sergofast

iTrader: (22)

Jsutter just informed me that the bolt pattern on the shock towers were the same between the 3rd 4th and 5th gen, so I wanted to give a heads up.

If anyone knows of a reason that these won't work w your model car give a heads up. I'm not as familiar w the 3rd and 5th gens.

Anyone want custom CNC'd camber/caster plates on the cheap??? Increase suspension travel with top mount GC style plates??? Awesome! Check it out

http://forums.maxima.org/advanced-su...-wants-em.html4

BenStoked

iTrader: (7)

nice, I don't see why they wouldn't work, as long as that one piece allows the strut to change angle (looks like it would).
also, slight concern about spring diameter, but I am sure someone can chime in about the differences soon enough.
more than I would pay, unfortunately; I am barely cheap enough to get the standard cam-type camber bolts..

505max94se

iTrader: (15)

If the upper mount style provides a decent increase in suspension travel I might just pick up a set of these and make a custom GC/Koni coilover setup.

CapedCadaver

iTrader: (8)

not bad. took me a second to see where the caster adjustibility was, but then i looked at the exploded view and saw it. looks like a good product... wonder if it'll work on a z31 as well. i'll grab a 3rd gen strut mount and see if it'll fit my z. if it fits, then i might be in for a set at some point.

i'd like to see a pic of one of them installed on a strut that is not installed on a car, just installed on a spare strut/spring assembly.

James92SE

iTrader: (31)

CandiMan had a set made up for his 3rd gen years ago. IIRC, they didn't quite work out so well. Don't remember why, exactly, though..

Maximan190

iTrader: (8)

these were his plates, i think it was something with the bearing on the top that failed but im not sure. maybe him or Matt will chime in on this thread

BenStoked

iTrader: (7)

I recall his project ( believe it was him). the mount was solid, no consideration for flex or pivoting, and it snapped.

505max94se

iTrader: (15)

no pillow ball?

CapedCadaver

iTrader: (8)

appears that way.. that would certainly explain why it didn't work out

sergofast

iTrader: (22)

wow that just looks dangerous for the front.... opps you live and you learn though.

Bring the discussions over to the thread listed in the top about the new mounts that are being developed so we can keep all the info in one place.

Does anyone have a stock 3rd gen tophot (spring pearch) that they can part with? If we send it to OEM they can make these mounts work with your setup (that is if you are using stock style springs). Although I imagine most are going for the coilovers and topmounts anyways to get your limited 3rd gen suspension travel back.

CapedCadaver

iTrader: (8)

there ARE no coilovers for 3rd gens, never have been, never will be. only thing we can use is aftermarket drop springs and stock-replacement-style struts.

Matt93SE

iTrader: (44)

You can do a koni/gc setup on these cars, but you run out of suspension travel REAL fast, even with topmount camber plates like this.

FYI, I run 4 gen upper mounts on mine (with a custom shortened Koni-GC setup). I go through struts at least once a year. maybe 15,000 miles out of a set. I don't recommend it on these cars. just not enough shock travel and not enough spring to keep it off the bumpstops (and I run 600lb/in springs!!)

My car rode much better with the Eibach/Tokico setup I had on it to begin with.. Ultimate cornering is better with the coilovers, but tossability and road manners were MUCH better with the Eibach/Tok setup. If I hadn't cut my struts to pieces for the conversion and sold the Eibachs, I would have put them back on.

As for whether or not those mounts will work on a 3 gen, someone will need to pull a strut out of the car, close the hood, and measure the clearance between the top of the strut tower and the bottom of the hood. There's not a ton of clearance there, and that might kill the deal for a 3 gen. If there's enough clearance there, then it will be easier to make it work. then just have a top plate made that will fit with the factory springs and you're nearly done.
The bolt pattern is the same, so that part is easy. (3,4,5 gens all use the same strut braces and thus have the same bolt pattern). The big issue is clearance between the strut tower and the hood.

As for Candiman's camber plates pictured above, I bought a set and yeah- snapped a strut due to not having a pillowball in the top mount. I had them remachined to fit a pillowball and they worked fine for another year or so until I removed them in favor of 4th gen upper mounts and slotted holes in various places to get more camber and caster.

CapedCadaver

iTrader: (8)

and even if you somehow did get more shock travel, by the time you got enough suspension travel wouldn't you just end up bottoming out the front crossmember?

Matt93SE

iTrader: (44)

Running a FWD car that low would be stupid. you'd kill alll kinds of steering geometry with a car that low.

CapedCadaver

iTrader: (8)

i don't mean setting the ride height that low... but if you move the strut rods up to "gain suspension travel" under compression then you can easily smack the crossmember on the ground. even with a stock suspension my car had plenty of scars on the crossmember. i was pretty sure that was the purpose of having the bump stops where they were, to keep the frame of the car from hitting the ground so much.

and heck, even a RWD car with a Mac-Fail-Son strut setup will run into geometry problems when dropped that low, like the Z31. After 2 or 3 inches of compression the control arm points upward. at least on the z the tierod attaches to a secondary "knuckle arm" rather than to the spindle, so they can make spacers for us that move both the balljoint and tierod down as a unit, rather than separately like you tried doing.

i dunno, it just seems like 2 contradictory concepts... wanting more travel, but if you get more travel it throws the geometry and stuff off

Matt93SE

iTrader: (44)

The issue is you're lowering the car enough that you NEED more travel up top. Not that you're adding to the travel or moving things around.
You can only sucessfully lower a 3 gen Maxima by about 1.5" before you start messing with geometry issues..

FYI, I also did more damage to my crossmember with worn out stock components than I ever did with the car lowered on stiffer springs and real struts.

CapedCadaver

iTrader: (8)

so provided that you could return the control arm and tie rods to their stock angle regardless how far the car was dropped... then how low would you want it? 2"? 3"? obviously not possible without a metric fawk-ton of work, but just curious what you'd want if geometry issues caused by lowering were not an issue. i guess i'm partially asking as a self-serving measure due to the fact that i can just put a spacer between the knuckle and spindle on my z and kablammo geometry is basically back to stock, just that the spindle is further up the imaginary line between top mount and lower balljoint.

Gunther

If it was just for track use essentially as low as possible I would think. Look at any race car, essentially zero clearance.

(subscribed)

Matt93SE

iTrader: (44)

It all depends on the uses and requirements of the car and location.

People that daily drive their cars on really rough city streets or gravel country roads would need a higher ride height and softer springs.
People that have really smooth roads can go lower without having issues.

Race cars are all set based on several factors, some being class rules, some being limitations of the car, some being track setup (ground clearance for a really bumpy track), some being chassis setup (aero or none) issues.

Essentially, there's WAY too many variables to just spec a single perfect ride height for a given vehicle.

BEJAY1

iTrader: (19)

If it helps in any way I have a set of Stillen plates and needlebearing tophats from my 4th gen. I'm not using em and could loan for testing.

click to enlarge