Front wheels far forward in opening (and rear tire clearance)

[Carbuilder]

I'm looking into putting larger wheels on my car. I know this isn't for everyone. The front wheels are pretty far forward in the wheel opening. See the picture. I've checked other pictures I could find and mine might be at the extreme of what I've found. The issue is that when turning the wheel it comes so close to rubbing at the front that any more stickout on a new wheel/tire would hit the fender.

I don't see how this can be adjusted. Does mine look normal? I know, it needs to be lowered.

71222

71223

They sure have used every bit of space with the wheels/tires. At the rear the clearance with the lower shock mount is about 1/4" and the tire is about 1/4" inside the fender. No room to go wider.

Rick

[82DMC12]

I'm looking into putting larger wheels on my car. I know this isn't for everyone. The front wheels are pretty far forward in the wheel opening. See the picture. I've checked other pictures I could find and mine might be at the extreme of what I've found. The issue is that when turning the wheel it comes so close to rubbing at the front that any more stickout on a new wheel/tire would hit the fender.

I don't see how this can be adjusted. Does mine look normal? I know, it needs to be lowered.

71222

71223

They sure have used every bit of space with the wheels/tires. At the rear the clearance with the lower shock mount is about 1/4" and the tire is about 1/4" inside the fender. No room to go wider.

RickThat's pretty extreme. Have you ever had an alignment?

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Timeless]

Has the front suspension been inspected recently? That wheel location makes it seem like a suspension component is compromised.

[Carbuilder]

I got the car last summer and haven't had an alignment since it drives fine.

I just had a better look at the suspension and took some pictures. I can't see anything that looks suspicious.

71224

71225

71226

71227

[82DMC12]

Hard to confirm how bad it is without getting an alignment, not that an alignment will necessarily fix this, but those lower control arm braces are not factory and who knows if they have the correct geometry.

This could also happen if the front sway bar somehow modified or the bushing clamp slots are enlarged.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Rich]

I'm looking into putting larger wheels on my car. The front wheels are pretty far forward in the wheel opening.

Does mine look normal?

Yes, your car's wheel location looks normal.

See photo below, scraped from an online auction site.

71228

[Carbuilder]

...but those lower control arm braces are not factory and who knows if they have the correct geometry.

This could also happen if the front sway bar somehow modified or the bushing clamp slots are enlarged.



I read something about the sway bar not being positioned properly causing this, but I don't see how that could pull the whole suspension forward. Same with the LCA braces. Since caster is not adjustable (as far as I can see) nothing can move the wheel/suspension forward, other than severe crash damage which I don't see. Maybe things varied a bit in car assembly?

[dn010]

Looks normal to me, here is mine and my suspension has been overhauled, along with trying two different sway bars. Frame is straight but a very early frame (712).

71229

[Bitsyncmaster]

My gap with the wheels pointed strait ahead is 1-1/8" with my 195-60-R14 tires.

[82DMC12]

I still don't think one finger width from fender edge to tire is normal.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[dn010]

I guess I am unable to compare, my car is lowered (stainless LCAs, Grady Gen1 lowering springs, original shocks). The closest mine gets is about 1/2" away from the fender. Mine is about 1 1/8" away from the plastic, only because the tire is up farther being lowered.

[Rich]

The OP can confirm this. It looks like we need to clarify what we see in the first posting along with the clearance question.

Photo 1: Seems to show wheel in straight-ahead orientation. More than a finger-width clearance fm tire to air dam or fender along the lines of Dave M's reading in post #9. Wheel is a bit forward in the fender cutout, not centered. This is a normal clearance for the car (with wheels straight ahead) as noted in post #6 here. My D's wheel-dam clearance looks that way with the fronts steering straight ahead.

Photo 2: Closeup photo with wheel cocked a bit as in a right turn. Shows a finger-width clearance from outer corner of tire tread to dam/fender. This shows a worst-case orientation. Again, it looks normal. At least that's how mine looks on both sides after turning steering wheel 1/4 turn from center in either direction.

As the OP suspects, the car isn't designed for larger front tires/wheels.




71222

71223

They sure have used every bit of space with the wheels/tires. At the rear the clearance with the lower shock mount is about 1/4" and the tire is about 1/4" inside the fender. No room to go wider.

[Patrick C]

As the OP suspects, the car isn't designed for larger front tires/wheels.

For comparison, here is VIN 1880 with 17 inch rims and 205/40R17 tires. Lowered with coilovers.

https://images.clickpix.org/2Hcg15.jpeg

[Carbuilder]

Photo 1: Seems to show wheel in straight-ahead orientation. More than a finger-width clearance fm tire to air dam or fender along the lines of Dave M's reading in post #9. Wheel is a bit forward in the fender cutout, not centered. This is a normal clearance for the car (with wheels straight ahead) as noted in post #6 here. My D's wheel-dam clearance looks that way with the fronts steering straight ahead.

Photo 2: Closeup photo with wheel cocked a bit as in a right turn. Shows a finger-width clearance from outer corner of tire tread to dam/fender. This shows a worst-case orientation. Again, it looks normal. At least that's how mine looks on both sides after turning steering wheel 1/4 turn from center in either direction.



That is correct. First picture is wheel straight ahead and second is with it turned in (as in a right turn). With it straight ahead I just measured the clearance at 3/4".

You must have lucked out Patrick when they built your car. From most of the responses here it seems that "normal" is with the wheel not centered as yours seems to be.

Rick

[FABombjoy]

Lots of people are running larger overall diameter. Me too.

https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?1035-What-wheels-rims-do-you-have

Getting rid of the OEM super swamper front springs will push the wheel further back too.

[Rich]

That is correct. First picture is wheel straight ahead and second is with it turned in (as in a right turn). With it straight ahead I just measured the clearance at 3/4".

You must have lucked out Patrick when they built your car. From most of the responses here it seems that "normal" is with the wheel not centered as yours seems to be.

Rick

Thank you for confirming the situation.

Now we know. For photos taken at an oblique angle or with the wheel turned L or R it's harder to make apples-to-apples comparisons.

[Carbuilder]

Lots of people are running larger overall diameter. Me too.

https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?1035-What-wheels-rims-do-you-have

Getting rid of the OEM super swamper front springs will push the wheel further back too.

I've read that thread many times. Very interesting but doesn't help me to fit larger wheels/tires on my car.

How does changing the spring move the wheel back? As far as I can see, the wheel position is fixed by the upper and lower control arms.

[FABombjoy]

How does changing the spring move the wheel back?

Point A is fixed to the frame at the ARB bushings.

UCA/LCA points B and C are free to move A LOT as they're attached by rubber bushings and ball joints

As wheel follows the yellow arrow due to spring height, consider the effect of pivoting the a fixed anti-roll bar distance A/B on the wheels absolute position. It will move in an arc fixed to point A, heading rearward
71230

You can also increase A/B distance by adding washers at the LCA attachment point.
You can also loosen the ARB bushing bolts at the frame and push the whole ARB rearward, assuming it isn't already back as far as possible.
You could swap ARB bushings to something with longer slots so it can move farther back.

[dn010]

fwiw I have Grady's lowering springs and mine is still forward. I will try to find photos of my car with the last frame to see if there is any difference.

[Gregadeth]

Mine also sits a little too forward, though I haven't noticed any fender rubbing.

71231



You can also increase A/B distance by adding washers at the LCA attachment point.
You can also loosen the ARB bushing bolts at the frame and push the whole ARB rearward, assuming it isn't already back as far as possible.
You could swap ARB bushings to something with longer slots so it can move farther back. So in theory, caster is still adjustable on this car using washers and bushings? I wish I knew this before putting my suspension back together.

[FABombjoy]

Remember that when driving the wheels have friction / drag and will shift rearward. The gaps being measured here will increase under motion.

You can make minor caster adjustments by massaging the swaybar mounts and shimming the attachments at the LCA. I don't think there's much threading on the bar but a little goes a long way.
But this is negative caster, so for better handling its in the wrong direction.

The more positive caster you can physically manage the better the car will handle but steering effort goes up. I run about 5.5deg and it handles better but steering self-centering becomes strong. This is nice on the highway tho.

[Carbuilder]

So in theory, caster is still adjustable on this car using washers and bushings? I wish I knew this before putting my suspension back together.

The UCA washers are supposed to be installed in a certain order. If you ignore that and can swap a washer from one side to the other you would change the caster by about 1/2 degree. If you can do it on the LCA as well (not sure if you can the way the bushings/washers are arranged) you could gain another 1/2 degree. Maybe....in theory.

[Carbuilder]

Point A is fixed to the frame at the ARB bushings.

