Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Rear Wheel Camber:
| Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209482] |
Fri, 31 May 2013 22:03  |
noi
Messages: 293
Registered: October 2010
Location: South of Fremont
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Greetings,
I am in the final process of re-attaching my re-built bogie to the frame.
As the bogie has all new/reamed bushings and pins, along with the frame being cleaned and painted, most likely means that the original shim count is no longer meaningful.
In order to get the initial camber as close as possible, prior to "sliding" it all back in, I was curios if anyone has ever done a rear wheel camber measurement with the rear wheels un-weighted and weighted?
I realize there are many variables that can't be taken into account, that would effect the rear wheel camber settings, but just looking for some general idea how much the camber will change from no weight to weighted wheels - For sake of argument/example, say several individuals have done this and the range is (light GMC > heavy GMC) between .6 degrees and .8 degrees.
Anyway, just looking to get the initial un-weighted camber as close as possible.
Thanks for any input/thoughts you may have,
Carl P.
76 Birchaven
South of Fremont
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209493 is a reply to message #209482] |
Sat, 01 June 2013 00:24  |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
When I rebuilt the rears on the War pig I noticed very little if any camber change between unloaded and loaded. I would set it for zero cause a touch of negative if it results isn't a deal breaker. Check the toe on front and rear bogies to make sure the arms are parallel to each other while your at it. If the front and rear wheels on the same side are off the same amount in opposite directions you can correct with shims. If the are not there is not much you can do until the assembly is firmly mounted and then the arm or arms can be pushed or pulled horizontally to get the toe even.
Jwit
Sully
77 royale
Seattle
Sent from my iPhone
On May 31, 2013, at 8:03 PM, noi <v76_Birchaven@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am in the final process of re-attaching my re-built bogie to the frame.
>
> As the bogie has all new/reamed bushings and pins, along with the frame being cleaned and painted, most likely means that the original shim count is no longer meaningful.
>
> In order to get the initial camber as close as possible, prior to "sliding" it all back in, I was curios if anyone has ever done a rear wheel camber measurement with the rear wheels un-weighted and weighted?
>
> I realize there are many variables that can't be taken into account, that would effect the rear wheel camber settings, but just looking for some general idea how much the camber will change from no weight to weighted wheels - For sake of argument/example, say several individuals have done this and the range is (light GMC > heavy GMC) between .6 degrees and .8 degrees.
>
> Anyway, just looking to get the initial un-weighted camber as close as possible.
>
> Thanks for any input/thoughts you may have,
>
> Carl P.
> 76 Birchaven
> South of Fremont
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209508 is a reply to message #209482] |
Sat, 01 June 2013 07:42 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Carl,
I checked MM X-7525 / Section 4 - REAR SUSPENSION / Page 4-32 & 33 / On-Vehicle Adjustments / Figure 67-Rear Wheel Alignment Chart
and note that the camber should be set from 0 - +1/2. If you shim it to 0 un-weighted maybe you'll be lucky and wind up with
1/2. If it's more perhaps you can figger out how many shims to remove. For example lets say you put in four shims and you get +
3/4 if you remove 2 shims it should bring you into spec; or maybe not. ;-)
The paragraph above reflects a SWAG! ;-)
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: noi
Greetings,
I am in the final process of re-attaching my re-built bogie to the frame.
As the bogie has all new/reamed bushings and pins, along with the frame being cleaned and painted, most likely means that the
original shim count is no longer meaningful.
In order to get the initial camber as close as possible, prior to "sliding" it all back in, I was curios if anyone has ever done a
rear wheel camber measurement with the rear wheels un-weighted and weighted?
I realize there are many variables that can't be taken into account, that would effect the rear wheel camber settings, but just
looking for some general idea how much the camber will change from no weight to weighted wheels - For sake of argument/example, say
several individuals have done this and the range is (light GMC > heavy GMC) between .6 degrees and .8 degrees.
Anyway, just looking to get the initial un-weighted camber as close as possible.
Thanks for any input/thoughts you may have,
Carl
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209566 is a reply to message #209482] |
Sat, 01 June 2013 19:33 |
noi
Messages: 293
Registered: October 2010
Location: South of Fremont
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Rob:
Yah, I know, the MM is usually the LAST resort - But I actually DID look there first 
I like the “numbers” from the X7725 MM a bit better [A(c) = B(d) 3/16” & 0-+1d camber) than the numbers from the X7525 MM [A(c) = B(d) 1/16” & 0-+.5d camber)
I have done a quick and dirty calculation on shim/degree change by first measuring the camber with a .1” shim and then without the .1” shim – The change was ~1.5 degrees, so…. ~.15 degree change per .01”shim (original stacking shim thickness) – Un-weighted of course.
