Forums/Z31P/z31-performance-upgrade-forums suspension-chassis-and-brakes/Rear Camber Modification Write Up + Photo: Difference between revisions
Forum archive import (z31performance) |
Rewrite external images: fetched to local archive or marked broken |
||
| Line 1,128: | Line 1,128: | ||
Mid process of drilling and tapping, which is very tedious by the way. I was lucky and did not manage to break off a tap. | Mid process of drilling and tapping, which is very tedious by the way. I was lucky and did not manage to break off a tap. | ||
=" | ="https://dev.z31library.com/external_images/www.garymolitor.com/Alenius/Rear-suspension-mod_3-25-09_(4).jpg" alt="" /> | ||
Close up of installed bearing retainer. | Close up of installed bearing retainer. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:24, 16 May 2026
Imported from Z31Performance.com Forums{{#if:1artworkz| — original post by 1artworkz}}{{#if:2007-06-05 06:03:43|, posted 2007-06-05 06:03:43}}{{#if:140| · 140 post{{#ifeq:140|1||s}}}}{{#if:/Z31performance_archive/forum/z31-performance-upgrade-forums/suspension-chassis-and-brakes/2571-rear-camber-modification-write-up-photo.html|
Local archive: view archived thread on dev.z31library.com}}
1artworkz: (2007-06-05 06:03:43)
84 - 89 300ZX (Z31) Rear Camber Modification Photo Essay. … link
This topic has been edited 904/24/09) to reduce it's size and to include just the essential information.
If your post was deleted, please except my apology.
[archived image: camber-calc.jpg]
To the person that put this together. Please PM me, I'd like to give credit to you.
1artworkz: (2007-06-05 20:47:26)
Updated the mount drawing with some missing measurements.
Fix a couple typos and add this drawing
[archived image: Rear-subrframe-mod-w.jpg]
Z_Karma: (2007-06-05 21:15:54)
I wonder if you didn't weld the seam at this step:
but still notched and bent it.
Would the welds that you use to attach the final plate to the crossmember ear
still be enough?
Reason:
If i made my own plates, i could clamp them in place and take them into a welding
shop and have them weld it in place in one trip. One trip = one minimum shop charge.
'cause i think a welder is way, way off the radar this fathers day [archived image: smile.png]
G-E: (2007-06-05 23:48:41)
they are not really under a lot of stress, when you bolt it up tight, both the adjusters and tabs are clamped together tight enough so they won't move, friction + tack weld = enough
the only reason those adjuster brackets are good is that they help to align everything
Butter: (2007-06-06 00:19:17)
That's a very, very nice writeup. However, I remember when I did this long ago and I can tell you that the S13 subframe swap is only slightly harder. If you have the funds/parts, I would go that route.
1artworkz: (2007-06-06 00:28:22)
Yes, and if I was going to do it over, this is the design I'd use.
Larger slot, to allow a full inch of adjustment.
The pink triangle is a filler. If it was accurately done, positioning we be easy.
The green areas are the welds.
Once welded, drill the holes and open up the slot with a hand jigsaw.
[archived image: new-rear-subrframe-mod-w.jpg]
Butter: (2007-06-06 01:41:45)
When I did that part I just welded on 1/4" key stock to the top/bottom of the slot. Worked fine. One side had nothing. It's cool how you made that plate though.
SKOLJACK: (2007-06-30 12:43:26)
Supurb write-up!!! Any idea when you are going to complete/add to this write-up the procedure, experience, pics, and real-time measurements (degrees/angles) that you encountered during the rear camber adjustments? Maybe before & after alignment specs., along with difficulty/ease in adjustments. Thanks, for a detailed description on a mod that most (if not all) of us need!!!
CAG8OR: (2007-08-03 22:08:36)
[quote]1artworkz wrote:
Would the welds that you use to attach the final plate to the crossmember ear
still be enough?
Yes, and if I was going to do it over, this is the design I'd use.
Larger slot, to allow a full inch of adjustment.
The pink triangle is a filler. If it was accurately done, positioning we be easy.
The green areas are the welds.
Once welded, drill the holes and open up the slot with a hand jigsaw.
[archived image: new-rear-subrframe-mod-w.jpg]
Gary:
This suggestion should probably be a mandate. That is if anyone wants to actually get rid of their negative camber problem. I just got the car out of the alignment shop. After three hours they gave up. I asked them not to make any modifications to my rear crossmember as it was supposed to be fully adjustable now. Unfortunately, after performing the upgrade with the original deminsions and parts, you will not have enough adjustment to alieviate the problem. This was the best they could manage with the current setup on my car:
Left Rear
-1.6* (within spec.) (-1.9*-0.4*)
0.31* (out of spec) (0.04 - 0.12)
Right Rear
-2.8*
0.10
Needless to say this was highly dissappointing. I will now make the brackets with the new deminsions and see if that will solve the problem. I am not sure why the right rear is so much different from the left.
1artworkz: (2007-08-03 23:05:54)
You used the stock "bracket" that were cut off from a wreck, right?
The previous modifications used 1" as the overall length. Obviously
this is not enough. Do you think, as indicated in my drawing that
1" from center to center well be enough?
Looks like I'll be back to re-modifying the modify.
Dang, and those things took some time to make.
CAG8OR: (2007-08-04 00:09:38)
Gary:
Yes, I used the stock ones from the junkyard. I do think the 1.00" of travel will be enough. The distance from the crossmember also appears to have a major effect, especially for the toe. In other words, how far vertical slot is from the crossmember. If we put smaller bolts in the bushings instead of the eccentric cams, I was able to get better readings with just this little bit of extra "play". Could not have been more than 1/8 - 3/16" extra. I should have written down which direction made the positive results. I think it was closer to the crossmember, but I am not sure. I was a little PO'ed, it was hot today, and I was on my lunch break. I wish I had not wasted my time powder coating the damn thing. What do you think is causing such a difference from left to right? By the way, Mike G also performed the mod per the specs listed and ran into the same problem. If anyone else has this issue please post. All my parts came from the junk yard and they could be bent or something.
CAG8OR: (2007-08-04 02:10:47)
I don't know if these will be helpful to anyone or not, but here is a couple of pictures of my original crossmember with the MSA rear camber adjustment plates. I had this crossmember modified a very long time ago to acheive near perferct rear camber. Yes, it is a hack job, but effective none the less. The MSA plates worked fine for the left but not for the right. When I say near perfect, I mean very close to neutral. I was between 0 & -0.5 degrees on both sides and had perfect rear tire wear for street driving. Notice that the right side was the bad one on this cross member as well. After looking at this picture, I was wrong about being closer to the crossmember. It needs to be further away from the crossmember. It also appears that the angle needs to be slightly tilted. I remember someone mentioning this fact previously on a post from this forum. Here are the pics:
[attachment=2:9a944]Original Crossmember.JPG[/attachment:9a944]
[attachment=1:9a944]Original Crossmember (1).JPG[/attachment:9a944]
[attachment=0:9a944]Original Crossmember (2).JPG[/attachment:9a944]
CAG8OR: (2007-08-04 02:11:22)
One more:
[attachment=0:ba7b1]Original Crossmember (3).JPG[/attachment:ba7b1]
ShamWow: (2007-08-09 02:51:31)
As mentioned earlier, I ran into the same problems after performing this camber modification. After lowering with St springs, and replacing all bushings with available polyurethane bushings, I have way to much negative camber. I havn't got an alignment yet, but I measured my negative camber using a guage. It's about 4* on each side....
Back to the drawing board!
CAG8OR: (2007-08-09 13:39:01)
Mike:
Thanks for the update! I was wondering if I managed to get a bent part from the yard. This helps me think that we just need more adjustability. Are both of your sides equally out, or is the passenger side worse?
ShamWow: (2007-08-13 23:10:33)
Mine was more negative on the drivers side actually. I believe this is a result of the fabrication of the plates and their angles. Nothing appears to be bent.
CAG8OR: (2007-08-14 00:31:39)
Interesting! I wish we could get some more input from those who have performed this upgrade. Mark has great praise of the K-mac replacement bushings for the control arms. I might have to order a set of these.
Chris86NA2T: (2007-08-18 02:38:45)
ive done this modification twice and i have a few comments.. if you have stock springs and you just want adjustable camber then do exactly what gary has described. dont even worry about elongating the plate. if you have it welded up straight then you will be able to get the alignment in spec. as far as alignment goes, if you do not get the new slot PERFECTLY perpendicular to the top surface of the crossmember then you will never get camber or toe into spec. that plate has to be welded perfectly in position. if you have lower springs in the car then i suggest a slight change in positioning. in garys diagram the top of the slot in the new plate alignes with the top of the existing hole. i set it up so that the slot in the new plate covered the top two thirds of the existing hole. my adjustability range for rear camber is a little more that 1 to a little more than 2. for the people that are having problems, compare the left to right measurements of your rear crossmember… just pick a few point and measure. i guarantee that you will find irregularities. ive seen 2 rear crossmembers that were bend.. it was hardly noticable, but it was bent enough to make a difference.
