It's all your fault!, I need to quit reading upgrade threads.. Options

[SpecialK]

That's right! It's all your fault! (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/finger.gif) Anyone posting pics of their 5-lug converted 914 sporting polished Fuchs/Phone dials/Cookie Cutters/Boxster wheels....you're all guilty! (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/ar15.gif)

Well now my 16" BBS's (you're fault again (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/dry.gif) ) will fit! And as an added bonus, I get the pleasure of rebuilding yet another set of calipers (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/headbang.gif) .....but this time "M". (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wub.gif)

Okay.....I feel better. Now a question:

Assuming that the 911 (in this case a '70 911T, the entire front suspension is hiding in the box somewhere), and a 914 are "interchangable", are they interchangable enough for me to use bits of my freshly restored 914 suspension (stripped, POR'ed, all new bushings, bearings, torsion bars [21mm], ball-joints, strut inserts, etc...), or would it be wiser to just keep all of the 911 front-end components together (after a restoration (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/type.gif) [me ordering more ospho and POR]), and install the entire 911 suspension? It wouldn't be a total wash on all of the time, money and labor I've put into the '73's suspension, my '74 would love to have it, I'm just wanting to get it done in my lifetime (which will likely never happen if I keep checking out other people's "resto" threads (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/headbang.gif) ).

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/beer.gif)

[ArtechnikA]

it's all about the A-Arms - they determine what torsion bars you can run, and they'll have (or not) the antiroll bar U-tabs.

if you know what torsions you want, you must run the matching A-Arms. (or - if you know what A-Arms, you must run the matching torsions...)

then - the ball joint must match the strut type - early/late. before getting too excited on your 911 struts, if they're early ones (69-72) check the ball joint bore for wear - that's one of the big reasons those struts get scrapped in the first place - bent spindles - especially the right - is the other.

i'm packing for Hershey now, won't be back to this thread until late tonight.
good luck.

[eeyore]

I think if the ball joint is the same (wedge-pin), you can use 914 a-arms (bushings, t-bars, etc) with 911 struts. Conversely, you could also use 911 a-arms with 914 struts. I sure hope so because I plan to use 911 struts on 914 arms.

The real question is, "Why are we posting at 1:00am PDT?" (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/blink.gif)

[SpecialK]

QUOTE (Cloudbuster @ Apr 23 2005, 12:11 AM)

The real question is, "Why are we posting at 1:00am PDT?" (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/blink.gif)

I'm a "mushroom shifter", I don't get home until 1:00am CST, 5:00am if I do any OT.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/beer.gif)

[SpecialK]

Looking at the bottom of the strut (911), there's a BAB [Big Ass Bolt] to hold the ball-joint in place VS a tapered pin like the stock 914-4's [which are also new (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/headbang.gif) ].

The more I think about it, the more I think I should just keep all of the 911 bits together, and install it as a complete/compatible unit.

Thanks for the "watch out for's" ArtechnikA, I'll take a closer look at what's what in the morning.....umm...I mean later this morning. Have a good time at the Hersey event! (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/rocking nana.gif)

[Jeroen]

your (914) torsionbars won't fit the 911 a-arms
from your description, it sounds like you have the "clamp style" struts
you could leave the 914 a-arm in place, get the appropriate balljoint for the 911 strut and just mount the strut

[xsboost90]

ive heard some horror stories of when people mix/match the different style ball joint/struts. You can like previously stated switch the ball joint to the style you need to fit the struts.

[SpecialK]

QUOTE (Jeroen @ Apr 23 2005, 02:05 AM)

your (914) torsionbars won't fit the 911 a-arms from your description, it sounds like you have the "clamp style" struts you could leave the 914 a-arm in place, get the appropriate balljoint for the 911 strut and just mount the strut

That's exactly what I was hoping I could do, just swap the struts out and chuck the rest.

[SpecialK]

I was weighing my options, pricing parts to resto the 911 susp., and came across these self-aligning rear strut mounts. I really don't see much difference from the stock ones (okay, they're prettier (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wub.gif) ). Is this more "snake oil" BS? And assuming that you didn't have any front-end damage in the past, shouldn't your stock ones be just fine?

