I may be forced to use standard front suspension next year under new MSA rules. When the standard suspension was originally fitted I found that using camber bolts in the top position did not work as the back of the hub carrier casting hit the strut almost immediately - it looked as though there is a spigot (for want of a better description) on the back of the casting which gets in the way. It may be possible to grind this off, but I wondered if anyone else has had a similar experience, and if so, how they cured it. I want to continue to use 3 degrees negative, which is what I run on coil-overs and works very well.
Adjusting front camber - standard struts - Facelift model
- Thread starter George K
- Start date
- Messages
- 8,229
HMmm, i ran camber bolts and didnt have a problem, the std strut isnt much bigger than a coilover strut so cant understand why you would have a problem with interference, i certainly never had to grind anything off, will you actually have to use oem or just oem style ? (like the mugen units) which would be better, tbh they could easily be disguised to look oem (which they already do)
got a pic of the problem george?
got a pic of the problem george?
Thanks for the quick reply. I do not have any photso as the car is on coil overs at present - I ran into this problem when I frst had the car. I showed it to TGM, who like you was surpised. Will just have to try again.
The problem is that we may not be able to use solid top mounts next year in the production class, and although it seems, bizarrely, that we should still be allowed to use coil-overs (I already have AST) they are not really compatible with the o.e. top mount, as the the bush in the centre of the rubber is fixed and so does not allow the damper shaft to rotate on lock. I am looking at trying to adapt the o.e mount with some sort of axial thrust bearing, but it will be difficult, hence going back to standard struts may be a solution - oddly enough the spring and damper rates look surprisingly reasonable, even though the ride height is a bit high. Alternative springs may be a solution, but guess there are not so may choices for facelift cars, and would want to check the rates first - I have various formulae to calculate rates, so selection would not be an issue.
Thanks and regards
The problem is that we may not be able to use solid top mounts next year in the production class, and although it seems, bizarrely, that we should still be allowed to use coil-overs (I already have AST) they are not really compatible with the o.e. top mount, as the the bush in the centre of the rubber is fixed and so does not allow the damper shaft to rotate on lock. I am looking at trying to adapt the o.e mount with some sort of axial thrust bearing, but it will be difficult, hence going back to standard struts may be a solution - oddly enough the spring and damper rates look surprisingly reasonable, even though the ride height is a bit high. Alternative springs may be a solution, but guess there are not so may choices for facelift cars, and would want to check the rates first - I have various formulae to calculate rates, so selection would not be an issue.
Thanks and regards