|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: cageman]
#1201246
03/24/12 01:12 AM
03/24/12 01:12 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
|
Quote:
Sounds like you know it all, I am in wonder as to why you are on here asking a question, when your knowledge put you in this situation of bad ideas being implemeted.
And your bilstein buddy didnt engineer anything for you, just grabbed some off the shelf shocks and said they were made for you. Nice try. Real smart engineer buddy, put some longer shocks on a lowered car 
Why all the negativity and harshness?? 
And maybe/probably the shocks are going to work. Oh well. He got them for free. No need to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Geez 
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: autoxcuda]
#1201247
03/24/12 01:34 AM
03/24/12 01:34 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
Kern Dog
Striving for excellence
|
Striving for excellence
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
|
Quote:
Why all the negativity and harshness??
WHY? because the OP gets on here and pisses on the members that didn't "rubber stamp" what he was thinking.
IF these shocks were "specially built" for you, then they would fit the car. They obviously will NOT FIT nor will they work, since you stated that they would run out of travel before the LCA bumpstop contacts the frame. Jump down from the soapbox and get the RIGHT parts. These parts were free and they appear to be worth it.
I wouldn't take a gifted small block Chevy intake and spend hours trying to get it to work on my 440, no matter how much I liked the person that gave it to me.
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: JonsGottaDusta]
#1201249
03/24/12 01:45 PM
03/24/12 01:45 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,312
SoCal
68HemiB
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 9,312
SoCal
|
I am really regretting my choice to weigh in on this thread in the first place. Jon's a good kid, and seeming to bash him on a public forum is the last place I would want to be. Quote:
Driving the car gave me horrendous bump steer -with how low it is- because the crappy KYBs were on the bottom end of their travel and rendered themselves useless.
When I first read the above portion of Jon's original post, it seemed to me that he thought the bump steer issue came solely from the lowering of the car, and not tie rod geometry. Upon further review, it was probably just a sentence structure issue. If he didn't know before, he surely understands now where the tie rod end needs to be.
Here's the tie rod background. The heim joint in place of outer TRE first came about in hopes that a smaller mass piece would resolve the wheel clearance issue. When that was not enough, the heim was flipped up on top. Although doing this resolved that particular interference issue, it rendered the car virtually undrivable. It was at this point I was brought in to align the car. Once I got over to Ron's, it was revealed to me what had been done, and I explained why a simple alignment would not resolve his issues.
Jon posed two specific questions - getting his wheels to fit and his shocks to fit.
AndyF and others have had some suggestions for getting the wheels to fit.
On to the shocks... Just as the steering geometry was news to me on alignment day, the shock stuff was unknown to me prior to opening this thread the first time. Resolving the front shock mounting issue without making the length issue worse will be a challenge. Fabricated adapters would have to marry the ends of the shocks to the LCA and inner fender at points in space far enough apart to match the length limitations of the shocks. A top adapter that fits under the existing inner fender will place the lower end even lower - probably too low for even a special saddle to address without dragging on the ground. This leaves the necessity of piercing the inner fender and placing that adapter up into the engine compartment. This is a very adventurous project to get shocks to fit.
Down to just a blue car now.
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: 68HemiB]
#1201250
03/24/12 03:20 PM
03/24/12 03:20 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
Could a guy mount the lower shock eye INSIDE the lower control arm?
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: cageman]
#1201253
04/07/12 08:04 AM
04/07/12 08:04 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,180
Detroit, MI
CokeBottleKid
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,180
Detroit, MI
|
Quote:
Sounds like you know it all, I am in wonder as to why you are on here asking a question, when your knowledge put you in this situation of bad ideas being implemeted.
And your bilstein buddy didnt engineer anything for you, just grabbed some off the shelf shocks and said they were made for you. Nice try. Real smart engineer buddy, put some longer shocks on a lowered car
Ok ladies and recliner seat engineers. I am the 'smart' engineer that set up these shocks for him. Lets start with the goal:
As a Bilstein employee I had a certain number of discounted shock purchases, I made the choice to use my last buy (before I quit that crap job) to hook Jon up with a set of pimping aftermarket race shocks since I knew he wanted to make his car into a nice road-race/auto-x vehicle. Yes I could have gotten him a regular set of Joe Schmoe crimp shocks (like the ones you all buy from Hotchkis) but I felt a better use of my buy would be to set him up with a set of threaded body motor-sport shocks with adjustable shafts.
Key words here are mono-tube and adjustable shafts, lets say that one more time so it sticks... mono-tube and adjustable shafts. Ok now that we're clear with that I'll fill you in on a little bit of basic shock knowledge since you clearly lack any.
Mono-tubes are a great design, less cavitation, better heat transfer characteristics etc. But they have some downsides too, one of them being added deadlength due to the dividing piston (the little cuppy thing that seperates the gasy chamber from the oily stuff). And the gasy chamber (the place with the hissy stuff). This makes it difficult to hit short compressed lengths with a given travel. On that note, guess what car has a short compressed length for the given amount of travel... yep A-body mopars! Have a cookie.
The other con that applies to this application is if you want adjustable damping you more or less NEED to have an adjustable shaft (unless it's a reservoir shock which this isn't). Twin tubes do not have this issue as you can place an adjustable base valve between the chambers and locate it various places on the shock.
So we have a shock that is already on the limits of what monotubes are capable of... well lets throw this next little variable into the party and see how fun it gets.
There are only so many lengths of adjustable shafts available. They don't just make adjustable shafts at lengths of every 10mm, they are made for specific applications. On top of that there are very few pin mount shafts available, the only ones that Bilstein had at the time were incredibly expensive PSS style shafts which are like $800 a piece so obviously this was not an option. The only option were rod-end style shafts.
So now we have a shock that is on the limits of mono-tube capabilities AND we have to use an eye-ring style rod end that ADDs deadlength... Hey guess what? We can't hit those numbers we were aiming for. Not only that but there are only certain lengths of shock tubes available and only certain lengths of adjustable shafts.
The logical choice is, screw the compressed length, hit the required travel length and ensure the extended is in the right range.
The idea is simple, it can be seen on most older ford products:
You make a hole for the shaft through the inner fenders and extend it's location. Obviously there are different ways to accomplish this, you can do something similar to what ford did, and make a little mount that bolts to the stock inner fender and extends the upper mount a little higher to gain some compressed length. Or the better stiffer stronger way is to weld in some chassis tubing, cut out the inner fenders and mount the shocks to them.
Lets be clear on this, the shocks have the same if not more travel length than the vehicle needs, the compressed and extended are simply longer. Oh and the rears will bolt in with little more than heim spacers.
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: CokeBottleKid]
#1201254
04/07/12 09:52 AM
04/07/12 09:52 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 801
central CT
cudazappa
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 801
central CT
|
Lets go back to the basics:
The OP originally posted he had "bump steer" because
"with how low it is- because the crappy KYBs were on the bottom end of their travel and rendered themselves useless."
It was then revealed the true cause of the bump steer:
"Jon, if you have not yet flipped the outer tie rod ends back to where they belong (under the ball joint knuckle), no amount of shock fussing will alleviate your bump steer."
Because the definition of bump steer is "toe change during suspension travel"
So essentially we have two problems. Jon knows the first one (tie rods ends flipped). That's what's causing the bump steer. The second (after we clarified bump-steer) is the suspension running out of travel.
Jon has acknowledged his mistake with tie rods. The original question was lost because there was more going on in the original post than what was originally revealed.
Now that Jon has acknowledged he's looking for more of a "pro-touring" ride we can work on his shock mounting questions. I'd say with your solution, he should probably also look into a monte-carlo bar like was used on most Fords.
1971 Challenger
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: CokeBottleKid]
#1201255
04/07/12 10:45 AM
04/07/12 10:45 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sounds like you know it all, I am in wonder as to why you are on here asking a question, when your knowledge put you in this situation of bad ideas being implemeted.
And your bilstein buddy didnt engineer anything for you, just grabbed some off the shelf shocks and said they were made for you. Nice try. Real smart engineer buddy, put some longer shocks on a lowered car
Ok ladies and recliner seat engineers. I am the 'smart' engineer that set up these shocks for him. Lets start with the goal:
As a Bilstein employee I had a certain number of discounted shock purchases, I made the choice to use my last buy (before I quit that crap job) to hook Jon up with a set of pimping aftermarket race shocks since I knew he wanted to make his car into a nice road-race/auto-x vehicle. Yes I could have gotten him a regular set of Joe Schmoe crimp shocks (like the ones you all buy from Hotchkis) but I felt a better use of my buy would be to set him up with a set of threaded body motor-sport shocks with adjustable shafts.
Key words here are mono-tube and adjustable shafts, lets say that one more time so it sticks... mono-tube and adjustable shafts. Ok now that we're clear with that I'll fill you in on a little bit of basic shock knowledge since you clearly lack any.
Mono-tubes are a great design, less cavitation, better heat transfer characteristics etc. But they have some downsides too, one of them being added deadlength due to the dividing piston (the little cuppy thing that seperates the gasy chamber from the oily stuff). And the gasy chamber (the place with the hissy stuff). This makes it difficult to hit short compressed lengths with a given travel. On that note, guess what car has a short compressed length for the given amount of travel... yep A-body mopars! Have a cookie.
The other con that applies to this application is if you want adjustable damping you more or less NEED to have an adjustable shaft (unless it's a reservoir shock which this isn't). Twin tubes do not have this issue as you can place an adjustable base valve between the chambers and locate it various places on the shock.
So we have a shock that is already on the limits of what monotubes are capable of... well lets throw this next little variable into the party and see how fun it gets.
There are only so many lengths of adjustable shafts available. They don't just make adjustable shafts at lengths of every 10mm, they are made for specific applications. On top of that there are very few pin mount shafts available, the only ones that Bilstein had at the time were incredibly expensive PSS style shafts which are like $800 a piece so obviously this was not an option. The only option were rod-end style shafts.
So now we have a shock that is on the limits of mono-tube capabilities AND we have to use an eye-ring style rod end that ADDs deadlength... Hey guess what? We can't hit those numbers we were aiming for. Not only that but there are only certain lengths of shock tubes available and only certain lengths of adjustable shafts.
The logical choice is, screw the compressed length, hit the required travel length and ensure the extended is in the right range.
The idea is simple, it can be seen on most older ford products:
You make a hole for the shaft through the inner fenders and extend it's location. Obviously there are different ways to accomplish this, you can do something similar to what ford did, and make a little mount that bolts to the stock inner fender and extends the upper mount a little higher to gain some compressed length. Or the better stiffer stronger way is to weld in some chassis tubing, cut out the inner fenders and mount the shocks to them.
Lets be clear on this, the shocks have the same if not more travel length than the vehicle needs, the compressed and extended are simply longer. Oh and the rears will bolt in with little more than heim spacers.
Cool so be a good buddy and get over there and help get those front shocks on already......
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: 72Swinger]
#1201256
04/07/12 12:49 PM
04/07/12 12:49 PM
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 416
Franklin Co. Illinois
runinonmt
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 416
Franklin Co. Illinois
|
As usual Ford has a way to make parts more universal. Seems the way to go if you want to keep the Bilsteins. This is obviously not a resto. Let us know how it works out and what your final solution is.
Ron
In sixty-five I was seventeen and running up one-o-one
I don't know where I'm running now, I'm just running on
Jackson Browne-Running On Empty
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: CokeBottleKid]
#1201260
04/07/12 08:23 PM
04/07/12 08:23 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,235
Phoenix, AZ
Jjs72D
Deep in the closet
|
Deep in the closet
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,235
Phoenix, AZ
|
Quote:
Ok ladies and recliner seat engineers. I am the 'smart' engineer that set up these shocks for him. ( Wow, condescend much?) Yes I could have gotten him a regular set of Joe Schmoe crimp shocks like the ones you all buy from Hotchkis ( Yeah, lets log on and bash a paid sponsor. GREAT idea.)
Ok now that we're clear with that I'll fill you in on a little bit of basic shock knowledge since you clearly lack any. (Here we go again. Thank you messiah for your wisdom and insight)
yep A-body mopars! Have a cookie.(Sad attempt at humor?)
You make a hole for the shaft through the inner fenders and extend it's location. (THIS seems like a bad idea for a street car unless the area is well gussetted afterwards, a subject that wasn't covered by the guy that started this post.) ....cut out the inner fenders and mount the shocks to them.
You are obviously very smart and while I respect that, your demeanor smacks of "How dare you challenge my authority!" A softer touch would have served you better.
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: Jjs72D]
#1201261
04/07/12 11:23 PM
04/07/12 11:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,471
So Cal
|
Quote:
Quote:
Ok ladies and recliner seat engineers. I am the 'smart' engineer that set up these shocks for him. ( Wow, condescend much?) Yes I could have gotten him a regular set of Joe Schmoe crimp shocks like the ones you all buy from Hotchkis ( Yeah, lets log on and bash a paid sponsor. GREAT idea.)
Ok now that we're clear with that I'll fill you in on a little bit of basic shock knowledge since you clearly lack any. (Here we go again. Thank you messiah for your wisdom and insight)
yep A-body mopars! Have a cookie.(Sad attempt at humor?)
You make a hole for the shaft through the inner fenders and extend it's location. (THIS seems like a bad idea for a street car unless the area is well gussetted afterwards, a subject that wasn't covered by the guy that started this post.) ....cut out the inner fenders and mount the shocks to them.
You are obviously very smart and while I respect that, your demeanor smacks of "How dare you challenge my authority!" A softer touch would have served you better.
Someone choose to take a "shot" at him first. He surely didn't take the higher ground, but lets call it even and move on. He gave an explanation of his choices and gave insight on things most I believe didn't consider before (I didn't).
But I admit the background and "whole story" around the original post keeps unfolding makes giving advice really really tough.
I don't understand why a second "shot" was necessary though.
|
|
|
Re: '71 Duster Front Suspension Woahs!
[Re: autoxcuda]
#1201262
04/08/12 01:04 AM
04/08/12 01:04 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
Why doesnt Bilstein use weld-on shaft eyes? With an external thread body and internal thread cap that would shorten the compressed length a bit.
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Heck most of the members here probably don't even know what "The Haze" is.... Or is that "Was"... 
