Confusing Ride Height/Camber Issue

typ_53b said

To me, there seems a lot more camber movement than could be explained by the top mounts. Are the mid-strut bolts the correct thickness and fully tight? Any movement here would of course play havoc with the camber angle.

They are the original bolts. I will recheck them again but they are tight.

The Upper mounts have a oilite  or steel bushing in the kit that bottoms out on the metal cup bottom and only should slightly exceed the upper metal cup plate. It is called a spacer in the Bentley.



Usually it centers the strut shaft in the mount and with the washer on it at the top it doesn't allow the nut when torqued to pinch the mount so that a left or right movement of the wheel will cause the mount to twist, then pop back.  

In the past I wasn't paying attention to the new mounts, and things and used one of the new to me bushes.  
when I hit a bump the strut made a hammering sound as the strut could free travel in the mount.

Finally figuring it out I had to file a wee bit off, then latter on I had a new bush that was about 1/8 of an inch too tall and could see it plain as day.

Were the lower control arms new or still the original ones.  I see that the lower ball joints seem to have been replaced as I see nuts instead of rivets.

The camber bolts, and he upper pinch bolts are tight
 and that there are 2 offset washers on it.
When you mounted the new strut to the spindle you pulled the spindle fully out to mate tot eh strut as there is a lot of slop there that if you don't get it correct, the guys doing the tracking may not be able to get it to the proper set with the adjuster.

The struts are assembled as per the diagram however I'm sure that the top washer is under the nut, not under the cup. I'm not sure what difference this makes but I can certainly reassemble them like this. I didn't pay much attention to the spacers,, I just removed them from the old top mount and reinstalled them in the new ones. The mounts are very free to rotate although they appear to "rock" a bit more than I would have expected.

Can you please elaborate on this statement as I can't figure out what you are talking about :
" When you mounted the new strut to the spindle you pulled the spindle fully out to mate tot eh strut as there is a lot of slop there that if you don't get it correct, the guys doing the tracking may not be able to get it to the proper set with the adjuster."

I have removed the struts again and observed the following. The rocking of the top mount is due to the clearance between the OD of the spacer and the ID of the mount. I have compared this to the old mount (same spacer) and it is the same so presumably correct although it seems excessive to me. The spacer is only just proud of the mount cup and does permit fully tightening of the nut while allowing the mount to rotate completely freely, which again I think is correct. The large washer was installed beneath the nut, not between the mount and spring retainer cap. I don't see this making any difference and in the Autodata manual I have it shows the washer as I have it installed. There is a height difference between old and new mount but I am assuming that the old mount rubber has elongated with age causing the top cup to be proud of the rubber ?. To summarise,, I can't see anything wrong with assembly of the top mount however I am still unsure about the amount of rock as this results in a very loose feeling strut once it is separated from the hub. I would like to know if this is normal before I start altering anything.

A few things worth noting for reassembly, as specified in VW's running gear workshop manual. The spring washers on the strut lower mounting bolts should be renewed on reassembly, as should the wishbone front mounting bolt and spring washer. Tightening torques are specified as 80 Nm for nuts securing the strut lower mounting bolts and 100 Nm for the wishbone front mounting bolt. The nut for the ball joint pin securing bolt should be tightened to 50 Nm (30 Nm for M8 bolts fitted for smaller diameter ball joint pins on early Mk1).

typ_53b said

A few things worth noting for reassembly, as specified in VW's running gear workshop manual. The spring washers on the strut lower mounting bolts should be renewed on reassembly, as should the wishbone front mounting bolt and spring washer. Tightening torques are specified as 80 Nm for nuts securing the strut lower mounting bolts and 100 Nm for the wishbone front mounting bolt. The nut for the ball joint pin securing bolt should be tightened to 50 Nm (30 Nm for M8 bolts fitted for smaller diameter ball joint pins on early Mk1).

