Printable View
Im in the process of swapping over my wishbones, arb, hubs and drive shafts for valver items. Is there a certain way i need to drill the new holes further out in the shock tower? Or can i just take the new track width subtract the original track width, half it and move the holes out that amount whilst still keeping them in-line?
Ph1 or ph2 shocks and top mounts?
If your using ph1 items you only need to fit camber bolts and all will be good, this I know as its how I did mine.
Can't really help with the ph2 items though :(
I sold you my ph1 adjustable top mounts:laugh:
All my stuff if ph2:rolleyes:
I have camber correction bolts so will try those as well.
do the r5 track rod ends have enough meat on them for the extra track?
Oh yeah lol, I haven't actually used them, still running standard ph1 top mounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
Yep, mine did just fine, I fitted new items as a matter of course
:laugh: ace i will be getting new ones would have got valver items but there out of stock:rolleyes:
Make sure you clean the threads on the track rods and cost them in copper grease.
Your running koni shocks aren't you?
Yeah phase 2 yellow koni shocks.
Getting ph1 versions would cost too much then :(
If you used ph1 top mounts and camber bolts you might get away with redrilling the bottom mounting hole on the strut
The konis are pretty new so will be keeping them. Worst case il just re-drill the shock tower. I have no problems with drilling holes in it:D
Im doing the same as you but i have the clio koni shocks also. Let us know how you get on, you doing the rear beam too i take it?
Another question! I take it the 5 sub frame is the same width as the clio valver sub frame so it all adds up!? ;)
Im also going one step further and fitting the ABS and power steering off the valver too :D
I'm not doing the rear beam at the mo, only doing this because it all came up cheap and I needed a new cb and wheel bearing so thought is just do the whole lot. I may just space out the rear beam
I don't know about subframe but I will be measuring the new track and subtracting the std track off of it.
Afaik the valver wishbones won't fit the 5's subframe. The mounting points and rubbers of a valver are bigger
Pretty sure they just drop in matey. I will find out tomorrow:D
Will you get back even if they don't? :D
Good luck tomorrow!
Lets hope so....... :crap:
I still have both so can Mix and match bits. The bushes are a lot bigger but look like they will fit. I will post up whatever I find:D
They defo fit, the valver bushes are much bigger but they do just fitQuote:
Originally Posted by Tutuur
Right like stated the swing arms are a direct fit. I also managed to use my gtt pollybushes for the arb on the valver arb(slightly thicker).
Using camber correction bolts I managed to get the hub pretty straight see pix. Obv its still in the air but if anything when its got the weight on it I will have a better idea. http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...7/IMAG0106.jpg
YES............... :D Loving your work son :agree:
cheers fella it aint pretty but it does the job:D
if euro car parts get their finger out and get my bits in il try and get some pixs up of the camber when dropped down;)
That would be great :agree: I think in going down the knife and fork route and re-drilling the suspension tops.... but yea be good to see how it looks on chamber correction bolts. Cheers.
if the bolts cant cut it i will be re-drilling the shocktowers and using the correction bolts to fine tune it;)
That would screw up castor, no ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Os8472
Better to move the top mount by the additional track I'd have thought.
cheers chris, thats what i will be doing if the correction bolts dont move the hub enough.
Im using ph2 top mounts shocks and the clio hubs if anybody is interested:D
I don't know much about chassis setup mate but even my limited knowledge tells me you would have less effective camber in cornering if you 'correct' at the hub.
Nope, castor is perfectly fine, feels spot on even before I got the camber settings right it felt better than the Gtt setupQuote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
ok matey then il measure the new track and minus the old one halve whats left then move the holes by that much then use the bolts if i have to.;)
where would the origional track width be measured so i can take my measurements from the same place as i forgot to take them at the start:rolleyes:
Inside of the wheels, outside of wheels, outside edge of the disc???
Centre line of each tyre.
Oli it has to affect the effective camber in corners. Caster probably isn't the right term but the effect will be similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Os8472
I'm not saying it's not an acceptable bodge but its a bodge none the less. 30 mins to modify the turrets has to be worthwhile. Even if you can't feel it others might. ;)
On a ph2 I'd agree as the strut angle is different due to the top mount and the flange where they bolt to the hub, just ask HAndy how much trouble he's had getting all the caster and camber settings right but on ph1 all that happens is push the bottom of the strut out and forward a smidge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
The valver wishbones alone won't introduce a massive amount of castor as the Gtt subframe and valver subframe are fractionally different where the wishbones bolt on, if that makes sense, I'm crap at explaining stuff like this.
A little extra castor is no bad thing though, helps with turn in from what I understand, one thing my Gtt seemed to be lacking quite abit.
The phase 1 and 2 have different suspension geo ? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Os8472
All I'm saying is that you will affect the effective camber in corners, and that it may have the opposite effect to which you're hoping. It will reduce effective camber in the outside wheel in corners. You can visualize that I'm sure. This may be a bad thing with anything less than a very stiff setup. I don't know though ? Or maybe that few degrees is not enough to worry about. Again I don't know. It's probably not significant enough to make an instantly noticeable difference to but with that many uncertainties and for the sake of 30 mins I think it's worth doing properly.
so they do fit! :agree:
with my 9 it's a other story, i tried fitting 19 wishbones but they wouldn't fit because the bushes where far bigger. gtt has the same size bushes so i assumed they wouldn't fit too :rolleyes:
Yeah the ph1 front struts are basically a campus setup, the strut top sits bang on centre of the hole in the strut tower where as the ph2 is off centre. Where they bolt to hub is slightly different too, on the ph1 the bolt holes on the strut are both equal distance from the main body where as the ph2 the bottom bolt hole is further out. I think if you check the factory camber castor settings of a ph1 and 2 are pretty much the same but how the strut sits is very different, the ph1 setup lends itself to a valver wide track a lot easier than ph2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
Yes the camber does change with the valver setup and standard ph1 struts and mounts but mine only showed 1.5 extra degree's of negative camber but this was easily fixed with the camber bolts. The ph2 setup I think we're a lot worse for this as the strut angle is different, I think HAndy found he gained 2.5 degree's of negative camber.
cheers mat. i will re-drill the shock towers and use the camber correction bolts for the fine tuning. I have been wanting to get it to you for some time now to have it set up properly, but its never running long enough to do so:rolleyes: hopefully when this is all done i can get it down to you:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Matt@CodeRedMotorsports
one thing i will mention is that valver track rod ends are too long for the gtt rack even with the valver swingarms:scratch:
No worries;)Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
Thats strange considering you are using the rest of the setup:scratch:, glad you finally fitted I was going to pm you the other day and ask to buy it all back:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Os8472
:agree: the phase 2 set up with valver wishbones wont allow you to run less than 21/2 degrees negative camber on the wheels, with camber bolts, (that said if your looking for a good track set up,might be spot on;)) if you re thinking of doing the strut tower bolt holes,dont bother either, makes the shock sit almost at a positve angle, which really makes the strut compression angle totally ****e. phase 1 top mounts or compbrake items needed to dial in/out castor, and phase 1 struts needed or possibly re drilled hub mounting flanges on phase 2 struts needed to get the hub to sit at the correct angle in relation to a good strut compression angle. i found with camber bolts used on a phase 1 set up(but with more castor due combrake top mounts and valver wishbones) that i could set the camber at 1/2-3/4 negative, on the floor under load:).,seemed to be a bit of discrepency between the turrets,good old renault:laugh: i will be rose jointing the front end sooner or later, fancy some more width:cooter:
So in a nut shell, the valve running gear fits, Re-drill the strut top to correct chamber.... Win.
Scoff, As im fitting the Valver ABS also, can the wheel speed signal be intercepted some how and used for some sort of traction control if i go for stand a lone Adaptronics?? :D
that strut has about 1/2-3/4 degree camber already, when you lower it to the deck under load it will gain another 1 1/2 to 2 degrees;):DQuote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
yes:cool: to the second part
if you want to run a ****e strut compression angle then go with the re-drilled turrets:(
Thats the max the camber correction bolts can do it was just to show really. you have to take into account that the floor slopes down to the right so it is pretty square to the ground in the flesh.:D
So are you saying not to drill the shock towers then handy:scratch:
Handy i have clio Koni suspension too, Does that make any difference ?? This camber thing melts your head..:confused:
there would have been a steep surcharge:cooter:Quote:
Originally Posted by James5
2 degrees negative camber is what you want for track isnt it? whats that going to be like on tyres for road use?:scared:
what about re-drilling the shock towers only slightly over to allow the camber correction bolts to dial most of it out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
i dont know about the clio strut geometry, sorry:( .
wouldnt mess about to much unless you can get your hands on a camber/castor gauges to be honest, i played about with mine for basicly 2 days , trying different things:ashamed:
I have a compass, set square and protractor if thats any good :D
2 degrees is a fair bit, for road use, im running 2 1/2 on the rear:laugh::laugh::laugh: :cry::cry:, yeah i will let you know:DQuote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
it wont dial out enough ,by fettling the holes on the turrets, the bolt holes in the strut flanges that bolt to the hub are the problem, to much negative camber on the strut when used with 16v wishbone, to be able to dial out some of the camber with the wider 16v wishbones a phase 1 or adjustable phase 1 type top mount is need to get back some positive camber, hence the inline with the turret hole strut centre, as the wider wishbone pushes the strut out at the bottom anyway by about 15mm, it also adds positive castor,as the ball joint/wheel sits 5-6mm further to the front of the car, than the gtt wishbone, the phase 1 struts with the inline bolt pattern on the hub flange will help keep the hub at a more positive camber angle in relation to the tyre on the road, if you want more camber then i suppose you could use this set up and re drill the turrets to gain you slightly more non adjustable negative camber, and slightly more compression angle on the strut or the phase 2 top mount,which will give a lot more non adjustable negative angle, pushing the top mount centres closer together. a bit long winded ,but i hope that makes more sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
no it wont:laugh:, but a 2 foot level or a boat level with a vertical vial:)
a bit pikey but, if you can mark on the vial where the bubble sits in relation to the outer line markers, or draw it on a bit of paper(so you dont forget) you could use that mark as an indicator for when you set up the new strut /wishbone position;)
ie the 2 ft level vertical up against the tyre or boat level up against the disc or hub face:p
nick k , is your phase 1 clio a valver, if so i gather your thinking about williams wishbones:cooter: if so the same approach may work, but might only need adjustable camber bolts, and a different anti rollbar set up, i bet combrake even do eccentric/concentric top mounts also;)
Yea the clio is a j plate 16 valver with a track - Front 1358mm Rear 1324mm. So was planning to bolt the wish bones, ARB, shafts, Power rack straight to the 5 sub frame, then feck about with the chamber after.
King pin inclination.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scoff
So this is how it looks with just the camber correction bolts. What ya think?
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...7/IMAG0108.jpg
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...7/IMAG0107.jpg
Gary give us some pics of it dropped on the floor:agree:
what are the benefits v's hassle/cost of the valver widetrack? surely some R888's over regular tyres will have a better benefit per £?
The main advantages are the extra track width improves the wheelbase track ratio which benefits handling but the main advantage is the extra castor achieved.
Positive castor adds dynamic negative camber - negative camber is increased on the outside wheel and decreased on the inside wheel which adds cornering grip and aids 'turn in'
Another advantage of the extra castor is that you don't have to run as much static negative camber - the tyres are flatter on the road which aids traction and braking in a straight line.
Castor is the angle from vertical between the top and bottom pivot points when viewed from the side. When the top is further rear than the bottom, this is positive castor.
King Pin Inclination (KPI) is the angle between the top and bottom pivot points when viewed from the front and has the opposite effect on dynamic camber than castor. Too much KPI is a bad thing as it undoes the good work of positive castor.
This site has some useful info:
http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_artic...and-scrub.aspx
does this have any real effect on a day to day road car though, as most people's 5's on here are (when they are on the road lol)
not trying to be negative, just seems like alot of grief for not alot of gain imho, but then again i'm not the oracle by any means
Looks like I have gained 30mm of width:laugh: il drop it to the floor when I have track rod ends fitted. That is it basicly under load there will be a bit more load when on wheels as the stands are in slightly tho.
Oli I was joking :) I'm aware of the differences and have been for about 15 years ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Os8472
Thanks tony, I had no idea what it was called.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Walker
Renault must have realised this as being a drawback during the phase 1 years since the phase 2 has exactly this change with it's top mounts further out. This is what I was afraid people will loose if they leave the top mounts alone and use camber correct bolts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woznaldo
For now I have cheated and used camber correction bolts until I can take it to someone like mat to get it set up properly by someone who knows what that are doing.
Any way for now here's how it sits.
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...7/IMAG0110.jpg
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...7/IMAG0109.jpg
http://i773.photobucket.com/albums/y...7/IMAG0111.jpg
visibly wider :D looks good, camber doesnt look too bad either but difficult to say, also worth looking at the camber as you move the wheels from straight ahead to either lock.
Yeah I thought it looked wider but from the centre of each tyre was 1350mm over the standard 1320mm:scratch: il have a look and see how the camber looks on lock. Looks like the same sort of camber it had before so should be good enough to drive it to get it set up.
you'll probably notice in this weather if theres too much camber itll wheelspin easier.
That looks awesome gary. :agree:
Cheers log;) makes it look that little bit more aggressive, I think anymore extra width would mean bodywork to be modified to keep the wheels under the arches.
Hopefully it has better traction with the new camber as the wheels would spin in 3rd easily:laugh:
I'm thinking I need to space out the rear now. How far can I go without ruining the bearings every 500miles?:D 10mm? More?
