Top Mounts with increased caster
The following 2 users liked this post by lockheed:
#34
#36
No not yet, it is possible now, but I would prefer to have the alignment done before I pick it up, I think most of the alignment places have been shut, hopefully some have reopened this week.
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
Standard springs and struts on my hatch. But spec C ones. My theory is that the materials that they use just can't cope with higher spec versions, so spring rate will definitely come into it. The rack bushes that I posted were so soft that you could push them in, and out by hand, despite coming with a press tool. I replaced with Powerflex black race series and problem vanished.
#43
Scooby Regular
Anybody got any recommendations for alternatives to the Whitelines? Or adjustable top mounts? Need to get some for my Bugeye and wondering if I should just stick with Group N mounts.
#44
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
@2pot, mine are on S05 springs up front and showing the cracking of the rubber and exhibiting cracking noises. The original set I had were fitted with a set of OEM STI UK springs and had the same cracking issues, albeit no cracking of the rubber.
#46
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Pedders seem to do an alternative but I can’t find any user reviews, good or bad on them. They apparently have bearings at a different angle to help alleviate some of the whiteline issues but I remain to be convinced.
@2pot, mine are on S05 springs up front and showing the cracking of the rubber and exhibiting cracking noises. The original set I had were fitted with a set of OEM STI UK springs and had the same cracking issues, albeit no cracking of the rubber.
@2pot, mine are on S05 springs up front and showing the cracking of the rubber and exhibiting cracking noises. The original set I had were fitted with a set of OEM STI UK springs and had the same cracking issues, albeit no cracking of the rubber.
Pedders are still selling their offset top mount for those models. I'm scanning the forums for those cars to see if there is any positive/negative feedback.
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
See post #7
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133548
Polyurethane in the construction? Really?
https://www.rallysportdirect.com/par...ount/questions
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133548
Polyurethane in the construction? Really?
https://www.rallysportdirect.com/par...ount/questions
#52
Scooby Regular
Polyurethane in the construction? Really?
https://www.rallysportdirect.com/par...ount/questions
https://www.rallysportdirect.com/par...ount/questions
#53
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
See post #7
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133548
Polyurethane in the construction? Really?
https://www.rallysportdirect.com/par...ount/questions
https://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133548
Polyurethane in the construction? Really?
https://www.rallysportdirect.com/par...ount/questions
Post #7 is interesting as it suggests that whiteline haven’t changed the plane the bearing sits on in relation to the mounting plane of the top mount to the chassis, which would put additional stress on one side of the bearing as it takes more load, probably causing binding and then perhaps stressing the rubber more than it’s designed for as it’s also having to then deal with a twisting load. All surmisation of course, but a possibility. If that is indeed true then it would seem the Pedders product *could* resolve the issues of the Whiteline stuff, but there doesn’t seem to be any real world feedback on them from anywhere.
#54
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
2Pot, what are your thoughts on the Group N pillowball mount available to the hatch onwards. Do you think they would be unbearable on the road, or suit the rawness of the hatch spec C? It's the only other option for me apart from oem, and there happens to be some half price at Exe TC.
#55
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Polyurethane rather than rubber would make sense as a ‘different’ way of doing it, and maybe help reduce the cracking the whiteline parts seem to get? The shop response is hilarious though, you’d expect better from someone in euro’s or Halfords!
Post #7 is interesting as it suggests that whiteline haven’t changed the plane the bearing sits on in relation to the mounting plane of the top mount to the chassis, which would put additional stress on one side of the bearing as it takes more load, probably causing binding and then perhaps stressing the rubber more than it’s designed for as it’s also having to then deal with a twisting load. All surmisation of course, but a possibility. If that is indeed true then it would seem the Pedders product *could* resolve the issues of the Whiteline stuff, but there doesn’t seem to be any real world feedback on them from anywhere.
Post #7 is interesting as it suggests that whiteline haven’t changed the plane the bearing sits on in relation to the mounting plane of the top mount to the chassis, which would put additional stress on one side of the bearing as it takes more load, probably causing binding and then perhaps stressing the rubber more than it’s designed for as it’s also having to then deal with a twisting load. All surmisation of course, but a possibility. If that is indeed true then it would seem the Pedders product *could* resolve the issues of the Whiteline stuff, but there doesn’t seem to be any real world feedback on them from anywhere.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...fJ_c0WnyQd_9d8
Last edited by 2pot; 21 May 2020 at 10:59 PM.
#57
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
2Pot, what are your thoughts on the Group N pillowball mount available to the hatch onwards. Do you think they would be unbearable on the road, or suit the rawness of the hatch spec C? It's the only other option for me apart from oem, and there happens to be some half price at Exe TC.
For the hatch:
You could use the later/stiffer 20320FG012 front top mounts, but you'd lose the caster and camber of the offset mount.
You could slot the lowest front bolt hole in the strut, by 2mm - that would get the camber back.
But, then there's the loss of caster as well.
SuperPro do high caster alloy arms, due to a modified bush - does the spec c have steel or aluminium arms?
https://www.superproeurope.com/news....m?articleid=82
Otherwise, it's pillow ball plates, which I don't like on the road - it's a head scratcher.
#58
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Interestingly the BRZ, and a few others, did have a US technical service bulletin on the top mount:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...fJ_c0WnyQd_9d8
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...fJ_c0WnyQd_9d8
#59
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
It's a real pain, isn't it.
For the hatch:
You could use the later/stiffer 20320FG012 front top mounts, but you'd lose the caster and camber of the offset mount.
You could slot the lowest front bolt hole in the strut, by 2mm - that would get the camber back.
But, then there's the loss of caster as well.
SuperPro do high caster alloy arms, due to a modified bush - does the spec c have steel or aluminium arms?
https://www.superproeurope.com/news....m?articleid=82
Otherwise, it's pillow ball plates, which I don't like on the road - it's a head scratcher.
For the hatch:
You could use the later/stiffer 20320FG012 front top mounts, but you'd lose the caster and camber of the offset mount.
You could slot the lowest front bolt hole in the strut, by 2mm - that would get the camber back.
But, then there's the loss of caster as well.
SuperPro do high caster alloy arms, due to a modified bush - does the spec c have steel or aluminium arms?
https://www.superproeurope.com/news....m?articleid=82
Otherwise, it's pillow ball plates, which I don't like on the road - it's a head scratcher.
I guess it wouldn't be a disaster to try some cheaper Cusco pillowball mounts, then return to rubber if it's too much. Of course, I have new replacements from WL as well.
In an aside for hatch/saloon owners, the oem top mount is identical to the Jdm Legacy 05-09 mount (20320) except it has an additional washer under it (20327).
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (5)
I'm beginning to think that this may be the root cause of the Whiteline issue now; adding in an ALK, flipped pins etc all move the strut away from it's stock plane and then you add in another half inch (ish) of movement at the top, all without changing the angle of the bearing mount. I wonder if some thin angled shim to mount between the top mount and the chassis would resolve all of this?