CSI_MuNkY Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I couldn't care less about the 2nd gen ball joint, I fail to see the point in it. But I agree with you that Poly woudl suffice and the 1 piece construction would be ideal. Bottom line for me is if he can't do it the way I like to see it done by the time I am ready for it, I will send the profile to a local bender and have a guy in my shop tig weld them up for me. Just means I have to put my own R&D into them. Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted February 28, 2010 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I want the 2nd gen balljoint so I can use 2nd gen aluminum knuckles and brakes. Gen 2 brakes equal bigger and better options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSI_MuNkY Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 I suppose.... I'll eventually have bigger brakes on my car without going that way, I have the means to make a better brake upgrade than Marks, all I need is the money to buy bigger rims that are lighter than cross laces (The ones I am after would run me about $1700cdn for the set) Jamie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 Looks like a nice setup. Although the reason a stock STB couldn't work has nothing to do with bolts, the stock STB has the dip in the middle like the original plates, so the center on each end would have to be cut out. Even if you did that, it would raise the STB what I'm guessing is 1/4-3/8" which may interfere with the hood, but not sure on that. Probably best to use an aftermarket STB with these. I'm anxious to see your finished product as I've always wanted to get my car low enough to tuck some tire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted March 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Looks like a nice setup. Although the reason a stock STB couldn't work has nothing to do with bolts, the stock STB has the dip in the middle like the original plates, so the center on each end would have to be cut out. Even if you did that, it would raise the STB what I'm guessing is 1/4-3/8" which may interfere with the hood, but not sure on that. Probably best to use an aftermarket STB with these. I'm anxious to see your finished product as I've always wanted to get my car low enough to tuck some tire. Well if all goes well, Sunday or my next day off Im going to swap my springs from the front to rear. The lower spring rate up front should give a lower stance and a better ride. Right now its stiff, i.e. race car stiff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutlessSupreme Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Axle nut is 184 ft-lbs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z34guy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I only have 1 question about that kit.... Would it work with my gen 1.5 Monte? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted March 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I only have 1 question about that kit.... Would it work with my gen 1.5 Monte? For the front, yes. Take into account with the design it will inherently be a bit noisy. Common of 'race' type coilovers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z34guy Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 I only have 1 question about that kit.... Would it work with my gen 1.5 Monte? For the front, yes. Take into account with the design it will inherently be a bit noisy. Common of 'race' type coilovers Thanks. I'll have to figure something out for the rear... Edit: This thread should be stickied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted March 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Axle nut is 184 ft-lbs. Wrong, that'll get you a bad bearing really quick (well maybe, maybe not ) The 184 number is for earlier models with smaller front brakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GutlessSupreme Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Axle nut is 184 ft-lbs. Wrong, that'll get you a bad bearing really quick (well maybe, maybe not ) The 184 number is for earlier models with smaller front brakes They all have the same hubs/axles... the only difference might be in the thickness for the caliper mounting plate. I can't remember exactly, but that shouldn't affect the recommended torque rating. 184 is the number from both my '90 GP and '92 CS service manuals. I feel like I remember reading a TSB or some other article that discussed how GM varied the spec over the years, but it wasn't because of hardware alterations. If I find some proof that I'm not making that up, I'll post it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted March 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Axle nut is 184 ft-lbs. Wrong, that'll get you a bad bearing really quick (well maybe, maybe not ) The 184 number is for earlier models with smaller front brakes They all have the same hubs/axles... the only difference might be in the thickness for the caliper mounting plate. I can't remember exactly, but that shouldn't affect the recommended torque rating. 184 is the number from both my '90 GP and '92 CS service manuals. I feel like I remember reading a TSB or some other article that discussed how GM varied the spec over the years, but it wasn't because of hardware alterations. If I find some proof that I'm not making that up, I'll post it up. I have a feeling the newer torque figure superceeds the older 184 number. And IIRC, the hubs are actually different (internally as far as bearings) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy K Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 Axle nut is 184 ft-lbs. Wrong, that'll get you a bad bearing really quick (well maybe, maybe not ) The 184 number is for earlier models with smaller front brakes They all have the same hubs/axles... the only difference might be in the thickness for the caliper mounting plate. I can't remember exactly, but that shouldn't affect the recommended torque rating. 184 is the number from both my '90 GP and '92 CS service manuals. I feel like I remember reading a TSB or some other article that discussed how GM varied the spec over the years, but it wasn't because of hardware alterations. If I find some proof that I'm not making that up, I'll post it up. I have a feeling the newer torque figure superceeds the older 184 number. And IIRC, the hubs are actually different (internally as far as bearings) come again???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GnatGoSplat Posted March 23, 2010 Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 FWIW, the official GM spec for '98-99 Monte is 159 lb ft. If the hubs have changed, I can't tell by looking. I have some Monte hubs and they look identical to the ones on my 89 except the studs aren't threaded to the very end (same length though). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted March 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2010 FWIW, the official GM spec for '98-99 Monte is 159 lb ft. If the hubs have changed, I can't tell by looking. I have some Monte hubs and they look identical to the ones on my 89 except the studs aren't threaded to the very end (same length though). There is more than likely a material difference and nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedbuick Posted April 15, 2010 Report Share Posted April 15, 2010 So I am wondering something. I heard a few times before that when you lower these cars and have the L67/4T65 swap that you need custom/shorter axles. Is this true? That is something else that holds me back as I don't wanna do anything that will cause more damage or be a guessing game as to what length the axles should be. Will I be ok?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BXX Posted April 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Not sure about the axles being shorter. However I do know slightly shorter upper dogbone mounts will help. It rotates the drivetrain a little bit which helps bring halfshaft angle back to where it should be. Which helps with vibrations and power transfer. Im to the point that I need to get some. I believe Montana ones are a bit shorter. I gotta check next time im at the junkyard. I dont really notice any vibrations outside of my out of balance wheels Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.