| Home  Blogs Help Search Login Register  
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16 Print
Author Topic: Getting ready for the road again  (Read 25234 times)
TELBOY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 380



« Reply #135 on: January 12, 2020, 09:18:20 pm »

Jusr two hrs work then. Lol. My work has ground to a halt. I dont do cold! Cant wait cor the sun to come out.
Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #136 on: January 22, 2020, 09:55:59 pm »

Jusr two hrs work then. Lol. My work has ground to a halt. I dont do cold! Cant wait cor the sun to come out.

The cold is indeed... cold Cheesy

I dressed warm this weekend and tonight and made some progress. The old trailing arms are now on their way back to Politecnic. The outboard mounting point needed a bit of expansion on this side too, but the new trailing arm is now a good and tight fit. I'm now cleaning the mounting points of years of dirt, getting them ready for zinc painting and rust protection. It generally looks good with only a little surface rust in some places, but nothing serious. It just needs to be brushed down and zinc painted.

Once I'm done with the mounting points, the hub and disc just need to be pressed into the bearing, and the new trailing arm fitted.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 10:00:19 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
TELBOY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 380



« Reply #137 on: January 23, 2020, 04:30:24 pm »

I see no snow on the ground!!!!! Please excuse my ignorance, When I treated my chassis I was (at times) careful not to disturb the zinc plating and only cleaned and then over painted with several coats! although a little late, should I have completely cleaned of all the plating?  and treated the bare metal?
Also if you get a chance can you post a picture of the top door rubbers (where the window slides down into the door?), I cant get mine to sit correctly. When the window goes down they appear to come out so I am thinking I am fitting them incorrectly, (maybe upside down). Smiley
Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #138 on: January 23, 2020, 04:55:30 pm »

I see no snow on the ground!!!!! Please excuse my ignorance, When I treated my chassis I was (at times) careful not to disturb the zinc plating and only cleaned and then over painted with several coats! although a little late, should I have completely cleaned of all the plating?  and treated the bare metal?
Also if you get a chance can you post a picture of the top door rubbers (where the window slides down into the door?), I cant get mine to sit correctly. When the window goes down they appear to come out so I am thinking I am fitting them incorrectly, (maybe upside down). Smiley

Snow... what's that?!!! Denmark may be Nordic, but we haven't had temperatures below 0 all winter this year! Sad
Good for my working, though.

I don't think you've done anything wrong if you're coating on top of the metal to create a barrier for oxidation. The Zinga paint involves a renewed cold-galvanization process, so I'm not afraid of brushing (or even sandblasting, but I don't do that) a bit of zinc off the steel plate. Remember that warm galvanization is not just a coating, but involves a chemical reaction between the zinc and the iron that penetrates many μm into the metal. Spraying high percentage zinc paint on top starts a slow galvanization process in which a similar process happens. In short, the zinc ions like to tie themselves to the iron atoms, and oxidizes well before the iron, so as long as there are free zinc ions, rust will not happen.

Actually i NEED to brush it well down before applying the zinc paint, as corroded zinc need to be removed: It's the white salty stuff we see, and its made up of zinc-oxides, is quite hard, and effecively forms a barrier between any applied zinc paint and the iron underneath, thus preventing the regalvanization.

On top of all that, I apply rust protection to create a soft, oily/waxy corrosion barrier.

I'll check the windows next time I'm there and post some photos Smiley
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 04:58:27 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #139 on: January 25, 2020, 04:46:27 pm »

Sorry, Terry - I forgot to take pictures of the door rubber for you. Next time!

But here's a dramatic super wide angle picture of the underside of car after I've worked for an hour or so today. The support in front of the enigne can be seen in the bottom of the picture, now clean (the engine has leaked oil on it Smiley

Otherwise I'm concentrating on the mounting points, getting the car back on the wheels and then on removing the wing and working on the chassis under that.


« Last Edit: January 25, 2020, 05:03:30 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
TELBOY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 380



« Reply #140 on: February 09, 2020, 06:47:18 pm »

Nice going Anders. At the speed.you are.progressing you will fi ished brcore me! No problem about the photos will be going to the NEC March so will take some there.
Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #141 on: February 15, 2020, 08:46:43 am »

Nice going Anders. At the speed.you are.progressing you will fi ished brcore me! No problem about the photos will be going to the NEC March so will take some there.

