rear 1/2 of twin - shock tower tech - inputs welcome

[rabbit16v@attbi.com (Dave Ewing)]

The subframe idea is a really good idea especially since you won't have to
try to fabricate some type of frame horns to mount the lower control arms on
AND you'll have endless amounts of aftermarket parts for it (mounts,
bushings, etc.) and your engine mounts might be taken care of with the A2
subframe for the rear motor!!  I think the bearings are bigger on the A2
hubs plus I also believe that the A1 strut assy will fit the A2 knuckle assy
(not positive but could be made to work even if they don't since it would
only be a thickness difference).  The really cool thing about using front
suspension for the rear (seen it alot on AWD rally cars) is that you will
have tow-in/tow-out adjustments along with camber without having to use
shims.  Plus if you use some type of adjustable strut plates, man oh man
would you have adjustments to play with!!!  To answer your question, A2
suspension in the rear MIGHT work because it is atached to the vehicle by
the one bolt in the middle like the rears on A1s (and A2s) but the idea of
adding camber plates sounds cool too besides, I'm not sure you'd have room
for a front strut in the rear mounting hole/area.  Your gonna have to
reinforce the heck out of that rear end of yours anyway, may as well start
with camber plates!!

Dave


> ok, so i've been thinking of what to do in the rear of the twin. ref this
> page:
> http://www.intenzmedia.com/fahlgren/cars/vw/stuff/rear_engine_scirocco/
> first, keep in mind thats a mk1 (not too much difference).
> scroll to the last couple of pics and check out these thoughts:
> initial background - intend on fitting complete front 16v suspension +
> engine in the rear.
> - i plan to use coilovers (possibly ground control), and therefore it may
be
> possible to keep the stock body as far as strut towers go (if the shoe
> fits...). keep in mind i would reinforce the towers, so there would be no
> problem there. difference in tower height (vs. front towers), should be
> close enough such that the adjustment on the ground control system could
> correct for it (or i could just modify the perches). For the techies, the
> rear kingpin/caster angle is almost the same using the stock tower points
in
> the rear as compared to the same suspension as it would be in the front
> (just fyi).
> - problem: i need bearings vs. bushings (like in the pic). I'd like to
keep
> the stock mounting point as far as the strut towers go (so that i dont
have
> to cut/weld the mount points). the reason i stress bearings at all is that
> im not sure if standard type rear inserts will do the job (from a
> maintaining alignment perspective, as rear alignment will no longer be
> determined by the tortion beam). the slightest shift (even in poly) may
have
> large effects in alignment.
> - question: so are there any upper strut bearings that anyone can think of
> that may be adaptable to the stock rear tower mount points? the ones in
that
> last picture look close, but they also look like they rely on the shape of
> the tower to fit properly (meaning i would have to cut those 2 sections
off
> of a car and cut/weld on the rear of the twin).
> - basically im trying to maintain as much stock structural integrity in
the
> rear tower area.
>
> thanks in advance for any inputs/time spent
> Al
>
> Allyn Malventano, ETC(SS), USN
> 87 Rieger GTO Scirocco 16v (daily driver, 170k, rocco #6)
> 86 Kamei Twin 16V Turbo Scirocco GTX ('it has begun', rocco #7)
> 87 Jetta 8v Wolfsburg 2dr (daily driver, 260k, 0 rattles, original clutch,
> driveshafts, wheels :)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scirocco-l mailing list
> Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
> http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l