IVANHOE Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Further to my previous thread I have now Put another leaf in the rear spring. It now sits higher and the side on view now looks more like other vitesse pics I have seen.I have now looked at the rear "toe".With a straight edge the off side was approx 6mm toe out.Near side was an horrendous 16mm approx. toe out. :oI have taken 1 of the 3 shims out on the radius arm[off side] . I now reckon it is still 2 to 3 mm toe out, one more shim out will probably sort it.On the near side I have taken out all 3 shims, It is still approx 9mm toe out.I didn't load 150lb onto the seats, I can't get my head around how that would alter the angle in plan view.Any way................... what shall I do with the nearside.......... I am a metalworker so i'm sure I can sort it. all suggestions gratefully received.Its ever likely the inside edges of the tyres have been eaten away.I now have a better understanding of how the rear suspension works, and how the toe in/out affects tyre wear................ Thanks guys.One other thing, If the toe is set at 0 Will the wheels still go positive when I reverse????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Sounds like the rear outriggers have been replaced, in the wrong position. :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Cureton Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I think Richard could be right - I had the same problem on a Herald in the '70s, someone has replaced an outrigger but had not done it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lewis Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 weight in the car to give a static ride height is a normal requirement the toe will change as the lowering by weight will change the angle of the tie rod which alters its dimensional control of the rear trunnion position, same applies to wish bones and rack rods at the front ,,they all work in an arc.. so the straight line dimensions change you have the results of the unladen car just borrow a few mates to sit in and then re check to see what it has done to your toe figures .. and zero toe would not affect the camber forwards or backwards,, the camber will stay constant.unless you make.buy an adjustable tie rod you will have to reposition the outrigger or put up with bump steer at the back if that helps Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVANHOE Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Thanks guys, I will recheck with 150 lb on each seat then, it will be interesting to see how much this alters things.mmmmmmmmmm.................... now which is going to be the easiest............. making the radius arm adjustable or moving the outrigger.Moving the outrigger would be best in keeping things standard, although the rest of the car is far from standard.I have a haynes manual but it doesn't give chassis dimensions[ other than heights ]Could anyone give me the proper outrigger positional dimensions?I would prefer to check it out properly than to start moving it willy nilly.Looking at the chassis sketch it would seem that the outer of the outrigger cannot be far off due to it meeting the outer chassis rail and picking up on the body mounting point. The radius arm connects towards the end of the outrigger so I would think the outrigger to main chassis joint could be way out.I will compare near to off side positions first, offside outrigger must be ok because I still have 2 shims to play with and the Toe isn't far off correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lewis Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 chassis dimensions are in the workshop manual.it takes its 0 datum from the rear most inside face of the box that reinforces the front xmember .but for a tape measure test the the rear outrigger outer body mount hole is 70" from this 0 datum ( not easy to do)it will be 15" rearwards from the next body mnt. hole in the side railthe bit thats probably wrong is the angle of the rr outrigger at 7 ,27' (make that 7.5deg)from the side rail this angle controls the point it fixes to the spine frame there is no dimension for the point the inner end fixes to the spine just this angle ..across the car the side rail body mount holes are 25.25" either side of centreline thats 50.5 to 50.75" "apart side to side ,you have to drop down to clear the spine to tape this width.I can try and scan , easier to fax the orig sheet if you PM me your number later if you need a full set of details or get a original /repro WSM and its there for life Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Cureton Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 This might help Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lewis Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 well done Steve... Ivanhoe....no39 on the plan is the angle you need to check pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IVANHOE Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Thank you very much guys.Just one more thing................ is dimension 41 for the radius arm bracket bolt holes?From memory I thought they were further out than the drawing suggests. [ visually ]Your help is much appreciated. Cheers --- Andy --- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Lewis Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 yes it is where the bolt tubes are for the arm brkt. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.b15b81ef10abeea1c3039ae03c4a9f3a.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.