SKOLJACK: (2007-08-21 01:18:30)
Here's my hack attempt!!! I think Butter tried this before (weld 1/4" key stock)?
Do you think I have enough adjustment for 1.5" drop springs?
I'll have to put this on the alignment rack to see my full range of adjustment!
Chris86NA2T: (2007-08-21 03:55:11)
i dont think you really get how the eccentric bolts work.. the adjustment range is FIXED. the slot can only be as long as the eccentric allows for. you can shift this range positive or negative depending on where you cut the slot. you setup is incorrect, the squarebar should be touching the washer at all times, forming a cage that the bolt and washer rotate inside. you're setup is very unstable and probably dangerous.
G-E: (2007-08-21 06:00:10)
if the slot is only vertical and tight to the bolt, then most of the load will be sent into the frame, the eccentricity won't help in any way but would not hurt anything either
what's the worst that can happen, he hits a set of hard bumps and it moves a bit throwing his camber off again
CAG8OR: (2007-08-21 15:30:22)
G-E has a pretty good point here, but Chris is correct in that the setup is made incorrectly. As long as you use the inside "knurled end" bushings on the outers, I think all you would need is a long vertical slot and secure them with the original bolt and nut. Just make sure to keep the slot the correct width and perfectly vertical. There is no need for the eccentric bolt using this method. Simply knock it into place with a rubber mallet and torque it down. I don't think it will move either. My friend had his like this for a very long time and it never went out of alignment after being set. It is not the correct way to do this, but effective none the less.
okacookie: (2007-12-07 22:55:46)
I have been looking over this problem a little and I think I have an idea that might help give a little more adjustment room, but will still let you use the eccentric bolts.
My idea is to cut a block that is .605in that can go above or below the bolt to in theory keep the travel the same as the original, but you will be able to shift it down to give more adjustability. It should allow for about .85in of travel overall which might help get everything into spec. I came up with this number by subtracting the bolt dia. and the small edge of the "washer". This came to .755in, which I then subtracted from 1.36in to give .605in which should be the amount needed for a spacer.
I am at work right now so I can't do any pictures of what my idea is, but I will try to draw some up soon and post them that way if any of this doesn't make sense. This sounds like it might work but I have no experiance with this yet because I am trying to plan out everything I am going to need and want when I do my suspension overhaul.
EDIT:
I realized just now that I diidn't seem to explain that right, or it just sounds weird when I re-read it. To try and add some form of visual picture to this I will try to explain it a little more by using the original adjustment plates.
Basically, I would be making two of the plates that allow for .425in of adjustment. I would overlap them on the bottom to where the lowest point of the top bracket and highest point of the bottom bracket (I would be over lapping the center points of the bolts to allow for an overall travel of .850in). The .605in shim would cover up the area that is not used at the top or the bottom.
Again, once I draw something up and am able to get it on my computer I will post it. This idea is similar to the one I believe Gary had which allowed for 1in of travel and had a piece of metal that could be slid left to right to push the bolt down (I believe his CAD drawing is at the end of the 2nd page).
okacookie: (2007-12-18 18:10:42)
I had a quick question about mapp gas and thought I would post it here since I am going to use it for the camber plates. I don't have a cutting torch and I was wondering if any of you guys have had experiance with mapp gas to get steel red hot. I am needing something to heat up the steel plate so I can beat the crap out of it with the sledge hammer and don't have the money to a cutting torch, but I can get one of those little mapp torches. Thanks a lot and I will keep everyone posted on how the plates turn out and if they work… I might even make a second set if someone would like so we can see if they will give enough adjustment since I won't be able to do my suspension work until atleast Feb or so. Thanks.
Chris
okacookie: (2008-01-17 02:58:08)
Well I have been reworking my design since my last post once I was able to get more info from Gary. My new thought has been to bolt the spacer on from the top that way it would not interfere with CA. The slot for the bolt travel is twice as long as Gay's original design so you get approx. .85 inches of adjustment. The spacer is made from 1/2 inch flat stock with a hole drilled and tapped so it can be bolted on from the top. This spacer can be removed from bracket so the top portion of travel can be used or bolted on if additional adjustment is needed. This bracket is not perfect because I had to improvise a few things but I didn't care since this was just a demo. Here are the pictures of the bracket and let me know what you think.
okacookie: (2008-01-17 17:45:58)
p_bagnano,
Where wanting more information on the pictures I posted?
The plates where made out of 1/8 x 2inch flat stock that was cut to 3 inches if I remember correctly… I am at school right now so I don't have the exact specs on them right now. Then I bent a 3/4 inch section over to form the top flange, and measured down approx. 1.785 inches to allow for the travel and bent the excess over to form the bottom lip. This design is based off of Gary's original design but I added an additional .425 inches of travel and changed the top lip to 3/4 in. Also, these can/should be cut down from a 2 inch width to make a symmetrical plate. This may not be necessary but it would prevent any mix up when drilling/installing the plates. If there is intrest in these I will give Gary all of my specs and he might be able to draw up something in CAD.
If there are anymore questions feel free to ask and I will try to clear anything up.
Chris
1artworkz: (2008-01-17 18:18:54)
Cool, I glad you came up with a real solution from our conversation.
[archived image: Adj-Camb-Mount-04.gif]
JimmyZ89: (2008-02-13 15:13:50)
That is an awesome idea Gary. Many props to you for spending the time and effort to work this out. FYI I had done the typical move the hole down mod to fix the camber with my springs when I put them in. The initial new hole wasn't enough to fix my camber past -2.5 in the rear so I slotted the hole more down which help. It has been that way for about 9 years now. I normally look the car over every oil change. I recently had to take my wheels off and noticed that my LR control arm had shifted back up to the original position since my last oil change 2k miles ago :shock:. My only concern with moving the hole as far down as you have it drawn is the stress it's putting on the inner control arm bushing. I have seen on a bmw spherical bearings used in the control arms to help with any binding issues.
RedZ31: (2008-02-18 19:17:12)
okay so i am confused, could you just have cut out or enlarge the stock camber plates to take larger bolts and have the space for more adjustment? the way i see it you could have just jigged out or bored out the factory adjustment hole. i was wondering if that would work my self because i am sick of a full inch on the out side of my tires almost never touching the ground after i lowerd it 1.5" front and rear, the alignment shop adjusted the front fine, but they said the back was as good as they could get. would this work or am i over looking some thing?
1artworkz: (2008-02-18 19:35:05)
Yes, RedZ31, you could do that but you'd end up with the same problem that
JimmyZ89 mention above and as quote below.
1artworkz: (2008-02-19 02:18:13)
Stress … you bet.
Refer back to the top of page one of this post, where there is a guide on, "How to
"Calculate Negative Camber." Note, for a 17" wheel that has 5/8" negative camber,
one would need 2ú positive camber added to compensate as indicated in the illustration
below.
It's my opinion that degree of angle would create a lot of stress on the mounting
components when using the hard polyurethane replacement bushings.
[archived image: 2-degrees.jpg]
It now appears that any attempt to correct negative camber problems requires a fully
adjustable mounting system.
JimmyZ89: (2008-02-19 15:28:32)
I still think that this idea you have would be the best solution for adjustment. It's simple and easy to manufacture. Although using spherical bearing or heim joints would be a must for any stress/binding issues. This past weekend I just pulled the entire rear end assembly out of 88 Z that I plan on modifying with just the ideas I mentioned before. It all comes down to cost. Here are some link to look at:
http://www.modularfords.com/articles…ol_Arms/1.html
http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billav…nts/index.html
http://www.battleversion.com/240WeldKit.htm Something like this could be used on the rear if your up to cutting and welding it on in place.
1artworkz: (2008-02-19 21:22:06)
Thanks for the links. These are much better solutions than my bolted plate idea.
The poly ball (above) is an interesting solution but the existing barring journal IDs on the
ends of the "C" are not big enough, so one would have to weld new ones on and be a
bit more quiet the the following Uni-Ball and Superflex Joint. I could easily make the polys.
However if one was to do all the work then the Uni-Ball or the Superflex Joint is
probable a better solution.
http://www.polyperformance.com/shop/Uni … 16755.html
The Uni-Ball WSSX14T would be a good fit. They cost 55$ each. One would have
to machine the existing sleeve, cut out the old barring journals and weld in new ones
to fit the OD of the barring journal. These need to be lubed. I have looked at locating
Zerk fittings on the "C" member but are and there is a clearance issue that would need
to be solved.