Agreed :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Logg
After reading that info that woz linked i can safely say there is somesome seriously wrong with my 9 suspension :crap: If you full lock it, it just stays there and you go around in a circle all day long :cry: Something too look at another day...
could be top bearings, a trackrod end or a bottom joint on the wishbone.. but also something is bent..Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
Its had new ball joints, track rods ends and wheel bearings for the MOT, but its not been right from day one, at speed if you hit a white line or water it changes direction, it has been tracked also.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoooL
Thinking 2 new arms and OE front shocks with bearings etc. Have a good look at the sub frame also and then get it tracked and see... Least i can rule out them bits then.
What about the top bearings? in the struts..?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
There did'nt seem to be any play i them but i'll get them replaced also anyway..
My 9 does exactly the same thing :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
I've fitted new wishbones, ball joints, track rod ends, new dampers and springs, it's had the tracking done yet still does it :(
So it would appear that they are just ****e then :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Os8472
Does an R9 have the same differences in top mount design as a GTT (Phase 1 & 2)?
As said, it's probably shot top mount bearings.
Yeah probably lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
Although I have noticed my has incredibly tight turning circle
Top mounts are fixed on a 9, the bearings are at the lower end of the springQuote:
Originally Posted by Woznaldo
Did my conversion for £60:DQuote:
Originally Posted by markey b
I think the cost can stay down on the Valver Wide Track conversion (Schwartz can confirm) as you can get away with keeping the GTT driveshafts?
I know if you go wider again (Williams or 172/182) you will need to look into driveshafts, and hubs in the case of 172/182.
Valver driveshafts were also used and the cost of fitting one new cv boot and new track rod ends:D
Am I right in thinking that the standard track of a gtt is 1320? That Haynes rekons. Could someone please measure the front track for me?:D the track now is 1360 but it looks like its gained more than 40mm of track,I want to move the shock over but 20mm dosnt seem like its enough:scratch:
Front track is 1323.
If the autodata is correct the front end on the 5 should be 1323mm and the clio 16v is 1358mm, so you should of gained 35mm, the strut top need to be moved by 17.5mm, which on a phase 2 will fowl the shocker top :crap:,Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
Im going to measure the clio and the 5 and compare the results, as in the kpa, and all the other bits then decide where to put the shocker when re-drilling it, I think a small access hole will be required to get to the koni adjuster.Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
Which is why you mod it like this (sorry Chris stole a pic from your profile hope ok) my current 5 has the same mods to the front strut top's.
https://www.rtoc.org/boards/picture.p...pictureid=3321
Grinder Time :yeah:Quote:
Originally Posted by James5
James, are your top plate off set like scoff's are, i take it that moves the shocker forwards and backwards( caster is that called )
Cheers guys I was measuring where the floor meets the tyre so as there's a bit of extra camber those measurements sound right.
I was thinking of doing that James but with a tank cutter so its nice and curved and leaves most of the upright part.:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
Mine are the same as Scoffs :agree:but they are currently in the std holes:agree:
Are your top mount plates not OE then??Quote:
Originally Posted by James5
Ok so il drill the holes 17.5mm over, also I think it was you mat who I saw do this but is it worth drilling another hole further forward on the swing arm and move the lower ball joint toward the front of the car for more dynamic camber is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick k
They are std item's no mods to mount's just the top turret has been modified
In Chris's pix it looks like the shock has been twisted maybe again for more dynamic camber if that's correct, what about doing that?
Need to ask Chris what arms etc he is running ???Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
He's used silly long arms and welded longer flanges on to the shocks to reach the hubs. No good for handling but I wouldn't want to be turning at the speeds his car does anyway:laugh:
Sort of, it was for a clio 172.Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHWARTZ
Would it be worth doing or would it have different affects on a 5 do you think?
Really depends on the main use of the car, mostly track get loads of caster on there, if its used mostly on the road, not so much. ;)
If you have ever been karting, you will see caster in action, for example before sitting in the kart turn the steering wheel to full lock and you will see the kart lift the front off the ground, depending on how much caster you have will determine the self centre action of the steering, ie you can basically let go of the steering wheel of the kart, but you would have to help to centre the steering of something like an old land rover.
One of the mods I did to a Subaru sti wrx recently, was to make some caster plates up and fit them into the lower arms, the driver of the car (ok he is an older chap, but still competitive) dropped over a second off his lap time around brands hatch, in f1 terms that's light years....:laugh:
Had 17deg hubs on a rc car changed to 22deg and turn in was amazing:D
It is a road car but hoping to do a few track days when its working:laugh: probably best if I just leave it alone then.