[urq] RE : Rear suspension tie rods DOES hit the body.

bhowell at rmi.net bhowell at rmi.net
Tue Oct 10 16:56:38 EDT 2006

Seeing as how HD’s are the only thing that Bilstein lists as being
available for our cars, I can’t imagine that any of us have anything
different. I know the Sport’s are available for the rear of the 4kq, which
will fits out cars, but has anyone really explore that option?

My H&R’s were installed sometime in 00’ and the car was, in my opinion,
"slammed". The tops of the tires were definitely tucked up into the body
work with 205/60/15’s which is what the car was on when the break happened.
I did not experience any sort of rake in the body in either direction like
you had. The body was almost perfectly level from front to rear.

This is my third "Early" car and this is the first I had heard about it or
seen it. My first car rode on Eibach’s and Boge’s and I never noticed it,
but then again, I had to no reason to notice it. Like I said in my original
e-mail, the conditions COULD have been just right for it to break. It was
winter, so it was cold. The suspension was already fairly compressed from
being mid corner. There was a substantial "bump" in the road. It COULD have
been bent or cracked already from hitting the body before. The break
occurred squarely in the minor diameter of one of the threads on the rod.
So, it’s completely possible that the rod itself was flawed in some way
from the get go. However, I would have figured that would have reared its
ugly head sometime between 1982 and 2004 (when it broke). FWIW, when I went
and looked at the other side (the side that didn’t break), there was a dent
on that side too! 

All I really claim to know: Having the rear tie rods hitting the underside
of the car CAN’T be good for them. :-)

83' UrQ
85' UrQ

Original Message:
From:  urquattro at comcast.net
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:56:00 +0000
To: urq at audifans.com, bhowell at rmi.net
Subject: [urq] RE : Rear suspension tie rods DOES hit the body.

Odd, Indeed. 

I have a complete '82 suspension w/ rear sway bar on my 85/82/91/95
"chop-shop special" and I found that the H&R's and Bilstein HDs I installed
in '01 didn't lower the back as much as I expected. Perhaps the HDs add
more of the the Billie "lifting" effect? I'll have to check for the frame
dent, I suppose, but this is all news to me. 

Jerry Mahoney's early '83 is similarly low if not lower in the rear end
than mine (different springs) and he has REALLY worked his car over with no
ill effects to my knowledge...

Wonder if the H&R's "changed" at some point pre '01 to alleviate the issue?

>>>You shouldn't have to remove the bump stops to put lowering springs in,
should you. The Bilstein's (what I was running at the time) have built-in
bump stops, so you don't even get the choice to remove them.

When I had a rear wheel off the car, I jacked it up from the control arm to
compress the suspension to it's "Resting" point and the tie rod was
uncomfortably close to the frame. Nevermind compressing it more to simulate
a cornering or bump situation. There is almost no way that a bump stop
would stop the upward movment before the tie rod hit the body. It was
uncomforable enough for me to not want to drive the car again, until I
removed the springs.  

I would venture a guess that ANY early 83' with H&R's has these dents in
the frame rail. It's almost impossible for them NOT to be there because
they are THAT close! Honestly, I can't believe this is the first we are
hearing of it. Of all the people that track thier cars, or drive them
"Hard", or rally them and this has never been mentioned before? Odd.

I felt lucky that I was able to find a new complete tie rod at Blau, but I
know that they don't have any more of them. The dealer is silly expensive
and given the small amount of cars they fit, they may be NLA. I can only
hope that people start taking thier H&R's OFF thier early 83's.

83' UrQ
85' UrQ>>

mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

More information about the urq mailing list