Makin progress
04-07-2016, 12:52 PM
#481
Kewl...
I am so bored waitin for someone to finish my car that i an startin to experiment with my supermoto...
Gonna put on a ported 450sxf top end with cam on my 500exc, should boost the power curve well over 60hp.
The 450 supposedly makes 60hp while the 500 makes 58hp...doesnt sound right to me either, 60cc larger and makes less power...someone needs a cam and head swap stat!
I am so bored waitin for someone to finish my car that i an startin to experiment with my supermoto...
Gonna put on a ported 450sxf top end with cam on my 500exc, should boost the power curve well over 60hp.
The 450 supposedly makes 60hp while the 500 makes 58hp...doesnt sound right to me either, 60cc larger and makes less power...someone needs a cam and head swap stat!
04-07-2016, 01:05 PM
#482
No bending where it holds onto the car but there is a slight bend at the beginning very similar to the Lingenfelter cai, just a pc of alu 1.5mm thick with nutserts holdin it in place,
btw alu weighs less than ti by up to 40%
Will snap some pix for you on sat when i see my car
btw alu weighs less than ti by up to 40%
Will snap some pix for you on sat when i see my car
04-11-2016, 02:36 PM
#483
Just got my V1 UCAs in the car and it feels pretty damn good. The SAI when running the V2 and STS UCAs was pretty jacked up. Bump steer with the STS UCAs was incredible because of the insane scrub radius.
What doesn't feel good is that the V1 UCA bushing receivers are thinner than the V2 and STS UCAs. So my shaved-down UCA bushings are slightly loose between the flanges--I need to order a fresh set. I may still need to shave this new set of bushings down to fit perfectly, since John doesn't have precise measurements for 75D (accounting for compression) yet. But if I do, it'll be on the order of 0.1-0.2mm reduction, not 1.1-1.2mm like before.
Oh, and before I forget (again), any asymmetry in your bushings width means that your control arms are bent. I now have four sets of control arms and they all require perfectly symmetrical bushing flange heights.
What doesn't feel good is that the V1 UCA bushing receivers are thinner than the V2 and STS UCAs. So my shaved-down UCA bushings are slightly loose between the flanges--I need to order a fresh set. I may still need to shave this new set of bushings down to fit perfectly, since John doesn't have precise measurements for 75D (accounting for compression) yet. But if I do, it'll be on the order of 0.1-0.2mm reduction, not 1.1-1.2mm like before.
Oh, and before I forget (again), any asymmetry in your bushings width means that your control arms are bent. I now have four sets of control arms and they all require perfectly symmetrical bushing flange heights.
Last edited by FuzzyLog1c; 04-11-2016 at 02:46 PM.
04-11-2016, 10:49 PM
#484
Originally Posted by FuzzyLog1c
Just got my V1 UCAs in the car and it feels pretty damn good. The SAI when running the V2 and STS UCAs was pretty jacked up. Bump steer with the STS UCAs was incredible because of the insane scrub radius.
What doesn't feel good is that the V1 UCA bushing receivers are thinner than the V2 and STS UCAs. So my shaved-down UCA bushings are slightly loose between the flanges--I need to order a fresh set. I may still need to shave this new set of bushings down to fit perfectly, since John doesn't have precise measurements for 75D (accounting for compression) yet. But if I do, it'll be on the order of 0.1-0.2mm reduction, not 1.1-1.2mm like before.
Oh, and before I forget (again), any asymmetry in your bushings width means that your control arms are bent. I now have four sets of control arms and they all require perfectly symmetrical bushing flange heights.
What doesn't feel good is that the V1 UCA bushing receivers are thinner than the V2 and STS UCAs. So my shaved-down UCA bushings are slightly loose between the flanges--I need to order a fresh set. I may still need to shave this new set of bushings down to fit perfectly, since John doesn't have precise measurements for 75D (accounting for compression) yet. But if I do, it'll be on the order of 0.1-0.2mm reduction, not 1.1-1.2mm like before.
Oh, and before I forget (again), any asymmetry in your bushings width means that your control arms are bent. I now have four sets of control arms and they all require perfectly symmetrical bushing flange heights.
I have an upper mount and tried it out after my shavin and it fits perfectly.
04-12-2016, 12:13 AM
#485
The other thing that you'll find is that your sanded bushings don't fit the V1 UCAs since the V1 UCAs are thinner at the mounting point than the STS/SRX and V2 UCAs. If you call John or Tony @ Revshift to order another set of 75 UCA bushings, make sure to tell them that you already have the steel cores. That way, they can get you replacement stuff faster.
If this doesn't make sense, let me know.
04-12-2016, 01:17 AM
#486
It makes sense, but i tried the sts uca in v2 upper mount instead of v1, they should be the same.
I had to trim some off the inside of the bushin and not the flange, they are symmetrical. Thicker ones on the outsides and the thinner ones on the inside.
Btw i used a hydraulic cyl and pulled the old bushin out not pushed...
I had to trim some off the inside of the bushin and not the flange, they are symmetrical. Thicker ones on the outsides and the thinner ones on the inside.
Btw i used a hydraulic cyl and pulled the old bushin out not pushed...
04-12-2016, 11:02 AM
#490
I had no issues with initial fitment on those bushings when they were replaced. The lowers were TIGHT but worked fine. I did have to back off of the torque values for the uppers to get them to pivot correctly. After a few miles I was able to re-tighten without issue.
04-12-2016, 12:21 PM
#491
The upper control arm is a "U" shape when you look at it from the top. If the arm was in an accident or someone put a hydraulic press on it and improperly supported the other end, there's a good chance that the "U" is collapsed a little bit. When this happens, you'll notice that the inside edges of the bushings scrape when you insert the control arm into the shock tower yoke before you bolt it up.
My policy on bushings is this: they should permit free rotation at maximum rated torque. No squeaking or binding. If they do either of those things, they get sanded down, and updated measurements are provided to the vendor.
My policy on bushings is this: they should permit free rotation at maximum rated torque. No squeaking or binding. If they do either of those things, they get sanded down, and updated measurements are provided to the vendor.
04-13-2016, 02:51 PM
#492
My policy on bushings is this: they should permit free rotation at maximum rated torque. No squeaking or binding. If they do either of those things, they get sanded down, and updated measurements are provided to the vendor.
BTW - Agreed on the hydraulic press statement as it was a PIA to get mine properly supported while keeping the die aligned.
04-14-2016, 09:07 AM
#493
Before installing my shocks at 200k, I went to the Pull-A-Part and grabbed some spare control arms just in case and on a stock CTS, the control arms were tight to a point that they were binding and not easily moved. When I've pulled both my V1s apart to install shocks, they were tightened in the same manner. Makes you wonder...
04-14-2016, 01:04 PM
#494
I tend to agree with this too...but
Before installing my shocks at 200k, I went to the Pull-A-Part and grabbed some spare control arms just in case and on a stock CTS, the control arms were tight to a point that they were binding and not easily moved. When I've pulled both my V1s apart to install shocks, they were tightened in the same manner. Makes you wonder...
Before installing my shocks at 200k, I went to the Pull-A-Part and grabbed some spare control arms just in case and on a stock CTS, the control arms were tight to a point that they were binding and not easily moved. When I've pulled both my V1s apart to install shocks, they were tightened in the same manner. Makes you wonder...
I'll simply say this: the reason why you had a hard time moving those control arms is because that behavior is considered an acceptable for a low-cost production car.
The OEM bushings are made with rubber bonded to a press-fit aluminum shell. The steel core is held in place by the yoke and will not rotate when the yoke's bolts are torqued to spec. Consequently, when the control arm is forced to rotate up or down by the road and the suspension, the rubber element is twisted in one direction or the other. While this is acceptable for a low-cost passenger car with progressive springs, this behavior is undesirable in a high-performance vehicle with carefully-tuned linear springs and dampers because the twisting action affects the spring/damper rate.
