The Final Answer to Rear Camber / Toe adjustments!! Battleversion Toe/Camber Arms
10-04-2005, 11:28 PM
#41
The Z33 suspension sounds similar to the 240SX, having 3 rear arms. If it is then what Mike @ OptionImports is saying is true. On the 240SX people usually don't touch the traction rod as it adjusts the rear caster and toe at the same time. Just look at the angle it is mounted. The toe rod adjusts the toe and the camber arm adjusts the camber obviously.
The traction rod is usually only adjusted when people start drag racing.
Just giving some insight. Might be helpful, Might be not.
Victor
The traction rod is usually only adjusted when people start drag racing.
Just giving some insight. Might be helpful, Might be not.
Victor
10-05-2005, 05:48 AM
#42
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORL, FL
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://jic-magic.com/productsjic_armrod.htm -- JIC toe rod is not listed in their catalog or on their website.
11-03-2005, 04:46 PM
#43
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: pa
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so whats the conclusion here. After much research I think this looks like a promissing trend. WHich coilovers would be the best buddy, ksport, D2. I track my track and want to make the conversion from my jics to one of these new fritters
11-04-2005, 02:50 PM
#46
When UNITECH Racing was developing the Koni True Choice coil over for the 350Z Consumer Market as well as for our own race cars, they looked at doing a true "Coilover" set up for the rear of the 350Z...
They found that by having the spring on the shock it actually took away from the suspension performance not alowing for the spring and shock to do their jobs...
When the spring is in the stock location the spring seat / arm acts as a lever making for a higher spring rate spring giving the effect of a lower rate spring...
Mounting a spring on the shock in the rear will have to be a lower spring rate to perform the same as the spring rate with the seperate mounting point...
Also, the travel of the rear suspension is at an angle... If you remove all of your rear Shock & Spring, and move the rear assembly, it does not travel up and down, it will camber in with a spherical pattern... With the Spring mounted seperately from the shock, the spring can allow for the suspention to travel independatly while being able to respond to suspension movement freely over the complete spring stroke... THis also allows for the shock to opperate freely as well...
By putting the coil over in the rear, you take away from the performance of the rear suspension IMHO...
The best way to see will be with the track times...
They found that by having the spring on the shock it actually took away from the suspension performance not alowing for the spring and shock to do their jobs...
When the spring is in the stock location the spring seat / arm acts as a lever making for a higher spring rate spring giving the effect of a lower rate spring...
Mounting a spring on the shock in the rear will have to be a lower spring rate to perform the same as the spring rate with the seperate mounting point...
Also, the travel of the rear suspension is at an angle... If you remove all of your rear Shock & Spring, and move the rear assembly, it does not travel up and down, it will camber in with a spherical pattern... With the Spring mounted seperately from the shock, the spring can allow for the suspention to travel independatly while being able to respond to suspension movement freely over the complete spring stroke... THis also allows for the shock to opperate freely as well...
By putting the coil over in the rear, you take away from the performance of the rear suspension IMHO...
The best way to see will be with the track times...
11-04-2005, 02:55 PM
#47
Its cheeper to manufacture a Coil Over set up for the rear where the spring is mounted on the shock because you can take an existing coil over assembly and make a new upper mount for the Z33... Poof Done!
To make the spring independant from the shock, a new Upper Mount has to be made as well as with some manufacturer's larger diameter springs...
the Z33 / G35 is the only car Tein manufactuers the rear spring Diameters for... As well as the rest of the upper mount parts...
If there was a reason to put the spring on the shock, they would have done that rather then make new parts for a specific application...\
And it also gets rid of inner wheel well clearance...
To make the spring independant from the shock, a new Upper Mount has to be made as well as with some manufacturer's larger diameter springs...
the Z33 / G35 is the only car Tein manufactuers the rear spring Diameters for... As well as the rest of the upper mount parts...
If there was a reason to put the spring on the shock, they would have done that rather then make new parts for a specific application...\
And it also gets rid of inner wheel well clearance...
Last edited by Jason@Performance; 11-04-2005 at 02:58 PM.
11-04-2005, 10:03 PM
#48
I have been checking this thread and see there is a lot of fear of the unknown here.
