Forrest Gump
CCCUK regional rep
Be careful of going much more than 8” long bolts because the ends may hang lower than the wheel rim - would not be good if one had a puncture.
Negative camber on 72
- Thread starter Mad4slalom
- Start date
Mad4slalom
Well-known user
Yes , i had read that, also someone said to have rhe excess at the top but dont know if that makes a difference. I will re measure mine as i read standard ones were six inches . Sure mine were over seven. . May take a picture to see what people think . Thanks all
Oneball
CCCUK Member
Yes , i had read that, also someone said to have rhe excess at the top but dont know if that makes a difference. I will re measure mine as i read standard ones were six inches . Sure mine were over seven. . May take a picture to see what people think . Thanks all
Pic would be good.
I reckon this is just right. A little bit of rake and not too low especially at the rear.
And this is too high
Mad4slalom
Well-known user
Yes pretty much perfect.
Daytona Vette
Well-known user
If you are lowering the rear that will raise the front, you need to have the chassis set up correctly first with the front slightly lower than the back etc and then look at the body, you need it to drive correctly
Mad4slalom
Well-known user
Thanks, the front is slightly lower than the rear at present, whether the new glass rear leaf is holding the rear higher, I think the front springs were not renewed when car was done 6 years ago. Lowering the rear i can see altering the rake at the front but not sure it can physically raise the front could it
Daytona Vette
Well-known user
Yes - the balance of the weight is shiftingThanks, the front is slightly lower than the rear at present, whether the new glass rear leaf is holding the rear higher, I think the front springs were not renewed when car was done 6 years ago. Lowering the rear i can see altering the rake at the front but not sure it can physically raise the front could it
Mad4slalom
Well-known user
Ah yes, can see that now, weight of fuel tank etc lower at back would take weight off the front springs and raise the front , thats prob why I was set 5 at maths 
, thats prob why I was set 5 at maths
Daytona Vette
Well-known user
Fuel Tank or no Fuel Tank
Mad4slalom
Well-known user
Anyone got any pics of a c3 with some neg camber at rear or of smart struts fitted , thanksAh ! That looks like the way to go , thank you all. , I will invrstigate the smart strutrods
antijam
CCCUK Member
Oneball
CCCUK Member
Gold star for Antijam. Rose brothers came up with both the Rose joint and the machine that wraps Roses chocolates (named after the machine).
Forrest Gump
CCCUK regional rep
Who was "Heim" then??
Forrest Gump
CCCUK regional rep
The term "smart" relates to the modified bracket (to lower the inboard mounting point), rather than the strut rods themselves.
Oneball, it looks like you have retained the stock bracket? Is that for regulatory reasons?
Cheers, Andy
Oneball, it looks like you have retained the stock bracket? Is that for regulatory reasons?
Cheers, Andy
Oneball
CCCUK Member
The company that made them under licence in the States.
Rose joints not the chocolates
Oneball
CCCUK Member
Not convinced by them. But I’ve not looked at what they affect exactly only heard the blurb.
You don’t want the upper and lower links the same as you want camber change with suspension movement to keep the wheel level as you corner. I’ve not seen any race car with the bottom mount you described.
Forrest Gump
CCCUK regional rep
Thanks Oneball, it's interesting to get your take on the smart-strut bracket. You have to assume GM had their reasoning behind the stock design. Smart struts are marketed to make a "big improvement to rear end stability" but I wonder if the theory is bourne out more on a road car with softer springs and more suspension travel.
The Greenwood set-up is interesting. Yes definately a spacer above the stock bracket, but then there could be a lot else different on that geometry. See the the spring has wider mounting points with four positions to alter the spring stiffness.
