UMI crossmember, factory TA and MWC loop
11-02-2016, 04:16 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Minette, AL
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UMI crossmember, factory TA and MWC loop I recently changed my setup and installed a MWC driveshaft loop and a UMI torque arm relocation crossmember with the stock torque arm. At the same time I also installed an Eibach prokit. The car already had SLP 3-point sfc's. The transmission is the original, but rebuilt, 4l60e. Now on to the issue at hand.
I installed everything and then centered the rear before attaching the torque arm to the crossmember. The rear is still slightly(about 1/4") off center to the drivers' side. The top section of the torque arm is resting on the driveshaft loop at the moment. The TA is mounted using the 2nd hole from the top. I have checked it with the suspension loaded and unloaded and there is little to no difference. The crossmember was purchased used and the loop is new.
The only thing I have left is to install the driveshaft and a couple of other minor things and it's ready to go to the tuner. This has me concerned, what am I missing? Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?
I installed everything and then centered the rear before attaching the torque arm to the crossmember. The rear is still slightly(about 1/4") off center to the drivers' side. The top section of the torque arm is resting on the driveshaft loop at the moment. The TA is mounted using the 2nd hole from the top. I have checked it with the suspension loaded and unloaded and there is little to no difference. The crossmember was purchased used and the loop is new.
The only thing I have left is to install the driveshaft and a couple of other minor things and it's ready to go to the tuner. This has me concerned, what am I missing? Has anyone else encountered a similar situation?
11-02-2016, 04:56 PM
#2
A few things.
That eibach kit is usually derided by the community due to how quickly they start sagging. I'd seriously consider swapping them for UMI, BMR, or Strano springs. They are far better quality.
Because you are on lowering springs you might want to look into an adjustable torque arm. This is because lowering your car changes you pinion angle.
2nd, I believe the instructions say "2nd hole from the top" but that is more guideline than hard and fast rule. Load your suspension, measure your pinion angle (with a mganetic angle finder or depending on your phone there is an app) and then adjust which holes you use based on that. You'll need the driveshaft installed for this. Right now your rear is probably tilted back at the wrong angle.
That eibach kit is usually derided by the community due to how quickly they start sagging. I'd seriously consider swapping them for UMI, BMR, or Strano springs. They are far better quality.
Because you are on lowering springs you might want to look into an adjustable torque arm. This is because lowering your car changes you pinion angle.
2nd, I believe the instructions say "2nd hole from the top" but that is more guideline than hard and fast rule. Load your suspension, measure your pinion angle (with a mganetic angle finder or depending on your phone there is an app) and then adjust which holes you use based on that. You'll need the driveshaft installed for this. Right now your rear is probably tilted back at the wrong angle.
11-03-2016, 07:34 AM
#3
The "generic" setting is 2nd hole from the bottom(this is generally close to factory). Like mentioned above you can use any of the holes if you need clearance. The main purpose of the relocation kit is to remove the TA off the tail shaft of the trans. to prevent damage. Moving the mounting point higher and lower is changing the instant center of the car which can be helpful in fine tuning but if your having clearance issues you need to move it to where there is no interfernece.
Craig
Craig
11-03-2016, 08:59 AM
#4
Do you have the safety loop above or below the SFC mount? If below it put it above it. It doesn't seem like much but that is how it is designed to fit. Also make sure it is behind the fuel lines.
11-03-2016, 04:46 PM
#5
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bay Minette, AL
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the detailed responses guys.
99SS--I really wanted a set of better springs but this is what I ended up with. Found a great deal and couldn't pass it up. If they do sag, I will do the hose mod with the stock rear springs until I can get a better set. The motor/tranny ate up all of my budget plus a good bit more(typical, huh? lol).
Until I can determine the clearance issue I would hate to drop the dime on an adjustable TA and end up where I'm at now. However, it was on my initial list but had to be scratched due to lack of funds. I will be checking my pinion angle before it goes to the tuner, was just trying to get everything to clear first.
UMI--Before attaching the TA to the crossmember I placed the mount at the different vertical locations looking at the clearance. I placed it 2nd from top as this seemed to give me the most room but it is still touching the loop. I had read on here that 2nd from the top was suggested so thanks for clearing up that confusion.
MidwestChassis--It is mounted between the body and the sfc's and behind the fuel lines. That things fits tight to the body. I see why so many folks recommended it for clearance purposes.
I've tried everything I can think of and what you guys have mentioned too. I guess I will finish everything else, take it to the tuner, see how it all settles in and go from there.
Right now it appears I will need to modify the loop or the crossmember for everything to live in peace. This seems to be an isolated incident based on searching Tech and the internet so I'm thinking that maybe since I bought the crossmember used it could possibly be tweeked a little but it looks perfect to the naked eye.
99SS--I really wanted a set of better springs but this is what I ended up with. Found a great deal and couldn't pass it up. If they do sag, I will do the hose mod with the stock rear springs until I can get a better set. The motor/tranny ate up all of my budget plus a good bit more(typical, huh? lol).
Until I can determine the clearance issue I would hate to drop the dime on an adjustable TA and end up where I'm at now. However, it was on my initial list but had to be scratched due to lack of funds. I will be checking my pinion angle before it goes to the tuner, was just trying to get everything to clear first.
UMI--Before attaching the TA to the crossmember I placed the mount at the different vertical locations looking at the clearance. I placed it 2nd from top as this seemed to give me the most room but it is still touching the loop. I had read on here that 2nd from the top was suggested so thanks for clearing up that confusion.
MidwestChassis--It is mounted between the body and the sfc's and behind the fuel lines. That things fits tight to the body. I see why so many folks recommended it for clearance purposes.
I've tried everything I can think of and what you guys have mentioned too. I guess I will finish everything else, take it to the tuner, see how it all settles in and go from there.
Right now it appears I will need to modify the loop or the crossmember for everything to live in peace. This seems to be an isolated incident based on searching Tech and the internet so I'm thinking that maybe since I bought the crossmember used it could possibly be tweeked a little but it looks perfect to the naked eye.