04-14-2016, 03:29 PM
#495
TECH Enthusiast
Naf wants us to take this conversation elsewhere so that he can focus on updates to his car.
I'll simply say this: the reason why you had a hard time moving those control arms is because that behavior is considered an acceptable for a low-cost production car.
The OEM bushings are made with rubber bonded to a press-fit aluminum shell. The steel core is held in place by the yoke and will not rotate when the yoke's bolts are torqued to spec. Consequently, when the control arm is forced to rotate up or down by the road and the suspension, the rubber element is twisted in one direction or the other. While this is acceptable for a low-cost passenger car with progressive springs, this behavior is undesirable in a high-performance vehicle with carefully-tuned linear springs and dampers because the twisting action affects the spring/damper rate.
I'll simply say this: the reason why you had a hard time moving those control arms is because that behavior is considered an acceptable for a low-cost production car.
The OEM bushings are made with rubber bonded to a press-fit aluminum shell. The steel core is held in place by the yoke and will not rotate when the yoke's bolts are torqued to spec. Consequently, when the control arm is forced to rotate up or down by the road and the suspension, the rubber element is twisted in one direction or the other. While this is acceptable for a low-cost passenger car with progressive springs, this behavior is undesirable in a high-performance vehicle with carefully-tuned linear springs and dampers because the twisting action affects the spring/damper rate.
To Clarify the above statement.
The bushings are bonded and are Tight and get wound up because they are tuned for a certain ride quality and are part of an overall suspension system tune set. They are made this way on purpose, not because it's cheap. This is generally the case with almost every bushing in the automotive market that isn't a cross-axis balljoint. It's also for vehicle durability and noise isolation as well.
The higher the performance the vehicle gets, the more balljoints you see replacing these types of bushings, but you also have other compromises that come with them as well such as NVH effects and lifespan of the parts.
04-14-2016, 05:09 PM
#497
TECH Enthusiast
I wasn't asking for your concurrence.
As an automotive mechanical engineer that works on and designs chassis components including bushings like the ones we are talking about I'm educating you to what the reality is.
You can PM me if you'd like to learn something.
As an automotive mechanical engineer that works on and designs chassis components including bushings like the ones we are talking about I'm educating you to what the reality is.
You can PM me if you'd like to learn something.
04-14-2016, 05:27 PM
#499
As a designer of nuclear submarines, I'm telling you that you're wrong.
04-14-2016, 05:45 PM
#500
TECH Enthusiast
The torque spec is designed for the type of bolt specified and the joint that it's being applied to. If you are re-using the stock bolts and the new bushings you are using have the same length center section, same size clamp load surface area and material finish then the torque spec should be the same.
With factory bushings you have to torque the joints at curb weight otherwise you introduce wind-up into the bushing and it will cause premature failure and undesired effects such as ride quality degradation among other things. If your urethane bushings don't rotate completely smoothly 360° then you should also be torquing them at curb weight. Curb weight meaning vehicle wheels on the ground, suspension loaded, not up in the air on a hoist with wheels drooping down.
I'll make a note next time I need advice on my nuclear submarines suspension.... Until then, you should probably stick with what you know and not poison everybody's idea about how actual car bushings work.
With factory bushings you have to torque the joints at curb weight otherwise you introduce wind-up into the bushing and it will cause premature failure and undesired effects such as ride quality degradation among other things. If your urethane bushings don't rotate completely smoothly 360° then you should also be torquing them at curb weight. Curb weight meaning vehicle wheels on the ground, suspension loaded, not up in the air on a hoist with wheels drooping down.
I'll make a note next time I need advice on my nuclear submarines suspension.... Until then, you should probably stick with what you know and not poison everybody's idea about how actual car bushings work.
Last edited by barrok69; 04-14-2016 at 05:51 PM. Reason: fuzzylogic using failed logic again...