Just joined? Please introduce yourself.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: What Angle?

  1. #11
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Member #:2764
    Posts
    649
    I've never been a fan of wide front tires (215/70-15) so no my widened track width is not giving me any rubbing problems. I just always thought it turned a tight circle, it's nice. No complaints, just curious.
    Tony

    1955 Bel Air Sport Coupe

  2. #12
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Member #:625
    Posts
    3,409
    Quote Originally Posted by 55 Tony View Post
    I've never been a fan of wide front tires (215/70-15) so no my widened track width is not giving me any rubbing problems. I just always thought it turned a tight circle, it's nice. No complaints, just curious.
    Come on Tony they have to rub, because according to Cnut mine are the only one that never rub.

  3. #13
    Registered Member chevynut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Member #:115
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    10,835
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    according to Cnut mine are the only one that never rub.
    If you go wider than about 67 3/4-68" overall tire width on the front of a LOWERED car, and if your suspension compresses significantly at full lock, your tires WILL likely rub the fenders. There are plenty of cases of tire rubbing to prove this is a fact. It won't happen using the garbage Chevelle rotors on a stock height or higher car or a lowered car with positive offset wheels that correct the track width. My point has always been there are much better alternatives than Chevelle rotors that move the wheels out 1 3/4" wider than stock, both because of the rubbing issue and because it looks stupid with the tires so close to the fender lip.
    56 Nomad, Ramjet 502, Viper 6-speed T56, C4 Corvette front and rear suspension


    Other vehicles:

    56 Chevy 2-door BelAir sedan
    56 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
    57 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
    1962 327/340HP Corvette
    1961 Willys CJ3B Jeep
    2001 Porsche Boxster S
    2003 Chevy Silverado 2500 HD Duramax
    2019 GMC Sierra Denali Duramax

  4. #14
    Registered Member Belair-o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Member #:1723
    Location
    Franktown, CO
    Posts
    597

    Lock-to-Lock

    Rick, thanks for the explanation!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick_L View Post
    What I would suggest you do is count the number of turns from full left to full right with everything connected up. Then disconnect the steering at the pitman arm and count the number of turns again.

    I don't remember the exact numbers, but a CPP500 box has a little more than 90° travel, and a stock box a little more than 100° of travel. But, and this is a big BUT, the travel with everything connected up with a stock box is far less because of the stops on the steering arms with fully stock steering and brakes. So when you are checking, see if the steering arms hit the stops. (I know I'm repeating myself here.)

    There are other factors here too. Did you change your brakes or spindles along with the steering box? Most if not all stock spindle disc brake conversions, as well as many of the dropped spindles, move the steering arms inboard from stock. This means the steering arms will hit the stops sooner than stock. This can be fixed by grinding material from the stop pad on the steering arm.
    I changed to the minimum offset CPP 2" drop disk-brake spindles. I will try the lock-to-lock turn experiment you mentioned and compare results, and also see if the steering arms hit the stops.
    Thanks, Doug

  5. #15
    Registered Member Belair-o's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013

    Member #:1723
    Location
    Franktown, CO
    Posts
    597
    Hi,
    When I view the front end at full turn, I see the steering arms are on the stops. Not sure of the purpose of comparing the turns lock to lock with and without the pitman arm attached. Should I just pare off a 1/16th of an inch at a time off of the steering arms, until the arms just barely stop hitting the stops?
    Thanks, Doug

  6. #16
    Registered Member chevynut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Member #:115
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    10,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Belair-o View Post
    Hi,
    When I view the front end at full turn, I see the steering arms are on the stops. Not sure of the purpose of comparing the turns lock to lock with and without the pitman arm attached. Should I just pare off a 1/16th of an inch at a time off of the steering arms, until the arms just barely stop hitting the stops?
    Thanks, Doug
    Seems to me that you're close to the spec of 20 degrees on both sides so IMO I'd call it good unless you want to get a little more steering angle. You could grind them to make them the same if you want to since one side is 1 degree less than the other. I think Rick's suggestion of removing the pitman arm was to see if the box was hitting the end of travel or if it was the steering arms hitting the a-arms.

    The arms should hit the stops before the steering box runs out of travel. You might also want to make sure the box is centered when the steering wheel is in the straight forward position.
    56 Nomad, Ramjet 502, Viper 6-speed T56, C4 Corvette front and rear suspension


    Other vehicles:

    56 Chevy 2-door BelAir sedan
    56 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
    57 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
    1962 327/340HP Corvette
    1961 Willys CJ3B Jeep
    2001 Porsche Boxster S
    2003 Chevy Silverado 2500 HD Duramax
    2019 GMC Sierra Denali Duramax

  7. #17
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

    Member #:571
    Posts
    4,671
    If you're hitting the stops, you could still have more travel in the box. That's where disconnecting the steering linkage at the pitman arm comes in - it allows you to compare how much travel you might gain. And disconnecting the linkage is way easier than removing the steering arms to grind on the stop. Also it would be very tedious to grind on the stop with them assembled on the car.

    But as Cnut said, you may already be there with your travel if your measurements were accurate.

