Rear tire contact at front

[DanEC]

I'm running a slightly oversize tire in the rear (255/60-15) and sure enough I'm noticing some contact at the fiberglass closure panels at the front of the wheelwells when I hit a really sharp dip.

I think I remember reading that the lateral links off the rear suspension hub carriers are primarily to locate the differential and wheels laterally and have little or no affect on rear alignment. So I assume I can back off the adjustment on these links, swinging the affair slightly to the rear and gain a fraction more clearance up front - is this correct?

Any limits as to how far I can or can't go with this adjustment?

Thanks

Dan

[strictlypersonl]

If you have the ERA outboard-braked rear suspension, I don't see any problem with lengthening both the upper and lower trailing arms. Even 1/4" might eliminate most of the rubbing.

[DanEC]

Bob - this is the standard in-board brake suspension. Does that make a difference?

I'm a little below recommended ride height and I thought if I raised the height a 1/4 in and extended the lateral lengths 3/16 to 1/4 inch that I would be OK. I may crank the shock setting up another click or two also. It has only hit on a pretty severe dip.

[strictlypersonl]

The amount you can lengthen the trailing arm is limited, since it changes the pinion angle when you do. It would be nice if you knew what your pinion angle currently is (at normal ride height). I'd try to keep that angle within 2 or 3 degrees of the tilt of the engine/trans.

[DanEC]

Thanks - I'll put it on my lift and see if I can determine where they are now. I have my transmission sitting pretty high on the mount which should have leveled out my transmission yoke some and may give me a bit of room to work with on the differential angle (I think ERA sets them up with the diff input sloping slightly up to the front.

[kevins2]

Hi Dan,

I had the same problem and Doug instructed me to lengthen the trailing arms 3/8". No more contact. I also have the transmission shimmed up higher than the manual calls for and everything seems to work well - still good clearance between the chassis and U-joint.

Kevin

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by kevins2

Hi Dan,

I had the same problem and Doug instructed me to lengthen the trailing arms 3/8". No more contact. I also have the transmission shimmed up higher than the manual calls for and everything seems to work well - still good clearance between the chassis and U-joint.

Kevin

Thanks Kevin - that gives me something to work with.

Dan

[66gtk]

I know this is an old thread, but I'm considering using the same tires as Dan on my ERA. My car (488) is of the older variety so the difference may be worth mentioning. I also have the standard rear and exhaust pipes in the way like Dan. I have test fitted 295/50-15 and it just hits my pipes (2.5" exhaust). I have little choice but to use the 255/60 which is a taller tire. Would I expect to have a rubbing problem? Any difference here between the old and new chassis design? Dan, did you resolve yours?

[DanEC]

Troy - I did perform a little adjustment (lengthening the trailing arms or struts) and lessened it greatly. Since then I've noticed a slight bit of wear on the undercoating there so apparently on a sharp dip my tire still very lightly contacts it - can't hear or feel it. It's on my list of things to do - to lengthen the arms a bit more but I either have to remove my tail pipes or release the hangars to drop it down enough in order to get the bolt out at the front of the strut. I just haven't done it yet.

[66gtk]

Thanks Dan. Do you have contact at both sides?

[DanEC]

Yes - it's pretty much the same on both sides. ERA builds a much more symmetrical car than AC probably ever did. After my first adjustment though it's just lightly kissing it - just enough to see where it scuffed a little stripe on the undercoated surface. I also still have my rear shocks a little on the soft side and I could probably stand to stiffen them up a couple of clicks.

Dan