UCA/LCA points B and C are free to move A LOT as they're attached by rubber bushings and ball joints

As wheel follows the yellow arrow due to spring height, consider the effect of pivoting the a fixed anti-roll bar distance A/B on the wheels absolute position. It will move in an arc fixed to point A, heading rearward
71230

You can also increase A/B distance by adding washers at the LCA attachment point.
You can also loosen the ARB bushing bolts at the frame and push the whole ARB rearward, assuming it isn't already back as far as possible.
You could swap ARB bushings to something with longer slots so it can move farther back.

I disagree with all this. I took a wheel off and had a good look at the suspension.

The ARB goes into the LCA with rubber bushings. If you push the bar rearward (assuming you can push it enough to deform the bushings) you would put pressure on the LCA, but not move it a significant amount.

If you can move point B and C "A LOT" then your bushings are shot. Manufacturers want the suspension to move up and down, not forward and rearward. Of course there is some front/back movement due to the rubber mounting, but minimal. With the car jacked up by the frame there is no way I could deflect the wheel forward or rearward.

Swapping washers around could gain 1/8" more clearance by moving both the UCA and LCA rearward. Not significant.

As for the spring angle moving the wheel back when lowering the car, no, the spring can't control that. The spring has no stiffness forward/rearward if you hold one end and move the other end. It certainly bends as the suspension moves.

The whole point here is that the wheel position is fixed by the UCA and LCA location in the frame. The rubber bushings can be deflected, a small amount, but forcing them to be deflected (if you could somehow) to move the wheel is not a good idea. The bushings want to be centered, not deflected, which is why it is general practice to leave suspension bolts loose until the vehicle is on the ground and settled. You don't want preload on them.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I'm pretty sure your facts are not correct. Anyone with more knowledge than either of us, feel free to chip in.

Rick

[David T]

I disagree with all this. I took a wheel off and had a good look at the suspension.

The ARB goes into the LCA with rubber bushings. If you push the bar rearward (assuming you can push it enough to deform the bushings) you would put pressure on the LCA, but not move it a significant amount.

If you can move point B and C "A LOT" then your bushings are shot. Manufacturers want the suspension to move up and down, not forward and rearward. Of course there is some front/back movement due to the rubber mounting, but minimal. With the car jacked up by the frame there is no way I could deflect the wheel forward or rearward.

Swapping washers around could gain 1/8" more clearance by moving both the UCA and LCA rearward. Not significant.

As for the spring angle moving the wheel back when lowering the car, no, the spring can't control that. The spring has no stiffness forward/rearward if you hold one end and move the other end. It certainly bends as the suspension moves.

The whole point here is that the wheel position is fixed by the UCA and LCA location in the frame. The rubber bushings can be deflected, a small amount, but forcing them to be deflected (if you could somehow) to move the wheel is not a good idea. The bushings want to be centered, not deflected, which is why it is general practice to leave suspension bolts loose until the vehicle is on the ground and settled. You don't want preload on them.

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I'm pretty sure your facts are not correct. Anyone with more knowledge than either of us, feel free to chip in.

Rick

True enough but also the sway bar, it's bushings AND THE FRAME I have seen some frames so rotten it allowed movement. The control arms can also bend which is why some owners have tried to stiffen them by "boxing" them (welding a plate to "complete the box".) Because of the compliancy of the bushings the position of the wheel will move fore-and-aft a little, more as the bushings age and wear. Some owners have gone to poly to stiffen the suspension but that has it's own set of problems, transmitting more road noise and feel into the car. Fiddling with the alignment (castor, camber, toe, and ride height) can make the car unpredictable to handle and increase tire wear. Unless you really know what you are doing you should stick to the factory specs. Each Delorean is unique in that they were mostly handbuilt and each has it's own "personality". Some do have noticeable differences like the position of the wheels in the well wells, How high the doors open, how level the louvers and hood are when open just to name a few things. The early cars even more so.

[FABombjoy]

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I'm pretty sure your facts are not correct.
You haven't said what wheel/tire you're looking to fit.
You haven't posted alignment numbers.
How can you solve a problem that nobody seems to have?

I've spent a fair amount of time building fixtures and quick measurement methods for this car to get consistent measurements using strings/laser. Have DPI adjustable lower arms, Lotus Esprit upper arms, KW coil overs. You might be surprised how one minor change to one parameter can stack up quickly to others including wheelbase. And by "a lot" I mean "a few degrees" worth, the lower mainly. The LCA is exceptionally mobile at its connection to the frame, see Lotus subsequent changes to the similar Esprit LCA. Or separate the LBJ and experience it first hand.

[FABombjoy]

I should add that with the aftermarket LCA "outriggers" you'll have less deflection.
Put some weight up front / have someone sit on the fender and see what happens.

[Carbuilder]

You haven't said what wheel/tire you're looking to fit.
You haven't posted alignment numbers.
How can you solve a problem that nobody seems to have?


Here is where I am after about 50 hours of hunting on-line for wheels. I am of course looking for 4x100 bolt pattern.

I would like to go to 16" and 17" wheels. The issue is that there is really no room to go wider or with different offset and still fit them in. All the 16" wheels I've found are 7" wide and I need 6" wide. Offset is critical with these and basically the more the better; more than is available on most wheels. Sticking out any farther than stock (in my car) will cause the tire to hit the front of the fender when turning; this would be with 195/45 tires, to give about the same diameter as stock. There are places that can cut and re-weld aluminum wheels to make them narrower; would make me a bit nervous though. With this option 7" wide wheels with an offset of at least 43mm would have minimal additional stickout (5mm) so the extra 1" can be cut off the rear. Kind of a last resort I think, but might be the only solution.

At the rear the issue is that 17" wheels are pretty much all 7" wide. So 1" narrower than stock and a stock tire with a lower profile (235/45) is not recommended for that wheel width. Offset is not critical on the rear since most of the wheels have more offset than the stock Delorean wheels, so spacers can be used to move the wheels out to a stock position. No need for comments on the use of spacers, I've heard them all.

So the summary is that available 16" wheels on the front are too wide and 17" on the rear are too narrow. Can't go to 18" on the rear since they aren't available with a 4x100 bolt pattern.

I haven't posted alignment numbers since I don't have them. But alignment on a Delorean (that hasn't been damaged in some way) is only toe adjustment and that visually looks OK and the car drivers/steers nicely.

As for solving a problem that nobody seems to have, my car seems to have been built on the limit of the wheel being forward in the wheel well. But the main reason nobody has this problem is because very few people look into larger wheels. Even with the wheel moved further back, I wouldn't want much more stickout than stock, so I would still have the same problem finding wheels.

I did look at the DPI adjustable LCA hardware. Interesting. But in my case I would be using it to try and pull the wheel back, reducing the caster....going in the wrong direction. If I could move the upper one rearward as well that might help. I've seen adjustable upper arms, but not sure I want to get into new upper and lower hardware to move the wheel a minimal amount.

Rick

[Carbuilder]

Just realized that I have been limiting myself in looking for wheels. I've been filtering out any with a center bore less than 72.1mm. I'm pretty sure smaller bores can be machined out, and only need to be deep enough to clear the hub centric feature on the hub.

[FABombjoy]

I run 16x7, 4x100, 65mm center bore, 48mm offset.
I had a 10mm spacer made to downsize 72.1 -> 65mm and center the wheel about where originals sit. Stock studs worked. No real poke, 205/45 tires.
I ran these for years before having full adjustment up front and corner hard. No rubbing.

Later swapped to Miata hubs for which are 54.1 (for better brake options).
Had to press in longer studs and made hubcentric adapters from 54.1 to 72.1

Several Enki wheels are available in a +43 and above, 16x7, 4x100
The Stinger V6 swap car runs 225/45-15 up front on widened original 15" rear wheels.
Whatever you want to do (within reason) can probably be done.

There's also stock-clone newly made set of 16 and 17 wheels in production or soon to be.
https://www.instagram.com/pure_forged_wheels/
I'm not sure if they sell direct or if they have a DMC (or former) franchisee affiliation.

[David T]

Very few owners have larger tires/wheels on the front mainly because of room issues with the body, frame and interference with the suspension during turns. Keep experimenting and keep us informed with your progress but since few of us have done this there is a very small knowledge base to draw on. Always be aware that when Lotus designed the suspension they deliberately chose different sizes for the front and rear for handling and braking purposes. Changing them will impact braking and handling so you will have to figure out how to compensate for the changes. Because the car is rear engined they tuned the handling so the front will start to lose grip BEFORE the rear. The logic is if you lose grip in the rear first, by the time you try to correct it you will have lost all control because of the high polar moment caused by all the weight behind the rear wheels. Larger tires on the front will change that. You will also have to experiment with your tire pressure to get the right balance of weight bearing capacity and handling. There is also the issue of unsprung weight (you are increasing it by going with bigger tires). A set of corner scales would come in very handy along with an IR temperature gauge.

[ssdelorean]

Before his passing, Cliff Schmucker, was doing a study and measuring front spring compression rates to try and figure out what was going on with all of the different "nose high" vs "nose low" stock deloreans. He was starting notice only slight variations in the stock springs which then lead him to start taking measurements of the mounting areas in relation to the frame. He found more variations there than in the springs which led him to believe either it was in intentional change in how the mounts were welded or just not very accurate assembly. If true, this also might have a play in why some cars are more forward than others.

Patrick C,
Please add any additional info I may have forgotten from Cliff's studies.


Body panel alignment is another small factor to consider as well.


With under 10,000 hand built cars, not all of our glorified prototypes were created equal. :)

[Carbuilder]

I run 16x7, 4x100, 65mm center bore, 48mm offset.
I had a 10mm spacer made to downsize 72.1 -> 65mm and center the wheel about where originals sit. Stock studs worked. No real poke, 205/45 tires.
I ran these for years before having full adjustment up front and corner hard. No rubbing.


With that offset and width I agree that there would be no poke, but they would be about 1" more on the inside. As it is now, on full turn my tires come close to the sway bar. With another inch I couldn't go full lock without interference. How did you get around that?

[Carbuilder]

Very few owners have larger tires/wheels on the front mainly because of room issues with the body, frame and interference with the suspension during turns. Keep experimenting and keep us informed with your progress...

I am trying to go with larger wheels, but the tire width and diameter would be the same as stock, so not much is changing. A weight difference in the wheel/tire, but that's about it.

[FABombjoy]

How did you get around that?
It's not a problem I've had. No contact at full lock and doing parking lot figure 8s

[Patrick C]

Before his passing, Cliff Schmucker, was doing a study and measuring front spring compression rates to try and figure out what was going on with all of the different "nose high" vs "nose low" stock deloreans. He was starting notice only slight variations in the stock springs which then lead him to start taking measurements of the mounting areas in relation to the frame. He found more variations there than in the springs which led him to believe either it was in intentional change in how the mounts were welded or just not very accurate assembly. If true, this also might have a play in why some cars are more forward than others.

Patrick C,
Please add any additional info I may have forgotten from Cliff's studies.


Body panel alignment is another small factor to consider as well.


With under 10,000 hand built cars, not all of our glorified prototypes were created equal. :)

This was a decade or more ago, but I seem to recall Ed Uding chiming in and telling us that there were 2 (or more) different sets of underbody molds and depending on which one made your underbody, it would affect the stance of your car. Hence how a set of lowering springs might look slammed on one car and not on another. Factor that in with panel alignment and this can explain what we are talking about in this thread.

[dn010]

I'd suspect since the body and frame don't have a way of centrally locating each other the same upon assembly on each car, that might make some slight differences as well since the capture nut is able to move around in the cage.

[Carbuilder]

I owe you an apology FABombjoy.....sort of. :smile:

I stumbled on an interesting article on a Ferrari site where someone bought a Delorean and was upgrading the suspension and brakes (to Ferrari brakes). The front wheels were forward in the wheel well about as much as mine are. A suspension engineer friend apparently looked at it and said it is sort of a torsion bar suspension (the sway bar being the torsion bar) and that helps support the LCA. He shimmed the sway bar attachment and that moved the LCA back quite a bit. So it does seem possible, but I still don't think that is a good way to do it (loading the bushings on angles). Also, it isn't really a true torsion bar suspension since both wheels going up/down would have no load from the torsion part.

Anyways, it got me thinking and doing more investigating. My first thought was that doing it that way reduces the caster which is not a good thing. So the first step was to find out how much caster I have. I used a gauge I've had for a long time but never used. Since I couldn't put it on a wheel without making some sort of fixture (which I will probably do at some point) as the gauge has magnets. So I supported the car on the outboard end of the LCA's and took the wheels off. I figured that should be pretty close to simulating the car on the ground.

The camber is about 1/2 degree on each side, so in the right direction but pretty minimal. The caster is 7 1/2 degrees on each side which I was pleased about. That gives me room to move the LCA back and still have adequate caster. I did some measuring and calculating and came up with this.

To reduce the caster from 7 1/2 degrees to 5 degrees I would move the LCA back about .4". Not a huge amount, but since I have .75" clearance now, that's pretty good. I could move the UCA rearwards by taking the 2 washers from the front side and moving them to the rear. That would result in about .8 degree caster change.

So I took enough apart to see how much the LCA can move. I removed the LCA braces that are on the car. I have done no mods to it since getting it; anything done to it was done by the previous owner, which includes all new bushings. I removed the sway bar attachments on the frame and loosened the attachment on the LCA. With the car now supported on the frame, I really couldn't move the LCA back and forth much at all; maybe 1/16" total. I don't think forcing it back mechanically is a good way to go. I would like to move the control arms back maybe 1/2" or so; at least the lower one and the upper one can be moved less and still have decent caster.

The upper one can be moved a little with the washer swap. Not sure if any machining is possible to move it more; can't really tell unless I take it all apart. I can't really figure out how the lower one attaches to the frame. I've looked at the exploded view and it isn't clear what can be done. I'll need to take it apart to see.

I think I should install lowering springs while I'm taking things apart. Any recommendations on which ones I should get? I was also thinking of the adjustable rod end type LCA reinforcement instead of the fixed ones I have now. I could use that adjustment to move the arm a little I suppose.

Caster/camber gauge attached:

71235

LCA reinforcing plate removed and bolts left loose:

71236

Sway bar attachment removed, reinforcing plate disconnected and bolts loose:

71237

Looks like 2 washers I could swap to the other side. Not sure if I can do anything else:

71238

Not sure how this works for attaching the LCA to the frame. Are the tube looking things spacers? Is there one bushing or 2?

71239

[dn010]

The tube looking things are built into the frame, scroll down in the link below to look at the frame without the LCA attached. There is only one bushing per side on the lower.

https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?19544-Frame-for-sale-MT




Not sure how this works for attaching the LCA to the frame. Are the tube looking things spacers? Is there one bushing or 2?

[Carbuilder]

Thank you for that. So moving the LCA rearwards is pretty easy then. Cut off about 1/2" from the rear tube and make a 1/2" spacer for the front.

[dn010]

Thank you for that. So moving the LCA rearwards is pretty easy then. Cut off about 1/2" from the rear tube and make a 1/2" spacer for the front.

Not so simple: you'll still have the sway bar pulling the LCAs forward to the original position which will destroy the bushings. You'd have to either move the sway bar mounting back or figure out how to extend the ends of the bar that attach to the control arm. Not sure what that would do to your steering or handling. I'm always with the frame of mind that it was done the way it was originally for a reason.

[steve]

This was a decade or more ago, but I seem to recall Ed Uding chiming in and telling us that there were 2 (or more) different sets of underbody molds and depending on which one made your underbody, it would affect the stance of your car. Hence how a set of lowering springs might look slammed on one car and not on another. Factor that in with panel alignment and this can explain what we are talking about in this thread.

20069 One of the last few built has the tire centered in the opening even with the car lowered.
Steve

[Carbuilder]

Not so simple: you'll still have the sway bar pulling the LCAs forward to the original position which will destroy the bushings. You'd have to either move the sway bar mounting back or figure out how to extend the ends of the bar that attach to the control arm. Not sure what that would do to your steering or handling. I'm always with the frame of mind that it was done the way it was originally for a reason.

I have about 3/8" of thread left on the sway bar to move the LCA (including a couple of threads left for safety). I can make a spacer for the front of it. The slotted holes in the mounting brackets also allow some movement rearward on the sway bar. So I should be able to move the whole system rearward .4"-.5" without changing the suspension geometry (or changing it very little) and not stressing any bushings.

I know it was all set up the way it is for a reason, but I also know there are often compromises made to the ideal suspension geometry to cater for packaging around the whole area. I don't plan on going to the track with it or really pushing in on the street, so what I change should have very little effect on drivability. As far as I can see, I'm changing it to what it should have been like from the factory, as I doubt they deliberately set mine up with the tire almost hitting the fender lip.

I do appreciate all the advice and information given to me here. It gives me a better idea of what to do and not to do.

Rick

[dn010]

As far as I can see, I'm changing it to what it should have been like from the factory, as I doubt they deliberately set mine up with the tire almost hitting the fender lip.



Considering other vehicles have the body placed better over the wheels, what it should have been like from the factory is our frames mated better to the body and the fender panels aligned better. Then you wouldn't have to modify the frame. I will give a better effort to find photos of my car with the original frame just to see if it is any different prior to disassembly and changing frames and all that.

