Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (June 1998, week 3)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Tue, 16 Jun 1998 13:48:59 -0400
Reply-To:     Derek Drew <drew@INTERPORT.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         Derek Drew <drew@INTERPORT.NET>
Subject:      Lifting The Syncro For More Ground Clearance
Comments: To: David Marshall <vanagon@volkswagen.org>
Comments: cc: vanagon@vanagon.com
In-Reply-To:  <3.0.3.32.19980615222746.006aca94@mail.abccom.bc.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 10:27 PM 6/15/98 -0700, you wrote: >At 13:06 6/15/98 -0400, you wrote: >>It makes me feel better that you too have smashed up your front tie down >>loup. > >Is your spare tire holder bent up too?

Yes, and I am in the process of adding a front skid plate, likely to be affixed to the spare tire holder, so that I can bash this area, *hard,* without concern.

>>You better shorten that spare tire bolt before you hit something and bend it! > >Good point... (pun intended!) :) > >Does this all look simular to yours?

I was not clear from looking at your pics on how you had done any mods that were radical in any way.

>I have a question about the 108mm CVs. The dealer confimed for me that the >16" N stuts and the other 14" struts are the same dimentions. As are the >springs when uncompressed. The springs are stiffer so they will not give

The part number of the 16" springs in my microfiche from Germany are the same as the part numbers for the 14" springs. The factory springs for both vehicles therefore appear to be the same! I am aware of aftermarket stiffer springs from Seikel in Austria, however.

>as much when compressed. So, in effect the suspension has the same travel >on both models.

Right.

>Why is everyone saying that the 16"'s 108mm CVs are needed >for more suspension travel? I would have to say it is for strength >instead.

Actually, the benefit is rather obscure: The benefit is that you can lengthen your front shocks by mechanical means, either at the bottom or at the top, thus allowing the lower control arm to sit further downwards toward the ground, thus in effect raising your ground clearance by lifting the vehicle in relation to the control arm. By doing this, you increase the angle at which the driveshaft exits the front wheel, and hence put more wear and tear on the front outer CVs. Having beefier CVs, more tolerant of operating at an angle, would compensate for potential negative consequences.

(If you were to go this route, you would also want to consider adding a small spacer in between the inner CVs and the diff in order to effectively lengthen the driveshaft to accomodate the longer length the geometry of a lowered lower control arm would possibly impose on the situation.)

One can lengthen the front shocks either at the base by means previously discussed, or at the top by means of spacers in between the shock and spring and the vehicle body. There is some interesting prior email on this topic, including discussions on whether to lengthen the shock at the top or the bottom and whether and how to include lengthing the springs by means of spacers, in the archives, particularly by me and John Anderson. It is quite possible that the entire lift can be accomplished with $20 worth of parts, and without buying any different springs and/or shocks, and that running with softer springs and shocks is preferable, because softer springs and shocks as we have now are better suited to low-speed off-road driving as we are likely do to, and particularly so in respect of our extremely poor abilities in the area of axel articulation, or the ability of the four wheels to travel far out of a flat plane relative to each other. Stiffer springs would make the vehicle in effect more flat than it would otherwise be, and we are too flat already.

I take an active interest in this subject because I have raised the rear of my vehicle by the addition of 3 extra rubber doughnuts (about 1.5" of lift, I think) above the rear springs, but have not yet engineered the front, and consequently drive my syncro around looking like a dragster lowered at the front than at the back. John Anderson has offered to visit here and help me remedy the situation in part by employing his obviously superior engineering and design skills, but I have been slow in responding due the crushing time pressures of work and of other time consuming activities such as reading and responding to list email, which statement reminds me to send this and get on with what I *should* be doing.

>We are going to try Audi 5000 quattro drive flanges in the Syncro >to see if they will fit. Looks like they will. So the more plentyful >quattro CVs might be the ticket in the future. > >Also getting back to springs. I was looking at a wreckers to compair >springs from other cars and voila... Crown Victoria springs are the same OD >just a little taller and thicker. So... I will give a set of these a try >in August when the insurance is up on my Syncro. I am also looking into >some custom springs for about $500 for a complete set... what is a good >spring rate to get in your opinion?

Actually, I would look up the spring rates I quoted from Seikel for his heavy duty set. Then, I would choose a spring rate about half way between that and stock. As I recall, Winkler sells any spring rate you want for Vanagon in a series of options, so I might get Helmut to help us group order these for the front, and probably leave the rear stock. A very stiff spring rate is better for racing around on paved curvey roads at high speeds.

>>At 08:14 PM 6/12/98 -0700, you wrote: >>>A few people have asked me how I fit my 27" spare tire in the spare tire >>>well. So I dug out the video camera and captured some stills with all the >>>details. Instead of emailing 8 or so pictures to the list I have them >>>posted at: >>> >>>http://www.volkswagen.org/Vanagon/SyncroSuspension >>> >>>So, as usual if you have any questions or want to see some different angles >>>please let me know. > >>Derek Drew New York, NY & Washington DC > > >-- David Marshall, Quesnel BC, mailto:david@volkswagen.org -- > -- 78 1.8L VW Rabbit, 80 2.0L VW Caddy, 87 Audi 5KQ -- > -- 85 1.8L VW Cabrio, 88 1.6L VW Syncro Double Cab -- > -- Volkswagen Homepage http://www.volkswagen.org -- > -- USE DAVID@VOLKSWAGEN.ORG WHEN SENDING EMAIL -- >

________________________________________________________ Derek Drew New York, NY & Washington, DC drew@interport.net '90 Syncro Westfalia... ...seen off-road at http://www.tiu.net/~des/vw/drew/index.html Note: most valuable Vanagon sites on the planet (for owners) are: 1) http://gerry.vanagon.com/cgi-bin/wa.exe?S1=vanagon 2) ftp://gerry.vanagon.com/pub/


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.