1. Other manufacturers "Toe" arms can NOT adjust toe correctly.The only place to adjsut toe is from the stock toe bolt location on the lower control arm pivot point. You can adjust toe with the Stillen "toe" rods, but you will also throw the caster out of whack. THis is not the way to adjust "toe".
By relocating the spring to the coilover you are now free to remove the lower control arm, and use the Battle Version lower control arms which are adjustable in legnth and can correctly adjust toe as per the factory design by legnthening or shortening the control arm either by cocentric bolt in the factory location, or by adjustable legnth arm.
I have the D2 sport shocks with the true coilover in the rear, and battle version lower control arm, and camber arms. The upper damper mounting location is strong enough to handle the additional loads. The upper mounts are connected via the rear cross brace. Nothing is going to move here. I have 4000 miles of street driving on these(construction zones, frost heaving etc.) No sructural problems.
Sorry Jason, I didn't understand anything you wrote above. Suspension geometry stays the same when moving the spring.
My D2 coilovers didn't change the inner wheel clearance. It is exactly the same.
Zeals are great. Also almost triple the money. Because of the price Zeals aren't the answer for everyone, and are likely overkill for anyone not campaining a race car.
These D2 coilover shocks are $1000. If your looking to drop your car more than an inch, have independant ride height adjustment and spring preload, looking for an inexpansive one way adjustable lightweight damper, and increased performance on the street then these are your answer. Their are no reports of track torture as of yet. As more people get these and put them on the track we will see if they hold up. D2 has a large racing team in Taiwan I believe. At least 20 or more cars. So they are being used on tracks.
Getting rid of those big *** lower control arms and going wit hthe battle version arms saved me 4 kbs per side, and the toe adjustment is the place the fasctory designed the toe to be adjusted from.
For the street there are no competitors in this price range. Tein Basics don't come close in quality or adjustability.
For the track... time will tell.
Respect
JET
1. Other manufacturers "Toe" arms can NOT adjust toe correctly.The only place to adjsut toe is from the stock toe bolt location on the lower control arm pivot point. You can adjust toe with the Stillen "toe" rods, but you will also throw the caster out of whack. THis is not the way to adjust "toe".
By relocating the spring to the coilover you are now free to remove the lower control arm, and use the Battle Version lower control arms which are adjustable in legnth and can correctly adjust toe as per the factory design by legnthening or shortening the control arm either by cocentric bolt in the factory location, or by adjustable legnth arm.
I have the D2 sport shocks with the true coilover in the rear, and battle version lower control arm, and camber arms. The upper damper mounting location is strong enough to handle the additional loads. The upper mounts are connected via the rear cross brace. Nothing is going to move here. I have 4000 miles of street driving on these(construction zones, frost heaving etc.) No sructural problems.
Sorry Jason, I didn't understand anything you wrote above. Suspension geometry stays the same when moving the spring.
My D2 coilovers didn't change the inner wheel clearance. It is exactly the same.
Zeals are great. Also almost triple the money. Because of the price Zeals aren't the answer for everyone, and are likely overkill for anyone not campaining a race car.
These D2 coilover shocks are $1000. If your looking to drop your car more than an inch, have independant ride height adjustment and spring preload, looking for an inexpansive one way adjustable lightweight damper, and increased performance on the street then these are your answer. Their are no reports of track torture as of yet. As more people get these and put them on the track we will see if they hold up. D2 has a large racing team in Taiwan I believe. At least 20 or more cars. So they are being used on tracks.
Getting rid of those big *** lower control arms and going wit hthe battle version arms saved me 4 kbs per side, and the toe adjustment is the place the fasctory designed the toe to be adjusted from.
For the street there are no competitors in this price range. Tein Basics don't come close in quality or adjustability.
For the track... time will tell.
Respect
JET
11-04-2005, 10:54 PM
#49
Registered User
iTrader: (27)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jason,
Anyone with a basic understanding of Geometry would know your statements above are complete BS. The fulcrum point acts the same irrelevant to where the resistance is applied on the lever. If anything the ability to use a lower spring rate to apply the same force allows for more precise adjustment. Do your math and stop beleiving what someone else tells you. Seems like a marketing ploy to me. Nice pic.
