EM - Axle rubbing on A-Arm opening

[Wittsend]

Thank you for your replies. Joel is correct, the shims (as they came with the car) are in place. I kept them to their respective sides. I just now ran a 6 ft. level down the sides parallel to the lower door opening. While it is not a definitive toe measurement it is not exhibiting any excessive toe out that would be obvious.

Rear toe with level.JPG (35.31 KiB) Viewed 372 times

As to ride height measurements the car does not have the factory size tires (215-60-14 rear, 185-65-14 front). And since most pictures of wagons show a front up attitude I cut the front springs one coil (of which up front there are no consequences). As I mentioned earlier the battery moved up front, the absence of the heater and the cut front springs would all be conducive to taking weight off the rear of the car and reducing the problem. Here is a picture of how the car sits.

As to the crossmember to body mounts, yes, they would raise the body from the ground but because the suspension is all inclusive in the crossmember it would not change the excessive negative camber I have - even though the rear springs are not cut.

I did have one thought. This was a "Frankin" Corvair (Lakewood). In its 12 years ('61-'73) of initial on road use it was on its third set of seat covers (one laid over the other). The engine had five, what I assume were over bored, full fin '60 cylinders and one common notched fin cylinder that were all in the standard 145 bore size. The crank was .010/.010. The distributor a '62. The HF differential case does not match the ratio inside. The Powerglide had a trans cooler which I don't think came standard on Lakewood??? Anyway, I'm wondering with this conglomeration of parts if somehow this car wound up with a set of '64 springs? Is there anyway I can determine that (wires size)? Otherwise I'm at a loss for the cause of the excessive negative camber and the resulting axle clearance issues.

[thewolfe]

If you had 64 springs with no transverse leaf spring installed, the ass end would be majorly sagging and you'd have one bouncy ride. Even with the transverse leaf in a wagon the 64 springs are too light. A fellow club member has the 64 transverse leaf spring with 64 coil springs(with brand new shocks) and the back end is still a bit bouncy. Here's a shot of one my stock wagon springs next to a 64. Big difference. I'm putting a transverse leaf in my wagon but with em car springs which are in between the two.

[joelsplace]

It is very common for EMs to have sagged rear springs and it never causes axles to rub. I had my wagon loaded with so much weight it was bottomed out and no axle rubbing.

[vairmech]

OK, you mention Frankin-Wagon so in essence you have no idea of what you have to start with. Unless you are ultimately familiar with the Corvair and/or wagon, I owned one for over 25 years, You just might not know what is supposed to be.

It looks like that some things are correct but the rear wheel camber is not correct unless you are doing that on purpose. The only way you can check the toe in/out is by measuring with a tape measure or an alignment machine.

The wagons did have a trans oil cooler!

If you want more information than you can handle go here, https://www.gm.com/heritage/archive/veh ... ation-kits. In there you will find spring information and I'm pretty sure it may include wire diameter, free length and number of coils. It is a pdf and is downloadable! Just to save you looking page 73 is rear suspension numbers.

[toms73novass]

Just out of curiosity, what is the height of the rear wheel well from the ground. If the springs are sagging you can compare to my measurement.

Mine on stock springs is 20.5" at the rear with the front coils cut 1 coil.

[Wagon Master]

The wagons did have a trans oil cooler!

Well that's a new one on me, and I've owned a lot of PG wagons.

[joelsplace]

My Lakewood that I drive doesn't have one.

[Wittsend]

Ken, Thanks you for the link. I WILL check the information out.

Tom, thanks for the measurements and sorry for the delay. It was a Cars & Coffee Saturday, and then my Turbo Pinto acted up on the way back and I opted to get AAA-ed home rather than risk things getting worse on a busy street.

As best I can measure the wheel opening height centered on the rear wheel is 19-3/4". Since we may not have the same height tires the measurement from the bottom of my 215-60-14 tire to the center of the axle (radius) is 12". The internet says the diameter is 24.16" (12.06" radius) for that sized tire so I think I'm pretty accurate.

Whel opening tire radius.JPG (41.98 KiB) Viewed 279 times

A few more clues for wise eyes. Here are pictures of the rear mount, and how the side shroud seals align with the body. Also the rather extreme alignment with the brake drum and the brake backing plate (at rest).

Rear drum to backing plate.JPG (41.29 KiB) Viewed 279 times

[joelsplace]

That rear mount is totally shot. Sagging badly.

[American Mel]

Yeah, Joel is correct.
Replace that.
It might not be you total problem, but it sure ain't helping it none.

[joelsplace]

It will help the camber slightly but will do nothing for the axles.

[Wittsend]

Thanks for the mount assessment. I agree with Joel that it will help in a minor way. With jack stands and a jack I can simulate a new mount to see the expected results. That said, I replaced the front (trans) mounts and it did virtually nothing.

Relating to the link Ken provided. It only showed the spring specifications for the '61 4 door 700 model. I come to that by it being the only model that has a matching rear curb weight (see below). That said, the stated thickness of the spring is .610. I measured the thickness of the springs in my wagon and they are .665. So the springs I have are must be some type of heavier than normal spring. Perhaps sagging, but likely based on size, wagon springs.

[Frank DuVal]

I was driving a five person carpool in my '64 4 door when one of the transverse spring end bolts broke, and I drove to a service station (remember those?) and had him remove the transverse spring. Car sat on the rear bump stops to and from work. Never did the axle rub.

Wow, that brake drum looks very wrong stance!

[toms73novass]

My tires are 23.88" in diameter just a touch under stock size.

You have larger tires so you should be sitting higher roughley .25" than me @ 20.75"

[Wittsend]

I just did a test. I jacked the back of the car until I had roughly 1/4 degree negative to zero camber (which I assume is a target number). It took elevating the rear of the car (measured at the center of the wheel opening) from its currently free standing 19-3/4" measurement to 21-5/8" (1-7/8" lift) to get those desired camber numbers. And even doing that the axle clearance and brake drum to backing plate centering only improved marginally. All pics are of the car elevated to near zero camber.

This is making even less sense and seems to be defying the laws of physics! Anyway, tomorrow I will disengage the rear mount and jack the back of the engine to where a new mount would roughly place it. Then I'll report back if anything regarding axle clearance and and brake drum/shoe parallelism was improved. For today my brain is confused enough.

[vairmech]

My Lakewood that I drive doesn't have one.

If you look on the right side frame rail near the front of the engine bay there will be a rubber plug with 2 holes in it, it will be oblong and the holes will be angled for 5/16" lines. If you do not have that then someone put a PG into a manual car and used a car trans. The oil cooler is mounted in front of the battery in the cool air stream for the engine. Hmmm, maybe the grommet is under the car. If you want a picture of the grommet look at Clark's for the FC PG.