  8. #18
    Registered Member 56Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017

    Member #:3606
    Location
    Fall Branch, TN (upper east corner)
    Posts
    59
    I didn't care what the factory specs were. When I put my spindles on it reduced my radius and I wanted all I could get. I did what was suggested above. I had measured the lock to lock turns of the new box before I hooked up the pitman arm. I measured again with the arm connected and it was a lot less. I ground the stop pads while installed on the car until my tires nearly hit the frame. You do not want your steering box end of travel to be the limit; make sure it is the stops on the steering arm. I used a right angle die grinder with a very course 3M roloc disc to slowly carve away at the stops. It didn't take long and greatly improved turning radius.
    Last edited by 56Mark; 01-08-2018 at 04:53 PM. Reason: me make another typo
    56-210, 283, 200-4R, Power steering, Power Brakes

  9. #19
    Registered Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015

    Member #:2764
    Posts
    649
    Quote Originally Posted by chevynut View Post
    If you go wider than about 67 3/4-68" overall tire width on the front of a LOWERED car, and if your suspension compresses significantly at full lock, your tires WILL likely rub the fenders. There are plenty of cases of tire rubbing to prove this is a fact. It won't happen using the garbage Chevelle rotors on a stock height or higher car or a lowered car with positive offset wheels that correct the track width. My point has always been there are much better alternatives than Chevelle rotors that move the wheels out 1 3/4" wider than stock, both because of the rubbing issue and because it looks stupid with the tires so close to the fender lip.
    Hmm, I never thought my front tires look stupid? Thanks for letting me know! I didn't even know the track was widened until I read it somewhere. I really don't think they are close to sticking out 1.75" from stock. What is stock measurement? I have maybe 20,000 miles on it without it rubbing even once. No it's not lowered, I think that looks stupid. My springs are made to support the BB and still be a little stiffer than stock.

    If anyone thinks I said their car looks stupid lowered, well re-read what I quoted and you should catch on to what I am referring to. But even so it seriously doesn't do anything for me to have it lowered but to each is own. It's my ride and I'll do what I want and so should everyone else. If someone gave me lowering spindles for free I wouldn't use them. I suppose I'm going for the late 60's early 70's hot rod look, but not a gasser either. Not jacking up the rear either, it's my version of my street rod.
    Tony

    1955 Bel Air Sport Coupe

  10. #20
    Registered Member chevynut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Member #:115
    Location
    Fort Collins, CO
    Posts
    10,835
    Quote Originally Posted by 55 Tony View Post
    Hmm, I never thought my front tires look stupid?
    I don't think I've even seen your car so I don't know what it looks like. I think tires that stick out close to the fender look bad......when you get much over 68" across the tires. That's usually with wider tires and it depends on the wheel offset too. That's my opinion. I've posted pictures in the past. This is an example of Chevelle rotors with a 225 tire.....what do you think would happen if the car was lowered, or if the suspension compressed while the tires were turned? Personally I think it looks bad too, like the tires are too big.



    Here's another one belonging to a member here. You may think it looks fine, but what if it was lowered or the wheels turned when the suspension compressed? Do you think it would be an issue? I don't know if he has a rubbing problem or not but to me it looks possible.



    I really don't think they are close to sticking out 1.75" from stock. What is stock measurement?
    Yes they increase the track by 7/8" per side if you're using the Chevelle rotors on stock spindles. That's a total of 1 3/4" increase in track width. Stock wheel mounting surface width is around 59 1/8" per GM specs. In reality it's often a little wider, depending on the car. The Chevelle rotors make the mounting surface width around 61" wide.

    The stock front track width is 58" and the tires are 6.70-15 which are equivalent to a 215 metric tire that's about 8.5" wide section width. That puts the stock overall tire width at 66.5". The same wheels and tires on Chevelle rotors would be at 68 1/4" which is not that bad. A zero offset wheel with a 225 tire, a very common setup, would put the track width at 61" and the outside of the tires at 69 7/8". I can guarantee that won't work with a lowered car. It's also worse of a problem with a 56 and 57 than a 55 due to the fender opening height.

    I have maybe 20,000 miles on it without it rubbing even once. No it's not lowered,
    That's why they don't rub....the car is stock height and you have narrow tires. Most guys lower their cars for better handling and looks and use wider tires, like a 225 or 235. 2" dropped spindles have been common for many years, and now guys are going to an additional 1" dropped spring.

    The reason I bring up the Chevelle rotors is that some guys come to the site ask what they should use for disc brakes. One guy here tells them the Chevelle rotors are "no problem". They might not be on his 60's style stock height or higher car with narrow tires. I just warn them that IF THEY LOWER THEIR CAR SIGNIFICANTLY and plan to use wider tire, they want to stay away from the Chevelle rotors because they DO widen the track 1 3/4" and the tires will probably rub the fender. In fact, you don't even have to lower the car that much to have a problem, if the suspension compresses a lot. Mark gets all butt-hurt when I warn people about using the Chevelle rotors for some stupid reason. I don't know why anyone would use them when there are better alternatives available that DON'T increase track width much, if any. If they understand what they're getting into and still use them, it's their risk. But you can't say they're "no problem" with them in all cases. The width can be mitigated by the use of positive offset wheels, just like I do with the wider C4 front suspensions.
    Last edited by chevynut; 01-08-2018 at 09:19 PM.
    56 Nomad, Ramjet 502, Viper 6-speed T56, C4 Corvette front and rear suspension


    Other vehicles:

    56 Chevy 2-door BelAir sedan
    56 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
    57 Chevy 210 4-door sedan
    1962 327/340HP Corvette
    1961 Willys CJ3B Jeep
    2001 Porsche Boxster S
    2003 Chevy Silverado 2500 HD Duramax
    2019 GMC Sierra Denali Duramax

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •