion bar adjustment
- Thread starter scudzuki
- Start date
-
the deep V t-shirt with the cutoff ones is certainly "a look" but i ain't one to throw shade. besides you got the gams to pull it off brother!
While we are at it, does anyone want to discuss manifold vacuum versus ported vacuum for distributors? How about coil over suspensions versus torsion bars? Maybe we can express our opinions on religion or politics?
pfft! child's play.
that's some patty cake level BS.
let's talk green bearings and holley v carter.
Maybe we can express our opinions on religion or politics?
Or not.
The or not is what I was thinkin. LOL
I agree. You have to know that was sarcasm.
I knew that but the guy that responds may not.
With you, it's hard to tell what AIN'T sarcasm. LOL
Just want to pop in here to say that lowering a car to reduce CG does not equal less body roll. As you lower a car the roll center is changed and may get you the opposite effect. Suspension kinematics is a whole field of vehicle engineering for a reason.
Woody500
Well-Known Member
If he drops it alot shouldn't he loosen upper a-arm mounts to avoid damaging the bushings?
Response to first paragraph.
Seems to me that you may want to get the service manual for your car. Take notes in the margins. You now have your knowledge base article.
Response to second paragraph.
That's why it is called work. Some **** you just have to set, test, measure.
33IMP
Well-Known Member
PINION ANGLE! Let's discuss!
How much does pinion angle change if you raise it an inch?
How much does pinion angle change if you raise it an inch?
Last edited:
Woody500
Well-Known Member
If I'm understanding this chart correctly, it seems to say when the nose dives under braking, the wheels toe in, which would slow you a little bit, make car point straight until you turn in, & then have a more positive turn in, w/a little more
toe-in in turns helping it.
Am I understanding this correctly?
If so, lowering these cars seems like a no brainer!
No, the "dive" indicates suspension compressing, the same effect as lowering. The wheels lose some toe but not much. It goes from .059 to .041 which isn't much at all. When the car is raised, the toe in really gains!
This chart was plotted using a 1973-76 A body disc brake knuckle/spindle. The other knuckles are similar but not identical.
From what I have seen, they all have greater caster numbers the lower that they go while going heavily negative in caster as they are raised up.
This chart was plotted using a 1973-76 A body disc brake knuckle/spindle. The other knuckles are similar but not identical.
From what I have seen, they all have greater caster numbers the lower that they go while going heavily negative in caster as they are raised up.
Jim Lusk
Well-Known Member
Once the frame and LCA bumper are not touching the size of the bar has ZERO effect on how much one turn of the bolt changes ride height. All the adjustment does is rotate the LCA around the pivot.
Woody500
Well-Known Member
If you lower ride height an inch then the toe-in change nearly .030! , under dive, from where you set it at new ride height. That's near 1/16 toe change , you won't neccessary realized what/why it's better.
1/16 total is a bunch!
All according to the chart.
The chart lists changes for ONE wheel in all instances so EACH wheel toes in listed amount, Times two for total toe-in, or chart is misleading
It's also why double adjustable shocks can be such an improvement.
At top shows toe-in @ factory settings, there shown in total toe-in(both wheels) is almost a full 1/16, seeming to back up my supposition of per wheel in chart.
Wish I'd kept S6 bars I had!
I'll be rereading this chart. Thanks
I hope that I didn't mis read the chart.
I took the "toe in" as a total number. Bill aligned the car to 0 camber and 1.177 caster and set the toe to .059. One inch of dive from there, the toe is at .047. That is a .012 number, that is almost 1/8" but it is still toed in. It is toe out where the tires really start to wear on the insides.
I took the "toe in" as a total number. Bill aligned the car to 0 camber and 1.177 caster and set the toe to .059. One inch of dive from there, the toe is at .047. That is a .012 number, that is almost 1/8" but it is still toed in. It is toe out where the tires really start to wear on the insides.
This is covered extremely well in the Mopar Performance Suspension Manual. It shows in depth how to eliminate camber change through the suspension travel showing step by step how it's done. Been out better than fifty years now.
I've read some of the Direct Connection chassis manual but the book I have appears to have been made LONG before radial tires became the dominant choice. Also, the manual I have seems to be heavily biased toward drag racing, not street or road racing setups.
That is fine for you drag racers but I prefer a car that can do everything well.
A car set up to handle can be a pretty good drag racer but a drag racer often makes for a poor handling street car.
That is fine for you drag racers but I prefer a car that can do everything well.
A car set up to handle can be a pretty good drag racer but a drag racer often makes for a poor handling street car.
With the procedures I'm talking about radial vs bias ply makes no difference.
Maybe so. The alignment settings on file for these cars were written before radials became the standard. The average street radial available today is much better than the best street radials of 1973.
I have tires with a treadwear rating of 200 on the red car. You can almost take a bite out of the treads, they are so soft. Sure, they'll be worn out in 10,000 to 12,000 miles but I'd rather them wear out rather than be replaced because of age with 70% of the tread still showing.
Old school specs often call for very little negative camber, sometimes zero and in some cases, 1/2 degree positive. Radials can tolerate more negative camber than bias ply tires and negative camber can be thought of as preload to keep the outside tire perpendicular in a turn, maximizing grip.
I have tires with a treadwear rating of 200 on the red car. You can almost take a bite out of the treads, they are so soft. Sure, they'll be worn out in 10,000 to 12,000 miles but I'd rather them wear out rather than be replaced because of age with 70% of the tread still showing.
Old school specs often call for very little negative camber, sometimes zero and in some cases, 1/2 degree positive. Radials can tolerate more negative camber than bias ply tires and negative camber can be thought of as preload to keep the outside tire perpendicular in a turn, maximizing grip.
I think you've mis-remembered Rob, or maybe I'm thinking of a different manual. The DC front suspension manual covers in depth how to limit toe change, not camber gain. And the entire discussion is about drag racing, not even street use.
Regardless, you don't want to eliminate camber change with a handling car. Literally the opposite, you want significant negative camber gain under suspension compression. The more negative camber you can gain when the suspension is compressed the less negative camber you need to have in your static alignment settings to maintain the tire contact patch during cornering.
Yeah that's not true either. Wanting negative camber gain is something you'd want for radials, and not at all for bias ply tires.
Even for the toe change discussion, a wide radial tire in the front is much less susceptible to toe change than a skinny bias ply would be.
YOU SIR are 100% correct. I did remember that incorrectly. It is limiting toe change. Thank you! I knew I needed people around here to keep me on my toes.
-
Similar threads
