When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I'm dumb about some things. American RWD vehicles, and trucks in particular, are among these.
In vehicles with live-axle, leaf-spring rear suspension, sometimes the lower half of the left and right dampers both mount to the same side of the axle tube, and sometimes they mount to opposite sides (eg: the left damper to the rear of the axle, and the right damper to the front of the axle.)
Why is this?
Example of both dampers attaching to the rear of the axle tube (This is a Chevy S10):
I understand that a twisting force is applied to the differential by the propshaft. What I don't understand is why some designs use the fore/aft scheme, while others are both-fore or both-aft. What is the advantage of not attaching the dampers in what would seem to be the most optimal configuration?
It's based on torque. Vehicles which do not have very much torque (S10) does not need the configuration for and aft. I believe it's just a cost savings thing and maybe space constraints not mounting them as such.
This is why a common modification is torsion bars on these vehicles.
Getting back to Fords, try replacing the accessory belt idler pulley on a Focus. You have to jack the engine up to get enough clearance to remove the bolt. Nothing like getting not engineers involved in a project. Don't even get me started on the hot mess that was the 1999 VW Cabrio my wife had to buy...(German engineering my ***).
Don't even get me started on the hot mess that was the 1999 VW Cabrio my wife had to buy...(German engineering my ***).
My assumption is that, sometime in the late 1970s, Germany's automotive industry (as a whole) lost a bet with France's automotive industry (as a whole) to see who could engineer a less reliable car than the Italians.
British automotive engineers, at the time, merely sat back and chuckled while pouring another pint.
(Soviet-bloc automotive engineers were sadly excluded from this wager, due to the whole Iron Curtain thing.)
Also on the topic of Ford mondeo. I had to do a lower control arm (bad ball joints, had to replace entire arm) on a Contour SVT once(i believe is roughly related to the mondeo). This required removing all bolts from the engine and jacking it up about 4 inches to get a control arm bolt out.
This was absolutely horrible and could have been avoided had they put the bolt in other way round.
My assumption is that, sometime in the late 1970s, Germany's automotive industry (as a whole) lost a bet with France's automotive industry (as a whole) to see who could engineer a less reliable car than the Italians.
British automotive engineers, at the time, merely sat back and chuckled while pouring another pint.
(Soviet-bloc automotive engineers were sadly excluded from this wager, due to the whole Iron Curtain thing.)
Mid to early 2000s American engineers wanted in on the bet. But by then it was too late and they all went bankrupt...
Instead of getting a Miata I got an MR2. So you are welcome for sparing a miata from my torment. I shall bid you all goodbye for another 5 years or so.
Instead of getting a Miata I got an MR2. So you are welcome for sparing a miata from my torment. I shall bid you all goodbye for another 5 years or so.
Check the VIN against the model changeover. 1997-99 Boxsters used a dual row bearing that's as good as the later (2006) single row design. It's model years 2000-2005 that are the suspect design. Failure rate on the double row design was 1% vs. 8-10% on the mid model single row.
'97-99 models are also susceptible, at a lower rate.
I wouldn't buy any 986 or early 987 unless it came with documentation that the bearing has been upgraded (or the engine replaced.)
AIUI, the early single-row ones are pretty simple to fix and can be done at the same time as a clutch, so if you buy one with low enough miles that it hasn't failed yet then just budget for the fix?
0