I really like the Rubicon Express - Superflex Joint (below) because it would be the best
fit of all three. They are $40 each so a better buy. The bolt and the mounts on the
subframe are a "near" perfect match for the Superflex. The outer diameter of the ball
housing is the same as that on the "C" arm. Removing the old ones and welding in the
Superflex Joint would be a bit of work but the overall function would solved the problems
and have a closer OEM finish.
Later in the week, when I have more time, I will do a mechanical drawing of the Rubicon
Express - Superflex Joint installation on the Z31 subframe.
[archived image: RE3792.jpg]
Russ84na: (2008-02-28 04:53:36)
I haven't been following this thread as I fixed my camber issues several years ago.
On my race car I did the rear camber by using the plates off an old crossmember and got the results that other have. -2.5* is great for autoX. I can go to -3.0+*. My street car I changed the springs and the -2* works fine for me so I haven't done anything to it.
On the front of the race car I have GC camber/caster plates. Gives me all the adjustability I want. On my street car I didn't go to coilovers so i slotted the control arm at the crossmember and put in an eccentric bolt. The difference is that we used one from a ford truck. The diameter and length were the same, but the eccentric was large enough to allow for 2* of adjustment. I slotted it for maximum negative camber and with the later model control arms can get -2.5* camber. I guess what I am saying is that the ideas you have come up with are really great, but you may be trying to reinvent the wheel. Check this out:
http://www.spcperformance.com/PROD_DIR/ … 7500&cmd3=
These are not the ones that will work as I didn't have time to check out what the correct size would be. The other issue would be the lack of room to work with in the camber adjusting area. Just something to look at.
1artworkz: (2008-02-28 19:09:55)
Yes, you are correct. This is a lot of work for one or two degrees of adjustment more
than the 2 degrees you have on you setup. My guess is that with 2ð you don't have
a noticeable binding issue. See the diagram bellow.
My complex 'pivot' bearing solution is one that would eliminate any binding. Some
have expressed concern about the binding when approaching 4ð.
Certainly, the original solution (page one), that many have done, is the simplest to do
and works for most users.
As far as your front end, you are among the few that have the Ground Control camber-
caster plates. GC no longer makes them for us.
[archived image: 2-degrees.jpg]
CAG8OR: (2008-02-28 19:49:40)
Gary:
Check out the premade weld on brackets for the RE-Superflex joint. This would make things even easier.
http://www.offroadtoystore.com/Merch…ts-ControlArms
1artworkz: (2008-02-28 21:21:37)
Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.
You are referring to this:
[archived image: 324.jpg]
Using the Supper-Flex system:
[archived image: 324.jpg]
One would have to cut off all the stock brackets on the subframe, weld on the replacements and
do the same for the control arm journals. I don't see how one could keep the suspension geometry
correct with all those changes. One would have to build a jig to hold the sub-frame and the control
arms to insure proper alignment during the replacement and one would still have to make the
adjustable mounts
Seems to me a lot of work for an extra 2 degrees of adjustment.
Russ84na: (2008-02-28 22:06:40)
Don't get me wrong, I think what you are doing is fantastic and I would use your ideas if I was doing it over again. I just think that for most people, unless someone is going to manufacturer the parts, it is beyond their abilities. Also I guess I missed the point, I was under the impression that people were trying to get back to stock camber. I haven't seen anyone with -4*. In that case yes you are on the right track. I will be paying more attention to this thread from now on.
1artworkz: (2008-02-29 00:20:12)
You're right. Most people won't do this and yes again; people do want to get back to there stock camber.
The illustration I've done are for up to 4 degrees + camber correction without binding.
JimmyZ89: (2008-02-29 00:38:48)
Russ I had -4* when I first installed my MSA springs 10 years ago before I slotted my control arm mounts. After that fix it went to -2 but it still ate up the inside of my tires just not as fast. I brought this up because of the binding that occurs, albeit it's a little bit, it's just worse with poly bushing sine they're firmer. Does it mean that the camber fix mod has been wrongly done all along, no. Most everyone would be happy with just moving the mount hole and leaving it at that. I for one had been for a long time until my springs started to sag. This next fix I want to go a few steps further since I'll be installing 240sx coilovers and building up the rest of the my car. I believe with gary's camber plate idea I'll be able to take my car to almost 0* for drag race days and add camber for road race days. The hiem joints are just another one of those mods that have been done to other cars, road course/drag/off road etc, that I feel would benefit my Z.
Russ84na: (2008-02-29 02:08:03)
Jimmy,
I don't doubt that -4 is terrible on tires. I guess since I never had much of a problem with negitive camber in my cars so the simple eccentric bolt would take care of it.
I really like the idea of being able to adjust my suspension to whatever I want or whatever the conditions require, so I really like what you guys are doing.
When I revisit my suspension, once I get the engine rebuilt I may be doing just what you are talking about.
CAG8OR: (2008-02-29 16:27:25)
I am at -2.5 on the LR and -1.8 on the RR and I killed a brand new set of 275/35/18's in less than 5,000 miles! That is the best it will do with the current mods and spring configuration. I want to be able to get to -.5 or even zero, with the ability to go more negative if needed. As stated previously, most people won't want or need to do this, but I do! I have had this car nearly 22 years now and I finally want it fixed. I thought that I was going to have it fixed last year when I sunk all that time and effort into it, but what a disappointment!
Gary:
About the mounts, it would be difficult, but no more difficult than getting the correct alignment on the control arms for the new SF joint mount. I don't think they are going to work with current configuration will they? I could not find any dimensions. I am sure you will find the best solution. There are tons of mounting options on the Rubicon Express builders page. Those 1.25" threaded weld spuds would give and increased amount of adjustment, but would be an extremely complicated design.
mod_mastaz: (2008-04-08 18:41:10)
OMG. I had Gary's monoball idea months back but nobody on Club-S12 gave a shit, so I just disregarded it. I'm glad to see you found the exact same resources I did when I was looking into this. There are some people kicking around the idea of making custom RCAs for the S12, Bartco is the guy to talk to. As much as I like this idea, I'm sure there are much cheaper solutions utilizing stock equipment. You don't know me, but I'm a HUGE fan of utilizing stock parts. I like this because it keeps them interchangeable and I can swap any of my suspension equipment to a new chassis if I need to without always having to modifying it all over again.
Anyway, instead of using your "soft" poly bushings, look into high misalignment spacers. They are conical shaped and can allow the arm to be moved around more and also avoid most binding issues. And as for your lubing issues, some of these are PTFE or Delrin lined so they do not need to be lubricated very often, if not at all. As for mounting the monoballs, either circlip or making it interference fit. I was thinking of using sleeves to hold the monoballs in place then tacking the sleeves on the ends. Another solution would be completely custom monoballs, but that requires a set of 50 or more orders. =(
I even have some measurements of the control arm, although not very accurate because I just used a ruler and the bushing was still on, so I don't have the exact diameter of the stock RCA bushing. Anyway I hope you can develop or come up with something because I don't have the resources for it.
Here are some general measurements for the RCA
1 3/8" ID slot(holds the bushing)
2 1/4" length
And I know Gary's site has the eccentric bolt OD and all that.
Pic from a few months back that I drew up.
[archived image: s12-z31camberidea.jpg]
Here are some sites of stuff I checked out.
Just some stuff I saw that looked interesting and helpful.
http://www.kartek.com/products/all/heims/heims.htm
spherical ball ends
FK MONOBALLS
PLAIN Grooved
WSSX12T WSSX12TV
http://www.fkrodends.com/WSSX-T%20%20WSSX-TV.htm
COM12T cheaper
FK High misalignment bushing
12-10HB
http://www.fkrodends.com/HB.htm
http://www.qa1.net/qa1_industrial/index.html
QA1 parts
MONOBALL
WPB12T
Note: These are just the parts I looked at. I don't know if the ones I chose are correct so don't go buying these and expect it to work. It was only to give me a general idea of things. I do like the monoball idea very much, because it would dramatically improve the IRS, even without the camber adjustment because it removes most of the play/slight bind out of the arms on VERY lowered cars.
Edit: I forgot about this. It's the Datsport 510 camber adjustment. Yeah, it's a different car BUT the rear camber problem is the exact same. Anyway I was thinking about buying the kit but it was WAYY too expensive. Maybe somebody could replicate something similar. Or I'll just wait for Gary to develop something more interesting.
