fbekholden.com

Go on


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotta say that I'm thinking about it - didn't know about it till reading here!
1" adjustable is not much but might be good to help getting the stance right.
A long way off from needing it at this stage.

I can’t see that the height is adjustable, just 1” lower. It uses the Viking shocks which are highly rated. I believe they are fully rebuildable and have about 13 or 15 settings. My Ute is already 2” lowered and I am not a fan of the drop spindles. I would be tempted to just look at the shocks, though how you adjust them?


FB ute fixer upper, EK van on rotisserie

Errol62 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 8:44 am I would be tempted to just look at the shocks, though how you adjust them?


FB ute fixer upper, EK van on rotisserie

Most of those coilover type shocks have a rebound and dampening adjuster on the bottom of them - like a motorcycle shock. Either a thumbscrew or a screwdriver slot on the ones I have owned.

Thanks guys for the comments.

I'm not really concerned about the lowering aspect, if I want to drop it I can put drop spindles on, I know you are not a fan Clay but I've used them on Frank and on my 58 FC that I used to own and had no issues.

Because the independent rear has coil overs, What I was looking at is the ability to adjust the handling and this is what I thought the coil overs were all about.

I pose the question If the coilovers are of no benefit why to people spend $5K plus on "Independent Front ends" what benefit do you get from one of those when admittedly old technology but strictly speaking an HR front end is an independent front end

Happy for more thoughts on this topic, as I said I am a far way off but I like to think/plan these things a fair way out so I can budget for them down the track (build on a fairly tight budget as it is and try to save pennies where I can), and have to keep the "Finance Department" happy and justify the need, I'll just turn around and tell the Boss "the boys on the forum said I had to have them"

The later front ends have better geometry than the 60's spec HR front ends, better caster and anti dive etc.
Brakes are also miles in front of the HR stuff. They sound spendy but by the time you reco a HR front end and do something about the brakes and shocks etc you are not all that far off a brand new front end that hasn't already been on the road for half a century.

That's true Blacky.
I'm going to do the VT Twin piston upgrade on this and have the calipers/rotors etc to complete it but I get want you are saying, maybe I should do my sums and see where it ends up

I'm going to use the HR front end that I have cause I've paid $1500+$475 for MPI to certify the welds from Albert.
I know it looks a little agricultural but it allows me o use the original sump and retain the original sump capacity instead of losing capacity with the V6 conversion sump, it will also work if I change my mind to a 5 Lt.

I have to put engine mounts and a modified (shortened) outrigger.

The costs start to add up. It s going to be a rocket whichever way you decide to go mate.


FB ute fixer upper, EK van on rotisserie

Before it goes in you can lower the top wishbone mounting points, will improve your camber, can also buy Camaro top ball joints that will help in that regard.

I need to speak to you about that then so I can get it right in my head mate.

GMH did this on the UC Toranas. It also improves dynamic camber under cornering suspension squat. Another option here is to fit a taller top balljoint, although I suppose it could lead to clearance issues to the rim. There is a moog brand balljoint available from the US for this application. Shorter springs have a similar effect.


FB ute fixer upper, EK van on rotisserie

Neil,

I've done the top control arm modification that Blacky describes. It takes a fair amount of angle-grinder and welder work. I have a sketch showing what you have to do, which I can send to you. If you're going to use larger diameter rims then the Camaro top ball joint option is definitely easier.

Rob