Further more, the only concern using a true coilover setup in the rear is wether or not the strut mount can accept the additional force. I think its safe to assume that it can since a few people have been running true coilover setups in the rear for some time now with no problems.
Think for yourself, question authority.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Geometry would know your statements above are complete BS. The fulcrum point acts the same irrelevant to where the resistance is applied on the lever. If anything the ability to use a lower spring rate to apply the same force allows for more precise adjustment. Do your math and stop beleiving what someone else tells you. Seems like a marketing ploy to me. Nice pic.
Further more, the only concern using a true coilover setup in the rear is wether or not the strut mount can accept the additional force. I think its safe to assume that it can since a few people have been running true coilover setups in the rear for some time now with no problems.
Think for yourself, question authority.
...
11-14-2005, 01:41 AM
#52
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: so cali
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, nice pictures herb.
Jason is right about the spring rate though. You do have to change the spring rate in the rear to a softer spring with a true coil over then what you would use for the stock location spring. The ratio of movement is different. So say you had a 12kg front/10kg rear setup originally. You would go to a 12kg front /8kg rear setup. Yet it does not take away from the performance of the car.
The 350z is very similar to the older 5 link rear suspensions you see in the older cars like the s13/14/15's, R32/33/34's. 300zx's and q45's. The main difference is they flipped it upside down and ran an upper control arm rather then a lower control arm. This means the lower link now becomes the camber adjustment arm. The main difference is the spring location and how they moved it onto the rear toe link.
The engineers did this because they could use a smaller height spring an still get the same amount of suspension travel. Also it increased the size of your trunk space by not having to make space for the spring around the shock.
The problem with this design is the lack of adjustment. Which is why all of you who have lowered your cars are having problems with alignments. All the factory cares about is how the car is when it leaves thier lots. They dont think too much about how well it is designed for people like us who want to mod the car and make it what we want it to be.
Look at the front suspension for instance. The only thing adjustable from the factory is the toe setting. What happens if you ever hit a pot hole too hard or a small accident. The car is still good but over time you wont beable to get the car aligned properly.
It kinda pisses me off that car manufactures never care about these types of things. I mean how much more would it cost to make the front upper arm camber adjustable. For them maybe $10 more per arm. I can see why they didnt from a business aspect. If your sell 100,000 cars, then thats $2,000,000 in production cost added on. But still, it should have some kinda adjustment from the factory. I'm sure you guys, the customers would much rather buy the car for $50 more rather then spending thousands in used up tires, aftermarket suspension arms, and alignments.
Jason is right about the spring rate though. You do have to change the spring rate in the rear to a softer spring with a true coil over then what you would use for the stock location spring. The ratio of movement is different. So say you had a 12kg front/10kg rear setup originally. You would go to a 12kg front /8kg rear setup. Yet it does not take away from the performance of the car.
The 350z is very similar to the older 5 link rear suspensions you see in the older cars like the s13/14/15's, R32/33/34's. 300zx's and q45's. The main difference is they flipped it upside down and ran an upper control arm rather then a lower control arm. This means the lower link now becomes the camber adjustment arm. The main difference is the spring location and how they moved it onto the rear toe link.
The engineers did this because they could use a smaller height spring an still get the same amount of suspension travel. Also it increased the size of your trunk space by not having to make space for the spring around the shock.
The problem with this design is the lack of adjustment. Which is why all of you who have lowered your cars are having problems with alignments. All the factory cares about is how the car is when it leaves thier lots. They dont think too much about how well it is designed for people like us who want to mod the car and make it what we want it to be.
Look at the front suspension for instance. The only thing adjustable from the factory is the toe setting. What happens if you ever hit a pot hole too hard or a small accident. The car is still good but over time you wont beable to get the car aligned properly.
It kinda pisses me off that car manufactures never care about these types of things. I mean how much more would it cost to make the front upper arm camber adjustable. For them maybe $10 more per arm. I can see why they didnt from a business aspect. If your sell 100,000 cars, then thats $2,000,000 in production cost added on. But still, it should have some kinda adjustment from the factory. I'm sure you guys, the customers would much rather buy the car for $50 more rather then spending thousands in used up tires, aftermarket suspension arms, and alignments.