I totally forgot to add the link.
http://www.datsport.com/Adjustable_rear … ember.html
1artworkz: (2008-04-08 21:07:14)
[archived image: ARCV5_adjuster_inner.jpg]
This was an idea I had but just could not get in fully formed in the mind.
[archived image: Adj-Camb-Mount-2-w.gif]
WOW! That would be so much easier to make than my notched plate design.
With that concept, you don't need to have the concentric washer retainer
plates. All that is required is a large hex rod drilled and taped to the stock retainer
bolt and the adjusting screw and a bit of welding.
My thanks to "mod_mastaz" for your post and the links … none of which I have.
I ordered the 14 mm swivel ball joint bearings (uniballs) from http://www.mcmaster.com/ on 03/03.
They tell me I'll have them 05/06. Looks like they were out off stock and had to order
them from the manufacture.
SATAN: (2008-04-12 23:09:47)
This is similar to the way I WAS going to go about it, except put the adjuster on the bottom for easier access and it would not be the eccentric bolt anymore. It would be the regular bolt and have a U bent spanning the side of the bolt that the nut attaches to going over the the head of the bolt, then having the bolt adjust the center of that "U" bend. Then I decided that, the old way was good enough and I didn't want to spend a whole lot of time on this mod when I have so much other crap to do elsewhere. If my car were driven a lot and I was concerned about to much wear, then I might worry about it. Its not driven much though so…
mod_mastaz: (2008-04-23 19:04:48)
You don't even need the soft poly bushings, all they do is create some sort of binding effect. The monoballs can take the full load if you bought the correct spec'd ones. You just have to find some way to mount and center the monoball(machine a groove for a cir-clip for example) and just run hi-misalignment spacers. I do have another camber idea but I'm not sure if it'll be better than yours. I'll post it up when I have the thought fully formulated.
1artworkz: (2008-04-23 22:28:22)
The poly bushings are used as grease retainers and sound deadening. They will be of such soft material
that there won't be a binding issue.
The machined groove for a cir-clip is a better idea than the screws for retaining the ring baring with in the
swing arm journal. The swing arm journal is lined with a sleeve so any extensive machining in that area could
be problematic.
The inside diameter of the unlined journal is 1.450"
The inside diameter of the journal sleeve is 1.300"
The outside diameter of the baring housing is 1.340"
The outside diameter of the cir-clip is 1.406"
[archived image: rear-swingarm-journal.jpg]
1artworkz: (2008-09-04 20:26:29)
Work is progressing. The machine shop says he'll have all my parts done this week. (???? we'll see)
The adjuster is similar to the one made by Datsport seen below. I made a cardboard model
to test fit. I'm sure once I get to welding there will be some modifications that will have to be made.
This is an expensive modification due to having the machining done locally. The adjustable bolts
cost $105 each and the set of bushing sleeves cost $340.00
My guess is, if I had a machinists lathe I could sell the part for half that amount.
[archived image: Baring-info-w.jpg][img]br /br /[archived image: ARCV5_adjuster_inner.jpg][/img]
[archived image: Adj-Camb-support-w-01.jpg]
[archived image: Adj-Camb-support-w-02.jpg]
[archived image: Adj-Camb-support-w-03.jpg]
[archived image: Adj-Camb-support-w-04.jpg]
[archived image: Adj-Camb-support-w-05.jpg]
mod_mastaz: (2008-09-24 06:41:27)
OK I've been thinking and I don't know how I would be able to slot the outer mounts correctly so that it would not throw the toe adjustment off. How did you do it? Or are you going to provide specs on how to slot it too? I'd probably have a machine shop do it since they have more precise tools than my ruler and hand drill haha. The rest of this stuff seems simple enough for me to have it done in my garage. I'm counting the days until this is finished haha. Sorry for bothering so much heh.
Chris86NA2T: (2008-09-24 13:58:59)
scribe 2 paralell lines that are perpendicular to the top of the crossmember. Drill a small hole and do the rest by hand.
1artworkz: (2008-09-24 16:54:50)
Good question. For me the slots won't be hard to make. I will supply a template that you can use to make your own.
As in my first attempt, I will drill the holes using my drillpress and cut the slots wiyh my tabled mounted jig saw.
I use Coreldraw for all my mechanical 1:1 scale drawings. I print the drawing on 8.5" x 11" self adhesive label paper.
I cut out the drawing, remove the backing and apply the drawing (pattern) to the surface that is to be drilled and/or
cut. The pattern can be easily removed with mineral spirits.
The hard part is finding a simple way to get a right angle on the rear subframe. My first attempt was not as precise
as I would have wanted it and there might have been a slight toe error.
However, when I find the answer, I will post it here.
Other news:
I have had to give up on the machinist I asked to make the parts. The guy has turned out to be a total flake. This Friday
I will be picking up what ever parts he has done. He says he will have the spherical bearing retaining sleeves done but not
the spherical bearing adjustment pins. I am try to find a local shop to do those for me. If I can't, I'll post here and on z31.com
a request for a machinist to make them.
Today, I am spraying Herculiner (undercoating) on the underside of the car to complete the frame rebuild I did a couple
years ago. Over the Herculiner, I will apply a light coat of a 2 part epoxy that will match the OEM metallic dove color that
was originally on the car. Over the epoxy will be applied a clear acrylic urethane. Once this has been done, I can start
reassembling the under body parts: suspension, brake/fuel lines, gas tank … etc.
1artworkz: (2008-10-07 21:21:02)
OK. I have a new machine shop that will do the work and for less. I will have the parts in two weeks.
I am also asking them to make this part for me.
[archived image: Camb-plate.jpg]
1artworkz: (2008-10-10 20:54:31)
Picked up these parts today.
[archived image: camber_bearing-sleves_pin.jpg]
mod_mastaz: (2008-10-11 06:21:57)
OMG! They look so nice. I'm so anxious to see the final result. I have other ideas on the monoball bushing but your setup still looks very good. I'll post up a picture of what kind of bushing I'm talking about when I find it. It's pretty much a one unit bushing with the monoball inside and a circlip holding it to make the monoball removable from the actual bushing itself. It's really nice, but I just don't know how much it'll cost to make.
Edit:
I found a pic. This is for an RX-7. It's made by mmr-direct(ugh!) Good products, REALLY bad service. I'll spare the details.
http://www.mmr-direct.com/Pictures/RX7/ … SB4001.jpg
1artworkz: (2008-10-15 20:18:02)
More parts today.
[archived image: camber_plate-parts.jpg]
zmech: (2008-10-25 16:13:07)
z
1artworkz: (2008-10-25 16:35:58)
Interesting idea. I agree with you about getting the outer slot perfectly aligned. However, it is much easier to square the
machined camber plate, as seen above, by first bolting and welding them in place before cutting the slot.
I have been busy filling a poly order for Jason but by Tuesday I should be able to make most of the changes and do the
welding to both the subframe and the C arms. Pictures will be posted.
mod_mastaz: (2008-11-17 23:44:53)
Hey Gary have you gotten to test this out or finish up the subframe yet? My friend and I are going to be picking up a spare subframe and get quotes for machining work soon. I'm going to try to get press-fit monoball bushings created so I don't have to machine those sleeves and I might need your help since you have the specs. I just want to get some rear suspension work started on already heh. Anyway, I hope to see some updates soon.
1artworkz: (2008-11-18 00:54:06)
Yes. This week end. I have yet to finish up the bearing retainer installation on the
C arms. Just a mater of drilling some holes and tapping for the the set screws and grease
fitting. (last image). Oh, yeah and make the soft poly grease boots.
When I have everything completed and painted, I will do a full "How To" write up.
[archived image: adjustable-camber-plate-01.jpg]
[archived image: adjustable-camber-plate-02.jpg]
[archived image: adjustable-camber-plate-03.jpg]
[archived image: adjustable-camber-plate-04.jpg]
[archived image: adjustable-camber-mount-01.jpg]
[archived image: adjustable-camber-mount-02.jpg]
[archived image: adjustable-camber-mount-03.jpg]
[archived image: baringretainer.jpg]
1artworkz: (2009-01-03 01:19:10)
This is the first coat of epoxy primer. The parts have been sanded and are hanging
waiting for the second coat of primer.
[archived image: Camber_mod-01-1.jpg]
[archived image: Camber_mod-02-1.jpg]
[archived image: Camber_mod-03-1.jpg]
[archived image: Camber_mod-04-1.jpg]
Guest: (2009-01-07 06:58:15)
are you going to be selling these or is this a 1 off for your car.
1artworkz: (2009-01-07 18:16:05)
I might. I have one other set I have made for one other person
on this board. Lets wait until he has completed his installation and fully tested
the concept.
The parts are not cheap and have to be machined by a local machine shop.
