GT Evo tie rods vs. RS tie rods ?
08-23-2016, 06:56 PM
#46
Its a curve, so there is not a single point where it goes from "good" to "bad"...
I think the common consensus it once you get much below M030 (144mm) you could probably consider them... The factory drew the line at RS (124mm), so that's probably where I would make the switch as well.
I think the common consensus it once you get much below M030 (144mm) you could probably consider them... The factory drew the line at RS (124mm), so that's probably where I would make the switch as well.
RoW M030 height is 144+/-10 in front RS is 124+/-10 in front as you can see top of RS is bottom of RoW M030, same sort of thing happens in back, but bump steer doesn't get really bad untill you get to the lower end of RS, sya 124 and under front and 107 and under in back, That's where the RS wheel carriers and tie rods and solid side mounts in back pay off.
08-23-2016, 08:44 PM
#47
Diego, there's the outer most subframe bolt head, to measure the front, and the subframe casting at rear, to get that height. What you want, is the tie-rod to sit pretty much parallel with control arm. Hope this helps.
Attachment 1082941
Attachment 1082941
And there you go! Thanks for the info and images, that makes clear now how to measure mine (I have seen these images before but I wasn't sure to apply for this case).
08-24-2016, 08:47 AM
#48
Rennlist Member
On the street we often set ride height around a "look" without enough consideration on effected angles. On the track lower is better for the most part so we find the compromise between that and suspension geometry.
I don't like the mind set of "bump does not feel bad at xxx height". There are too many variables to consider like roads driven and drivers seat of pants calibration. Unless the driver has a chance to drive a properly setup car to compare the bump steer is often missed.
Sorry for all that. Too much coffee I guess. It's just good info that needs to be shared.
