Club 80-90 Forums

Click
Does it make sense now?

I don't think the bottom moves due to the syncro front subframe, the weak link in my eyes is what I've outlined.
Over the years and many off roading excursions I'm fairy sure this is what is happening.

Would this not distort the seat box, and make it harder to slide the seats on the runners?

the top of the seat box is pretty rigd but the sides are thin so maybe the slight deform of the sides isn't noticeable

Makes sense to me especially on a modified van with raised suspension because it normally means stiffer springs and bigger wheels all adding to the load.

syncrosimon wrote:Would this not distort the seat box, and make it harder to slide the seats on the runners?

In what way? with the brace on? or do you mean if the struts have moved inwards that the seats would become stiff?

Remember the T3 does have 2 old school chassis rails, the body is dropped on top, seat boxes aren't connected.

Also, this is like 1°-2° that they have moved, yopu probably wouldn't notice it anywhere else unless you are trying to set the wheel alignment which is fairly accurate TBH, I can measure to about a quarter of 1 degree.

andysimpson wrote:Makes sense to me especially on a modified van with raised suspension because it normally means stiffer springs and bigger wheels all adding to the load.

I agree with this theory and particularly when raising/fitting stiffer springs. Does a correct dimension exist so measurements can be taken to see if the theory is correct? I haven't been underneath there to look at the available space but I imagine a solution will not be straightforward.

Cor, who did that for you - looks kinda professional

I did it you cheeky... ah, remember where you are Simon...

I did it you cheeky... ah, remember where you are Simon...

aye this isn't scat city

can`t picture the void between the chassis atm but if you could introduce a x-member on the horizontal bottom of that drawing would an adjustable v shaped brace be sufficient to bring back any " tilt in " of the turrets.

what type of vans are giving you problems sime, my 16 cambered up ok but its still close to std height.

Most of them to be fair, did think my ramp was on the pi$$ at one point, but every time I struggle I get the level out and it's always bob on, 2WD stuff is fine.
Seems to be left hand side on left hand drive vans, all of them though.
Only seem to be able to get about 1/2° neg camber when I need a bit of positive, they drive so much better with a bit of posivive on, when you can get it on.
I know the top arm moves in an arc, and if raised then the arm will swing below horizontal, and due to suspension design that will give negative camber, but it would be nice just to set them up and have done.
I have even tried moving the subframe accross a little, and that did help but still not enough.

Other thing I'm thinking about is getting some longer radius rods made as when they are lifted you also run out of adjustment there too, you end up with loads of castor and they tend to tramline and feel unstable, but to get them right they are usually at the end of the adjustment. I'm sure this also has a bearing on not being able to set the camber as you have to adjust the castor so much.

pain in the ring piece these vans!

can who ever sets the swear filter on this website at least get it to change words in common use to another similar word so threads at least read properly? FFS, on the bog? surely on the bog would be having a turf out not having a tinkle.

i dont belive in positive camber. been told its a myth. invented in the moggy 1000 days apparently.

..lee.. wrote:i dont belive in positive camber. been told its a myth. invented in the moggy 1000 days apparently.

Everything had positive camber in those days! First thing you did with a Mini, Imp, MM, Ford etc was get a bit of negative camber going on asap!!