14 replies to this topic

[Twincam]

Hi guys, I need to pick your brains if I can.

 

I recently over hauled the clutch and the braking system (was drums all round) on my Clubman estate (last on the road in 1997) which included;

 

All new rubber brake pipes including the fronts for disc brakes,

New copper nickel pipe that runs along the front sub frame,

New hydraulic rear cylinders,

A 7.5" disc conversion upgrade (kit bought from Minispares),

I used a set of 2nd hand hubs/uprights with new ball joints and a set of CV joints from another Mini,

A rebuild kit on both master cylinders (clutch and brake) and a

New clutch slave cylinder with braided one piece (master to slave) pipe.

 

The above might not have had any effect on my issue but thought it was worth mentioning.

 

Whilst I had everything off I changed the front tie bar bushes for new ones (one rubber and one poly), the front arm inner bushes to poly bushes and changed the track rod ends. Due to changing the track rod ends the tracking needs to be adjusted - if the toe is facing fractionally in, it would naturally push the front end up wouldn't it? However I wouldn't have thought it would be as much as I am experiencing.

 

Once she was back on her own feet, I threw some alloys onto her and had to put her away in storage. I had to tow her to my garage however when I stopped I noticed that the camber of the front wheels were totally off. I took her up and down the lane to make sure the suspension settled (I had her on axle stands for a few weeks) however even after that the camber was still out.

 

What could be causing this issue? How can it be rectified?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

https://s16.postimg....0114_144239.jpg
https://s16.postimg....0114_144254.jpg
https://s16.postimg....0114_144306.jpg

 

 

[Spider]

They do have Positive Camber as standard, but only around 2⁰. The other thing is, with the Hubs, there was a change in the King Pin angle at some point, the earlier ones will also increase Positive Camber.

 

One last item to suggest, if it has excessive Toe In, it will give a pronounced Positive camber when moved. Try rolling it back and seeing if they settle.

[Twincam]

They do have Positive Camber as standard, but only around 2⁰. The other thing is, with the Hubs, there was a change in the King Pin angle at some point, the earlier ones will also increase Positive Camber.
 
One last item to suggest, if it has excessive Toe In, it will give a pronounced Positive camber when moved. Try rolling it back and seeing if they settle.

The hubs I've used came off a 1993 SPi Cooper, the cv joints also came from this donor.

I was thinking the exact thing as you've suggested - when pushing or reversing the car back into the garage, (from what I remember) she settled down. I'll get the tracking done (got to find a place that can do it) and report back. The toe was a little excessive as over ~30mph she'd start skidding - just making sure I hadn't forgotten anything.

Thank you for replying!

Edited by Twincam, 12 March 2017 - 06:54 PM.

[Twincam]

Right, took the beast for tracking today which proved to be unsuccessful.

 

Before any adjustment, the degree of toe was off the scale. After adjusting the track we managed to get the toe to minus 20 (that was at the max adjustment, there was absolutely no way of making the toe more positive as we ran out of threads) however I was told that the Mini should be at roughly minus 1. 

 

The track rod ends I bought were from eBay (Advertised as "Classic Mini 1962-1983 Track Rod Ends A Pair GSJ734a QR1072s")... From visual inspection when I installed them they looked to be of the same length so they were fitted. Have I bought the wrong ones? My estate is a 1971...

 

After looking at Minispares I can see that they do standard TREs but also do longer ones to increase the amount of negative camber - I am however after positive camber... What are my options? New track rod ends?

[Spider]

Right, took the beast for tracking today which proved to be unsuccessful.

 

 however I was told that the Mini should be at roughly minus 1. 

 

 

Sorry, but whoever suggested that, is likely incorrect. At standard Ride height and from the Rover 78 - 92 Factory Workshop Manual;-

 

 

If you were unable to adjust the Toe Angle far enough to correct the Toe Adjustment, assuming you have standard lower arms, I would suggest you may have a MKII Rack with MKI Steering Arms.

 

[cal844]

Op says the hubs were from a 1993 car

[Spider]

Op says the hubs were from a 1993 car

 

I can post up that info in the morning (our time) but is the same as that already posted.

[MRA]

the steering arms can be unbolted so they could be off an earlier model, but as your car settles the tow will change from toe in (wrong) to toe out (correct) or at least will head in that direction, you do seem to have a lot of positive again this changes as your car settles (lowers)

 

Which bottom arm bushes did you get ?  was the hole central to the outside of the bush ?

[Twincam]

The bushes were from Minispares, black poly bushes. Do you mean when I re-inserted the (naturally bent) bar that it attaches through?

I did think about the steering rack, I have a later one that came off the cooper (where the hubs came from) that I could install. Unless it's just the arms I need to remove? Can I wind the arms into the rack or remove them and measure them? Would the length of the rack differ?

I have the old track rod ends however they measured up fine against the cooper track rod ends. I'll be shooting to the garage one day this week so will measure the ones installed.

[tiger99]

The track rod ends do not affect the camber at all. The only reason for longer track rod ends, which are actually Triumph Herald/Spitfire and cheaper from a Triumph specialist, is to give sufficient thread engagement when the camber has been set to a negative value by longer or adjustable bottom arms. I can't tell from what you have written whether it is your camber or toe that is wrong, or both?

And which way are the TRE's running out of thread? Unscrewed too far, go and get a pair of Triumph TRE's. Even Euro Car Parts may have them. Can't screw in far enough, check the threaded depth compared to the old ones. As already discussed above, check the steering arms.

[Magneto]

I'm surprised to see a static setting of positive camber in the manual, mine doesn't even talk about it. I always use adjustable lower control arms and tie bars, so I can get about .5° negative camber, 3° caster and 1/16 toe out, car handles nicely with these settings.

[Spider]

The track rod ends do not affect the camber at all. The only reason for longer track rod ends, which are actually Triumph Herald/Spitfire and cheaper from a Triumph specialist, is to give sufficient thread engagement when the camber has been set to a negative value by longer or adjustable bottom arms. I can't tell from what you have written whether it is your camber or toe that is wrong, or both?

And which way are the TRE's running out of thread? Unscrewed too far, go and get a pair of Triumph TRE's. Even Euro Car Parts may have them. Can't screw in far enough, check the threaded depth compared to the old ones. As already discussed above, check the steering arms.

 

In a static stance, yes.

 

However, when there's - for one example - excessive toe in, when on the move, this will 'steer' the front wheels in towards each other and effectively 'drive' the car to a positive camber.

[tiger99]

That would be a very excessive amount of toe! But what I am trying to help him determine is whether his problem is camber or toe. There seems to be excess positive camber on one side, and any assymmetry would suggest that at least one part is incorrect or damaged.

[hhhh]

I have a '78 Mini with excessive positive camber on one side as a result of an accident where it was struck from the other side which drove the now cambered side into the curb. I could never figure out what part was damaged so decided to replace the subframe. It had a strange habit of eating steering racks.

[tiger99]

It was the subframe that was bent (other damage would have been easier to spot) and it could probably be straightened. It was most likely pushed in at the bottom of the tower where the lower arm locates. I wonder if anyone has a subframe jig to help measure it?

 

Puzzling. I can't see why it would eat steering racks. Maybe they were a typical poor quality part, with which we are afflicted nowadays? A minor change in geometry hardly affects the loading on the rack. The rack is held to the toeboard mount only by 2 U bolts, and even a somewhat distorted toeboard would not be able to impose a bending load on the rack. We know that a misalignment between rack and column causes the splines in the softer column to fail.