Suspension upgrades! Success

[GeorgeRad]

Wheels going up, sorry, I am going on tangent with an automotive question, do you know an old car which would allow a wheel to be changed without a jack? Please contribute if you know the answer.

Here is the answer – it is French 1955 Citroën DS with hydropneumatic suspension, drive with 3 wheels on a curb and lift up the fourth wheel to replace it. Unfortunately, this car wasn’t received well in US, some called it ugly but Jay Leno loves it. I was very close to get a next generation Citroen SM with Maserati Engine but decided not to. Sorry for this digression, I am out.

Citroën DS - Wikipedia

 

[romeo-ClassB]

A TR4 lifting a rear wheel would be wicked unless you had a locked rear differential.


You must be referring to the old bug type rear drive VWs that just had a single U joint at the trans so a pure swing axle. On drop they tucked under and rolled them. The Corvair copied them and had the same issue, and they got sued big time on it and changed to normal independent rear suspension more like we see now to keep the wheel from tucking.


It will be interesting to see what the truck folks say!

I took the van into a Truck and RV repair shop today (Monday) to have an initial check of the suspension and suggestions on how to improve the handling. The first thing they told me is that the "ride height" was not right; too much rake on the front end. They said that there was too much negative camber (wheels canted in at top and out at bottom: my words), indicationg too much weight on front end; and control arms and swing arms not level, but pointing up. They stated that those should be in more of a level position. The suggested heavier front coil springs and that possibly some work on tie reod ends and/or ball joints. I did have to get the van weighed in order to get an estimate for coilm spring replacement. I will show my weights for anyone that may be interested: Front = 3720#, and rear = 5020# for a total weight of 8740#.

The other thing that was suggested was air bags for the rear of the van to level out the overall ride height.

At this point I am not sure if and when I will make the decision on what parts to replace or add, but may go ahead with the front coil spring replacment.

Ron

 

[booster]

I took the van into a Truck and RV repair shop today (Monday) to have an initial check of the suspension and suggestions on how to improve the handling. The first thing they told me is that the "ride height" was not right; too much rake on the front end. They said that there was too much negative camber (wheels canted in at top and out at bottom: my words), indicationg too much weight on front end; and control arms and swing arms not level, but pointing up. They stated that those should be in more of a level position. The suggested heavier front coil springs and that possibly some work on tie reod ends and/or ball joints. I did have to get the van weighed in order to get an estimate for coilm spring replacement. I will show my weights for anyone that may be interested: Front = 3720#, and rear = 5020# for a total weight of 8740#.

The other thing that was suggested was air bags for the rear of the van to level out the overall ride height.



At this point I am not sure if and when I will make the decision on what parts to replace or add, but may go ahead with the front coil spring replacment.

Ron

Stiffer coils in the front and rear airbags are a very common upgrade on the class B Chevies. We have had that for nearly 15 years and many others have also over the years. No downside except cost.


The negative camber from being low may be fixed by getting higher, or maybe not depending on the life the van had in the past and if it had bottomed hard lots of times. They will know once the springs are in the front.


With stiffer springs you may find they overpower the shocks and give you porpoising bounce, so don't be surprised if you need better shocks once you are at correct height.


You are actually a bit lighter than most 210s that we see weights on so I suspect you had empty tanks and not loaded with stuff for a trip. Normally would be 38-3900# in the front and 5500#+ in the rear.


I think you are on the right route and may have actually run across one of the very few shops that can understand these vans.

 

[tlillard23]

any good salmon recipes while we're at it?

 

[peteco]

I took the van into a Truck and RV repair shop today (Monday) to have an initial check of the suspension and suggestions on how to improve the handling. The first thing they told me is that the "ride height" was not right; too much rake on the front end. They said that there was too much negative camber (wheels canted in at top and out at bottom: my words), indicationg too much weight on front end; and control arms and swing arms not level, but pointing up. They stated that those should be in more of a level position. The suggested heavier front coil springs and that possibly some work on tie reod ends and/or ball joints. I did have to get the van weighed in order to get an estimate for coilm spring replacement. I will show my weights for anyone that may be interested: Front = 3720#, and rear = 5020# for a total weight of 8740#.

The other thing that was suggested was air bags for the rear of the van to level out the overall ride height.

At this point I am not sure if and when I will make the decision on what parts to replace or add, but may go ahead with the front coil spring replacment.

Ron

Ron, Do you have a 210 or a 190? Those weights are extremely low for a 210. I struggle to keep my 2006 RT 210P below max gross of 9600 lb. And I have removed my generator, and only use the interior 10 gallon tank.

 

[romeo-ClassB]

Ron, Do you have a 210 or a 190? Those weights are extremely low for a 210. I struggle to keep my 2006 RT 210P below max gross of 9600 lb. And I have removed my generator, and only use the interior 10 gallon tank.

I missed this msg when It came in and just saw it today...

I have a 210 popular with underhood generator; no under chassis generator. My water tanks are most likey very low, presently.

BTW, in regard to my past discussions, I thought I would check my camber. I used a long level front ground up past the top of the tire and measured from edge of the tread to level and got a reading as follows:

Top of tire to bottom of tire was 2-3/8", which should be -2-3/8 (negative) camber. From what I have found on-line is that its within mfg specs. I found that -2 to -3 neg camber is std (???).


I also decided to check the ride height:

R-front = 33-1/2", tire pressure =44#
L-front = 33-1/2", tire pressure = 46#

R-rear = 36", tire pressure = 70#
L-rear = 36", tire pressure = 72#

So it appears that the front end sits 2-1/2" lower than the back. The shop told me it should be level: I figured the rake was the design of the RoadTrek (???).


Havent, yet, heard from the shop on availability of heavier coils springs.

Ron

 

[booster]

I missed this msg when It came in and just saw it today...

I have a 210 popular with underhood generator; no under chassis generator. My water tanks are most likey very low, presently.

BTW, in regard to my past discussions, I thought I would check my camber. I used a long level front ground up past the top of the tire and measured from edge of the tread to level and got a reading as follows:

Top of tire to bottom of tire was 2-3/8", which should be -2-3/8 (negative) camber. From what I have found on-line is that its within mfg specs. I found that -2 to -3 neg camber is std (???).


I also decided to check the ride height:

R-front = 33-1/2", tire pressure =44#
L-front = 33-1/2", tire pressure = 46#

R-rear = 36", tire pressure = 70#
L-rear = 36", tire pressure = 72#

So it appears that the front end sits 2-1/2" lower than the back. The shop told me it should be level: I figured the rake was the design of the RoadTrek (???).


Havent, yet, heard from the shop on availability of heavier coils springs.

Ron

From the factory service manual for a stock height Chevy 3500 van, the camber should be set positive about +.1 to .3 degrees. This goes with what the shop said about the upper control arm angle, which should be just a bit below horizontal at stock height so it is camber progressive at first compression and then shifting to camber regressive after that. 2-3* is race car amounts of negative camber and way too much. It would almost like the adjusting cams are loose and the full in position to get that much negative unless the frame is bent.


34.5-35.5" at the center of wheel wheelwell height to ground is normal for stock vans so you are somewhat low, but many of us were lower than that.


The front will sit lower than the front and does on stock 3500s also, but it should be only about 1" or less when fully loaded.


As long as you are doing DIY alignment checks, use a tape measure to check the toe in of the front wheels, lots of instructions online on how by various methods. It should be 1/16" to 1/4" in at the front for best stability and never, ever, toed out.

 

[romeo-ClassB]

From the factory service manual for a stock height Chevy 3500 van, the camber should be set positive about +.1 to .3 degrees. This goes with what the shop said about the upper control arm angle, which should be just a bit below horizontal at stock height so it is camber progressive at first compression and then shifting to camber regressive after that. 2-3* is race car amounts of negative camber and way too much. It would almost like the adjusting cams are loose and the full in position to get that much negative unless the frame is bent.


34.5-35.5" at the center of wheel wheelwell height to ground is normal for stock vans so you are somewhat low, but many of us were lower than that.

The front will sit lower than the front and does on stock 3500s also, but it should be only about 1" or less when fully loaded.

As long as you are doing DIY alignment checks, use a tape measure to check the toe in of the front wheels, lots of instructions online on how by various methods. It should be 1/16" to 1/4" in at the front for best stability and never, ever, toed out.

I forgot

Booster; I forgot to mention that the shop did say that there was no adjustment room to change alignment and that is why they are suggesting a change to stiffer coil springs to raise the control arms so that the adjustment could be changed to normal. So it sounds like you and the shop are thinking along the same lines.

So did those of you with a rake in the front end make similar changes as being suggested to me: ie, stiffer coil springs ?

As soon as I get some help I will check the caster. I will search for instructions on-line.

Ron

 

[booster]

I forgot

Booster; I forgot to mention that the shop did say that there was no adjustment room to change alignment and that is why they are suggesting a change to stiffer coil springs to raise the control arms so that the adjustment could be changed to normal. So it sounds like you and the shop are thinking along the same lines.

So did those of you with a rake in the front end make similar changes as being suggested to me: ie, stiffer coil springs ?

As soon as I get some help I will check the caster. I will search for instructions on-line.

Ron

Yes, there are lots of us on here with spring lifts in front and many with airbags, spring, or urethane stop lifts in the rear.


You won't be able to check caster at home unless you have alignment tools, but I was talking about toe,

 

[romeo-ClassB]

Yes, there are lots of us on here with spring lifts in front and many with airbags, spring, or urethane stop lifts in the rear.


You won't be able to check caster at home unless you have alignment tools, but I was talking about toe,

My error-speak, meant toe in/out. Was thinking toe was a part of caster or adjusted when caster was adjusted; I haven't thought in these terms for about 60 years now, and never really knew much about wheel alignment...

 

[romeo-ClassB]

Yes, there are lots of us on here with spring lifts in front and many with airbags, spring, or urethane stop lifts in the rear.

I should have asked the question differently, ie. What was the handling problem that you had that you fixed: What feel did you have prior to the upgrades?
I was trying to determine why owners decided to spend the expense of all the upgrades.

On a positive note; While waiting for the original shop to find and spec-out coil springs for my van and after doing my checks and having our discussions, I decided to take the van to Les Schwab who does free alignment checks, and have them double check what the original shop told me about my camber cams not having any room for adjustment. This would give me a second opinion. It would also verify that I did, in fact, have a camber problem. It would also tell me if I had a toe-in/out problem. It is also the kind of shop where you can see what they are doing and have a chance to discuss things with the man doing the work.

So this morning I dropped in. The initial check showed what we have been discussiong and that I had a toe alignment problem. He also found that the factory plastic keepers were still in place so we know that no one has done an alignment since the factory... not changed during RoadTrek build.

After seeing the initial alignment readings, I told him to go ahead and do a full alignment (charts attached).

After work was done I feel that the van do feels heavier when steering and feel that it tracks straighter or has less tendency to move right of left on its own. I am anxious to try it with the tow car attached and in curves, which I will when traveling South in two weeks.

Ron

 

[booster]

I should have asked the question differently, ie. What was the handling problem tat you had that yo fixed: What feel did you have prior to the upgrades?
I was trying to determine why owners decided to spend the expense of all the upgrades.

On a positive note; While waiting for the original shop to find and spec-out coil springs for my van and after doing my checks and having our discussions, I decided to take the van to Les Schwab who does free alignment checks, and have them double check what the original shop told me about my camber cams not having any room for adjustment. This would give me a second opinion. It would also verify that I did, in fact, have a camber problem. It would also tell me if I had a toe-in/out problem. Ihts also the kind of shop where you can see what they are doing and have a chance to discuss things with the man doing the work.

So this morning I dropped in. The initial check showed what we have been discussiong and that I had a toe alignment problem. He also found that the factory plastic keepers were still in place so we know that no one has done an alignment since the factory... not changed during RoadTrek build.

After seeing the initial alignment readings, I told mine to go ahead and do a full alignment (charts attached).

After work was doing I feel that the van do feels heavier when steering and feel that it tracks straighter or has less tendency to move right of left on its own. I am not anxious to try it with the tow car attached and in curves, which I will when traveling South in two weeks.

Ron

That was a good idea and now you know the last shop was blowing smoke because the adjusters can't be maxed out if the plastic locks from the factory are in place.


The alignment you got was one of the best we have seen from a normal shop. The only think I would like better would be to have +.5* more caster on the right than left. Factory also sets the ideal there. That helps the vehicle hold the crown of a right sloped road easier.


The initial toe they got was just about what I thought they would based on your handling issue. Toe out is a really bad thing for directional stability.


For us, we had one major issue to address with spring add, road clearance, as we had already hit the drain plumbing on a not very bad driveway into a grocery store in Custer South Dakota. Secondarily, I wanted to make it easier to drive by decreasing the large amount of understeer that happens in heavily rear loaded vans.



Front springs and rear airbags took care of the clearance.


Bilstein shocks all around, a very big rear swaybar and careful alignment took care of the understeer and improved the ease of staying straight in the wind and grooved roads.


We also did oversized tires with wider wheels going up from the 245/75/16 to 265/75/16 which gave us a more stable ride be a small degree, but mostly I wanted more safety window on the load capacity and the larger size gave us 270# extra capacity per wheel.