If I got five or more orders I would consider it.
The end user will have some welding and cutting to do.
mod_mastaz: (2009-01-07 20:00:41)
Gary, those bolts and plates aren't too expensive to machine out as there are hex stock available which machine shops can use to create bolts. I got a VERY low quote on those bolts because I know of a friend's father who does machine work. A few Socal Club-S12 members, including myself, are trying to replicate this kit based on your designs, BUT there has been a lot of conflicts as to how they can better the design, make it bolt in, or create an entirely better kit. Long story short, creating these kits would be VERY cheap IF we put the machining order together aside from the conflicts. I don't know if making an interest thread would help or if I just need to wait until everyone can agree on this current design. PM me if you want more details on my machining quotes and info.
1artworkz: (2009-01-07 20:48:14)
If someone else wants to make the parts, that's great. I have no real interest in supplying them.
It would be interesting to see the other ideas. I paid more than $150 for all the parts for one
complete set. It would be great if someone can do it cheaper and with a simpler design.
1artworkz: (2009-02-08 01:42:51)
Done except for the final coat of gloss black top coat.
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-11.jpg]
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-10.jpg]
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-01.jpg]
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-02.jpg]
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-03.jpg]
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-04.jpg]
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-05.jpg]
[archived image: rear-camber-fix-w-06.jpg]
jn1cz: (2009-02-08 02:39:50)
Would it be asking too much for a mod or the author to make a separate thread w/o all the extraneous posts and input or has this already been done? There are 8 pages (so far) to wade through here.
edit: Okay…I'm a fuktard…the link to the page was so big I missed it [archived image: redface.png]ops:
85z31t88: (2009-02-10 02:25:37)
Looks simply amazing. It should have come like this from the factory.
What are the nuts for on the arm itself by the poly bushings? Some type of adjustment?
1artworkz: (2009-02-10 20:22:39)
Hopefully this drawing will clarify the individual parts.
The 10-32 hex socket set screws with matching lock nut are to keep the lower arm bearing journals from
sliding back and forth on bearing retainers. The soft self lubricating polyurethane grease seals are too
soft to prevent movement of the lower arm. They are only there to keep water and dirt out and grease
in.
There are five set screws per journals. Two for each set of bearing retainers (2retainers/bearing) and
one for the spherical bearing. Although the drawing shows the set screws opposite each other, in reality
they are about 30ð apart when measured from the center of the pin.
There is one Zerk grease fitting per bearing.
[archived image: adj-camb-mount-bushing-pin.jpg]
DeleriousZ: (2009-02-11 15:23:02)
nom nom nom.
what kind of grease would be used in this setup? not the poly grease i'd assume…
any idea on timeframe of this? i'm getting antsy to put my subframe back together!
1artworkz: (2009-02-11 19:48:27)
I'm not really interested in doing this on a one order at a time. I have a local machine shop do
the work and it would be cheaper if there was a group buy. A group buy of five or more would
be the least I would consider at a time.
CAUTION: If you are interested in this project, you should know: If you don't have the
tools and expertise you will have to have someone qualified do the work for you. It is time
consuming and requires precise measuring. It is expensive. AND I disavow any and all responsibility
for the presumed benefits, workability, safety, accident or death as a result of buying and installing
these parts on a car.
In the next week I will post a total price for the parts I will supply as shown in the first 5 pictures
below. You will have to buy the McMaster-Carr spherical bearings on your own.
One set of adjuster plates that will need to be welded together and to the subframe
[archived image: camber_plate-parts.jpg]
Bearing retainer sleeves
[archived image: RearCamberSleeves.jpg]
These are the pins that attach the lower arms to the subframe. They can be supplied
color treated for a bit more rust resistance or plain. I am having mine chrome plated
[archived image: RearCamberStuds.jpg]
Fasteners & Zerk fittings, either in SS or plain, plus tap and drills
[archived image: RearCamberFasteners.jpg]
Special soft self lubricating grease seals
[archived image: reararmbearingseals-w.jpg]
Complete set of instruction with photograph
You will have to buy these on your own. http://www.mcmaster.com
[archived image: McMaster-14mm-rod-end.jpg]
1artworkz: (2009-03-02 01:42:30)
Here is the break down on the parts costs. These are the actual costs
I paid except for the shipping. Just the total costs for the machined parts are
$498.50. My guess is that this is way beyond the reasonable for most people.
[archived image: Adj-Camber-Parts-Cost.jpg]
adamvann3: (2009-03-02 17:55:06)
Good write up on everything. I am hoping some will benefit. You have this installed or know is someone has this installed yet to test it out?
1artworkz: (2009-03-02 18:28:10)
Myself an CAG8OR went in together on the parts. He maybe starting his conversion this
coming week end. Mine is done. The suspension will be installed this summer but the
car won't be road worthy for another couple years.
CAG8OR should know before then.
CAG8OR: (2009-03-02 20:33:10)
I will try my best to get this started this weekend, however no guarantees on that. I will take plenty of pictures along the way and keep everyone posted. I am sure this will take me a week or so to complete as I have to send out the rear cross member for welding. I don't have my welder any more. I then have to get it prepped and powder coated before re-installation. I have been waiting for this for soo long now, what is another couple weeks or so. Many thanks to Gary for completing this project! With any luck this will function as good as it looks!
1artworkz: (2009-03-15 18:41:40)
OK. So here it is. The PDF below tells how I did it and the picture in this post
give an overview of the results and parts required. I had a local (CA) machine
shop make the parts for me. The cost was a little under $500.00.
I don't offer these for sale. This was a 'one-off' project.
If you choose to do this and want the "Self Lubricating Soft Bearing Poly Seals,"
I will sell the set for $30.00.
http://www.garymolitor.com/300zx/camber … mounts.pdf
[archived image: adj-camb-mount-bushing-pin.jpg]
[archived image: Camb-parts-1.jpg]
[archived image: Camb-parts-2.jpg]
[archived image: Camb-parts-3.jpg]
CAG8OR: (2009-04-13 15:53:19)
Gentlemen:
I have completed the modification and installation of my rear suspension utilizing Gary's kit and instructions. I will forewarn you; this is not an upgrade for the shy or timid!!! You will need time, patience, skills, tools, and a big chunk of change laying around. The good news is that afterwards you will be happy with the results. Admittedly, I have an issue with my passenger side control arm which slightly skews the results. I received both control arms from a junk yard off an '88 turbo and have no idea of their history. The reason I mention this is because after performing the modification, I was still not able to remove all of the negative camber from the right side. I could only get to -0.5 degrees with maximum adjustment. On the left side I could go from -2.0 to 0.5. Afterwards, I swapped out my rear red Tokico spring set to an older black set of Eibach springs, which are slightly longer. I had originally swapped out the black Eibach set because they jacked up the rear end of my Z like a '70 Chevelle. Mark from Vegas sent me a set of his red Tokico springs with shaved upper spring seats to drop it down. Well, it does effectively drop it down, but doesn't allow me to achieve proper alignment due to what I assume is a bent control arm. So now with the black Eibach's back in, I can achieve o.o degrees camber on both sides, however the passenger side is maxed out. Since I never want to achieve positive camber I don't really care. The passenger side is approximately 1/4-3/8" up from the bottom at 0.0 or 90.0 on the digital level. I did not take the time to check maximum range with the new spring set, but would assume on the driver's side that I could go from -1.75 to 0.75 degrees and -2.00 to 0.0 on the passenger side. I am very happy with this and can now finally buy some new tires. A great many thanks must go out to Gary for providing this excellent design!!!
I should also note here, that I made a mod that is not listed in Gary's procedure. I moved the two inside toe adjustment cages forward approximately 1/4" of an inch and then opened up the slots to allow for more toe adjustment. This worked very effectively as now I am not maxed out trying to achieve proper rear toe. I was able to achieve perfect neutral 0.0 rear toe with the locater lines/notches on the eccentric bolt (head side, not the nut) at approximately 4 O'Clock on each side, previously they were maxed out at 9 O'Clock. See Pictures for better illustration.
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_06.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_09.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_08.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_01.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_04.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_07.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_10.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_03.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_05.jpg]
[archived image: Rear-Suspension-Mod_4-13-09_02.jpg]
CAG8OR: (2009-04-14 13:45:44)
Just in case some of you would like to see a few more pictures of the "process", I am going to post quite a few pictures of along the way…
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-21-09_111.jpg]
Someone commented along time ago what my powder coated suspension would look like after a year of driving, well here it is after more than two! Not too bad.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-21-09_141.jpg]
GE's LSD mount looks like new still
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-21-09_71.jpg]
Original right side camber was way off at -2.9 degrees!
