Dolly (suspension) disease

For everything to do with Dolomites, Toledos, FWD cars and Dolomite-based kitcars.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Dollyboy

#46 Post by Dollyboy »

i think most of these theories are on the right track, all generally true one way or another.

slant 4's problems - im with jonners again - the fwd will most certainly be tracking/wheel alignment because its unliklely that thing will be lowered/camber set incorrectly. worn bushes will most likely be having a small influence on the problem. springs? turrets? me thinks not, but springs may be tired and very much doubt they'd be the originals at this age, and if they were broken you'd get a 'twang' effect, or bigger knocking etc as you go over bumps, pot-holes and round corners or bends. how likely is it that both front springs are broken in the same place so the car handles evenly on both sides?

the sprint is probably camber because its lowered, either because the springs are tired or they're 1" lower, or both, coupled with tracking and worn bushes.

I'm amazed anyone ever has uneven tyre wear issues with all this suspension knowledge!!

:roll:
Top
Mr.Speedy

#47 Post by Mr.Speedy »

Suspension bush wear contributes a fair amount IMO. When I replaced the tired old rubber bushes in my wishbones for nylon/stainless the front wheels moved position by between 1/2" & 1".

:boggle:
Top
george

#48 Post by george »

don't forget a fwd has all major components hanging in front so i'd say has a tendency to have springs that are more setled than a sprint but there are arguments for all theorys put forward
Top
slant4

Ride height

#49 Post by slant4 »

Just to confirm, there is NO published ride height for our cars (well I can't find one and I've hunted high and low!). THe published figure is Ground Clearance with 4 passengers! the only detail is spring free length. Still Looking into spring cost.
Top
george

#50 Post by george »

there is a figure for total car height which is 54ins / 1372 unladen
that would be with a standard kerb weight of 2295lb / 1041kg
Top
User avatar
tinweevil
Guest contributor
Guest contributor
Posts: 3936
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:42 pm
Location: Forest of Dean

Bit hard to verify vehicle weight

#51 Post by tinweevil »

Perhaps we could just measure and list. It'd tell us something. We need a clearly defined place to measure and need to list tyres too.

Tinweevil
1978 Pageant Sprint - the rustomite, 1972 Spitfire IV - sprintfire project, 1968 Valencia GT6 II - little Blue, 1980 Vermillion 1500HL - resting. 1974 Sienna 1500TC, Mrs Weevils big brown.
Top
Dollyboy

#52 Post by Dollyboy »

the height of my subframe from the ground is currently 0mm.

its sat on the ground, with no car or engine attached to it.

:funny:

you'll need to measure with the car on flat, level ground, spirit level required. suggest measurements in mm on complete car including oil, coolant etc, with no occupants sat inside. measure from bolt centre where bottom arm bolts into the suspension mount to the ground?

or how about from the front jacking point to the ground?

what about once parked in position, leaning on or applying some weight, eg sit on wing, then removing the load (get off the wing) and allowing the car to recover to its 'nominal' height?

all a bit scientific but if people are going to compare everyone has to work to a standard for the measurements to mean anything...
Top
User avatar
tinweevil
Guest contributor
Guest contributor
Posts: 3936
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:42 pm
Location: Forest of Dean

Alternative

#53 Post by tinweevil »

Centre of a bolt head might be a bit error prone. Would be better to go to the top so you can hook a tapemeasure over it. Or how about clearance under the drain holes in the bottom of the front subframe crossmember, IIRC there are slots punched out with a good downward lip.

Tinweevil
1978 Pageant Sprint - the rustomite, 1972 Spitfire IV - sprintfire project, 1968 Valencia GT6 II - little Blue, 1980 Vermillion 1500HL - resting. 1974 Sienna 1500TC, Mrs Weevils big brown.
Top
slant4

Ride height

#54 Post by slant4 »

Standard policy on the bl /bmc range was floor to rim of arch (if I recall. Maybe centre ofm hub, which makes more sense). A few mm here and there is nothing, I think we will be looking at more. Dertainly bump and settle is a good pratice. Will dig out a BMC manual for the info.
Top
george

#55 Post by george »

you are reffereing to units with hydrolastic suspension or hydrogas
these are indeed done from the centre of the hub to wheel arch with park brake off somewhere between 13 &15 ins iirc
Top
slant4

For the record

#56 Post by slant4 »

My sprint has not been lowered nor do I have any broken springs - they just sag!
Top
User avatar
DavePoth
TDC Member
Posts: 5723
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Next to my Computer

#57 Post by DavePoth »

george wrote:you are reffereing to units with hydrolastic suspension or hydrogas
these are indeed done from the centre of the hub to wheel arch with park brake off somewhere between 13 &15 ins iirc
And I guess it was important for these as that was the only way to measure a correct suspension charge?
Top
george

#58 Post by george »

yes it was the only way to set it if it was incorrect caused all sorts of drive shaft noises etc... just checked the trim height was 14.4 +/-0.4
centre hub to bottom of wheel arch enough tollerence for slight abnormalities
think the pressure was fairly high in the system too and the pump was refered to as the 'dalek'
Top
slant4

the pump

#59 Post by slant4 »

If I recall there were 2 types, the one you are thinking of had 2 levers! Glad Triumph never thought of fitting that system!
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Dolomite-related [Start here!]”