Quote:

Yep the LJ ones are very close, all that is usually necessary is to open up the two mounting holes at the back end of the rod and maybe grind a little off the end. Then drill or file out the hole dia at the front mount and its all good. The angle is also good. Remember its the LJ ones you want as every other model I looked at doesnt mount up properly.
Happy hunting.

Paul.

Does anyone have camber castor specs from other conversions?

i.e.

R31?

180/200B?

etc...

Would be good for a comparison to help people get the best conversion straight up. The stanza conversion needs to be dropped another inch to get a degree or two of negative camber, but then you would have to shorten the strut to retain a decent amount of bump clearance.

Wow that's good to know thanks Paul. It's a pity I didn't know of this a few years ago! LJs are pretty thin on the ground now around here at least- I can't remember the last time I saw one...
But sounds like an excellent conversion, I love those kinds of mods, easy, cheap and effective.

To gain a bit of negative camber + castor, I am a big fan of redrilling the crossmember where the lower control arms bolt thru.

I'm not sure of the legalities, with a big washer, who is to know?

Ideally you want to be pretty close to the width of your draglink so that bump steer is not induced.

As the car is lowered, I would also move the holes up to help retain the original Control arm geometry.

in my my 120y i have stanza struts with the bigger brakes, used stanza lower control arms and radius rods. king super low haredened springs( for 1200) not stanza. i have 15inch trx wheels with 205 45 tyres. these rub like hell at the front( on the gaurd even after it was rolled. i want to modify some s13 camber tops so it pulls the top of the tyre in. does that make sense and will it work.

once my 15 inch tyres are ####ed i wanna go back to 13 or 14 wheels.

would a fatter sway bar help too, like less body roll less gaurd getting near tyres on corners.

Quote:

I asked about this at the suspension shop. the answer was " not a bad idea mate, but do it after it has been through the pits" Highly illegal to move pickup points. They also reckoned If you move the LCA bottom mounting point up and out it will bump steer really badly, so you would have to bend the steering arm down by the equivalent amount, to keep the LCA and steering link parallel

I wouldn't be concerned about the strength of the standard castor/tension rod unless you are intending to rally the car. They simply hold the lower control arm in tension. Any shear force present in that rod is negligible.

On my coupe, I simply had my standard 1200 castor/tension rods threaded and used a nut on each side of the mount. Must have been like that for a good five years including alot of bouncing off ripple strips, the odd excursion to the infeild/outfeild here and there, and a couple of incidents with a bank at Mt Cotton which tore a castor rod mount off the chassis, and a kerb on a road rally which sent the car airborne. Neither damaged the tension rods.

No sense adding weight where you don't need to.

If it is a road car it is all different as far as rules - but for our race car we pulled the cross member out and redrilled it to a different position.
The maximum allowable under IP rules is 25mm from the original point.
Then fabricated a set of strut tops to allow us the caster and camber that we wanted.
We kept the new holes to a height such that the lower control arm was sitting flat at rest.

Adam BDA- you are on the money there, I am starting to wonder why the hell I am screwing around with a road car. Everything is such a massive compromise...... can't have castor plates, cant have trackwith increases, can't have the wheels you want..... aaarrrrgggghhhhh

Quote:

Ah yes but be warned - getting involved in racing is a bit like being a Pelican...............everywhere you look there is a bloody big bill in front of you