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-21-09_81.jpg]
Original left side camber was not much better at -1.9 degrees.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-22-09.jpg]
Original location of inner CA bushings, note that they are maxed out forward and still could not achieve proper rear toe.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-22-09_11.jpg]
In order to achieve proper rear toe, I decided to remove all four inner cages and weld them back on 1/4" forward and then extend the factory slots.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-22-09_41.jpg]
Note limiting factor.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-22-09_51.jpg]
First placement of new GM camber brackets
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-22-09_61.jpg]
Another view
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09_41.jpg]
These are the four sleves that must be removed from the control arms, I used the reciprocating saw method.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09_11.jpg]
After hours of resizing and polishing the inside area where the above sleeves were removed will look like this. I recommend several 1.50 " 60 & 80 grit rotary flap wheels.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09_31.jpg]
Another view, note that 1/4" on each side of the cylinder has been removed and filed flat all ready.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09_61.jpg]
Bearing retainers and spherical bearing out of cylinder all ready drilled and tapped.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09_81.jpg]
Bearing retainers and spherical bearing installed in cylinder without grease seals.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09_71.jpg]
Bearing retainers and spherical bearing installed in cylinder without grease seals.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09_91.jpg]
Width measurement
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-24-09.jpg]
GM supplied drill self adhesive template, very nice touch!
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-25-09.jpg]
Mid process of drilling and tapping, which is very tedious by the way. I was lucky and did not manage to break off a tap.
=".jpg)
" alt="" />
Close up of installed bearing retainer.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-27-09.jpg]
Cross-member after welding and some reshaping of the new SS brackets, much more is required and depending on how picky you are can take days of work!
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-27-09_1.jpg]
Another view
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-27-09_2.jpg]
Another view
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-27-09_3.jpg]
Another view
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-27-09_4.jpg]
Another view
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-27-09_5.jpg]
Another view
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_3-27-09_7.jpg]
Another view
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-6-09_1.jpg]
After powder coating
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-6-09_10.jpg]
After powder coating with urethane bushings installed
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-6-09_15.jpg]
Completed control arm close up.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-6-09_5.jpg]
Close up of new bracket after powder coating
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-6-09_6.jpg]
Another angle
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-6-09_7.jpg]
Relocated toe brackets
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-7-09_14.jpg]
Original plan, but could not use acorn nuts due to clearance issues, note if weld flange is ground off in between mounting brackets clearance is not an issue. I learned this after powder coating was complete unfortunately.
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-7-09_16.jpg]
Went ahead and did a four wheel brake job with new Hawk HPS pads
[archived image: Rear-suspension-mod_4-6-09_17.jpg]
Part numbers for those who might need these, note fronts are for 30mm Z32 1990 TT.
Hopefully, these will be useful for anyone attempting this modification in the future!
mod_mastaz: (2009-05-13 18:28:30)
CAG8OR: Your control arms are most likely not bent. Both my S12s gave me the same alignment problem in the back, including other S12/Z31/Nissans(s13/14 etc) specs that I have seen. It's because the passenger side of the chassis is lower(or driver side higher) that makes the alignment off. The only way for you to correct this is with spring perches/sleeves and having the car corner weighed and balanced. Even the FSM confirms this by having the S12 front passenger side spring longer than the driver. I'm sure the Z31 is the same. Either way nice work! I can't wait to get parts machined. [archived image: smile.png]
mod_mastaz: (2009-05-20 19:53:35)
Hey Gary, do you think you could redesign the toe adjustment also? I can draw a VERY rough sketch of something like that. Something similar to the camber one but for the toe. Like the Datsport one. Maybe the camber ones can be rotated and achieve the same results. Anyway I'll email you in a few days.
1artworkz: (2009-05-20 20:04:26)
sreich05: (2010-02-23 19:07:48)
i know this is off topic, but whats the chance of getting some more info on that lsd mount??? :twisted: :twisted:
Matt89: (2010-02-23 19:38:32)
I was made by G-E years ago.
CAG8OR: (2010-02-24 15:45:24)
Yes, G-E made it for me.
Careless: (2011-07-02 04:12:36)
Not really a bump, since this is a sticky:
but anyone who may want to correct camber in the rear can probably use these:
http://www.e30tech.com/forum/showthread.php?t=80410
862sik: (2011-07-02 08:28:46)
Nice link, but thats a lot of bread.
If I get my job soon im going to re-do my rear camber. Instead of the 1 inch slot im going lower, and bigger with the Eccentric bolts from a cressida. They have more adjustment.
What is that leveling tool you got there called? Id like to make a jig to fiqure my camber. I usually just use a HUGE right angle and guess.
Dave88SS: (2011-09-05 16:06:57)
Russ and I just got done doing my SS, we started with Gary's design and made a few changes.
[archived image: IMG_20110716_151126.jpg]
We used a little bit different bracket to adjust the camber, which required some frame pounding to clear.
[archived image: IMG_20110813_153939.jpg]
[archived image: IMG_20110814_124230.jpg]
Before: stockish height with ~2deg of camber in rear:
[archived image: DSC_0145.jpg]
After: 2ish inches lower with ~1deg of camber:
[archived image: DSC_0172.jpg]
It needs to come up a bit, i don't think the bilsteins like being so low.
[archived image: IMG_20110902_160843.jpg]
Russ84na: (2011-09-06 03:44:09)
The adjustment bracket was James' idea. We used a 5/8" grade 8 bolt instead of the custom one that Gary had made. The 5/8" bolt is the same size we used on the control arms on the live axle swap we did on the White mule. I didn't think that the oem size bolt was strong enough because we were going from a 2" sleeve to a 3/4" wide bearing.
Everything seemed to work out pretty well. Just have to get the car corner weighted and aligned then Dave will see if it can keep up with me at an autoX event.
862sik: (2011-09-06 05:39:37)
I been watching this thread for a while, but I always wonderd why do you use these types of bearings…Isnt the factory one sufficient?
Im going to be using cressida toe adjustment bolts and im going to extend my bracket down to accomodate for more camber correction. I already did 1 from factory, its not enough, im hoping to start 2 lower than factory and then go from there (while moving the toe as well).
Dave88SS: (2011-09-06 13:40:29)
When you start adjusting the camber as much as we are, that bushing will bind up.
862sik: (2011-09-06 18:59:59)
Is there any issue. or is it just keeps binding?
What if I mount the bracket 5 degrees offset to accomodate for the binding…?
1artworkz: (2011-09-06 21:06:11)
Nice. Simpler and cheaper. What about the different approach to the spherical bearing like these?
[archived image: b--lssq.gif]
or lube free bearings.
[archived image: b--lnmss.gif]
Dave88SS: (2011-09-07 11:20:12)
reorienting the brackets would probably be more ideal, I'm not comfortable cutting/rewelding that much of the subframe.
Russ84na: (2011-09-07 14:14:50)
One of the main differences between Gary's design and mine is the bearing size. Gary used a bearing that would fit the OEM bolt which is I think 14mm. It also fit inside the journal of the control arm and spacers he had made. I used a larger diameter bearing that required that I ream out the journal of the control arm to 1 7/16". Then we turned two straight sleeves to fit the journal to hold it in place. This required less machining and therefore less cost. Using the 5/8" grade bolt was also much less expensive than machining a special bolt (also stronger). Had to make the molds and pour my own grease seals (with Gary's help, Thanks!!). All in all the cost of components was about 1/2 what Gary had to spend to get his made. If there is any interest in doing this, I will post what we did in more detail.
862sik: (2011-09-07 18:09:18)
[quote]Dave88SS wrote:
Is there any issue. or is it just keeps binding?
What if I mount the bracket 5 degrees offset to accomodate for the binding…?
reorienting the brackets would probably be more ideal, I'm not comfortable cutting/rewelding that much of the subframe.
My friend is going to be doing my welding work. He works for a radiator company and welds all day. He is planning to use thicker steel and making new brackets. I'm going to be cutting 2 inches or more under the factory hole, just not sure how much to turn the bracket.
Will NOT doing anything to the bracket or putting in a bearing harm anything…will it rub the bushing more?
Russ84na: (2011-09-07 18:32:25)
[quote]862sik wrote: [quote=Dave88SS]
Is there any issue. or is it just keeps binding?
What if I mount the bracket 5 degrees offset to accomodate for the binding…?
reorienting the brackets would probably be more ideal, I'm not comfortable cutting/rewelding that much of the subframe.
My friend is going to be doing my welding work. He works for a radiator company and welds all day. He is planning to use thicker steel and making new brackets. I'm going to be cutting 2 inches or more under the factory hole, just not sure how much to turn the bracket.