In real life though, your example is spot on – Measure, put some shims in/out if necessary, load, measure, adjust as necessary – Thanks for the input.
Sully:
Ah, just what I was looking for – The relative change between un-loaded/loaded rear wheel camber... Thanks
But, here are some interesting questions….
As to camber – The MM says 0-1d positive, but nothing about the side to side relationship – So if one side is 0 and the other side is +1d, is that acceptable? – Both sides are still within “spec” – Now, I realize that is probably not acceptable, but nothing is stated about it.
The other problem I am having to understanding the toe description/measurement in relation to the next page “bent control arm” test.
Lets say the rear set is A<B (3/16 or toe-out) and the front set C>D (3/16 or toe-in) – Both conditions within spec, ie, A=B +-3/16 and C=D +-3/16.
Now, on the “bent control arm” test, it says to place a straight edge across the face of both hubs and “The straight edge should lie flat on each hub – If the straight edge does not visibly rest on both points of each hub, a bent control arm will be evident”.
And yet if the first condition I described, and within spec, would form a very shallow “V”, it does not seem possible for the straight edge test to be valid!
But maybe I am reading/interrupting the MM incorrectly – Not sure.
I’ll also get some measurements of swing arm to frame alignment as well, just for curiosity sake.
Though in the end…. Will go to JimK’s and get it professionally aligned – But for now, it’s a fun learning experience - Thanks for the responses!
Carl P.
76 Birchaven
South of fremont
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209571 is a reply to message #209566] |
Sat, 01 June 2013 20:22 |
Jp Benson
Messages: 649
Registered: October 2011
Location: Fla
Karma: 2
|
Senior Member |
|
|
When camber is different from side to side there is a net camber thrust that is perpendicular to the direction of motion. Not desired of course. Wikipedia has a good description.
JP
>________________________________
> From: noi <v76_Birchaven@yahoo.com>
>To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
>Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:33 PM
>Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber:
>
>
>
>
>Rob:
>
>Yah, I know, the MM is usually the LAST resort - But I actually DID look there first :p
>
>I like the “numbers” from the X7725 MM a bit better [A(c) = B(d) 3/16” & 0-+1d camber) than the numbers from the X7525 MM [A(c) = B(d) 1/16” & 0-+.5d camber)
>
>I have done a quick and dirty calculation on shim/degree change by first measuring the camber with a .1” shim and then without the .1” shim – The change was ~1.5 degrees, so…. ~.15 degree change per .01”shim (original stacking shim thickness) – Un-weighted of course.
>
>In real life though, your example is spot on – Measure, put some shims in/out if necessary, load, measure, adjust as necessary – Thanks for the input.
>
>Sully:
>
>Ah, just what I was looking for – The relative change between un-loaded/loaded rear wheel camber... Thanks
>
>But, here are some interesting questions….
>
>As to camber – The MM says 0-1d positive, but nothing about the side to side relationship – So if one side is 0 and the other side is +1d, is that acceptable? – Both sides are still within “spec” – Now, I realize that is probably not acceptable, but nothing is stated about it.
>
>The other problem I am having to understanding the toe description/measurement in relation to the next page “bent control arm” test.
>
>Lets say the rear set is A<B (3/16 or toe-out) and the front set C>D (3/16 or toe-in) – Both conditions within spec, ie, A=B +-3/16 and C=D +-3/16.
>
>Now, on the “bent control arm” test, it says to place a straight edge across the face of both hubs and “The straight edge should lie flat on each hub – If the straight edge does not visibly rest on both points of each hub, a bent control arm will be evident”.
>
>And yet if the first condition I described, and within spec, would form a very shallow “V”, it does not seem possible for the straight edge test to be valid!
>
>But maybe I am reading/interrupting the MM incorrectly – Not sure.
>
>I’ll also get some measurements of swing arm to frame alignment as well, just for curiosity sake.
>
>Though in the end…. Will go to JimK’s and get it professionally aligned – But for now, it’s a fun learning experience - Thanks for the responses!
>
>Carl P.