[SpecialK]

crap....spaced the pic! (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/slap.gif)

[jim912928]

You are doing exactly what I did. I had the front suspension off of a 71T....which had the bolt clamp style strut. I used my 914 A-arms, welded on u-tabs, and made sure i got the appropriate ball joint to go with the strut (call dave at gpr..he worked me through all the right parts). For me, it made more sense to use the stock torsion bars, sway bars etc. The mounting area in the a-arms are the same for the ball joints..it's only the ends that go into the struts that are different.

Also, if you did want to keep your front brakes the same...so you can maintain the factory balance with the rears through the proportioning valve...you can use the spacers out of the rear "m" calipers (the caliper halves are the same size as the 914 fronts). Then they fit perfect with vented rotors.

Have fun...and if you have more questions feel free to pm me...i just went through this last fall.

[SpecialK]

Jim,

Are you saying that the 914 and 911 "M" calipers are the same (less spacer)? I was kind of hoping that they be bigger/better than the stock 914 ones. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/sad.gif) Haven't had a chance to do any comparisons of the two with work and all.

The front end I've got on there now has the 320i set-up (much bigger than stock), and a tee in place of the prop. valve.

[eeyore]

Disclaimer: This I all what I 'figure' is the deal, I'm guessing mostly.

I think the self-aligning rear strut mounts (they are actually the rearmost front a-arm bushing collar, right?) are for solid non-stock / non-rubber bushings -- a la Mueller and Elephant PolyBronze.

The stock bushing collars have that 'U' section that fills the inside of the crossmember. Using the stock bushing collar with a solid non-rubber bushing could possibly cause the axis of the a-arm to be more parallel to the ground instead of parallel to the bottom of the trunk (red lines).

This was not a problem with stock rubber bushings because they deflect enough, and don't really bind anyway (or are permantently bound, depending how you look at it.)

I think Elephants earlier version of the bushings were solid (no 'Poly'?) and a number of users had issue with the stock collar and solid bushings had problems where the front end of the a-arm pointed down too much.

By shortening the 'U' section and tossing in rubber grommets, there is more vertical freeplay to get the front end of the a-arm bolted to the bottom of the car without binding up on the solid bushings (green lines).

I'm guessing that they aren't as necessary if you use the newer Polybronze bushings. The 'Poly' part should allow the enough deflection inside the collar while still allowing proper alignment between the bronze and steel races of the bushing itself.

I'm going to try installing my Poly-bronze bushings without the self-aligning collar.

[jim912928]

The 911 "m" rear calipers have the same size caliper halves as 914 fronts.

[SpecialK]

I see what you're saying Mark, but with only one bolt going through the rear A-arm support (like a pivot point of sorts), aren't they self-aligning by nature?

[SpecialK]

QUOTE (jim912928 @ Apr 23 2005, 02:33 PM)

The 911 "m" rear calipers have the same size caliper halves as 914 fronts.

Oops, sorry Jim, I misread your post. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/slap.gif)

The 911 "rears" are the same size as the 914 "fronts"....got it. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif)

[jwalters]

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif) I love your avatar--I say that with a different vowel at least 6 time a day-- (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)

[jgiroux67]

So will the 914 ball joint work with 3.5 spaced boge sturts?
Thats how mine is set up right now. I havent driven it yet but I want to know if its safe or not.

[Aaron Cox]

what year 914 and qhat yeat 911 front ends?

if they both use the wedge pin, then you are good to go.
likewise, if they are both throughbolts (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wink.gif)

[ArtechnikA]

QUOTE (jgiroux67 @ Apr 23 2005, 06:49 PM)

So will the 914 ball joint work with 3.5 spaced boge sturts?

i'm not sure how this topic winds up being so complicated every time. it's not complicated.

you must use the style of ball joint that matches your strut.
period, end of story.

there is no "THE" 914 ball joint.
there is the early style ball joint, which is used with early style struts.
there is the newstyle ball joint, which is used with newstyle struts.

as near as i can tell, 3,5" "S" caliper struts were available in BOTH styles somewhere between the introduction of the aluminum caliper in 1969 and the widespread adoption of the newstyle balljoint in 1972.

if you have a pinchbolt strut, no matter what kind of caliper it takes, you must use the early style ball joint and pray the bore in the strut is not worn out.

if you have a throughpin strut, no matter what kind of caliper it takes, you must use the newstyle ball joint.

both style of ball joint will fit any A-Arm ever fitted a 914 by the (Karmann or Porsche) factory.

someone please point out to me if any part of this expanation can possibly be considered ambiguous.