ANOTHER coil-over kit -- Ron Morris Performance

mdjay said:

I would like to say just be very careful and patient on the new RM kit. I have a feeling we're going to hear some feedback on these.

The TCP upper shock mount is pretty damn tuff and when the support rings we're included , they got even stronger.

Remember, I have experience smackin' a curb at around 40 mph and those mounts did just fine.

IMO the TCP one is the clear winner for quality, price and some clear improvements they've done along the way. Not mentioning the fact that when the product is released, we vendors can actually get the product

The eccentric eliminator mentioned earlier is a must IMO with the new lower...

Click to expand...

Jay, what is your opinion of the GW coilover setup? i actually prefer the way that kit doesn't have the adjustable UCA's. i personally do not like the idea of an adjustable UCA. as far as the arms being adjustable for caster correction, i would rather use shims than change the length of the control arm. in fact i have shims on my car for just that purpose, and they keep the tires out of the fender just fine.

i do like TCP's new strut rod design however and also the new LCA design as well, but no matter how any company tries to sell an adjustable control arm (upper or lower) i ain't buying it.

So if you're set on shimming the uppers, just pre-set the arm length, and shim them.

As far the the GW set-up. I have nothing negative to say other than the price.

I don't like the idea of shimming as much, because as I see it the shims create a lever for deflecting the shock tower.

I'm not sure about the effects on bump steer of adjusting UCA length vs. shimming. Let me talk through my logic here. Both inner and outer UCA pivot points affect bump steer. Shimming moves both pivots, whereas changing the UCA length only moves the outer pivot. Not sure I'm seeing this correctly, but you want to be able to draw a straight line through the tie rod end and both ball joints.. when you move only the upper ball joint without moving anything else, it will change your toe. In my head, I see the subsequent toe adjustment realigning the ball joints and tie rod end, thus a minimal effect on bump steer.

You also want to be able to draw a straight line through the UCA and LCA inner pivots and the inner steering linkage pivot point. Normally you aren't going to be moving the inner steering linkage pivot point, so it seems wise to me to avoid adjusting the location of the inner LCA and UCA pivot points. If the steering pivot point is a given, there are ideal locations (or lines/planes) for the UCA and LCA pivots (at least as far as bump steer is concerned) - fixed by the steering pivot location. Does that make sense? I understand that the factory method is inexpensive, but we don't care about cost, do we? Obviously the pivots can be moved somewhat without making the car undriveable, so a lot of this is theoretical or based on driving far beyond what's allowed on the public roadways.

I would also want to adjust the lower arm length, rather than moving the inner pivot - based on the logic above.

Isn't the adjustable UCA length more so that you can use the same arm on both '65-'66 and '67-'68 (with a different cross shaft, of course)?

You are absolutely creating toe adjustments when you adj the upper. Most of the problems in using the adjustable arms is a problem for the alignment guy, his rack and you are simply testing his/her ability to consider and solve all the variables.

Isn't the adjustable UCA length more so that you can use the same arm on both '65-'66 and '67-'68 (with a different cross shaft, of course)?

Click to expand...

No because the upper arm length is the same from 65-73. It's just the mounting hole spread for the shock tower that is different. The extra length on the UCA is aquired on the later years by having smaller depth shock towers. That's why the lowers are longer on 67-73.

The difference between the TCP set-up on mine going from a modified stock set-up was huge. The alignment guy took almost 2 hours on my car

The steering and cornering of the car is absolutely effortless. In the rear I'm using the maier leafs and their adj pan hard rod, tcp torque arm and TCP subs. Also Koni adjustable rear shocks and the PMS bump steer kit is on the car. I took cheapsk8 for a ride when he came out and his comment was, "The car feels race prepped!" You hard take corners and expect the car to rebound with body roll but there is none. This car would be absolutely scarey with slicks

Jay, how do you like the PMS bumpsteer kit with the TCP rack? did it get you back some lost turning radius? i have been planning on using the PMS bumpsteer kit when i add my Randalls Rack in the future for exactly that reason.

Yep, I did gain back some radius, but not all. Overall the car has a better feel cruisin' sweeper turns. It stays steady.

sweet, i knew the PMS kit would help get back some turn radius i also figured it would help a lot with bumpsteer and the decreased ackerman angle is probably helping a lot in those sweepers. is that about your thoughts on it?

I can't think of anyother way this car could be better.

Well, maybe a rear coilover

mdjay said:

I can't think of anyother way this car could be better.

Well, maybe a rear coilover

Click to expand...

sweet. evolutionmotorsports is supposed to be working on a coilover three link to go along with their watts link that they have been working on. here's the link to what they have so far


http://evolutionmsport.com/

In order for the UCA to work with out shims the 65/66 and 67/68 arms would need to be two-deferment lengths.

Cliff Yates said:

In order for the UCA to work with out shims the 65/66 and 67/68 arms would need to be two-deferment lengths.

Click to expand...

The upper arms 65-73 are all the same length!

Again the way that the 67-up cars gain additional track width with the uppers is smaller shock towers. Then they added length to the lowers to match!