>76 Birchaven
>South of fremont
>
>_______________________________________________
>GMCnet mailing list
>Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209607 is a reply to message #209566] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 09:21 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
If the front rear wheels are toed in and the rear rear wheels are toed out and the amounts are equal in opposite directions then the toe can be corrected by shimming the front or rear of the bogie box and you have no bent bogie arms.
If you have 0 camber on one side and one on the other I would run it.
Sully
77 royale
Seattle
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:33 PM, noi <v76_Birchaven@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Rob:
>
> Yah, I know, the MM is usually the LAST resort - But I actually DID look there first  :p
>
> I like the “numbers” from the X7725 MM a bit better [A(c) = B(d) 3/16” & 0-+1d camber) than the numbers from the X7525 MM [A(c) = B(d) 1/16” & 0-+.5d camber)
>
> I have done a quick and dirty calculation on shim/degree change by first measuring the camber with a .1” shim and then without the .1” shim – The change was ~1.5 degrees, so…. ~.15 degree change per .01”shim (original stacking shim thickness) – Un-weighted of course.
>
> In real life though, your example is spot on – Measure, put some shims in/out if necessary, load, measure, adjust as necessary – Thanks for the input.
>
> Sully:
>
> Ah, just what I was looking for – The relative change between un-loaded/loaded rear wheel camber... Thanks
>
> But, here are some interesting questions….
>
> As to camber – The MM says 0-1d positive, but nothing about the side to side relationship – So if one side is 0 and the other side is +1d, is that acceptable? – Both sides are still within “spec” – Now, I realize that is probably not acceptable, but nothing is stated about it.
>
> The other problem I am having to understanding the toe description/measurement in relation to the next page “bent control arm” test.
>
> Lets say the rear set is A<B (3/16 or toe-out) and the front set C>D (3/16 or toe-in) – Both conditions within spec, ie, A=B +-3/16 and C=D +-3/16.
>
> Now, on the “bent control arm” test, it says to place a straight edge across the face of both hubs and “The straight edge should lie flat on each hub – If the straight edge does not visibly rest on both points of each hub, a bent control arm will be evident”.
>
> And yet if the first condition I described, and within spec, would form a very shallow “V”, it does not seem possible for the straight edge test to be valid!
>
> But maybe I am reading/interrupting the MM incorrectly – Not sure.
>
> I’ll also get some measurements of swing arm to frame alignment as well, just for curiosity sake.
>
> Though in the end…. Will go to JimK’s and get it professionally aligned – But for now, it’s a fun learning experience - Thanks for the responses!
>
> Carl P.
> 76 Birchaven
> South of fremont
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209612 is a reply to message #209607] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 09:46 |
Emery Stora
Messages: 959
Registered: January 2011
Karma: 4
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sorry, Sully, but I don't see how that would be the case. If the fronts are toed in and the rears are toed out, if you shim the bogie at the front then it could correct the fronts but it would also make the rears toed out even more.
Likewise if you shim the rear of the bogie it would correct the rear wheel but make the front toed in even more.
The only way that shimming would work is if both wheels are toed in or out.
However there is a solution. You can shim the axles or do a combination of shimming the bogie and axle. The axles are not a press fit so there is room to shim them.
Emery Stora
77 Kingsley
Frederick, CO
On Jun 2, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Todd Sullivan <sgltrac@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the front rear wheels are toed in and the rear rear wheels are toed out and the amounts are equal in opposite directions then the toe can be corrected by shimming the front or rear of the bogie box and you have no bent bogie arms.
> If you have 0 camber on one side and one on the other I would run it.
>
> Sully
> 77 royale
> Seattle
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:33 PM, noi <v76_Birchaven@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Rob:
>>
>> Yah, I know, the MM is usually the LAST resort - But I actually DID look there first  :p
>>
>> I like the “numbers” from the X7725 MM a bit better [A(c) = B(d) 3/16” & 0-+1d camber) than the numbers from the X7525 MM [A(c) = B(d) 1/16” & 0-+.5d camber)
>>
>> I have done a quick and dirty calculation on shim/degree change by first measuring the camber with a .1” shim and then without the .1” shim – The change was ~1.5 degrees, so…. ~.15 degree change per .01”shim (original stacking shim thickness) – Un-weighted of course.
>>
>> In real life though, your example is spot on – Measure, put some shims in/out if necessary, load, measure, adjust as necessary – Thanks for the input.
