You can change the style the forum displays by selecting your preferred style at the bottom left of the site.
We have made an enhancement so that old threads should now link from search results to the correct thread. This is not yet in place for single post links
As far as the grease in ball joints and tie rod ends, there is a way to add grease thru the bottom. This is a way to insure there is grease around the ball. Hard to get in from the top by way of boot removal.
I'm not sure I understand your 1st question sir, but as for 893407366E, that P/N looks to be the earlier 'less centered' 3-bolt joint (for less caster) that may be correct for a 1990 20v Q sedan's pressed arm on the front axle. Link to 7zap's listing for this part:
To your 2nd question, perhaps not with this P/N joint, but the joint you require really depends on what car and what A-arm you may have. Perhaps this thread would prove helpful:
To replicate how the factory got increased caster with forged arms, use the two 'more centered' (a.k.a. B4 type) only knurled on top 895 407 365 A / 366 A ball-joints. See one in 2nd photo and description in Error's 1st post in this thread. If these are different (i.e.: less) in offset from what you currently have, then you will gain caster with their use.
To replicate how the factory got increased caster with forged arms, use the two 'more centered' (a.k.a. B4 type) only knurled on top 895 407 365 A / 366 A ball-joints. See one in 2nd photo and description in Error's 1st post in this thread. If these are different (i.e.: less) in offset from what you currently have, then you will gain caster with their use.
Regards also.
And would it be possible to exchange the right with the left to win even more caster ?? Since that reference is the one I bought, but I am not sure if I will be able to mount them backwards, that way I would gain a lot of caster, which is very beneficial because, in addition, the steering of these cars is very soft and I would gain toughness. Thanks.
Perhaps not without other obstacles, see 1st page of this thread, posts 11, 14 and 15 where A1QShip tried what you suggest. However, there may be other areas you can work to improve the steering response, for example inner tie-rod bushings, A-arm bushings and top-mounts (all known wear-items) are oft found neglected and if allowed to go soft / become internally torn, all will absorb surprising amounts of steering signal before any is transmitted, adding vagueness, numbness and imprecision (possibly also of interest, see Arm-Stops, Strut-Stops).
Similarly, if the rear axle's A-arms can move fore-aft, due to weak A-arm bushes, and/or if the rear drag-link inner bushes are weak, this allows an inadvertent and random rear-steer behaviour which has a larger than expected adverse effect, since this axle has a long lever arm to work against the car's very forward C of G.
Consider also that caster is but one measure at work here and cannot be altered without also changing other characteristics, for instance the inside rear wheel will lift more with a caster increase, something already an issue. So it may be that by first providing better full-time reinforcement for already achievable stock static alignment settings, gets one sufficient results when the car is in motion, as those settings are then better able to resist distortion / deformation / degradation and are better able to remain constant when really being pushed against; i.e.: tested dynamically.
Perhaps not without other obstacles, see 1st page of this thread, posts 11, 14 and 15 where A1QShip tried what you suggest. However, there may be other areas you can work to improve the steering response, for example inner tie-rod bushings, A-arm bushings and top-mounts (all known wear-items) are oft found neglected and if allowed to go soft / become internally torn, all will absorb surprising amounts of steering signal before any is transmitted, adding vagueness, numbness and imprecision (possibly also of interest, see Arm-Stops, Strut-Stops).
Similarly, if the rear axle's A-arms can move fore-aft, due to weak A-arm bushes, and/or if the rear drag-link inner bushes are weak, this allows an inadvertent and random rear-steer behaviour which has a larger than expected adverse effect, since this axle has a long lever arm to work against the car's very forward C of G.
Consider also that caster is but one measure at work here and cannot be altered without also changing other characteristics, for instance the inside rear wheel will lift more with a caster increase, something already an issue. So it may be that by first providing better full-time reinforcement for already achievable stock static alignment settings, gets one sufficient results when the car is in motion, as those settings are then better able to resist distortion / deformation / degradation and are better able to remain constant when really being pushed against; i.e.: tested dynamically.
Thank you very much for your indications. I take all that into account, in fact I will mount KW V3 with adjustable upper supports in a short time and then, little by little, I will change all the silemblocks to polyurethane, as I have been doing with some. But modifying the suspension ball joint is "cheap and easy", that's why I was wondering.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment