turbo 1300 to turbo 2300 conversion

[dsrace]

based on all the link rears i have designed and built...... i believe there is a rotational force being applied to the lowers. every rail has shown me indicators that there is. when i tore this one down i noticed the lower lateral rods had a slight bow to them. straight edge shows about a 1/16" bow. the uppers are straight. i have hit trees and bush's down at LS and that could be the case but both sides are the same. i have seen this on all of them and always the lower. the aluminum laterals were a bad idea though lol i tried it and it failed but.......yep learning curve lol i know you disagree with the rotational forces thought but i cannot deny what i have personally witnessed on my own rails.  at this point my only other option is to weld a pivot outside the frame on the rear and add a third point of pivot  to the uppers. may do it not sure yet i have a lot to get done yet. the next frame will be about 6" longer for these purposes.

spoke to fast this am....intersting to hear how many rails are running megasand trans down there let alone in his group. he actually said all the medi trans had been opened up but none of the megasand trans. have to wait for him to chime in explain that. sounds like the megasands are running turbo 2.5 suby's from out front with his " 400 hp tune"

[fabr]

based on all the link rears i have designed and built...... i believe there is a rotational force being applied to the lowers.The only rotational force would be from braking. every rail has shown me indicators that there is. when i tore this one down i noticed the lower lateral rods had a slight bow to them. straight edge shows about a 1/16" bow. the uppers are straight. i have hit trees and bush's down at LS and that could be the case but both sides are the same. i have seen this on all of them and always the lower. the aluminum laterals were a bad idea though lol i tried it and it failed but.......yep learning curve lol i know you disagree with the rotational forces thought but i cannot deny what i have personally witnessed on my own rails.  at this point my only other option is to weld a pivot outside the frame on the rear and add a third point of pivot  to the uppers. may do it not sure yet i have a lot to get done yet. the next frame will be about 6" longer for these purposes.

spoke to fast this am....intersting to hear how many rails are running megasand trans down there let alone in his group. he actually said all the medi trans had been opened up but none of the megasand trans. have to wait for him to chime in explain that. sounds like the megasands are running turbo 2.5 suby's from out front with his " 400 hp tune"

[dsrace]

ok excuse the pics. one is good the rest are blurry i didn't realize my greasy fingers had touched the lens on my cell camera. anyway i found a location that i liked for the shock. i read an interesting post that i actually had been reading up on so i went with the shock moved 2/3 the way out down the lower arm.  so here are a few pics of what i came up with using my 2.5 fox air 14" stroke shock.  at 30* down angle on fixed 930 cv's and only 1/16" axle plunge throuha tested 24" wheel travel. i measured 23.5" wheel travel at full bump which leaves me with 3" ground clearence to the lowest point of the bottom of my frame in the rear. my rear cradle is pitched down 3*. not that an approach angle is critical in the rear but it worked out that way. now the tire through a 23.5" stroke has a neg 2* camber pitch. again not a critical point for the rear imo only. i was actually shooting for 22" travel and 5" gc at bump but clearence to the frame dictated this location which is exactly 2/3 rd down my lower arm. when i build the next chassis it will bend in towards the back for better shock locations and prob go to shorter piggy back coil overs , external by pass and leverage them out farther and drop prob to 20" travel. at 2 to one a 10" stroke shock would work and a side note......the 2.5 air is apprx 3" longer than a 2.0 air or emulsion or coil over in a12" or 14" stroke shock. i don't know why its longer than its counter parts  i just know that it is after using them now. makes it a pain in the ass to get the fronts set just right. but hey i wanted to try them so i did. 2.5 is too much shock for the fronts for every one wondering lol i don't have the room upfront to leverage them out enough for that weight. so to compensate i actually removed 15ccs of oil from factory fill with 45/3-1 for valving and still rebounds to quickly for the woops in my fronts. another 10* to 15* lean in and i think i could get them tuned spot on.

[fabr]

Like the shock positioning. Now figure out that upper arm...........................

[dsrace]

at full bump my shock is sooooooo close to 90* to the lower arm i'm calling that good! i will put a limit strap on which will pull the wheel up 1" so that 30* will ease up a bit however i ran those fixed 930's at 35* the last 5 years. rcv rates them at 40* which i checked and they will go farther however after trying there plunging 930'S i'd say 10* under there spec is real world use 

i still don't understand how they can put one in the lathe and get it to spin at 30* but can't get a pair on a axle to spin at 25* or 26* by hand!

[dsrace]

Like the shock positioning. Now figure out that upper arm...........................

hey now i'm old and slow just give me time 

[dsrace]

ok so i ordered a digital inclinometer and checked two of my 3 mechanical ones. they are with in.5* of the digital one. i did send back the plunging 930 and asked them to check them as it is not incorrect installation nor over angling them. told them i sell a lot of a arm front end kits and guys swap out to 3x3 trailing arms with longer axles and i have always told them to buy theres but now i cannot do that anymore if an answer cannot be found as to why they don't go 28* as advertised when the cheap chinese $62 ones will go 26* for many many people. this is there response..





We have tested two CV joints before on a special machine in house and we have reached over 28 degrees. This is at a 0 degree horizontal plane with the CV joints offset 28 degrees. This is why we only check the angle on a lathe to ensure the CV joint is properly built and the tolerances are held. The cheaper CV joints have different tolerances than our products. Our CV joints are race prepped and polished to reduce heat so the components move more freely inside the housing. I believe when you test this at high angles by dry spinning the CV joint, the components shift because they are so smooth thus they may actually go over the maximum angle.

