When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'd like to get an idea of how close to parallel to the ground the Smart Strut rod sits with the car on it's wheels. Mine is up in the air minus it's entire rear end at the moment and I wanted to get an idea of where the trailing arm and strut rod would sit in relation to each other if the car was at rest with the wheels on.
Thanks.
I'll take pics when I get home tonight. If no one else posts on this, I'll post 'em tomorrow morning. I need to take pics of my new exhaust anyway.
-terry
Brutus here's a picture looking down at the adjustable strut rods I don't seem to have a picture of them when wheels on ground.( thanks again Photopoint)
The issue is really not them being parallel to ground, you want them closer to parallel to the half shafts. Some say it is best for them to not be absolute parallel to the half shafts, as a little camber change in a corner can help, but you want to minimize that change.
Hope this helps...
Tom Melton
82 CE
86 Z51 Coupe with VB smart struts
The issue is really not them being parallel to ground, you want them closer to parallel to the half shafts. Some say it is best for them to not be absolute parallel to the half shafts, as a little camber change in a corner can help, but you want to minimize that change.
Hope this helps...
Tom Melton
True. Your arms, half shafts, and lower rods should all be parallel to each other. My lower strut rod brackets use gold anodized wedges to lower the rods into the appropriate position.
Gentlemen...I agree with your opinions regarding the relationship between the strut rods and the half shafts, but that wasn't the question I posed. What I wanted to know was more the position of the strut rods in their static resting position. I merely used the reference between the rods and the ground as a marking point. I apologise if my original post wasn't clear enough.
Trying to clarify my request. What angle if any is the strut rod sitting at rest? Now you've got me wondering if I've got it right. :confused: :jester
Brutus,
Not sure if this will help you or not, but the trailing arms will be parallel to the ground. I don't know of an angle for the strut rods though.
flyinhi,
The more I look at paso's picture, the more I think he doesn't have the smart struts. It looks like he has the stock bracket with VB's adjustable strut rods. If he does have the smart struts and bracket, then you are correct, the bracket is upside down.
You can check out my page below. I have a pic of the rear of my car with it on the ground and I have VB's smart struts on it. From the looks of the pic, the mounting point is higher in the center than at the wheels.
The issue is really not them being parallel to ground, you want them closer to parallel to the half shafts. Some say it is best for them to not be absolute parallel to the half shafts, as a little camber change in a corner can help, but you want to minimize that change.
Assuming the GM designers weren't complete morons back in the '60s or '50s or whenever the C2/C3 chassis design was being conceived...
Why the difference? Camber change was once considered a good thing. The designers made it work that way on purpose.
Is this because modern tires are so different than those available at the time of the original design?
Sharklover...The angle of the TAs is a good enough place to start. Thanks....That does help.
flyinhi...I might have to concur with you about Paso's pic. It does seem he has the Smart Strut bracket and it does appear to be upside down. I just compared the 2 brackets I've got...old and new...and the new SS bracket has the camber pin 'braces' top and bottom as in Paso's pic. The old brackets have theirs left and right. It would have taken a longer set of bolts to mount the SS bracket upside down tho.
Paso...I hope we're not being too critical of you at all. You were trying to help me out after all and I thank you for that.
In this pic, the body is not on the frame. That is the emergency brake bracket hanging down. I put in a built 700R4 and have not welded it back into place to clear the driveshaft.
Neil in Tenn
Well the engineers wen't MORONS bak then but they really didn't understand suspension design as well as they do now. Little things like bushing deflection causing handleing changes may seem obvious now but wern't necessairily so in the 60's
The issue is really not them being parallel to ground, you want them closer to parallel to the half shafts. Some say it is best for them to not be absolute parallel to the half shafts, as a little camber change in a corner can help, but you want to minimize that change.
Assuming the GM designers weren't complete morons back in the '60s or '50s or whenever the C2/C3 chassis design was being conceived...
Why the difference? Camber change was once considered a good thing. The designers made it work that way on purpose.
Is this because modern tires are so different than those available at the time of the original design?
they really didn't understand suspension design as well as they do now.
Please forgive my skepticism, and of course your statement is true to a degree, but I'm not completely willing to believe a major design error was committed. I still hold that there must have been a somewhat different set of design constraints.
- Were suspensions less compliant back then in general?
- Were tires so mushy that they'd roll off the sidewalls under moderate side load?
My first question just led me to realize that a stiffly sprung car probably doesn't need Smart Struts as much as a loosely sprung one.
Hi Guys Yes sharklover is correct it is the stock bracket and the vette brakes easy adjustable strut rod. I was just throwing the picture out as it showed the angle nicely. Note: The stock Bracket can NEVER be installed upside down as the bolts are staggered. I wasn't around yesterday to see the comments so I didn't jump in to add the above. Thanks Brutus for your nice comments on the possibility of everyone being to critical. You should see my skin :D It's thick :D I never take disscussion and opinions as harmful. :)
That quote was taken from a book by Herb Adams when he was discussing the differences between the C3 and C4 suspensions.
I agree also with what you said about GM. Back then GM was really designing family cars and the suspensiond were designed to keep the driver very safe, i.e. understeer. Whereas we are trying for a very neutral car, so some design changes are required.
But there have been great strides in suspension design since then.
( wouldn't you be disapointed if there wasn't!)
they really didn't understand suspension design as well as they do now.
Please forgive my skepticism, and of course your statement is true to a degree, but I'm not completely willing to believe a major design error was committed. I still hold that there must have been a somewhat different set of design constraints.
- Were suspensions less compliant back then in general?
- Were tires so mushy that they'd roll off the sidewalls under moderate side load?
My first question just led me to realize that a stiffly sprung car probably doesn't need Smart Struts as much as a loosely sprung one.
Are you anywhere near the f-1 race? I was just watching friday practice. I have only been to one race in Barcelona
I didn't really look if you recieved any good pics of a "Smart strut setup" I could take pics of mine and post them. I just ordered 335/35/17's Dun's SP8000 rears for this summers go of it.
When are you going to take off the deer rack so waxing is easier?
George...The F1 race is a State away from me so I'll have to be content to watch it on TV the same as you.
I'd be very interested in seeing you rear suspension set up too. That would be excedingly worthwhile.
I just bought a supply of fibreglass materials for my future projects which certainly include ridding myself of that "deer rack". The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned too. I got 5 metres of 'glass'. I wonder if that'll be enough for what I have in mind?