[urq] RE : Rear suspension tie rods DOES hit the body.

[urquattro at comcast.net]

Odd, Indeed. 

I have a complete '82 suspension w/ rear sway bar on my 85/82/91/95 "chop-shop special" and I found that the H&R's and Bilstein HDs I installed in '01 didn't lower the back as much as I expected. Perhaps the HDs add more of the the Billie "lifting" effect? I'll have to check for the frame dent, I suppose, but this is all news to me. 

Jerry Mahoney's early '83 is similarly low if not lower in the rear end than mine (different springs) and he has REALLY worked his car over with no ill effects to my knowledge...

Wonder if the H&R's "changed" at some point pre '01 to alleviate the issue?

>>>You shouldn't have to remove the bump stops to put lowering springs in, nor
should you. The Bilstein's (what I was running at the time) have built-in
bump stops, so you don't even get the choice to remove them.

When I had a rear wheel off the car, I jacked it up from the control arm to
compress the suspension to it's "Resting" point and the tie rod was
uncomfortably close to the frame. Nevermind compressing it more to simulate
a cornering or bump situation. There is almost no way that a bump stop
would stop the upward movment before the tie rod hit the body. It was
uncomforable enough for me to not want to drive the car again, until I
removed the springs.  

I would venture a guess that ANY early 83' with H&R's has these dents in
the frame rail. It's almost impossible for them NOT to be there because
they are THAT close! Honestly, I can't believe this is the first we are
hearing of it. Of all the people that track thier cars, or drive them
"Hard", or rally them and this has never been mentioned before? Odd.

I felt lucky that I was able to find a new complete tie rod at Blau, but I
know that they don't have any more of them. The dealer is silly expensive
and given the small amount of cars they fit, they may be NLA. I can only
hope that people start taking thier H&R's OFF thier early 83's.

Ben
83' UrQ
85' UrQ>>