Rebuilding rear suspension and brakes.

Message

Magenta Auto Sprint · Fri May 25, 2012 11:09 am

I have removed my axle, radius arms, tie bars and rear shocks but I have now noticed that the spring top plates are angled and have a cut out for the rubber seat but I failed to notice their orientation. The manual is a bit vague as to how they should be fitted, should the angle face to the rear?

I am also having the back plates powder coated but I suspect that I may need to remove the powder coating in the area where the back plate fits to the axle tube and where the bearing cap fits on the inside so as to maintain the bearing end float?
Should I also remove the powder coating in the area of the brake cylinder slides?

Many thanks for any advice.

Malc

DoloWIGHTY · #2 Post by **DoloWIGHTY** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:15 am

Malc, I am (from memory) pretty sure that the suspension will only go in one way due to the angle of the top plates, I say that, but you can of course put them in the "wrong" way but then it becomes pretty obvious as the angle is too acute, so then swap it until the angle does look correct.

Dolly-Nut · #3 Post by **Dolly-Nut** » Fri May 25, 2012 1:01 pm

I'm not sure on which way is correct but I do know that it's possible to fit them the wrong way and it makes for some interesting handling characteristics!

geeksteve · #4 Post by **geeksteve** » Fri May 25, 2012 1:10 pm

I had one pointing to the side, and one backwards! When I put new in I made it all point towards the back. It may not be right, but it's consistent, and handles ok..

Jon Tilson · #5 Post by **Jon Tilson** » Fri May 25, 2012 2:59 pm

I cant remember without looking but what I do know is that if you get it wrong the end of the shock that goes in the radius arm will be nowhere near the hole for the bolt to go through. When its right at the top it will just drop right into place when you raise the radius arm.

Jonners

JPB · #6 Post by **JPB** » Fri May 25, 2012 6:17 pm

The thicker edge of the spring retainer goes toward the front of the car so the damper body is further back at its bottom end than at the top, they can be fitted incorrectly but it takes a great deal of effort and potentially some stress-related damage to achieve this.

Flyfisherman · #7 Post by **Flyfisherman** » Fri May 25, 2012 8:18 pm

Magenta Auto Sprint wrote:I have now noticed that the spring top plates are angled and have a cut out for the rubber seat but I failed to notice their orientation. Malc

Malc

The cut outs within the top mounting plate should face inwards towards the centre of the car. This positions the angle correctly as the shock sit at a slight angle - wider at the bottom than the the top.

Regards
Paul.

JPB · #8 Post by **JPB** » Fri May 25, 2012 9:13 pm

Sorry Paul, but you've misunderstood the way it goes. The thick edge of the mount faces the front, the damper bodies being parallel to each other.

I've only done a couple of dozen pair in my entire life but two were during the past month and whether they're the late ones with the steel mounts shaped to provide the location or the early ones whose wedges were rubber, shaped in the same way, they must face the back, the offset is not radial in its orientation.

Flyfisherman · #9 Post by **Flyfisherman** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:19 pm

Picture courtesy of MikeyB Va969 resto

there are two different flanges, as Mike states within his thread - one is an early model one and the other is a late one -so which was should these mounting flanges fit.

Regards
Paul

JPB · #10 Post by **JPB** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:37 pm

OK, in the red one on the left, the part that faces the back of the car is closest to the front of the screen. In the other steel one, with the notch, the notch should face toward the front of the car. Look at the angle of the part of each plate which carries the damper pin, that pin must be angled to the rear of the car.
Those plates are both later ones. Early plates' holes were parallel to their surrounding steel and relied upon their wedge shaped rubber inserts - which would be flat in both of these ones - to do the same job.
By effectively forcing the dampers into a position other than parallel to each other when viewed from behind, then the arm bushes would be placed under considerable stress and the damper pins would fret away at the edges of the hole in the plates, eventually developing a persistent rattle, noticeable on anything other than a billiard table-smooth road surface.

I hope that makes it clearer. If not, I'll do a drawing and add it to this thread later.

Flyfisherman · #11 Post by **Flyfisherman** » Sat May 26, 2012 2:29 pm

Thx John

regards
paul.

MIG Wielder · #12 Post by **MIG Wielder** » Sat May 26, 2012 3:44 pm

Well, just for my 2 Euro cents, there are a couple of points to note.
* Yes, the notch on the top spring mount faces the front of the car, or for earlier cars the lower end of the strut should point to the rear of the car. ( As noted. )
* In addition, the the finishing coil end at the top of the spring should also face the rear of the car.
* Fully tighten the mounting nuts and bolts with the weight of the car on them.

Now thanks for putting up the bit from the workshop manual Paul. Your interpretation of what the manual states is quite correct . Look at the sketch in the 3rd column at the top. It shows the damper viewed from the rear of the car but not mounted vertically. It leans in at the top ! I think this is an error in the Workshop Manual, and is the same in my hardback copy AKM 3629 1977.
Does anyone have a later copy , or a correction sheet on this section 64.20.01 please ?

Looking at your other questions;
* Yes I think the powder coating should be removed from the rear of the backplate ( ideally) where it meets the axle tube as there are shims fitted here as well. They set the end float of the axle shaft. Now I'm not sure how thick the coating is on a powder coating process, but seeing how the end float is 4 to 6 thou; if the coating was only 0.5 thou thick the difference in end float would be small ( maybe ). And if it was perfectly smooth there would be no grease loss either.
* Now on the brake cylinder slides I thing this should be a " maybe " as well to removal of the powder coating. If the coating was thin and smooth it would probably be O.K. and may mean the cylinders are less inclined to seize. A lot depends on the components of the powder coating .
Any one else done this ? What is the chemistry behind it .

Cheers All,
Tony.

Magenta Auto Sprint · Thu Jul 26, 2012 11:57 am

Regarding Mikey B's photo, I have now had my top caps powder coated and my top caps have an angled seat as per the one on the left but it also has the cut-out as the one on the right, it also has an angled rubber spring seat. When the two are together it seems to cancel out the an angle, so if i have an angled top cat i assume that the rubber spring seat should be flat too?

many thanks

Malcolm

Flyfisherman wrote:Picture courtesy of MikeyB Va969 resto

there are two different flanges, as Mike states within his thread - one is an early model one and the other is a late one -so which was should these mounting flanges fit.

Regards
Paul

AL64 · #14 Post by **AL64** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:35 pm

Hello, I have tried all possible assemblies, the better for the upper mounting plate with slot is:
Slot to the rear bottom of the shock absorber must be almost opposite the hole of the suspension arm, in any case the shock absorber must be rearwardly.
The position of the spring in the bracket must be positioned in a way that it is as perpendicular to the spring
No constraint on the alignment of the damper assembly must be made easily.
Follow my advice.

scott · #15 Post by **scott** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:11 pm

Really would like to know which way is right, soon as rimmer send my new washers i will be fitting flls axle.Do we have any photos on rear brakes i have parts catalogue and leyland repair manual its a bit limited on brakes.

The Triumph Dolomite Club - Discussion Forum