>>
>> Sully:
>>
>> Ah, just what I was looking for – The relative change between un-loaded/loaded rear wheel camber... Thanks
>>
>> But, here are some interesting questions….
>>
>> As to camber – The MM says 0-1d positive, but nothing about the side to side relationship – So if one side is 0 and the other side is +1d, is that acceptable? – Both sides are still within “spec” – Now, I realize that is probably not acceptable, but nothing is stated about it.
>>
>> The other problem I am having to understanding the toe description/measurement in relation to the next page “bent control arm” test.
>>
>> Lets say the rear set is A<B (3/16 or toe-out) and the front set C>D (3/16 or toe-in) – Both conditions within spec, ie, A=B +-3/16 and C=D +-3/16.
>>
>> Now, on the “bent control arm” test, it says to place a straight edge across the face of both hubs and “The straight edge should lie flat on each hub – If the straight edge does not visibly rest on both points of each hub, a bent control arm will be evident”.
>>
>> And yet if the first condition I described, and within spec, would form a very shallow “V”, it does not seem possible for the straight edge test to be valid!
>>
>> But maybe I am reading/interrupting the MM incorrectly – Not sure.
>>
>> I’ll also get some measurements of swing arm to frame alignment as well, just for curiosity sake.
>>
>> Though in the end…. Will go to JimK’s and get it professionally aligned – But for now, it’s a fun learning experience - Thanks for the responses!
>>
>> Carl P.
>> 76 Birchaven
>> South of fremont
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209627 is a reply to message #209482] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 14:39 |
noi
Messages: 293
Registered: October 2010
Location: South of Fremont
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JP:
Thanks for the info - Will do some more reading up on differential camber.
Emery & Sully:
Thanks for the info - But I failed to present my question clearly - Let me try to re-focus it.
I was not looking for how to fix a problem, though your description/solution is correct Emery and referenced in the MM, but how one "test" related to another "test".
The first test is the relation of toe in/out between the front and rear set of wheels - This test allows the front and rear wheel sets to be off by 3/16" - Therefore, the rears could be 3/16 toe-out and the fronts could be 3/16 toe-in, which would form a very shallow "V" and still be within spec.
Now the next test involves laying a straight edge across the front and rear hubs - The test results should be that the straight edge will touch the front and back "lug" on both hubs.
That is the part I am having a difficult time understanding - If the first test allows a shallow "V", I don't see how a straight edge could touch all the lug points as specified - The result, as I see it, is the first test passing could cause the second test to fail - And this is where I was seeking enlightenment.
Oh, and said with a laugh  Spindles may not be a "press fit", but I sure have a hard time believing that after the PITA to get them out! - Though I doubt all the rust I had to wire wheel off had anything to do with it  - But, fortunately, spindle removal tool from JimK sure helped A LOT!!!!
Thanks,
Carl P.
76 Birchaven
South of Fremont
|
|
|
|
| Re: Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209630 is a reply to message #209482] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 16:16 |
bwevers
Messages: 597
Registered: October 2010
Location: San Jose
Karma: 5
|
Senior Member |
|
|
When I rebuilt the bogie bushings on my 1975 Glenbrook,
I put the factory shims back in the original location.
My reasoning is that if the frame is solid and not bent,
then the factory alignment should be good (or close).
Regards,
Bill (10 miles south of Fremont)
Bill Wevers GMC49ers, GMC Western States
1975 Glenbrook - Manny Powerdrive, OneTon
455 F Block, G heads
San Jose
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209639 is a reply to message #209612] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 15:36 |
sgltrac
Messages: 2797
Registered: April 2011
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I agree emery my bad. They would both need to be toed in in order for what I said to work. Dyslexia moment
Sully
77 royale
Seattle
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 2, 2013, at 7:46 AM, Emery Stora <emerystora@me.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Sully, but I don't see how that would be the case. If the fronts are toed in and the rears are toed out, if you shim the bogie at the front then it could correct the fronts but it would also make the rears toed out even more.
>
> Likewise if you shim the rear of the bogie it would correct the rear wheel but make the front toed in even more.
>
> The only way that shimming would work is if both wheels are toed in or out.
>
> However there is a solution. You can shim the axles or do a combination of shimming the bogie and axle. The axles are not a press fit so there is room to shim them.
