[Top] [All Lists]

Re: rear suspension geometry

To: "MGList (E-mail)" <>
Subject: Re: rear suspension geometry
From: Max Heim <>
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 16:40:26 -0700
Hmmm, in my experience, if you look under the rear of *most* cars you 
will find that the shocks are not exactly vertical (at least live axle 
setups, not IRS). Especially those jacked-up 4x4s, they often seem to 
have them splayed out at 30 degrees from vertical. I suspect the reason 
they are angled is to get as much travel as possible in the limited 
vertical space under the car. But I wouldn't worry about the MG 
installation affecting shock efficiency.

FWIW I have the tube shock conversion front and rear, and I am very 
pleased with the ride and handling. I don't have Spax or Konis, my setup 
came with some relatively small diameter units that seem to 
cross-reference to a VW Type 3 (I suppose based on vehicle weight and 
total extension).

teds had this to say:

>Harlan, thanks for your detailed reply. I understand what you mean about the
>tube shock/spring rebound rate. I wonder however that since the shock(s)
>were not really designed to operate in this plane, (but were meant to be
>strictly vertical), if they wear out much quicker due to the more intense
>side or top loading. (more side mechanical wear).
>>>a question on the rear shock replacement with tube shocks...
>>>my 77 mgb came with this done, I have some kind of Monroe shocks in the
>>>rear.however my car has a real stiff rear suspension, in looking at the
>>> direction of travel of the shock, I'm wondering how this works as the 
shock itself
>>>is not sitting straight up and down but it is tilted forward, doesn't this
>>> make the dampening action less efficient ?

>> >thanks, Ted


Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>