Maxzillian Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 So I've got it in my mind that I may be able to squeeze a set of 8" rear wheels under the front fenders of my car (sorry, hella-flush won't work here) by using a flatty front suspension on the front of a wide body. My question is, has anyone ran that wheel and strut combination before? Whether it be a flatty or a wide body. My concern is that the tire may contact the strut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komeuppance Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Pretty sure I've seen it on the Aussie's cars with Jap spec EX Staz's. You want that much negative camber?? Are you going for a wider track?? Or just wanting a wider wheel for a wider tire?? -Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxzillian Posted July 20, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Wider wheel for a wider tire. I'm pretty sure I'd have to use the flatty lower control arms to keep camber in check. Essentially it'd be a flatty front suspension swap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_Venable Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 (edited) well, my flatty has wheels with a similar spec to the rear 8's (-15mm offset after spacers vs -10) although with only a 205/50r16 on a 16x8, it clears just fine, and I've got my coilovers WAY lower on the flatty strut body http://26liter.us/gallery/albums/userpics/10030/P7070501.jpghttp://26liter.us/gallery/albums/userpics/10030/P5160413.jpg And here's the clearance without the 25mm spacers (+10mm offset), and 205/55r16 snow tires (the tire touches only the moving perch/collar) http://26liter.us/gallery/albums/userpics/10030/P2200345.jpg Edited July 20, 2010 by D_Venable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convette Posted July 20, 2010 Report Share Posted July 20, 2010 Worthless. Your giving your car less track width, just to run a not even really that wide of a tire. You can run rear 9's on the front by just rolling your fenders. Sully was going to do it years ago but never did. It makes no sence. Who cares if you don't want your car flush? It will handle better by using the stock widebody stuff and 8's. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxzillian Posted July 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2010 I have no intention of reducing the cars track width. My only intention is to gain more room for the tires. If I have to run spacers to bring the track back in spec I will, but I have a sneaky suspicion it won't be a problem. If I have to roll the fenders I will, but I don't care to do so if I don't have to. This car sees plenty of abuse, both on and off the pavement. I personally like a little fender to tire clearance to give me some insurance from cutting the sidewalls of my tires. I wasn't aware SHP 9's could be used on the widebody front struts. I would have imagined clearance to the spring perch would become an issue. I'll have to double check backspacing measurements and look further into it. Another reason edging me towards this is I have a Galant Lambda destined for Lemons and it could stand to have a wider front track to match the rear axle I found for it. Seemed like swapping struts from one car to the other was going to be a win win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxzillian Posted July 21, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Doing a bit of math and measuring. Based off the factory service manual specs, total front track width is as follows: Stock TSI: 65.7"Stock SHP: 66.5" Widebody struts w/8" TSI rears: 68.8"Widebody struts w/9" SHP rears: 68.7" Now here's where things get hazy. I measured the Galant out to approximately 54.5" hub width while going off the 86 FSM I calculate 56.9". The TSI is 59.1" according to the FSM. Perhaps the Galant has a different front crossmember. I'm not sure at the moment, so I went off the 86 FSM measurements. Flatbody struts w/8" TSI rears: 66.5"Flatbody struts w/9" SHP rears: 66.4" There may be some validity to this idea. Edited July 21, 2010 by Maxzillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convette Posted July 21, 2010 Report Share Posted July 21, 2010 I don't understand.. Other than wanting to use stuff on another car, your loosing 2" of width from the front. I'm running a 10.5 (total rim width from edge to edge) AND a 1" spacer and everything clears just fine. Yes my fenders are pulled and I'm stretching a little tire, but... IDK man, personally I see no reason to take away track width, just to run rims/tires that will fit anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxzillian Posted July 22, 2010 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) Over stock I'm not losing a thing. My problem is that I'm not running stretched tires, nor am I lowering the car. This whole idea is nothing about looks (well ok, I like a tire that still fits under the fender...) and all about trying to make the car a better performer in autocross. That said, if the 8" wheels clear to my satisfaction, a set of 9" tires will be shod under the car in an effort to get as much tire as I can without breaking the bank on another set of wheels. It helps tremendously that I have enough spare wheels to do this. My other big concern is that the car occasionally sees rallycross duty. While I won't run a 9" tire on the dirt and may attempt to find a 7" setup using ranger or mustang wheels, I have fears of running a setup that places the tire too close to the fender lip and runs a risk of buckling the fender or ripping the tire. I've seen pictures of your