When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The ball joint is spinning and you cant put the nut on? When I've had that issue I use a clamp to push the ball joint into the taper and create some friction.
The ball joint is spinning and you cant put the nut on? When I've had that issue I use a clamp to push the ball joint into the taper and create some friction.
that's exactly what we did. thanks.
we're about wrapped up. gonna bleed the brakes and do the toe tomorrow at all 4 corners then drive it home!
one thing i did notice - the rear passenger side axle was a little more stretched and the toe arm needed a bit more (like 3/4in extension) for it to line up. are my wheel alignments like the wheelbase itself off?
Looking over Youtube metrics and seeing EvoM pop up as a view source brought me back here, been a stranger for a hot minute. To echo other commentary, yeah, this place is like, DEAD dead.
Either way, that's my t-case and diff, and I didn't expect to lose a stock, 350+ launch, thousands of track miles, abused to crap for 7 straight race seasons t-case to a diff failure of all things, but here we are. I've still got it for parts but it's not worth much beyond that given the ring and pinion are junk.
For what it's worth, of the 3 of these failures I'm aware of, 2 cars had ACD tunes, the 3rd was making 700hp. Is that a factor? Maybe. But if our stock diffs can handle it, any replacement should too. My thoughts on the matter are that it's entirely a case design issue, with there not being enough reinforcement for the end that engages the center diff, allowing it to flex, or more likely twist under load and eventually crack the case, given the way the cracks have spread. The diff basically floats inside the diff housing, supported only by the splines of the center diff on one end and the splines for the ACD on the other, so a more solid case design preventing any flex should resolve the concern entirely, provided there's not also a metallurgical issue in play here too. If you look at everyone else's diff cases, they're all solid on that end with oil holes on the sides, which is what ATS is now doing with their revised design. Either way I'll find out if it's truly fixed when I replace this, and plan to work with TRE to monitor long term.
The issue is the diff casing is stress riser city. This is the same reason Manley crank failures are a common occurrence. To be honest I'm surprised these diffs aren't breaking sooner, I wouldn't be surprised if ATS did zero CAE analysis on the housing.
That much is clear. I had some t-case puking issues starting early in the life of this unit that I figured were due to diff operation overheating the fluid a bit, that I'm wondering now if were actually an early indication of the diff operating improperly due to the case starting to fail. We had the t-case out and apart a couple times after when we began to suspect it was pushing trans fluid, but never opened the diff housing itself to inspect it. Only indication we had that there was a mechanical failure was when the debris finally took out the ring and pinion.
finally going to take the car back today. everything's been installed and a preliminary alignment has been made. only thing left to do is re-raise the rears; the rear uprights drop the car about an inch in the rear, so just need to bring that back up.
when i get the car back home though, will be planning to install a UICP & air intake, few other misc bits. excited to see how the changes feel!
finally going to take the car back today. everything's been installed and a preliminary alignment has been made. only thing left to do is re-raise the rears; the rear uprights drop the car about an inch in the rear, so just need to bring that back up.
when i get the car back home though, will be planning to install a UICP & air intake, few other misc bits. excited to see how the changes feel!
Consider running a lower ride height. I was apprehensive on the hill climb car to run it low as we run in some rough surfaces. After driving siluck2’s car at a lower height I decided to try it on the budget build tt car (all cars mentioned have SSB uprights front and rear). It was great on track at a low height!
Consider running a lower ride height. I was apprehensive on the hill climb car to run it low as we run in some rough surfaces. After driving siluck2’s car at a lower height I decided to try it on the budget build tt car (all cars mentioned have SSB uprights front and rear). It was great on track at a low height!
it's lower ever than that in the rear right now, it's relatively low in the rear. i've got about 1" of gap between tire and fender in front, rear's are fully tucked in
it's lower ever than that in the rear right now, it's relatively low in the rear. i've got about 1" of gap between tire and fender in front, rear's are fully tucked in
Its been my understanding that ride height front to rear is not a visual at the fenders as the fronts are cut differently giving the illusion of being higher than the rear.
Isnt it all about rake as measured from the frame rails to ground? There's that classic thread from many years ago!
Its been my understanding that ride height front to rear is not a visual at the fenders as the fronts are cut differently giving the illusion of being higher than the rear.
Isnt it all about rake as measured from the frame rails to ground? There's that classic thread from many years ago!
Its sort of all irrelevant to compare stock geometry to non-stock. Ignoring aero effects, rake is just controlling roll axis angle with the front moving at a much faster rate than the rear. With geometry correction, best to just get as low as you can tolerate then raising or lowering the rear to play with roll axis. If you want more rotation you can simply raise the rear a couple turns which will reduce camber and increase roll axis. If you adjusted your bumpsteer it would also not screw up the toe.
Its sort of all irrelevant to compare stock geometry to non-stock. Ignoring aero effects, rake is just controlling roll axis angle with the front moving at a much faster rate than the rear. With geometry correction, best to just get as low as you can tolerate then raising or lowering the rear to play with roll axis. If you want more rotation you can simply raise the rear a couple turns which will reduce camber and increase roll axis. If you adjusted your bumpsteer it would also not screw up the toe.
Dallas. Did this member get some things correct?
Originally Posted by GTWORX.com
Just like you can't really affect the front to rear weight distribution by any real amount when corner balancing, rake is not used for shifting weight distribution.
Rake can be used to change the balance of the car by altering the roll axis, the line between the front AND rear roll centers. True "level" rake is not measured by the wheel gaps or anything like that, it's the roll axis. The roll axis is simply the axis the car rolls around, with the roll couple being the a function of the distance from the COG and the roll center. The larger the roll couple, the more roll. The roll couple is a moment arm....for a given cornering force, the farther the COG from the roll center, the larger the moment.
Start with a level roll axis, and lower the front of the car, and you usually end up with a greater roll couple up front --> a shift towards oversteer.
Balance and grip are easier to tune with good spring, swaybar, and damper rates as well as a dialed in alignment. And you need to do this anyway first. If you have coilovers, it's a fun thing to play around with and you can find a nice solution (but remember to check alignment after every ride height change). It's nice to plot the roll centers and use that to determine your rake, but always remember what you're doing to other parts of the car with certain set-ups.
I should also say that ALL of this depends on a variety of other factors, and may not work in all cases. There...the disclaimer.
i am home!!!! in case not clear, i've been working with a friend on the car at his place for convenience, and i finally drove it back today.
the alignment is so off despite best efforts that i didn't feel comfortable "pushing" the car at all. is it weird that the ride somehow feels a little better over bumps? no other changes to suspension other than jacking up the rear ride height, without changing preload.
only other difference i noticed from my drive home is, the ap racing brakes feel like they don't stop for ****. i had to push the pedal pretty damn hard just to get the car to stop. the pedal is firm, it almost just feels like i lost the brake booster and have to use my whole leg to get the car to actually stop...
also, no acd codes thrown from the cheap-o abs sensors in the rear.
