My new ugly betty, '84 Maxima, not diesel.

[q-tip]

If its the sam e as the 510 its very unlikely that it will have a lot of lateral movement.

[HRH]

The bottom trailing arm moves in an arc, thus moving the bottom of the strut in an arc depending on compression or extension.  If the bottom of the strut moves in an arc, the top has to allow for that arc.

 

The front suspension is a control arm that moves up and down, but laterally with the use of a ball joint.  The bottom moves up and down and pushes straight up on the strut.  Which is why the top hat is solidly mounted with a bearing, unlike the rear suspension.  If you try that on the rear suspension, you will break the strut or bend it, or the mounts.

[q-tip]

You building a baja 1000 maxima or an autocross maxima? Not going to be a lot of suspension travel needed on a car made for taking corners flat.

[captaingamez]

The bottom trailing arm moves in an arc, thus moving the bottom of the strut in an arc depending on compression or extension.  If the bottom of the strut moves in an arc, the top has to allow for that arc.

 

The front suspension is a control arm that moves up and down, but laterally with the use of a ball joint.  The bottom moves up and down and pushes straight up on the strut.  Which is why the top hat is solidly mounted with a bearing, unlike the rear suspension.  If you try that on the rear suspension, you will break the strut or bend it, or the mounts.

 

Suspenstion dampeners are only actuated in one direction. The rear and front function is not that different to cause anything to bend or break. If anything, the front has to deal with alot more force and movement considering that it is a Macpherson Strut where the shock is also the steering pivot point. Also, the front is not solidly mounted with a bearing, that bearing is in a rubber dampener with allows it to flex with the arc of the suspension travel.

 

In other words, you are severely overthinking your suspension.

 

I told you what you need to do already.

 

Coilovers in front with SW20 MR2 insert and shortened body and 240sx spherical top hats, with your choice of spring rate.

 

Camaro 82-02 rear with different lower bushing, stock top hat and your choice of spring rate.

 

Done.

[HRH]

Well glad you got your input in, sorry you're all wrong! ;)  I'm not overthinking the suspension.  Far from it.  If you look at side loading forces actuating in a linear fashion vs. a trailing arm setup with an arcing fashion (not to mention an offset moment arm), you'll see you MUST have give at both the bottom and the top of the shock (strut) to have it work properly without binding or breaking.  THERE'S A REASON THE STOCK SUSPENSION IS SET UP THIS WAY.  It's simple physics.  If you look at any coilover setup for a 240sx, you'll see the rear strut uses rubber bushings at the top and at the bottom regardless of if it's a adjustable coilover or factory unit.

 

Besides that, dad just finished up making a custom upper spring perch and an interesting collar adaption of my suggestion for the rear.  I have it together now, should hopefully get it on the Maxima tomorrow night or Sunday more likely.  I will now have 240sx shocks in the rear with adjustable perch coilovers.  And it will work correctly.

[q-tip]

If what you say is true then every 510 running rear coil overs should have destroyed it self, and I can assure you mine has not.

 

Yes it makes a lateral movement when traveling in the arc of the system, but if it only moves 2" total vertically it will move very little laterally on that arc.

[HRH]

 

Forgive my crappy drawing.  Here's how it works:  Not only does the trailing arm scribe an arc from it's mounting point in it's normal rotation, it is not perpendicular to the strut mount at the top.  So it also moves in an arc from positive to negative camber on stuff and full droop.  That's two arcs which the bottom of the strut must follow.  If you solidly mount the top of the strut to it's mounting plate without bushings of some sort, the movement of the bottom will be transferred up to the stem.  If the stem can't move in some fashion, the stem takes the brunt of the movement instead, which means your shocks wear out as the stem rattles around in it's housing going up and down, side to side, trying to follow the bottom two arcs.

 

Not to mention that doesn't even include the movement for the rear subframe.  It's on bushings unless solid mounted, so under heavy load, it's going to move, further exacerbating the two arcs the shock is trying to scribe.  Granted, there's a big rubber bushing on the bottom which provides a lot of latitude.  However, it's still a bad idea, simply due to the design of the suspension.

 

On the front, it's linear, with a balljoint providing movement on the bottom, and a rigid but mounted in rubber top plate.  That's still forgiving.  I have camber plates on mine, so no more rubber plate, it's solid mounted.  However, because it's linear, there is very little movement and also the strut ram itself is about 4 times larger on the front strut.

 

There's a reason my old worn out factory strut ram can be wiggled around from side to side when fully extended.  In a perfect world, the suspension arm should just travel in two directions, up and down.  With a semi-trailing rear arm, it doesn't really do that.  That's why engineers thought to put two bushings sandwiching a plate that was LARGER than the stem of the ram diameter.  So it had room to travel out of it's not nearly perfect up and down.

 

Seriously, go look at the 240sx coilovers from various manufacturers.  Lots of them still have rubber bushes on the top because form follows function.  Since I'm going to beat the piss out of ugly Betty in racing, and I know the suspension doesn't have a 1:1 ratio straight up and down, I'm going to do it properly and replicate the original design, while adding adjustability.  I can guarantee you if I mounted the top of the strut solidly, one of two things would happen:  A.  The strut would wallow out the seal and bend or break or bind even if not noticeable with the weight of the suspension compressing and extending the unit.  Or B. Much less likely, but the mounting plate at the top would stress crack, or the mounting stud at the bottom would stress crack.  

[criminalslang-810]

I am happy to see another maxima at least yours is up and running here is mine http://youtu.be/C68E7WgmIgs

[criminalslang-810]

Mine was diesel i bought 2 both with no motors....its very hard for me to multitask documenting the car and vid and take photos grown man with adhd, but i am trying to share some stuff on here

 I am thankful for your maxima

[HRH]

Nice!  There are quite a few Maxima guys on here.  Captaingamez has one too.  It's interesting the number of parts that are similar between 280zx and 240sx in the Maxima 810 chassis.

[q-tip]

I know how it works, what I'm saying is that in an autocross application you won't have a large degree of movement. You're looking too far into it. If it was going from full drop to full compression you would have to worry about it, it's an autocross car, I'm thinking 2" travel max.

[HRH]

If you only have 2" of travel in autocross, you're not racing hard enough. ;)  And I need 8" springs it seems.  Just put in 10" 140#, too high.  Swapped to some 11.5" 110# springs, a little better, but sitting way too high even with the adjustment.  Fuck a duck.  Trying a few of my racing buddies, seeing if anyone has any 8" springs laying around I can try just to see if the height will be correct within reason.  I may have to space up the coilover sleeves too, at an 8" spring it's pretty close to the top of the sleeve, which isn't good.

 

And yes, if I had stupid hard spring rates and really sticky tires, I could get away with less travel, but our autocrosses aren't on the smoothest of pavement.  Suspension range is to my advantage.  

[criminalslang-810]

The parts as you stated do fit between 240sx, 240z ,280z and sti rear diff........Its hard for me cause i have to get the cars running to figure other issues, but the ka24de in them should make a strange mix..... have to checkout captaingamez page and see what he has going on..............

[HRH]

DE is a good choice, especially if you have it.  That would mean motor swap territory for me, in which case I'd be bumped into a different class.

[captaingamez]

Dude, of course the shocks cant be solidly mounted, duh. I think I even said that.

 

That is not what I am saying, and yes you are overthinking this by a mile.

 

it makes NO difference where a damper is put, front or rear, THE DAMPER only actuates in one direction and is set to spring rate. as long as the dampening is right for the spring, and it has a thick enough piston shaft, then you are good to go.

 

 

I mean alot of people have already done the research on what parts to use in building the suspension in these cars, why are you reinventing the wheel?

[q-tip]

Probably the first time ever, I agree with captaingamez.

[HRH]

Why then, when I type in "510 rear coilover" does it show me all sorts of QA1 derivatives with a sandwich bushing mount for the top stud as well as a bushing mount for the bottom?  It's the same type of suspension.  I don't care if you mount yours solidly, I'm saying it's a bad idea and I'm not doing it.  I'm keeping it the same style as it was designed.  So there you go.  Do whatever you want with yours.  

[captaingamez]

You are not hearing me here.

 

You are correct, you cannot mount them solidly at the top mounting point. I already said that. This is why all coil overs use either rubber or a spherical bearing on the top mount.

 

But it doesnt matter where a shock goes, as long enough as it is beefy enough (piston shaft)  to do its purpose, it can be used front or rear.

 

Both front AND rear move in an arc, thats how suspension works, unless its crappy suspension. you cant mount either solidly in almost any circumstance

[HRH]

Ok then what are we arguing about?  The piston shaft does make a big difference with valving though.  It's like picking a different bore master cylinder. A small plunger pushes fluid more easily than a large diameter plunger, hence large diameter plungers being used with vacuum assists.  Or you just have a hard brake pedal which requires a lot of effort.  Anyway, the 240sx struts and coilover conversion I've made will work beautifully, I just need a shorter spring now.

[HRH]

And I bought Flash Gordon and I'm watching it right meow, so there!!!  :D

[q-tip]

FLASH!!! AAA AAAA HES THE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!

 

 

 

I didnt know you were talking about solid mounting the shock. Yes that is a horrible idea and why did you ever think of that?

[q-tip]

If you only have 2" of travel in autocross, you're not racing hard enough. ;)

False. Unless I got my car off the ground I don't think I could manage 2" of up travel, that bitch is stiff. :lol:

[captaingamez]

Ok then what are we arguing about?  The piston shaft does make a big difference with valving though.  It's like picking a different bore master cylinder.

 

I wasnt sure about that either lol.

 

But you can have two totally different sized dampers and have the exact same dampening force from them The piston shaft size starts to make a bigger difference when you want to use it as a pivot point for turning the vehicle.

[HRH]

Make it a go-kart qtip?  ;)  I just arrived back from dad's garage.  I now have raised top hats (lower mounting point) and a lower mounting point for the coil spring.  Should work beautifully.  Sadly, they won't go in tonight.  Should take care of the issue and retain oodles of suspension travel.

[q-tip]

:lol: pretty close to a go cart, but that just keeps it nice an flat in the corners.