Will NOT doing anything to the bracket or putting in a bearing harm anything…will it rub the bushing more?
I would suggest that you get a spare suspension and do a mock up to see what you get. It took me a couple of months messing with it to get all the parts the way I wanted them and I had several rear suspension set ups to work with. With all that we didn't know what we would get until we lowered the car. I did know that it wouldn't bind because I could check that on the bench.
862sik: (2011-09-08 04:34:06)
I forgot who it was but he had a pretty fast drag z31 and he just drilled in his bolt for the control arm much lower than stock. He didn't say anything about binding. Or is it just because the bind happened with the poly bushings?
862sik: (2011-09-16 09:29:34)
[quote]Dave88SS wrote:
Is there any issue. or is it just keeps binding?
What if I mount the bracket 5 degrees offset to accomodate for the binding…?
reorienting the brackets would probably be more ideal, I'm not comfortable cutting/rewelding that much of the subframe.
I just had a thought. Since we are concerned about the binding of the control arm bushing....why not just (since im welding in new brackets) just enlarge the space on the rear crossmember that holds the control arm half an inch to accommodate the extra bind?? That would leave 1/4 of an inch clearence for binding.
Is there anything negitive by doing that?
Dave88SS: (2011-09-19 01:25:44)
If you're moving the bracket around anyway, you might as well change the angle a few degrees so it doesn't bind up. Widening the bracket won't change the angle of the bolt relative to the bracket.
862sik: (2011-09-19 03:41:29)
Oh I see. How much of an angle should I go for? I called my buddies and we will probably.do this in 2 weeks. I wish I had a spare control arm ready to mock up and fiqure out how much bind their will be. It sucks because depending on the severity of the bind, I do not know what camber I will be at in the end to see how much it will bind.
Would the bind be on only the outer control arm, or the inner as well?
Or a radiacal crazy idea would be to weld a heim joint to the part of the trailing arm that binds (cut off 3 inches or so, and weld a heim joint in place of where the control arm bushing goes. So instead of using bushings, you can just use a chromoly 3 piece heim mount to accomodate the bind. Isnt that the same thing you guys did, of course it doesnt retain the shape of the control arm but it seems as though it can work.
Not this particular one, id probably get a beefy chromoly one....
[archived image: FEMROD.JPG]
I know this is a front lower control arm, but same concept of cutting the bushing off and welding in a heim joint
Thanks.
Im really open to feedback. There is a shop locally I can get parts from.
862sik: (2011-10-08 06:36:00)
no guru's have any input?
james: (2011-10-08 08:22:51)
yes
BMW Guys do it all the time on their race cars.
[archived image: tarm2.jpg]
862sik: (2011-10-09 07:13:47)
[quote]james wrote:
blah blah blah lweld a heim joint blah blah blah
yes
BMW Guys do it all the time on their race cars.
[archived image: tarm2.jpg]
Interesting. That looks easily do-able. How bad would it be if I just leave things the way they are?
862sik: (2011-10-16 07:19:30)
Well I mocked it up and it seems there is considerable about of binding with going 2 inches under the factory hole. We already made a template for the new bracket.
With the toe adjustment bracket, we are going to put the arm at maximum camber load and then remount the toe bracket so it wont bind.
Ill try to take some pictures on monday.
862sik: (2011-10-23 09:24:34)
So after slotting the holes I attached the control arms to see how much bind there really was on the inner control arm bushing. There was quite a bit. But upon inspection, I had a little wear from when i did a 1 inch slot when I first did the camber adjustment. Just some scarring on the toe bushings.
I was going to take off the toe brackets and weld it, but I was lazy and decided to get a hammer and see if I can get it to bend. It did. It seems now the bind is very minimal, I didnt move it much at all. A few taps at the top and bottom of the bracket seemed to work. It was getting late so ill double check in the morning on how much bind there is left.
The toe cages were removed and re-welded back in 1/4 inwards to help correct my toe. My toe was maxed out before. I somehow lost 2 of the cages, so only one side of each toe bracket has a cage (wtf!). Should be fine.
I got the new bracket welded in for the camber side, but we ran out of metal stock (wtf). So I have adjustment tabs only welded on the inner tab of the outer control arm on each side.
I been checking and rechecking that my measurments and alignments are spot on. If I can get maximum camber correction with a neutral toe, I will be one happy man. However only an alignment will tell. Ill play with it on the alignment rack in the middle of the week
Smn2k7: (2011-11-25 20:51:57)
Just a question on theory here guys, but if both mounts (inner and outer) are moved UP equally in relation to the car on the ground, and in relation to the location of the wheel mounting hub; would that not correct camber some, as well as keep a more "factory" suspension geometry?
For instance, lowering the outer mount and keeping the factory location for the inner yields more POSITIVE camber when lowering springs are used. However, this of course leads to the binding problems, as well as having the suspension geometry essentially at a point out of it's Neutral, factory location. A point similar to the car having 400 lbs of extra weight in the back.
NOW, looking at the way the suspension moves (the control arms are mounted in such a way as to decrease camber and change toe when the suspension "loads" or is lowered by shorter springs.) in a sweeping motion. If both pivot points at the front of the trailing arm are moved Equally UP (on the crossmember), would that not return the control arms more toward their original "neutral" or "factory" settings as far as the "sweep" of the arm is concerned?
I know the picture is BASIC and not 3-d but if both points are moved up EQUALLY and in RELATION to the amount of change to the suspension, the Toe and camber should retain their original, manufactured, and designed function and no longer be at a point similar to that of an "over-loaded" suspension. Please correct me if my logic is wrong or if for some reason this shouldn't work.
If my car was more than a bunch of parts in several rooms in my house, I would test out my theory instead of bringing it up on here, but, it's in pieces so theres not much chance until this spring.
The picture I have attached below is a basic outline of my thinking. Something to think about?
84Zed31: (2011-11-26 19:17:36)
Basically like a subframe riser? But you're only changing the arms pivot point?
Smn2k7: (2011-11-27 02:00:05)
Basically if from Subframe "riser" i am following you correctly. If you moved the subframe up (without the limitation of the car's floor) in relation to the "drop" of the new springs, then, it would move the suspension back to it's neutral state, as designed from the factory, and put the suspension back into a location in its travel where it was designed to operate.
Following that theory, moving the front mounting points of the control arm UP from their factory location, with the same relation to the "drop" of new springs, it should then move the suspension back into a more natural, and neutral location. Moving one mount DOWN and keeping the inner mount in its factory location does cure camber, but also adds bind to the equation.
Looking how our suspension moves in two directions during its operation (increasing negative camber as it travels upwards), moving only one mounting point will, at least theoretically, change the way the rear suspension reacts-be it to a bump in the road, or to hard cornering- it will no longer move in the arc that it was designed to move in from Nissan.
862sik: (2011-11-27 19:55:42)
I swear there was a thread on what you just said. But even if you change the relationship of the subframe mount to the body, you still have to address the relationship of the actual spring mounts as well to dont you?
Smn2k7: (2011-11-29 23:37:41)
Measuring it out, I don't believe so, like I said, if I had suspension under the car, or the ability to stick one side in, I'd hack one of my spare subframes and start moving it around.
I'm working off a theory that a fabricator friend of mine and I came up with while sitting around his shop. It makes sense to me, but I don't know if someone has tried moving both mounts up before.
If you move them both up, inner and outer, the same amount, technically, nothing should change in the location of the spring and spring seats, just the relationship of the angle of the lower control arm trailing arm to the body, and it's location in it's "sweep"
I bring up this point, because I've heard complaints of people not being able to go as low as they want and have the handling and grip they want, because of the way the arm moves when the car is lowered. if you lower the car an inch, the arm is one inch "higher" in its range of motion (whether camber has been corrected or not) and will operate much differently than if the car was lowered an inch, then the pivot points brought "up" an inch. That should, again, -technically- bring the suspension back to a point of neutrality in it's operating range, no? being back at this neutral location, camber should be manageable again, and the suspension should operate predictably as designed. All in all, it's just a theory, but it seems logical, and even feasible based on what I can look at and see, as well as other people's concerns/complaints/input.
I'll take some measurements and try to get some better images drawn up of what we came up with in the next week or so.
I appreciate your input!
-Sean N.
862sik: (2011-11-30 09:07:46)
But its not the height or position of the rear crossmember that causes these issues, its the height and position of the spring in relation to the rear trailing arms. So if you modify the crossmember main mounts( lets say 3 inches lower than it should be), then even when the suspension is on the ground the camber will still be the same because it wasnt modified. The problem IMO lies within the trailing arm position.
If it was that easy, datsun, bmw, 240sx, and all other cars with this design would of done that already because in theroy it is easier.