Thanks.
I have the torque figures in an Autodata repair manual so no issues there. I will fit new spring washers although they are pretty useless at preventing loosening despite their prolific use. I worked in the oil & gas industry for thirty years and these were never used anywhere, we only specified torque values and which thread lubricant was to be used to ensure the torque used produced the correct preload on the connection.
Do you have any thoughts on the top mount spacer diameter clearance ?. The looseness this produces when the nut is torqued right down onto the spacer is excessive in my mind. To eliminate this I have ordered new spacers but I have a feeling they will be the same as I don't see them wearing on the outer diameter in normal use.

the top mounts do wobble around like they are too slack and should be firmer

I don't know what any clearances at the top strut mount should be. However, I would have thought you'd need an inch or so of sideways movement in the top strut mount to explain the difference in camber angle there appears to be between the two photos of the car you posted earlier.  To  my mind there is something much more dramatic going on which would probably be spotted quite easily by an experienced motor mechanic or MOT tester.

I grew up working in my dads garage business and have a few classic cars that I have spent thousands of hours working on so I wouldn't class myself as a novice and I would definitely know if there was something obviously wrong without asking a mechanic. The only reason I posted this was as a result of being confused by the way the car is altering camber like this. Perhaps there is an issue with an aftermarket part although I have used Bilstein struts and Febi top mounts & arms so these should be correct. Everythung else is original. The only person to have worked on the car was my dad who maintained it from new for a customer and thereafter when he bought it from them in 1989 until 1997 when he put it off the road so it hasn't been messed with by anyone else.

Early-1800 said

the top mounts do wobble around like they are too slack and should be firmer

Thanks, this is how the old mounts were as well but I assumed they were worn. The new ones are exactly the same so no issues there.

111Robin said

I grew up working in my dads garage business and have a few classic cars that I have spent thousands of hours working on so I wouldn't class myself as a novice and I would definitely know if there was something obviously wrong without asking a mechanic. The only reason I posted this was as a result of being confused by the way the car is altering camber like this. Perhaps there is an issue with an aftermarket part although I have used Bilstein struts and Febi top mounts & arms so these should be correct. Everythung else is original. The only person to have worked on the car was my dad who maintained it from new for a customer and thereafter when he bought it from them in 1989 until 1997 when he put it off the road so it hasn't been messed with by anyone else.

Apologies if it seemed I was questioning your competence. It is clear you have a meticulous approach. I was just thinking that MOT testers in particular are expert at identifying sources of play and the equipment they have access to should make it very easy for them to see where the issue lies.

typ_53b said

111Robin said

I grew up working in my dads garage business and have a few classic cars that I have spent thousands of hours working on so I wouldn't class myself as a novice and I would definitely know if there was something obviously wrong without asking a mechanic. The only reason I posted this was as a result of being confused by the way the car is altering camber like this. Perhaps there is an issue with an aftermarket part although I have used Bilstein struts and Febi top mounts & arms so these should be correct. Everythung else is original. The only person to have worked on the car was my dad who maintained it from new for a customer and thereafter when he bought it from them in 1989 until 1997 when he put it off the road so it hasn't been messed with by anyone else.

Apologies if it seemed I was questioning your competence. It is clear you have a meticulous approach. I was just thinking that MOT testers in particular are expert at identifying sources of play and the equipment they have access to should make it very easy for them to see where the issue lies.

That's ok, I just wanted to clarify that I had a good amount of experience. The only play, that I have already questioned, is in the top mount, but another member has stated this is normal. Everything else where play could occur is new, bottom arm mounts, ball joint, top mount. I will fit new spacers to the top mounts to at least eliminate these from having excessive clearance and will reassemble and torque everything again then see how it reacts.

left good right shot.

There is also a way to make them beefier and last a wee bit by using a mercedes muffler mount o-ring to stop the excessive play

https://www.vwvortex.com/threads/34-years-ago-to-the-day-january-9-1982.7541657/page-4?post_id=112800803#post-112800803

111Robin said

The only play, that I have already questioned, is in the top mount, but another member has stated this is normal. Everything else where play could occur is new, bottom arm mounts, ball joint, top mount.

Re the top mount vertical play, the diagrams suggest there should be a 2mm thick washer below the spring disc as well as a washer under the top nut. I don't think that has been specifically mentioned in this thread, but if this is correct and is not present, this would presumably increase vertical play. However, an additional mm or two of play at this point would have no significant impact on camber angle.

The other possible source of play potentially having the most dramatic effect on camber angle would be between the strut and steering knuckle, though this seems unlikely unless there was an error in assembly.

typ_53b said

111Robin said

The only play, that I have already questioned, is in the top mount, but another member has stated this is normal. Everything else where play could occur is new, bottom arm mounts, ball joint, top mount.

Re the top mount vertical play, the diagrams suggest there should be a 2mm thick washer below the spring disc as well as a washer under the top nut. I don't think that has been specifically mentioned in this thread, but if this is correct and is not present, this would presumably increase vertical play. However, an additional mm or two of play at this point would have no significant impact on camber angle.

The other possible source of play potentially having the most dramatic effect on camber angle would be between the strut and steering knuckle, though this seems unlikely unless there was an error in assembly.

I don't see how the washer below makes any difference. As it is just now, the top washer bears on the top surface of the spacer, the spacer is sitting directly on the bottom of the bearing and the bearing sits directly on the spring cap and this sits on the washer that sits on the shoulder below the strut thread. There are no clearances to produce vertical movement (apart from the clearance as a result of the spacer sitting proud of the top mount cup to enable the mount to rotate freely). Once the nut is torqued fully down everything is fully retained. Adding another washer below just results in the top mount sitting 2mm higher up. I don't see this additional washer in any other parts diagrams I've looked at. The only thing that would result in vertical play is if the spacer was too long. I'll need to have another look at this when I reassemble the struts with the new spacers to confirm but these are just my initial thoughts.

Ah that's good, the washer I thought could potentially be missing is the one you mention on the shoulder below the strut thread. But you're right, this would make no difference to vertical play anyway

typ_53b said

Ah that's good, the washer I thought could potentially be missing is the one you mention on the shoulder below the strut thread

It's the diagram from the Bentley repair manual someone posted that's confusing the issue. I think the diagram is incorrect as it shows a washer below an additional cup then the nut on top with no washer. Maybe this is an earlier setup but certainly isn't how mine were when I disassembled them. If that additional cup wasn't shown then the diagram would be correct.

Yeah, Bentley lifted that diagram from the VW Running Gear workshop manual. VW introduced the pre-assembled strut mount in 1977, and I guess they modified the design very soon after

The Autodata manual shows both early and later arrangements.

Update :
To eliminate any concerns about the top mounts I bought another pair (same as before, Febi) along with new spacers and fitted them, again everything properly located and torqued. I wasn't expecting any changes and wasn't surprised as it is the same as before. I set up the camber accurately this time with Trakrite camber bar and digital inclinometer (tyre pressures 24psi) to between 0 and 1 degree negative on both sides, measured on the wheel rims with the car on level ground, torqued the strut bolts to 60 lb.ft.

I then drove the car back and forth along the drive to settle everything and took the following measurements :

Bottom arm angle : 11 deg (both the same)
Wing height : 410mm (both the same)
Camber : 0.8 deg neg (L), 0.3 deg neg (R)

Moved car back one half wheel revolution

Bottom arm angle : 6 deg (L), 7 deg (R)
Wing height : 380mm (both the same)
Camber : 1.8 deg neg (L), 1.5 deg neg (R)

The only thing I haven't adjusted throughout all of this is the track however I don't see how this being out would result in what I'm experiencing.
All I can do is remove the new bottom arms and check these again but for what I don't know. They are dimensionally identical to the old ones, new bushes front and rear and everything torqued per the book. Just to reiterate, prior to me doing anything the car had sat for over twenty years but sat perfectly and did not show any issue with ride height/camber so it is definitely something I have introduced but all I have done is replace old with new. I can understand ride height being a bit high on new struts to start with until they settle but not this cyclic rising and falling over half a wheel revolution. 

Those camber differences are a lot less than I thought. I am now wondering whether your rear brakes are binding. This would cause your front suspension to rise when driving forward and fall when reversing. I wonder whether tightness in the new rear bushes is creating a memory effect, which would hopefully diminish with use