Also just to caution you, it has been a long time since I had my sway bar bracket apart but from what I recall, it isn't slotted so you can slide it where you want it. I think it is slotted because it only goes on in one position and the slot is there to make installation possible on frames where the bolt holes may vary from one to the other. I may be wrong but I do remember having a PITA time putting the brackets back on and not being able to slide them.

[FABombjoy]

Toby's sway bar bushing kit had slotted bushing assemblies at the body. I assume they're pretty standard sway bar body mounts? Its been so long since I've seen the originals you're probably right and they're not slotted. But that's easy to fix with a grinder if you're only after a little :D

Sway bar bushings are a chore if the wheels are up. Weight on the front is pretty easy. I recently R&R'd the entire ARB/radiator bracket assembly on my parking lift to swap fan shrouds and did so without any assist. Everything should fall mostly in to place.

[jamesrguk]

As soon as your car is rolling forward the front un-driven wheels are naturally going to be dragged backwards in the wheel arch, more so under any kind of braking/cornering, so as long as the wheel doesn't touch the fender when stationary then aside from the aesthetics you should be fine.

J

[Carbuilder]

So when I'm backing up it gets worse? And backing up usually involves the turning the steering a lot, where my clearance gets even less. Part of the reason for me wanting to correct things (even if contact with the fender lip won't happen) is a visual thing; it just looks off.

And as for the sway bar mounts, I have the aftermarket slotted ones. I didn't pay attention to where the bolts were in the slots when I zipped them out, so not sure if I have room in the slots to move the brackets or not.

[Carbuilder]

One side taken apart. Now for a bit of modification. I've ordered coil-overs. I was going to get lowering springs, but that would leave it lowered a fixed amount; an amount I may or may not like.

71240

[dn010]

is a visual thing; it just looks off.

Hate to say it but if the front is off, so is the back. The possible fix might be as easy as loosening the frame and seeing if you can slide it back / body forward by any amount.

[Carbuilder]

The back is off a little too, but not as noticeable. I can live with that.

[Carbuilder]

Got things pretty much done, just waiting for the coil-overs to be delivered.

I made a little gadget to guide a saw blade to cut the correct amount off the "tube"; just under .6".

71251

Cut the tube off and made a bushing to go on the other side of the LCA:

71252

I had to make 2 more bushings the same length to reuse the stiffening pieces that were there before. Needed new bolts too (a bit longer):

71253

It's been a good project and not too difficult.

Rick

[dmcman73]

Doing this makes your caster go negative which is not what you want. You'll need to add adjustable upper control arms to bring the caster more positive, but that brings other issues trying to correct your caster this way.


Got things pretty much done, just waiting for the coil-overs to be delivered.

I made a little gadget to guide a saw blade to cut the correct amount off the "tube"; just under .6".

71251

Cut the tube off and made a bushing to go on the other side of the LCA:

71252

I had to make 2 more bushings the same length to reuse the stiffening pieces that were there before. Needed new bolts too (a bit longer):

71253

It's been a good project and not too difficult.

Rick

[82DMC12]

Got things pretty much done, just waiting for the coil-overs to be delivered.

I made a little gadget to guide a saw blade to cut the correct amount off the "tube"; just under .6".

71251

Cut the tube off and made a bushing to go on the other side of the LCA:

71252

I had to make 2 more bushings the same length to reuse the stiffening pieces that were there before. Needed new bolts too (a bit longer):

71253

It's been a good project and not too difficult.

Rick


I bet you end up regretting doing this at some point in the not too distant future.

[Carbuilder]

Doing this makes your caster go negative which is not what you want. You'll need to add adjustable upper control arms to bring the caster more positive, but that brings other issues trying to correct your caster this way.

Read post #37.

[Carbuilder]

I bet you end up regretting doing this at some point in the not too distant future.

I'm curious why.

It can easily be reversed if I don't like it for some reason. Swap the LCA bushing I made to the other side, take out the 2 bushings I made for the stiffening pieces. Go back to the bolts that were in there to start. Am I missing something?

[82DMC12]

I'm curious why.

It can easily be reversed if I don't like it for some reason. Swap the LCA bushing I made to the other side, take out the 2 bushings I made for the stiffening pieces. Go back to the bolts that were in there to start. Am I missing something?

1) this will be impossible to get a decent alignment once you manage to, if it's even possible, to attach the anti roll bar again. Steering is going to wander and bounce all over the place at speed.

2) If you manage to get it all back together and rolling, you'll have incredible stress on the ARB bushings, and by the way you might have noticed the stock LCA's are thin gauge steel

3) No matter what you do, you've added an additional moving friction point (your crude bushing) which will wear down and further degrade steering and control

You're going to end up realizing this was stupid and you'll have to cut out the rest of the pipe, drill a new hole straight through the frame and slide a new pipe inside, weld it to the frame, and then make a new cut where the old cut used to be just to get it back to square one.

[Carbuilder]

1) this will be impossible to get a decent alignment once you manage to, if it's even possible, to attach the anti roll bar again. Steering is going to wander and bounce all over the place at speed.

2) If you manage to get it all back together and rolling, you'll have incredible stress on the ARB bushings, and by the way you might have noticed the stock LCA's are thin gauge steel

3) No matter what you do, you've added an additional moving friction point (your crude bushing) which will wear down and further degrade steering and control

You're going to end up realizing this was stupid and you'll have to cut out the rest of the pipe, drill a new hole straight through the frame and slide a new pipe inside, weld it to the frame, and then make a new cut where the old cut used to be just to get it back to square one.

Wow, so much negativity! I won't know for sure until it is back together and on the road. But here are my thoughts/reasons.

1) Impossible to get an alignment? Technically, an alignment on the front of a Delorean is just adjusting the toe. I'm not changing anything to affect that. Steering wandering and bouncing all over the place? Do you know what the caster is on a stock Delorean? I do, and I will end up with more than that when I'm done, so don't see why it should be worse than a stock Delorean. Maybe you haven't read the entire thread to actually understand what I'm doing and why.

2) Incredible stress on the ARB bushings? I'm moving things back about .6", not a foot and a half. Those bushings are designed to work through angles as the suspension moves. Technically, if I can't move the ARB back as much as the LCA moves, then there will be less stress on the bushings, not more; think about it and made a sketch if needed. If I can move the mounting of the ARB back the same amount I am moving the suspension (with the slotted holes in the mounts) then there will be no change to what the ARB experiences. If I can't, I'll see how to solve it then; make new ARB mounts that allow me to move it back?

3) Do you know how the LCA pivots? Do some investigation and then explain to me why my added bushing is a friction point. Oh, and nothing I do is "crude". My bushing is precision made and is from better material than the part of the tube that I cut off.

I don't mind feed back on what I'm doing (and I appreciate most of it). But please know the details of what you are criticizing first.

Rick

[82DMC12]

True that only toe is adjustable, that's because camber and caster are in the designed range by default as long as the frame is straight, chassis is straight, and bushings are in good shape. You can still measure them on an alignment rack.

You've pulled the front LCA's backwards over half an inch, and there isn't that much adjustment available in the ARB. There are no threads left in stock form when attached correctly so can't add machined bushings in front of the LCA to ARB bushings. So now you will have the LCA's pigeon-toed which will put additional stress on all the bushings including the upper and lower shock mounts because it can't move up and down in a vertical direction, now everything is at an angle, and the LCA is moving in an arc as the springs compress. It also reduces contact area during a turn.

And all for what... The tire wasn't centered in the wheel well?

Good luck.


Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[dn010]

3) Do you know how the LCA pivots? Do some investigation and then explain to me why my added bushing is a friction point. Oh, and nothing I do is "crude". My bushing is precision made and is from better material than the part of the tube that I cut off.


Because the "bushing" you created, which I'll just call a spacer, will rotate with the actual bushing in the LCA whenever it moves up or down. You can get around this by welding the spacer to the frame and it will also solve the problem of being unable to "pinch" the bushing of the LCA so it doesn't move with the LCA once you bolt it together.

I also don't think it's a great idea to move around everything Colin designed especially when there has to be other ways to achieve what you want, but, to each their own.

[Carbuilder]

Because the "bushing" you created, which I'll just call a spacer, will rotate with the actual bushing in the LCA whenever it moves up or down. You can get around this by welding the spacer to the frame and it will also solve the problem of being unable to "pinch" the bushing of the LCA so it doesn't move with the LCA once you bolt it together.

I also don't think it's a great idea to move around everything Colin designed especially when there has to be other ways to achieve what you want, but, to each their own.

I could tack weld the bushing to the tube on the frame, but don't think that is needed. It will be pretty easy to tell once I torque up the fasteners. As you pointed out, the LCA stock bushing is pinched solid on its inner tube to keep it from rotating, so only the rubber part sees the rotation. Mine will be pinched the same and with the load applied after torquing the bolt, I don't think the spacer I've added will rotate. The clamping load is around 10,000lbs (really, look it up) so I don't think the bushing will slip.

I know people see it as me changing the suspension geometry, but I see it as bringing it back to how Colin designed it. He didn't design it with over 7 degrees of caster. So for whatever reason, mine was out of spec. And no, there is no accident damage that I can see.

[Carbuilder]

Just took a picture of mine. Notice anything, front or back? :). Strange that they would do that.

71263

[Carbuilder]

True that only toe is adjustable, that's because camber and caster are in the designed range by default as long as the frame is straight, chassis is straight, and bushings are in good shape. You can still measure them on an alignment rack.

You've pulled the front LCA's backwards over half an inch, and there isn't that much adjustment available in the ARB. There are no threads left in stock form when attached correctly so can't add machined bushings in front of the LCA to ARB bushings. So now you will have the LCA's pigeon-toed which will put additional stress on all the bushings including the upper and lower shock mounts because it can't move up and down in a vertical direction, now everything is at an angle, and the LCA is moving in an arc as the springs compress. It also reduces contact area during a turn.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

Have you read more of this thread?

I have measured the caster and camber. The caster was actually out of spec, so I'm putting it back where it should be. I'm moving the upper (a little) and lower (more) control arms to do that.

As for "everything is at an angle" (which it is with the stock suspension to give the caster) and the "LCA is moving in an arc as the spring compresses", I don't understand how that would happen with what I'm doing compared to leaving it stock.

Obviously you don't like or agree with what I'm doing...fine. Time will tell how it works out.

[82DMC12]

Have you read more of this thread?

I have measured the caster and camber. The caster was actually out of spec, so I'm putting it back where it should be. I'm moving the upper (a little) and lower (more) control arms to do that.

As for "everything is at an angle" (which it is with the stock suspension to give the caster) and the "LCA is moving in an arc as the spring compresses", I don't understand how that would happen with what I'm doing compared to leaving it stock.

Obviously you don't like or agree with what I'm doing...fine. Time will tell how it works out.If the caster is that far out it's because your frame and/or front suspension is damaged.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Carbuilder]

If the caster is that far out it's because your frame and/or front suspension is damaged.


That would explain it, but I don't see any damage. I'm bringing the car to the local expert in the spring for some minor work. I'll ask him to check it out.

I wonder how many people have taken their cars for an alignment check to see what the caster is. Maybe some cars have excessive caster and they just don't know it.

[dn010]

Did you measure both with and without the support brackets attached, with the car's weight on all wheels evenly? It was unclear to me in post 37, photo shows the gauge attached but the wheel hanging.

[Carbuilder]

Did you measure both with and without the support brackets attached, with the car's weight on all wheels evenly? It was unclear to me in post 37, photo shows the gauge attached but the wheel hanging.

I may have measured it incorrectly, but I think it should be OK. Since I couldn't attach the magnetic caster/camber gauge to the wheel, I supported the car at the outboard end of the lower control arms. This is pretty close to simulating it being on its wheels as the suspension is not drooped at all. When I get it back together I'll measure it the same way, then make an adapter to measure it with the wheels on. I'll see if there is any difference. Since I'm measuring it the proper way, by swinging the steering an equal amount in both directions, a slight angle to the wheels/car shouldn't matter.

I didn't measure it without the support brackets. I know most people talk about how much the LCA can move back and forth without support, but for measuring suspension geometry I can't see that matters. Cornering loads might move it, but trying to move it with it only attached at the inboard end is not possible by hand. There didn't seem to be any force in getting the supports to sit flush at either end, so they weren't forcing the LCA forward/rearward.

I don't claim to be an expert at this. But I have built a number of kit cars (and corrected bad suspension geometry on some), modified drivetrains, and done a lot of research on how suspensions work.

[Carbuilder]

And all for what... The tire wasn't centered in the wheel well?


No, if you read the first post, it is because the tire comes so close to the fender lip, and that is just static. Reversing while steering may cause the tire to rub. Hard to tell, but there looks like there could be some marks from rubbing. The tire not being centered is the cause, so yes, I'm trying to address that a little.

Now, onto the subject here. Has anyone else ever snapped off the end of the anti-roll bar? Didn't think so.

I was tightening up the nut securing it to the LCA and was nowhere near the final torque (55 lb-ft). I had not attached it to the frame yet, so there was no stress on it. It just snapped off. Having a good look at it I can see why. Looks like they weld on threaded studs to the ends of the bar. Maybe they drill a hole first, but however it is done you can see a void in the center of it. And it looks like cast material; it wouldn't be, but the weld re-melt looks brittle like that. Knowing now how it looks inside I would never expect it to take 55 lb-ft of torque....and it obviously couldn't. Maybe it developed a crack over time that weakened it.

Oh well, one more issue to deal with.

71267

71268

[82DMC12]

The end broke off because your LCA won't move due to the braces and because too fucking far backwards! Didn't I tell you you will never get the roll bar attached?

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Carbuilder]

The end broke off because your LCA won't move due to the braces and because too fucking far backwards! Didn't I tell you you will never get the roll bar attached?

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

Do you actually bother reading anything I write before responding? Read my post again.

[Bitsyncmaster]

I was tightening up the nut securing it to the LCA and was nowhere near the final torque (55 lb-ft). I had not attached it to the frame yet, so there was no stress on it. It just snapped off. Having a good look at it I can see why. Looks like they weld on threaded studs to the ends of the bar. Maybe they drill a hole first, but however it is done you can see a void in the center of it. And it looks like cast material; it wouldn't be, but the weld re-melt looks brittle like that. Knowing now how it looks inside I would never expect it to take 55 lb-ft of torque....and it obviously couldn't. Maybe it developed a crack over time that weakened it.

I've not heard anyone else have that problem yet. Maybe it has happened. Are you going to try to fix it or get another bar?

[82DMC12]

I just asked the most experienced longest running DeLorean mechanic on the planet who's been doing nothing but repairing DeLorean since 1981, he said he's only seen this happen once in his life and it was in 1983, defective bar. So I'm going to have to blame the user here.

And actually, for the reason I predicted a few days ago.

Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

[Carbuilder]

I just asked...blah, blah, blah... So I'm going to have to blame the user here.
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

Please stop posting in this thread. You are adding nothing useful to it and continue to embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge. Over 1800 posts and this is how you contribute?

Having a better look at the broken piece after I took the nut off, it looks like it was weld repaired in the past. I assume the second picture of the other end is stock and how it should look. The weld repair was not done well and weakened the threaded part.

And yes, I will try and repair it. Can't be any worse than it was.

71269

71270

[dmcman73]

Read post #37.

I read that post and in all honesty, you measured caster wrong. If you did not use a degreed turn table on both wheels with the wheels on the ground to measure your caster, you measured incorrectly and it's almost impossible to do so without the wheels. The car needs to be on a flat and level ground as well, there is a reason why those large alignment rigs at the tire centers have shims under them to make them perfectly level. Camber and Toe are easier to measure and you can do it with the suspension loaded and the wheels off, but it would be just to get you in the ball park.

I've been through the suspension thoroughly and assembled a custom SPC upper control arm to set my front end exactly how I want with Caster and camber to the point I was able to get my front wheels close enough to centered that it wouldn't bother me.

[dmcman73]

Wow, so much negativity! I won't know for sure until it is back together and on the road. But here are my thoughts/reasons.

1) Impossible to get an alignment? Technically, an alignment on the front of a Delorean is just adjusting the toe. I'm not changing anything to affect that. Steering wandering and bouncing all over the place? Do you know what the caster is on a stock Delorean? I do, and I will end up with more than that when I'm done, so don't see why it should be worse than a stock Delorean. Maybe you haven't read the entire thread to actually understand what I'm doing and why.

2) Incredible stress on the ARB bushings? I'm moving things back about .6", not a foot and a half. Those bushings are designed to work through angles as the suspension moves. Technically, if I can't move the ARB back as much as the LCA moves, then there will be less stress on the bushings, not more; think about it and made a sketch if needed. If I can move the mounting of the ARB back the same amount I am moving the suspension (with the slotted holes in the mounts) then there will be no change to what the ARB experiences. If I can't, I'll see how to solve it then; make new ARB mounts that allow me to move it back?

3) Do you know how the LCA pivots? Do some investigation and then explain to me why my added bushing is a friction point. Oh, and nothing I do is "crude". My bushing is precision made and is from better material than the part of the tube that I cut off.

I don't mind feed back on what I'm doing (and I appreciate most of it). But please know the details of what you are criticizing first.

Rick

The caster on a stock Delorean is crap which is why most Deloreans have a "wandering" sensation. You want as much positive caster as possible which means you want to top portion of the suspension to be pulled back to pivot the center pivot. If you cut the tube and push the LCA back, you essentially push the top portion of the suspension forward of the center creating a negative adjustment making steering even worse.

Again, from your description of how you measured Caster, you did it wrong. When you go to an alignment shop after this is all said and done, you are going to be shocked how far off you were on the caster measurements. I'm very curious to see what the numbers are.

[dn010]

Again, from your description of how you measured Caster, you did it wrong.

This is what I was trying to allude to also. Most Deloreans I have seen actual numbers for don't even hit the 3.5 they want, they're mostly in the 2s and he got 7? I kind of gave up on this thread because the OP has his mind made up. I had two ARBs, sadly I think I threw the spare one away.

[dmcman73]

This is what I was trying to allude to also. Most Deloreans I have seen actual numbers for don't even hit the 3.5 they want, they're mostly in the 2s and he got 7? I kind of gave up on this thread because the OP has his mind made up. I had two ARBs, sadly I think I threw the spare one away.

You were in the 2's? Luuuucky.....I was like 1 or lower. I was able to get to 6.5 (IMHO, a sweet spot for my car, plus I have power steering) after installing SPC upper control arms to allow me to adjust it.

[Carbuilder]

I will post later on the summary of this project of mine now that it is done.

With reference to the above several posts, yes, I did measure the caster wrong. It was not nearly as much as I thought. While doing the mods I measured it properly with the car level and wheels on. Turn plates are nice, but not necessary. I used the trick of putting the front tires on plastic bags. With the rear engine meaning not a lot of load on the front wheels, they turn easily. And the gauge I use has references to allow turning the wheels the same amount in each direction.

With that said, I did end up with caster under spec when moving the lower control arm. I reduced the amount I moved it and then moved the upper arm rearwards a little as well. I ended up with 3.5 and 4.0 degrees of caster. Since the centering of the wheel is really good now, if I need to add more caster later there is room to back off the lower arm movement if I like.

More later. Oh, I did repair the ARB that I broke; I'll show that too.

Rick

[dmcman73]

I will post later on the summary of this project of mine now that it is done.

With reference to the above several posts, yes, I did measure the caster wrong. It was not nearly as much as I thought. While doing the mods I measured it properly with the car level and wheels on. Turn plates are nice, but not necessary. I used the trick of putting the front tires on plastic bags. With the rear engine meaning not a lot of load on the front wheels, they turn easily. And the gauge I use has references to allow turning the wheels the same amount in each direction.

With that said, I did end up with caster under spec when moving the lower control arm. I reduced the amount I moved it and then moved the upper arm rearwards a little as well. I ended up with 3.5 and 4.0 degrees of caster. Since the centering of the wheel is really good now, if I need to add more caster later there is room to back off the lower arm movement if I like.

More later. Oh, I did repair the ARB that I broke; I'll show that too.

Rick

There is more to it then using plastic bags to allow the wheels to turn smoothly. You need to bump steer to reset it each time you turn it 15 or 20 degrees one way and then 15 or 20 degrees the other way. If you watch the car as you turn, you'll notice a lot of stuff moving as you turn. The turntables allow for everything to snap back into place automatically.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if you took the car to an alignment shop and the caster was even lower, or even in the negative once on the rig.

[Carbuilder]

I have no way of knowing if the plastic bags did as good a job as professional turn plates. I do know that they really cut down on the friction between the tires and whatever it is parked on. The steering can be "one-fingered" around like power steering. When I turn the wheels to measure the caster I go back and forth a bit to settle things down. Seeing how easy the tires slip on the plastic, it seems to me that they would also move in whatever direction they need to without pre-loading the suspension. Won't know until I get the new wheels/tires on it, check the alignment again, then take it to a shop to have it checked. From what I've read on-line about people doing this (after using plastic bags or greased plates of tile or metal) it was very accurate.

Anyone that's done a home alignment then had it checked at a good shop, let us know.

[Carbuilder]

The front suspension mods are done and I'm really pleased how it came out. I'll explain a little more about why I think this is a good mod for those that want to adjust the caster and/or move the wheels back a bit. It's not a quick bolt-on as custom spacers have to be made. You can probably do it with multiple washers, but I don't like doing things like that. I'll also go into what I've learned about the Delorean front suspension and why I don't feel it is something that Colin Chapman did perfectly and it shouldn't be changed.

I went from this:

71287

71288

To this:

71289

71290

Obviously I also installed coilovers to lower the car; a great addition. Oh, and I did repair the anti-roll bar that I broke. Couldn't drill it as the steel is hardened to some extent. A carbide end mill worked, but threading it was not easy. I didn't get as many threads as I would have liked, but I cleaned it well and put the stud in with red Loctite. And since I don't need the stock torque of 55 lb-ft it should be fine.

71291

Why I feel OK with this mod. You can disagree with me, but this is what I've put together since starting this project.

Adjustable upper control arms are available. The reason for using these is to provide adjustment to the caster and camber. Keep in mind when you adjust the caster this way you are moving the wheel forward or rearward in the wheel well. Maybe not as much as I've done, but you are moving it. So not too different from what I did. As well as moving the lower arm rearwards I also ended up moving the upper arm back a little to get the caster back to spec. I did this by pushing out one of the steel housed poly bushings, machining .095" off the inside face of it, putting it back in, and using a spacer on the other side to make up the .095" plus the thickness of the 2 adjusting washers.

After adding a couple washers to the anti-roll bar where it attaches to the lower control arm, it bolted back in without any preload; the slotted holes in the mounting brackets gave me enough room for that.

What I've learned from reading and working on the front suspension, these are my thoughts. It is a pretty poor design. Yes, for its day it was considered a very good handling car. But what did it have to compare to...muscle cars?

Think about it. You have a lower suspension arm with a single mounting point onto the frame; a wider than normal bushing, but still nowhere near the width of an A-arm. It is mounted with a rubber bushing. To help stabilize it you add a steel bar, with some bends to add to the flexibility, and mount that to the frame with rubber bushings. Then you mount that bar to the suspension arm with really large, flexible, rubber bushings. The whole setup has a lot of flexibility in it. If it was a good design there would be no need for the stiffening products available to improve it.

Further proof. As most British car companies at that time (and maybe even still?) are on a very limited budget when producing a new car they use a lot of "parts-bin" hardware; remember the Fiero suspension? The Lotus suspension for the Esprit was copied from other British cars and then basically the same design was used on the Delorean. Two years after the Delorean was done, Lotus added an additional link to the lower suspension arm to create a sort-of A-arm to stiffen things up. Obviously it needed it.

All of this is essentially to say that the anti-roll bar is there to add some fore/aft support to the lower suspension arm, but doesn't do a great job. Adding the stiffening plates or links really improves the stiffness as now you have an A-arm. So now the anti-roll bar can act as pretty much just an anti-roll bar (like they are supposed to) and not be relied on to stiffen the lower link. Putting all this together explains my thinking in repairing the ARB that it doesn?t have to withstand the huge forces trying to pull it out of the suspension arm. I used a much lower torque than the 55 lb-ft called for; that?s a pretty high torque for something like that.

Some of this is fact, most of it is what I've concluded in going through this project. It wasn't that difficult, accomplished what I wanted to, and hopefully did not negatively affect the handling. I won't know until the new tires/wheels go on and the weather cooperates.

Rick

[Carbuilder]

This project is now done. Not for everyone, but I think it looks amazing:

71414

71417

A great new look. Obviously I lowered the car front and rear.

I think the Delorean is still a very modern, almost futuristic design, but the small wheels and 60 series tires dates it. For me, the larger wheels and lower profile tires really bring it a fantastic look.

Here are the details. There has to be some compromise in trying to get larger wheels for a Delorean. I wanted to go to larger wheels, but not 18" for a couple reasons. One, I want to stick with the 4x100 bolt pattern and that limits it to 17" wheels. Also, I think 18" just look too big. So...

Front: 16"x7" wheels, 42mm offset, with 205/45 tires (couldn't get them in the stock 195 width).

Rear: 17"x 7 1/2" wheels, 42mm offset, with 235/45 tires. 1" spacer/adapters used.

Since the rear wheels are 1/2" narrower than the stock ones, clearance is no issue. The 1" spacers are perfect, and they could be moved in or out a bit without issue.
The front wheels are 1" wider than stock with most of that on the inside. On full lock they come very close to the ARB, but again, no issue and no rubbing anywhere.

Wheels: Touren TR60 3260 Gunmetal.
Tires: Firestone Firehawk Indy 500.
Adapters: From Custom Wheel Adapters, 1" wide with 4x100 bolt pattern for hub and wheel. These have a 72.1mm hubcentric diameter on the inside to match the hubs and a 67.1 on the outside to match the wheel. These are only needed on the rear.

Now, the clever reader will have noticed that the wheels have a 67.1mm hubcentric diameter and the Delorean hubs are 72.1mm diameter. The rears are no problem because of the adapters. For the fronts, here is what I did:

Removed the hubs, put them on the lathe, zeroed them in, and machined a bit off to fit the 67.1mm diameter of the wheels. Not much material removal.

71415

71416

The obvious question is, what if I (or the next owner) wants to go back to the stock wheels? Three solutions...1 - replace the hubs (not too expensive), 2 - at some point I'll get around to making some hubcentric rings to fit the machined hub diameter and the wheel bore, or 3 - ignore it and just bolt the wheels on; the tapered lug nuts will centre the wheel and there is some controversy as to whether the hubcentric feature does anything after the wheel is installed. My view is that it isn't needed.

As good as I thought it was going to look with the new wheels, it looks better! Oh, and it drives just fine.

Rick

[dmcman73]

What are your alignment numbers? If your caster is below +2, expect the front end of your car to feel like it's floating, or worse, once you go past 60, it's not a fun feeling. Spec says Caster should be around +3.4 - +4 (if my memory is correct) and even at that, there is still some float. I set mine at +6.5 as well as other owners (some even +7 or a bit higher) and that's a spot on caster as it really minimizes that floating feeling to almost nothing.




This project is now done. Not for everyone, but I think it looks amazing:

71414

71417

A great new look. Obviously I lowered the car front and rear.

I think the Delorean is still a very modern, almost futuristic design, but the small wheels and 60 series tires dates it. For me, the larger wheels and lower profile tires really bring it a fantastic look.

Here are the details. There has to be some compromise in trying to get larger wheels for a Delorean. I wanted to go to larger wheels, but not 18" for a couple reasons. One, I want to stick with the 4x100 bolt pattern and that limits it to 17" wheels. Also, I think 18" just look too big. So...

Front: 16"x7" wheels, 42mm offset, with 205/45 tires (couldn't get them in the stock 195 width).

Rear: 17"x 7 1/2" wheels, 42mm offset, with 235/45 tires. 1" spacer/adapters used.

Since the rear wheels are 1/2" narrower than the stock ones, clearance is no issue. The 1" spacers are perfect, and they could be moved in or out a bit without issue.
The front wheels are 1" wider than stock with most of that on the inside. On full lock they come very close to the ARB, but again, no issue and no rubbing anywhere.

Wheels: Touren TR60 3260 Gunmetal.
Tires: Firestone Firehawk Indy 500.
Adapters: From Custom Wheel Adapters, 1" wide with 4x100 bolt pattern for hub and wheel. These have a 72.1mm hubcentric diameter on the inside to match the hubs and a 67.1 on the outside to match the wheel. These are only needed on the rear.

Now, the clever reader will have noticed that the wheels have a 67.1mm hubcentric diameter and the Delorean hubs are 72.1mm diameter. The rears are no problem because of the adapters. For the fronts, here is what I did:

Removed the hubs, put them on the lathe, zeroed them in, and machined a bit off to fit the 67.1mm diameter of the wheels. Not much material removal.

71415

71416

The obvious question is, what if I (or the next owner) wants to go back to the stock wheels? Three solutions...1 - replace the hubs (not too expensive), 2 - at some point I'll get around to making some hubcentric rings to fit the machined hub diameter and the wheel bore, or 3 - ignore it and just bolt the wheels on; the tapered lug nuts will centre the wheel and there is some controversy as to whether the hubcentric feature does anything after the wheel is installed. My view is that it isn't needed.

As good as I thought it was going to look with the new wheels, it looks better! Oh, and it drives just fine.

Rick

[Carbuilder]

What are your alignment numbers? If your caster is below +2, expect the front end of your car to feel like it's floating, or worse, once you go past 60, it's not a fun feeling. Spec says Caster should be around +3.4 - +4 (if my memory is correct) and even at that, there is still some float. I set mine at +6.5 as well as other owners (some even +7 or a bit higher) and that's a spot on caster as it really minimizes that floating feeling to almost nothing.

I took it around the block a couple times. This is a country block, so several kms. Got up to around 100 kph (60 mph give or take). The car felt pretty good, but maybe a touch light in the steering. Honestly, don't know if it is different than before I did the mods. I'll have to drive it more at higher speeds to see.

I would like to increase the caster a bit more, but how do you do that without very expensive after-market upper control arms? Since the wheels are nicely centered I could move the LCA forward a touch.

Oh, I haven't checked the alignment numbers with the new wheels and the car lowered. I will do that.

Rick

[Carbuilder]

Seems that there is an answer that isn't unreasonably expensive.

https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?20235-SICArm-Tubular-Wishbone-LCAs-UCAs-amp-New-Vendor-LS-Delorean-Store

[Josh]

Well this thread certainly was an interesting read.

Im seeing a large amount of effort with some non reversible modifications to the frame, for a somewhat marginal gain.

Ultimately happy you solved your problem, but alot of negativity going towards some very senior members of the community that are trying to help.

I have done my fair share of wheel fitment with my car, along with converting to 5 lug. It is true the wheels are not centered in the wells front to back. And it varies from car to car.
I would really implore any future readers of this thread to not cut the mounting bosses on the frame. it does allow you some adjustment but it throws off your caster and the sway bar is now pushing or pulling on the LCA more than intended.

There are other ways to attack this, but it does not seem OP is open to feedback unfortunately.

[Carbuilder]

Im seeing a large amount of effort with some non reversible modifications to the frame, for a somewhat marginal gain.

Ultimately happy you solved your problem, but a lot of negativity going towards some very senior members of the community that are trying to help.

I would really implore any future readers of this thread to not cut the mounting bosses on the frame. it does allow you some adjustment but it throws off your caster and the sway bar is now pushing or pulling on the LCA more than intended.

There are other ways to attack this, but it does not seem OP is open to feedback unfortunately.

I'm kind of sorry I started this thread. I thought it would be interesting and maybe helpful to some people. It seems that the main thing it is helpful for is to criticize what I've done, over and over, and most of it from not reading everything and/or understanding it. I have no problem with criticizing what I've done and pointing out a better way to do it, but I'm not seeing that.

The main point, as detailed in the first post, is that the front tires come within 1/8" of the fender lip with the wheels turned slightly. And that is static. With the car reversing and the loads pushing the tire closer to the fender, it just didn't seem right to me.

As for criticizing what I've done without reading and/or understanding, you are guilty of that too Josh. Why are you stating "the sway bar is now pushing or pulling on the LCA more than intended"? I've explained how that is not happening.

As for "non reversible modifications to the frame, for a somewhat marginal gain", the gain completely solved my issue, so I don't see it as marginal. And "non reversible modifications"? It's not like I cut a major portion of the frame off and soldered something back on. Yes, I did cut off a small portion of a tube welded to the frame and replaced it with a bushing (made of better material); it is easily reversed by swapping the spacer from one side to the other.

As for my negativity towards some senior members trying to help, I really didn't see much help in how to solve the specific issue, only criticism. The "help" was that I should leave it alone and not worry about the tire possibly rubbing on the fender now and then. I am fully open to feedback on "other ways to attack this" but haven't seen any.

Oh, I have ordered the adjustable UCA's from lsdeloreanstore.com, so I will end up with my wheels nicely centered and increased caster if needed.

If I have been unjustly negative to members of this community, I apologize. It has just been frustrating to have this project work so well for me, but have to constantly explain how and why I am doing it.

If any moderators/administrators are reading this, feel free to delete this whole thread. It is obviously not any use to anyone and I don't want to be accused of taking up your storage space.

[DMC-Ron]

I think if anyone were to understand this, it would be Josh. I suggest readers heed his warning on the consequences.
Ron

[dmcman73]

I'm kind of sorry I started this thread. I thought it would be interesting and maybe helpful to some people. It seems that the main thing it is helpful for is to criticize what I've done, over and over, and most of it from not reading everything and/or understanding it. I have no problem with criticizing what I've done and pointing out a better way to do it, but I'm not seeing that.

The main point, as detailed in the first post, is that the front tires come within 1/8" of the fender lip with the wheels turned slightly. And that is static. With the car reversing and the loads pushing the tire closer to the fender, it just didn't seem right to me.

As for criticizing what I've done without reading and/or understanding, you are guilty of that too Josh. Why are you stating "the sway bar is now pushing or pulling on the LCA more than intended"? I've explained how that is not happening.

As for "non reversible modifications to the frame, for a somewhat marginal gain", the gain completely solved my issue, so I don't see it as marginal. And "non reversible modifications"? It's not like I cut a major portion of the frame off and soldered something back on. Yes, I did cut off a small portion of a tube welded to the frame and replaced it with a bushing (made of better material); it is easily reversed by swapping the spacer from one side to the other.

As for my negativity towards some senior members trying to help, I really didn't see much help in how to solve the specific issue, only criticism. The "help" was that I should leave it alone and not worry about the tire possibly rubbing on the fender now and then. I am fully open to feedback on "other ways to attack this" but haven't seen any.

Oh, I have ordered the adjustable UCA's from lsdeloreanstore.com, so I will end up with my wheels nicely centered and increased caster if needed.

If I have been unjustly negative to members of this community, I apologize. It has just been frustrating to have this project work so well for me, but have to constantly explain how and why I am doing it.

If any moderators/administrators are reading this, feel free to delete this whole thread. It is obviously not any use to anyone and I don't want to be accused of taking up your storage space.

Here's a portion of the thread summarized:

You: I measured the caster and Camber and I can afford to set caster more negative

Senior members: You measured it incorrectly and there is no way you have a +7 caster on a stock setup, you now made it worse from stock. Did you bring it to an alignment shop to get your actually alignment numbers before making the mods?

You: Read post 37!! I did my homework and I measured it right...I'm right you're wrong (and completely ignoring the alignment shop question)

Senior members: You measured it wrong, that's not how you measure caster

You: I did it correctly, you guys are so negative!!!

71461

You: Hey guys, I did measure my caster wrong and I have no idea what it was at and I now have no idea where it is after the mods....but I drove it around the block and it's great!

Senior members: What are your actual alignment numbers from the alignment shop?

You: I hate that I made this post!


People have "been there, done that" on this board, especially Josh. I am really curious to what your alignment numbers are. Also, when you do get your caster adjusted, it is going to need to be pulled back further to get it right which will cause the wheel to not be centered anymore. This is why you needed your exact caster numbers BEFORE making these mods.

[Carbuilder]

Here's a portion of the thread summarized:..


1) - If you are going to summarize, can you please do it accurately. Show me where I used all those exclamation points to get my message across. I was also, almost without exception, not being rude to people.....unlike yourself.

2) - I have been on many car forums over the years, some of which are: Miata (2 forums), Porsche (2), Corvette, Factory Five, Triumph, MGB, Fiero, Ferrari, Tesla, BMW, Sunbeam (the car, not the appliances) and probably others I've forgotten. I can honestly say I have never, NEVER on any other forum come across so much negativity and insults. On any other forum if someone suggests doing something out of the ordinary they at least get interest on why it is being done and maybe support or suggestions how to get the same result another way. Not on this forum.

3) - A lot of posters seem to take the view that the person with the most posts has the most knowledge and so they are right and others are wrong. This thread certainly proves that is not correct. There is a huge difference between theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge. At the risk of bragging, I have both having worked on and modified cars for a long, long time (yes, I have owned and worked on all the ones that I joined forums on). As the joke goes, theoretical knowledge says a bee can't fly, but the bee has practical knowledge so it does it anyways.

4) - Glad I could provide an outlet for those that just want to vent and feel more knowledgeable.

I think this thread has run its course.

ps, one other thing. It is generally agreed that Deloreans were built with varying degrees of quality control. Some have the front wheels centered in the wheel well and others have the wheels offset forward. Also, some have caster that is on spec and others have it below spec. Has anyone considered that maybe the ones with the wheels offset forward have more caster than spec (with the lower control arm mounted more forward or the upper one mounted more rearward? Think about that and why I may have reduced it and still ended up with a nicely driving car.

[ssdelorean]

1) - <<snip>>

ps, one other thing. It is generally agreed that Deloreans were built with varying degrees of quality control. Some have the front wheels centered in the wheel well and others have the wheels offset forward. Also, some have caster that is on spec and others have it below spec. Has anyone considered that maybe the ones with the wheels offset forward have more caster than spec (with the lower control arm mounted more forward or the upper one mounted more rearward? Think about that and why I may have reduced it and still ended up with a nicely driving car.

Yes.
Also, the later cars usually have a better fit/finish and other fixes here and there.
I tell people that with less than 10k Ds produced, it is basically a glorified hand build prototype.

[82DMC12]

1) -

ps, one other thing. It is generally agreed that Deloreans were built with varying degrees of quality control. Some have the front wheels centered in the wheel well and others have the wheels offset forward. Also, some have caster that is on spec and others have it below spec. Has anyone considered that maybe the ones with the wheels offset forward have more caster than spec (with the lower control arm mounted more forward or the upper one mounted more rearward? Think about that and why I may have reduced it and still ended up with a nicely driving car.

LOL the variation in the "curb appeal" of the wheel being centered is due to the BODY VARIATION not the frame variation. I've never seen any credible person, vendor or otherwise, accuse the factory of frame variation, in fact you can EASILY replace the frame with any random frame from another DeLorean, no matter the year, and it will line up perfectly to your existing body. Never in the 25 years I've been a DeLorean owner has anyone claimed that a stock frame, in good condition, with stock front suspension, in good condition with good bushings cannot be aligned to the factory specs. If your caster was that far off, your suspension and/or frame is/was damaged. That's all there is to it.

[Josh]

LOL the variation in the "curb appeal" of the wheel being centered is due to the BODY VARIATION not the frame variation. I've never seen any credible person, vendor or otherwise, accuse the factory of frame variation, in fact you can EASILY replace the frame with any random frame from another DeLorean, no matter the year, and it will line up perfectly to your existing body. Never in the 25 years I've been a DeLorean owner has anyone claimed that a stock frame, in good condition, with stock front suspension, in good condition with good bushings cannot be aligned to the factory specs. If your caster was that far off, your suspension and/or frame is/was damaged. That's all there is to it.

There is by far the most variation in the tub, and since the panels hang off of that it contributes to the overall body variation. Ive found tubs to be off over 3/8" at the mounting points. I also associated this with earlier cars.
I strongly do believe that there are variances in the frame as well, because why wouldnt there be, all other things considered. However, this is anecdotal, so you may be correct. The only numbers I have to support this is the wild variation in cross caster between cars, but as discussed in this thread the front suspension could be to blame for this. Im not saying you are wrong Andy, just offering something else to consider.

[Josh]

I'm kind of sorry I started this thread. I thought it would be interesting and maybe helpful to some people. It seems that the main thing it is helpful for is to criticize what I've done, over and over, and most of it from not reading everything and/or understanding it. I have no problem with criticizing what I've done and pointing out a better way to do it, but I'm not seeing that.

The main point, as detailed in the first post, is that the front tires come within 1/8" of the fender lip with the wheels turned slightly. And that is static. With the car reversing and the loads pushing the tire closer to the fender, it just didn't seem right to me.

As for criticizing what I've done without reading and/or understanding, you are guilty of that too Josh. Why are you stating "the sway bar is now pushing or pulling on the LCA more than intended"? I've explained how that is not happening.

As for "non reversible modifications to the frame, for a somewhat marginal gain", the gain completely solved my issue, so I don't see it as marginal. And "non reversible modifications"? It's not like I cut a major portion of the frame off and soldered something back on. Yes, I did cut off a small portion of a tube welded to the frame and replaced it with a bushing (made of better material); it is easily reversed by swapping the spacer from one side to the other.

As for my negativity towards some senior members trying to help, I really didn't see much help in how to solve the specific issue, only criticism. The "help" was that I should leave it alone and not worry about the tire possibly rubbing on the fender now and then. I am fully open to feedback on "other ways to attack this" but haven't seen any.

Oh, I have ordered the adjustable UCA's from lsdeloreanstore.com, so I will end up with my wheels nicely centered and increased caster if needed.

If I have been unjustly negative to members of this community, I apologize. It has just been frustrating to have this project work so well for me, but have to constantly explain how and why I am doing it.

If any moderators/administrators are reading this, feel free to delete this whole thread. It is obviously not any use to anyone and I don't want to be accused of taking up your storage space.

I think your issue is you see other people trying to help as criticism and not help. As you argue at them it certainly does evolve into criticism from both ends.
I worry how "hot" you are coming out of the gate of ownership. The community is the best part of these cars, for better or for worse. Best to not start off with interactions like this.

[Carbuilder]

I think your issue is you see other people trying to help as criticism and not help. As you argue at them it certainly does evolve into criticism from both ends.
I worry how "hot" you are coming out of the gate of ownership. The community is the best part of these cars, for better or for worse. Best to not start off with interactions like this.

You have mentioned more than once that others have tried to help me. Since my original issue was the wheel being centered (which I stated in the 1st post) can you please point out what the help suggestions were. I'm really not being negative here....maybe I missed them. If it involved moving the whole body forward, then I accept that might be a solution (assuming all the bolt holes allow for that) but not something I would consider. I still think my solution was the best one.

Don't understand what you mean by the "hot" statement. Other than this thread, this forum has been a great help with any issues I've had, as well as learning a lot more about working on the car. Love the car, like the forum.