setup and it looks good and has what I consider to be fair clearance for most occasions, but for what I have in mind I don't think it is enough. Edited July 22, 2010 by Maxzillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metric-man Posted July 22, 2010 Report Share Posted July 22, 2010 Cross members on wide bodies are longer that flatties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zactek Posted July 31, 2010 Report Share Posted July 31, 2010 Cross members on wide bodies are longer that flatties. Indeed, with control arms being longer as well, not to mention different-angled strut bodies.... Zack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coke Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 Just run SHP 8's with 245/45/16 in front. I do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxzillian Posted September 9, 2010 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 Which is the obvious solution, but not necessarily the best. There are a few advantages to running the flatty struts such as being able to rotate my tires and even possibly run SHP 9s all around. I'm currently searching for some strut housings. So far it doesn't seem like it'll be too difficult of a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Komeuppance Posted September 9, 2010 Report Share Posted September 9, 2010 Flatty crossmembers also have the control arm mounting points 5mm in closer to the center of the car. Something else to consider. -Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxzillian Posted October 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2010 (edited) Finally got some parts mounted up! I've got a number of parts to buy before I can test drive the car, but I at least got the core suspension fit up and confirmed that this works rather well. The difference between a flatty strut and a widebody strut is very slight. A couple degrees at the most. http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover1.jpg The D2 coil overs certainly reduce the total strut height quite a bit. This is with the shock inserted about 3" into the mount. There is easily another 2" to go in my case. Most may allow more depending on how much of the original strut tube remains. http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover2.jpg Comparing flatty bits to widebody bits. The lower control arm is about 1" shorter and the strut rod is just a smidge straighter. http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover3.jpg Mounted in the car it looks... like any other suspension. http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover4.jpg http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover5.jpg Something I did notice, but didn't expect, is that the suspension may benefit from a greatly shortened end link for the sway bar. The suspension is set for about the ride height I need (very close to stock), but with the greatly reduced shocked travel the sway bar does not need to drop nearly as far. A shorter end link would allow the sway bar to stay closer to parallel with the ground throughout the suspension travel, reducing bind. http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover6.jpg Tire clearance is perfect. For racing I will be using a set of 245/45-16 tires. I have no concerns about clearance issues. http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover7.jpg http://maxzillian.com/starion/coilover8.jpg Hopefully within another few weeks, the car will be on the road. Edited October 24, 2010 by Maxzillian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxzillian Posted October 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2013 Well, I thought I had followed up on this, but I guess not! So, three years later, what do I think? By and large, no major negatives. I have noticed that due to the increased scrub radius of the suspension that the car wants to wander into ruts and cracks in the road more. On street tires this isn't bad, but I've been streeting the car to autocross this event on 245/45R16 Hoosier racing slicks and I have to say it's downright a handful. I know a lot of this is the tires, but I suspect some of it is the scrub radius as well. Despite a welded steering coupler, rebuilt steering box (with the exception of the valve assembly) and good ball joints, the car still likes to wander and needs constant attention if the roads aren't smooth. Once again, this is on race tires only, on street tires it's noticeable, but not bad. Another downfall is that because of the increased scrub radius the tire swings fore and aft more when turning lock to lock. With 245/45R16 tires, I can barely get the tires to clear the fender liners and running anything wider will require the fender liners to be removed and/or adjusting the steering stops to reduce the steering travel. That aside, what I really think is that it's awesome to have 8" wheels front and back and the car corners great on street tires and is downright orgasmic on racing slicks. Here's an example of my latest race, sadly it's the last one for the year because I killed the front tires: So overall I'm pleased, but it's not all positives. Ultimately to fix the steering wander problem, I believe I'm going to have to open up the steering box and either weld up the valve assembly so it's manual steering (except I prefer to keep my thumbs and don't need the steering wheel wrenched from my hands) or I need to find a way to tighten up the valve assembly so that there is less free play and higher steering effort... not necessarily a bad thing for our cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts