What do you guys think of this for balljoint suspension mods

[DORIGTT]

I'm thinking of a couple things. Follow me for a minute.

To get more negative camber, the 356 guys/gals shorten the top tube of their front axle beam assembly a smidge to cant the uprights in a bit. This apparently gives more negative camber. What do you think of doing this and of the possiblity of the trailing arms binding in their range of movement?

Also, I'm thinking of getting rid of the balljoint upper shock mounts and grafting on a set-up similar to the king-pin front end. This I believe would allow a wider range of shock availabilty. Also, we could use better shocks as the availability for 'better' front shocks is limited with the balljoint arrangement I believe. We can now use Qal shocks or something like that.

Am I smoking too much horsehair padding or what?

[gcorrado]

To get more negative camber

the first step to getting more negative camber should be getting
a pair of those EXTRA ECCENTRIC bushings. the stock camber
adjuster bushings have the hole drilled off center. but on these
things the hole is dilled as far eccentric as possible, allowing you
to dial in over a degree of negative camber.

bugpack part number 6612-10
available here at aircooled.net: extra eccentric camber bushing

if you need EVEN MORE negative camber, i believe a common thing
to do is deliberately BEND you upper torsion arm. this is a severe
measure, but you can take it very far and is rarely barred by the
rule books.

i think with these two tricks up your sleeve, there's little need to go
shortening the top tube... more work, very irreversible, same (or inferior) effect.

Getting rid of the balljoint upper shock mounts and grafting on a set-up similar to the king-pin front end.

sorry, no comment. i don't know jack about this one.

[DORIGTT]

C'mon! Don't give me that answer! I want a more complex solution to an incredibly simple problem dammit!

The shock mounts on the balljoint suspension are unique to it. Eyelet at the bottom and 'stud' up top. The king-pin set-up has eyelets on both ends. That seems to be what is commonly available in the world of shocks. I just thought it would be easier to find a better array of shocks for the front then. The best of both worlds...balljoints and better shock availability.

For instance. All offroaders (most) use kingpin set-ups which I imagine has something to do with how the shocks are mounted.

Smack me around if I'm wrong on this one people.

[gcorrado]

C'mon! Don't give me that answer!
I want a more complex solution to an incredibly simple
problem dammit!

i know, i do this all the time. (come up with crazy solutions
to solved problems i mean.) but hey that makes it fun. plus
it feels good to have come up with an unconvental solution
all on your own, even if a better one is already known.

The king-pin set-up has eyelets on both ends.

sounds like a cool idea to me. any issue getting everything to line
up / clear? why did they move to that setup anyway then?

[rsrnate]

The reason off roaders use link pin front ends is because they are considered tougher than balljoints , but they do not handle better on the street The reason that 356 racers have to shorten the top tube to get extra negative camber is beacause 356's have link pin beams Link pin bad Balljoint good A well sorted balljoint, irs bug will smoke a 356 around a race track, I know I have both.

[2088bob]

some one mentioned earlier that they thought you could only get 1 degree of negative camber out of a set of extra eccentrics i am using them right now and have 2 1/2 degrees negative camber dialed in and in think while we were fooling around with them on the alignment rack we managed to get as much as3 1/3 or 3 3/4 degrees negative out of them