>
> Emery Stora
> 77 Kingsley
> Frederick, CO
>
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 8:21 AM, Todd Sullivan <sgltrac@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If the front rear wheels are toed in and the rear rear wheels are toed out and the amounts are equal in opposite directions then the toe can be corrected by shimming the front or rear of the bogie box and you have no bent bogie arms.
>> If you have 0 camber on one side and one on the other I would run it.
>>
>> Sully
>> 77 royale
>> Seattle
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:33 PM, noi <v76_Birchaven@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rob:
>>>
>>> Yah, I know, the MM is usually the LAST resort - But I actually DID look there first  :p
>>>
>>> I like the “numbers” from the X7725 MM a bit better [A(c) = B(d) 3/16” & 0-+1d camber) than the numbers from the X7525 MM [A(c) = B(d) 1/16” & 0-+.5d camber)
>>>
>>> I have done a quick and dirty calculation on shim/degree change by first measuring the camber with a .1” shim and then without the .1” shim – The change was ~1.5 degrees, so…. ~.15 degree change per .01”shim (original stacking shim thickness) – Un-weighted of course.
>>>
>>> In real life though, your example is spot on – Measure, put some shims in/out if necessary, load, measure, adjust as necessary – Thanks for the input.
>>>
>>> Sully:
>>>
>>> Ah, just what I was looking for – The relative change between un-loaded/loaded rear wheel camber... Thanks
>>>
>>> But, here are some interesting questions….
>>>
>>> As to camber – The MM says 0-1d positive, but nothing about the side to side relationship – So if one side is 0 and the other side is +1d, is that acceptable? – Both sides are still within “spec” – Now, I realize that is probably not acceptable, but nothing is stated about it.
>>>
>>> The other problem I am having to understanding the toe description/measurement in relation to the next page “bent control arm” test.
>>>
>>> Lets say the rear set is A<B (3/16 or toe-out) and the front set C>D (3/16 or toe-in) – Both conditions within spec, ie, A=B +-3/16 and C=D +-3/16.
>>>
>>> Now, on the “bent control arm” test, it says to place a straight edge across the face of both hubs and “The straight edge should lie flat on each hub – If the straight edge does not visibly rest on both points of each hub, a bent control arm will be evident”.
>>>
>>> And yet if the first condition I described, and within spec, would form a very shallow “V”, it does not seem possible for the straight edge test to be valid!
>>>
>>> But maybe I am reading/interrupting the MM incorrectly – Not sure.
>>>
>>> I’ll also get some measurements of swing arm to frame alignment as well, just for curiosity sake.
>>>
>>> Though in the end…. Will go to JimK’s and get it professionally aligned – But for now, it’s a fun learning experience - Thanks for the responses!
>>>
>>> Carl P.
>>> 76 Birchaven
>>> South of fremont
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Sully
77 Royale basket case.
Future motorhome land speed record holder(bucket list)
Seattle, Wa.
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209649 is a reply to message #209627] |
Sun, 02 June 2013 16:30 |
emerystora
Messages: 4442
Registered: January 2004
Karma: 13
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:39 PM, noi wrote:
>
> Oh, and said with a laugh :d Spindles may not be a "press fit", but I sure have a hard time believing that after the PITA to get them out! - Though I doubt all the rust I had to wire wheel off had anything to do with it 8) - But, fortunately, spindle removal tool from JimK sure helped A LOT!!!!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carl P.
> 76 Birchaven
You are right on that. I spent about an hour pounding Kerry Tandy's spindle up and down at a Cody rally with a large sledge hammer. It was rusted in place and even though I had been told that it wasn't a press fit it was had to believe when working on it.
However, after getting it out and cleaning up the bore, the new one slipped right in and had some play.
You could have shimmed it quite a bit.
Emery Stora
77 Kingsley
Frederick, CO
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Rear Wheel Camber: [message #209690 is a reply to message #209649] |
Mon, 03 June 2013 07:54 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
G'day,
I have a complete bogie arm side I am going to ship to Australia and it took a 20 ton press to push the spindles out.
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Emery Stora
You are right on that. I spent about an hour pounding Kerry Tandy's spindle up and down at a Cody rally with a large sledge hammer.
It was rusted in place and even though I had been told that it wasn't a press fit it was had to believe when working on it.
However, after getting it out and cleaning up the bore, the new one slipped right in and had some play.
You could have shimmed it quite a bit.
Emery
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Oct 06 08:31:57 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01020 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