When they are in the vehicle at ride height they will not see these higher angles. When the suspension droops while driving the car the forward momentum also keeps the components inside the CV joint due to the RPM's. Once again if they are below 28 degrees they will be fine. If the angle manages to go over 28 degrees while driving the CV joint will bind and more than likely fail. Limit straps are used sometimes if higher angles are needed. Also, the use of a boot flange boot adapter will prevent the components from wanting to fall out. The only issue I see out of the systems is if you used an over boot CV boot and lifted the vehicle with the suspension drooping. With the high angle and no boot adapter you may see the components wanting to pull out. Typically the CV grease is enough to keep them stationary while lifting the vehicle. Also, depending on how smoothly the splines of the shaft move through the inner race, this can determine if the components are being forced out of the housing by the shaft.

Please let me know your thoughts.

[dsrace]

they sent me a video of them testing one in a lathe. doesn't look like 28* down angle but it's a video and it turns just fine they also said the first 6 i returned that they sent by accident turn just fine to so did i get the 4 bad ones out of the ten they sent or what?

[fabr]

ok so i ordered a digital inclinometer and checked two of my 3 mechanical ones. they are with in.5* of the digital one. Well,that is settled pretty much. Had to be ruled out.i did send back the plunging 930 and asked them to check them as it is not incorrect installation nor over angling them. told them i sell a lot of a arm front end kits and guys swap out to 3x3 trailing arms with longer axles and i have always told them to buy theres but now i cannot do that anymore if an answer cannot be found as to why they don't go 28* as advertised when the cheap chinese $62 ones will go 26* for many many people. Now you sound like me. Maybe you should have held off on that.  this is there response..





We have tested two CV joints before on a special machine in house and we have reached over 28 degrees. Was that testing done dry? Was it done with a boot flange as suggested below or with no boot flange? This is at a 0 degree horizontal plane with the CV joints offset 28 degrees. This is why we only check the angle on a lathe (How the hell do you set up a lathe with that much offset?)to ensure the CV joint is properly built and the tolerances are held. The cheaper CV joints have different tolerances than our products. Our CV joints are race prepped and polished to reduce heat so the components move more freely inside the housing. I believe when you test this at high angles by dry spinning the CV joint, the components shift because they are so smooth thus they may actually go over the maximum angle. Honestly ,I'm not buying that.

When they are in the vehicle at ride height they will not see these higher angles. Really?? BSWhen the suspension droops while driving the car the forward momentum also keeps the components inside the CV joint due to the RPM's.Possibly . Once again if they are below 28 degrees they will be fine. If the angle manages to go over 28 degrees while driving the CV joint will bind and more than likely fail. Duh!Limit straps are used sometimes if higher angles are needed. Also, the use of a boot flange boot adapter will prevent the components from wanting to fall out. Then that info should be plainly stated in the info about them.The only issue I see out of the systems is if you used an over boot CV boot and lifted the vehicle with the suspension drooping. With the high angle and no boot adapter you may see the components wanting to pull out. Ummmm,I don't buy that either.Typically the CV grease is enough to keep them stationary while lifting the vehicle.  Also, depending on how smoothly the splines of the shaft move through the inner race, this can determine if the components are being forced out of the housing by the shaft.I can believe that.

Please let me know your thoughts. My thoughts are a LOT of covering their ass.

  Now with that said,I'd lube the things with cv grease and recheck everything with an open mind. If they still act like shit ,then I'd add the boot flange,as they suggest and see if it solves the issue.

WHat would/will be the ride height running angle?

[fabr]

they sent me a video of them testing one in a lathe. doesn't look like 28* down angle but it's a video and it turns just fine they also said the first 6 i returned that they sent by accident turn just fine to so did i get the 4 bad ones out of the ten they sent or what?Pretty unlikely that is the case.

Can you post the vid? I'd love to see it.

[dsrace]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGa_IUIyvFY&feature=youtu.be

[dsrace]

i didn't smear grease in them i sprayed wd40 and they were dripping with oil to begin with but i did not put the boot retainers on. that imo wouldn't have made a diff because they didn't roll until they jammed and that was at 26* and after over 16 hrs of messing with them in 4 days i gave up and swapped out for fixed.

[Carlriddle]

Boot retainers would keep balls in cv just as a jock strap would ya.  But it limit the angle as normally you can let the balls easy out just a bit.  I machined my boot flanges on fixed 930 to allow balls to roll out, otherwise fixed ones are limited to about 26* if I remember correct.

But your A-arm so fixed 930 and move on.  You don't need the plunge.  And you've already spent so much money on other shit the extra $$ don't count.  That's the way I explained extra to your wife, so your good. LOL

[fabr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGa_IUIyvFY&feature=youtu.be

If that is 28*,I've a 12" dick. That vid is laughable and shows/proves nothing. I don't know what is going on but rcv's answer is lacking.

[dsrace]

already sent them back for fixed. if you look at the pic or videos of mine on a 28" axle at 27* .....sure looks like i have more angle than theres in the vid and looks like there using a 36" or longer axle which should amplify the view of the angle imo but idk . i still know that the ones i had won't go 28* and so if they get them back and say there fine then they are fudging #s and cannot do it! i know those 4 will not for a fact! they needed to show the angle with a gauge in there vid.