Best fix, get tokico springs LOL.
But im not arguing, and im not an expert. Just my opinion ( I swear there was a thread on this decades ago).
Ok are you takling about moving the crossmember up, or the trailing arms up? Cause now im completly confused
84Zed31: (2011-11-30 17:11:49)
I think he means the trailing arms.
Smn2k7: (2011-12-01 01:14:59)
I'll try and dig out my car's suspension and get it on stands in the garage and get some pictures to show my point, obviously words aren't conveying the thoughts effectively.
I am NOT- Proposing moving the subframe itself
Move the mounting points of the trailing arms UP in relation to the horizontal axis of the car (as in the picture below.
If you look at our rear suspension and lay it on a floor, then move the arms through their range of motion, you can see the camber change. Now, i realize, and have attempted to point out, that the changes that are negative happen when the distance between the lower control arm spring seat and the spring seat in the frame of the car has been DECREASED (I.E. shorter springs) which, will change the relation of the arm's REAR (spring seat side) versus the arm's front mounts (the toe adjustment bolt and the outer stationary bolt. This change is what causes the increase in negative camber.
Bringing the FRONT pivot points of the trailing arm (on the crossmember) UP in relation to the decrease in distance at the rear of the arm, should help to negate the effects of lowering springs on camber, because of the design of the rear suspension as a whole.
Thanks again for your thoughts,
Sean N.
adamvann3: (2011-12-11 03:29:46)
You're talking about sweep angle. Check out my thread here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30861
rangerkid: (2012-01-02 23:40:28)
This is a great diagram, the only part I don't understand is the piece in the top left corner on the second image. It's labeled 0.925," what is this exactly?
Russ84na: (2012-01-02 23:59:13)
[quote]rangerkid wrote:
OK. So here it is. The PDF below tells how I did it and the picture in this post
give an overview of the results and parts required. I had a local (CA) machine
shop make the parts for me. The cost was a little under $500.00.
I don't offer these for sale. This was a 'one-off' project.
If you choose to do this and want the "Self Lubricating Soft Bearing Poly Seals,"
I will sell the set for $30.00.
http://www.garymolitor.com/300zx/camber … mounts.pdf
[archived image: adj-camb-mount-bushing-pin.jpg]
[archived image: Camb-parts-1.jpg]
[archived image: Camb-parts-2.jpg]
[archived image: Camb-parts-3.jpg]This is a great diagram, the only part I don't understand is the piece in the top left corner on the second image. It's labeled 0.925," what is this exactly?
It is the metal sleeve left when you burn off the rubber bushing. (check the I.D. and compare it to the bolt) they are the blue shaded parts in the top drawing. They have to be cut to length to work.
Careless: (2012-01-03 00:05:19)
Could be confused with the outer metal casing/sleeve that houses the OEM rubber bushings, so I made a small amendment.
rangerkid: (2012-01-04 02:11:47)
[quote]Careless wrote:
It is the inner
metal sleeve left when you burn off the rubber bushing. The one where the bolts pass through.
Could be confused with the outer metal casing/sleeve that houses the OEM rubber bushings, so I made a small amendment.
This is all starting to make sence now, I'll have to see if my friends who work in a machine shop will cut me a deal on these parts.
chewbacca: (2012-02-05 18:04:12)
Quick question. If I do this camber mod. Will the toe angle essentially improve a bit?
Fix: Drill out the toe adjustment.
Thanks.
862sik: (2012-02-05 22:34:08)
move the toe towards the front of the car 1/4 inch. Ream it out afterwards, and you will be able to achieve correct toe. I had neutral toe and still had some adjustment left.
adamvann3: (2012-02-07 05:09:44)
Depends on final ride height. 1/4" would only get me half way back to spec.
862sik: (2012-02-07 09:28:09)
[quote]adamvann3 wrote:
move the toe towards the front of the car 1/4 inch. Ream it out afterwards, and you will be able to achieve correct toe. I had neutral toe and still had some adjustment left.
Depends on final ride height. 1/4" would only get me half way back to spec.
Prior I had half a degree of toe. So if your in that range you should be good. How much toe did you have?
Windzer: (2012-02-23 23:05:57)
Is Gary's site down? I can't seem to access any portion of it.
pjbagnano: (2012-06-01 00:57:06)
Did he go out of business?
james: (2013-03-24 09:14:35)
Hi Guys
Specifically to Gary or Colton
Did either of you run into an issue where extra trimming was required because the camber mod fouled on the chassis rail ?
I am using Pro thane bushings, and i have just completed my swap but i had to cut away the RED part that you can see on the picture(Gary's picture)
Just wondering if you guys had to do this trimming too.
[archived image: interference_zpsf1575701.jpg]
Otherwise it all fits up great and has no other issues.
reddzx: (2013-03-24 20:58:15)
http://www.garymolitor.com/300zx/300zxmainpage.htm
1artworkz: (2013-03-25 01:02:54)
Oh, Geez. Yeah. After test fitting, I found that corner needs to be trimmed back.
I also made anotherl changes to provide additional adjustment.
I've set that project aside while I work on some needed home restoration.
I'll update the installation in total once complete.
james: (2013-03-25 04:31:24)
Gary I will have some installation pictures up soon in my Build thread, I have about 2mm clearance to the chassis rails on mine, but once its trimmed its all fine.
When its on the car it dosn't look funny, but with the cross member on the ground it looks a bit weird
1artworkz: (2013-03-25 05:14:24)
http://www.garymolitor.com/300zx/cam…/cambermod.htm
james: (2013-03-28 05:04:06)
[archived image: JTCROSSMEMBER1_zps5c6bfb97.jpg]
Picture of it all installed.
1artworkz: (2013-03-28 23:27:41)
What do the parts look like before installation?
james: (2013-03-30 04:29:41)
They look pretty much identical to the picture with the read hatch i drew in MS paint.
From memory the measurements were 35mm from the edge at the radius edge and about 5mm at the tapered end.
Basically what i did was fit the cross member until it hit the chassis rail and scribe a line using the chasis rail as a guide
james: (2013-06-02 21:47:47)
I know its been a while but i finally got around to taking photo's of my adjuster nuts and bolts.
Toe Side
[URL[archived image: WP_20130602_003_zps04899bdc.jpg]
Camber Side
[archived image: WP_20130602_005_zps9097a56e.jpg]
At my Alignment I'm going to shoot for 1.5deg all round and give it a try.
james: (2013-06-08 04:58:03)
Just a word of warning about this mod.
If you decide to do the Modifed capscrew / toe adjuster like i did you will notice that the Toe bolt on the RIGHT Hand side can not be installed with the Diff in place.
There is no way to get that bolt in there unless you lift your diff u p and out of the way.
Alignment specs to be posted up soon.
james: (2013-07-17 00:23:45)
Alignment sheet for Adam Van & others
they only did a quick tune up for me, when i go back i will get them to be a bit fussier with it
[archived image: IMG_7961_zps92fe0a26.jpg]
adamvann3: (2013-07-17 01:17:49)
Damn, great work and a very impressive/perfect specs for a semi trailing arm (especially lowered!). Congrats on all the hard work!
When you go back, increase your front camber to -2 to -2.5. My last alignment I increased from -1.7 to -2.5 and was pleased with the turn in response.
DeleriousZ: (2013-07-17 03:17:42)
Really enjoy this build and all your hard work man. Keep it up!!
james: (2013-07-17 06:41:59)
Yeah i need to drop the front a little lower / flush wheel gap now that i have made a new down pipe that doesn't hit the ground, My ASCO plates were nearly maxed out to get -1.5 at approximately 1" lower than stock. But last time i had the coil overs would fully down i was able to get -2.5
The Real sucess is that my rear suspension can go lower, and I still have more adjustment on the toe side to use. The camber side is set to exactly 1/2 way down its slot. I will be ripping the shit out of the poly bushings in there, but after an alignment I am now satisfied to spend a couple of hundred on the Aurora spherical bearings i would like to install.
Doing the Toe side MOD alone would actually help people out more than doing the camber mod.
MADMIKE: (2015-05-09 20:08:34)
Drudging up an old thread, but did anyone save an offline copy of Gary's link to the more basic camber mod setup. It was a pretty detailed write-up, and I liked the simplicity of the setup
adamvann3: (2015-05-10 18:03:15)
He has all the pictures necessary on the 1st page.
His latest camber mod is still available via PDF
http://www.garymolitor.com/300zx/cam…ber-mounts.pdf
1artworkz: (2015-05-10 18:40:50)
Gee, I totally forgot I did that write-up.
He has all the pictures necessary on the 1st page.
His latest camber mod is still available via PDF