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.
Best bet without the equipment is follow other's research results. I think NA subframe with NA knuckles with R-package tie rods is still the correct answer, it'll just be "better" with NB frame/knuckles. What's better? That's for others. I've always heard there's changes in geometry, anti-dive? But I haven't looked into the details.
To be clear, obviously it's quite difficult to compress it 1", so I raise it 1" with a jack, the bump steer is reverse for compression.
Best bet without the equipment is follow other's research results. I think NA subframe with NA knuckles with R-package tie rods is still the correct answer, it'll just be "better" with NB frame/knuckles. What's better? That's for others. I've always heard there's changes in geometry, anti-dive? But I haven't looked into the details.
To be clear, obviously it's quite difficult to compress it 1", so I raise it 1" with a jack, the bump steer is reverse for compression.
IIRC the only differences between NB and NA subframes are that NB has more built in caster and better rack mounts and the rack didn't change in relative height to the control arm mounts.
Aren't we always suggesting as little caster as possible? Like 3-4*? Which I can never seem to get, btw. According to Keith and others at m.net, there's some bumpsteer correction on the NB knuckles, and caster adjustments as stated, achieved with 3mm back on the upper mounts, 2mm forwards on the lower mounts. As well as a roll center adjustment.
Aren't we always suggesting as little caster as possible? Like 3-4*? Which I can never seem to get, btw. According to Keith and others at m.net, there's some bumpsteer correction on the NB knuckles, and caster adjustments as stated, achieved with 3mm back on the upper mounts, 2mm forwards on the lower mounts. As well as a roll center adjustment.
why are we suggesting so little caster? What benefit are we seeing from that low of a setting?
The only reason I can recall to run lower caster is for depowered racks and complaints of heavy steering. Running more caster will result in more negative camber as you turn, when you actually need it. On my NB2 I run R-package TRE's, depowered steering, and max caster adjustment. I forget the pinch weld height, but it's not that aggressive and very much a dual duty setup. The car is great to drive and practically steers itself if the tail comes out. I have no desire to run less caster. It's heavy, yes, but has never been a problem for my pretty average build even during 45 minute track sessions. If you can handle it, I don't see a reason to run less caster unless it somehow also is preventing you from reaching other suspension/alignment targets.
One thing I don't see differentiated enough in car circles is common knowledge for motorcycles, but they use different terms - steering head angle and trail.
Most of what is increasing your steering weight and self centering isn't truly the caster angle. It's the trail length, which is the distance between the point the tire/suspension actually pivots around on the ground and the center of the contact patch. As you increase caster, the trail increases as well assuming no other changes.
It's somewhat of a moot point since without custom uprights you can't change the trail and caster angle separately, but for theoretical discussions it's worth noting. Think of a caster wheel on a shopping cart. It follows wherever you point the cart due to the high amount of mechanical trail, but obviously it never changes camber angle as there is no steering head (AKA caster) angle.
3