Last edited by AlexPfeiffer; 11-14-2005 at 01:45 AM.
11-14-2005, 03:35 PM
#53
Registered User
iTrader: (27)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice pics Herb! I must get them now. SPC works but those look much better.
Thanks for explaining all the Alex. I guess in business every where you can shave cost you do.
Thanks for explaining all the Alex. I guess in business every where you can shave cost you do.
11-15-2005, 04:43 PM
#55
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vegas
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been trying to find somebody who has used the kit from K-Mac. Any of you vendors or racers tried these yet?
http://www.k-mac.com I guess that you can adjust the camber, caster and toe in seconds using just a wench, I mean wrench, lol!
http://www.k-mac.com I guess that you can adjust the camber, caster and toe in seconds using just a wench, I mean wrench, lol!
11-16-2005, 02:32 PM
#58
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: vegas
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NiSmO D1X
then would this in turn help us eliminate the tire feathering issues that we have?
12-15-2005, 06:22 PM
#59
I find all your arguments regarding the ideal suspension and all the supporting high school geometry lessons very intriguing but, what I’d like to know is just how much road noise is being transferred to the inner cabin using this setup? The suspension mods that Alex has created for the Z “looks” to be nothing less than a work of art. Simply beautiful. 
When I set out to buy my Z, I had a clear cut objective to take an already “Good” automobile and make it a better more balanced sports car that could contend with the likes of some of the greatest exotic sports car on the market today (Yes I know I have my work cut out for me
). My plan has not been to compromise one improvement to sacrifice an already great quality. Now I don’t know about the rest of you but just because it performs like a track car doesn’t mean I want to sound like one with the windows rolled up and the radio off. My case and point being the BMW M3, Porsche 996 or even a C6 corvette just to name a few. I would love to know that my suspension is working by the way it performs on the road or track, but I’d rather not have to be forced to listen to it do it’s business. Feel me? I rather like being able to hold a conversation with my girl without having to yell or raise my voice with the windows up. Would I be asking too much?
Okay… I didn’t mean to get all long winded so I’m going to come to my point. I’d like to know if anyone currently has this setup on their Z right now can tell me if your car sounds like a “rattle trap” or not? Do you have any strange noises what-so-ever after converting from stock?
See… I have no doubts at all that this system works just because it was designed and build by Alex Pfeiffer of whom could probably teach the Nissan engineers a thing or two about suspension setups. But, if I were to purchase and install this system on my car, would I come to regret it later after the 120 mile daily round trip to work and back in traffic?
Anyone?
BTW. Alex… You got mad skills son!
I’d be honored to meet you if you ever make it to the Washington DC area in the future. Drinks are on me. 
When I set out to buy my Z, I had a clear cut objective to take an already “Good” automobile and make it a better more balanced sports car that could contend with the likes of some of the greatest exotic sports car on the market today (Yes I know I have my work cut out for me
). My plan has not been to compromise one improvement to sacrifice an already great quality. Now I don’t know about the rest of you but just because it performs like a track car doesn’t mean I want to sound like one with the windows rolled up and the radio off. My case and point being the BMW M3, Porsche 996 or even a C6 corvette just to name a few. I would love to know that my suspension is working by the way it performs on the road or track, but I’d rather not have to be forced to listen to it do it’s business. Feel me? I rather like being able to hold a conversation with my girl without having to yell or raise my voice with the windows up. Would I be asking too much? Okay… I didn’t mean to get all long winded so I’m going to come to my point. I’d like to know if anyone currently has this setup on their Z right now can tell me if your car sounds like a “rattle trap” or not? Do you have any strange noises what-so-ever after converting from stock?
See… I have no doubts at all that this system works just because it was designed and build by Alex Pfeiffer of whom could probably teach the Nissan engineers a thing or two about suspension setups. But, if I were to purchase and install this system on my car, would I come to regret it later after the 120 mile daily round trip to work and back in traffic?
Anyone?
BTW. Alex… You got mad skills son!
I’d be honored to meet you if you ever make it to the Washington DC area in the future. Drinks are on me.