Thanks - and I forgot to take pictures again. But sounds like a good idea going to NEC and looking there - and have a conversation about it!

I had the joy of assembling something yesterday. Spring is coming and it was nice last evening (the rain from yesterdays storms in the north atlantic are here today)
« Last Edit: February 15, 2020, 03:18:47 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
TELBOY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 380



« Reply #142 on: February 15, 2020, 03:39:41 pm »

Looks like one of those times you could do with an assistant!
Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #143 on: February 15, 2020, 09:17:06 pm »

Looks like one of those times you could do with an assistant!

That part wasn't too bad, actually. I got myself one of these https://www.biltema.dk/bil---mc/bilvarktoj/chassisvarktoj/hjullejevarktoj/varktojssat-til-forhjulslejer-2000021491 and with the long wrench against the floor, the hub and bearing came together slowly but rather easily. Fitting the trailing arm is a bit more difficult alone - I'm not quite done yet Smiley
Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
TELBOY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 380



« Reply #144 on: February 16, 2020, 09:51:39 am »

Oh yes, I remeber that! Trying to keep the drive shaft in  the wheel bearing whilst  wiggling the other end into the mounting to get the bolts lined up with the rubber bushes. I needed three hands.
Logged
Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #145 on: April 13, 2020, 04:36:06 pm »

Spring is here and with that time and inclination to go work in the garage. I've completed a few things since last time:

  • RH trailing arm fitted
  • RH wheel refitted
  • RH rear wing removed

Any problems? Oh yeah, and it was quite unexpected. The rear wing got off with less than an hour's work. Ok, I had done some work on it later, but it seems to have been replaced some time early in the life of the car and it wasn't fitted quite as hard as the LH side one. And the chassis underneath looks perfect (unlike the LH side, which still needs some repair).

The problem I have is with the trailing arms. Simon is known to sell incorrect trailing arms with with top brackets from the 1.6 welded on for the shocks. The 2.2 bracket is different because the shock absorber is tilted slightly inwards at the top to accomodate the larger engine. I "knew" the Politecnic would be correct, so I didn't suspect a problem with mine, but they're wrong too. The result was that getting it on was a really tough job. As can be seen, unfitted, the shaft of the shock absorber is offset outwards by about 3 cm. I managed to press it in and fit it, but the rubber bushes are now compressed. This is far from ideal so I'm going to write a complaint to Politecnic about this. And of course, I'm annoyed I didn't check this before fitting them.

The LH side was for some reason less of a struggle to fit than the RH side, but checking it, I see it's wrong too.

This may be a manufacturing problem with mine only, but a word of warning needs to be raised here: As Roy has mentioned earlier, the trailing arms from Simon have been found to be incorrect - and now the trailing arms from Politecnic might be too!

(Yes, my shocks need new paint and the new bolt is too long... I'll come back to that.)

/Anders
« Last Edit: April 13, 2020, 04:42:23 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
roy4matra
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1051



« Reply #146 on: April 14, 2020, 12:38:08 am »

Spring is here and with that time and inclination to go work in the garage. I've completed a few things since last time:

  • RH trailing arm fitted
  • RH wheel refitted
  • RH rear wing removed

Any problems? Oh yeah, and it was quite unexpected. The rear wing got off with less than an hour's work. Ok, I had done some work on it later, but it seems to have been replaced some time early in the life of the car and it wasn't fitted quite as hard as the LH side one. And the chassis underneath looks perfect (unlike the LH side, which still needs some repair).

The problem I have is with the trailing arms. Simon is known to sell incorrect trailing arms with with top brackets from the 1.6 welded on for the shocks...

I'm not sure where you obtained this information, or maybe you have mis-interpreted what I have said in the past, but as far as I am aware, the 2.2 semi-trailing arms from Simon do not have 'brackets from the 1.6 welded on'.  The brackets are simply welded on at the wrong angle.  They are in fact welded on parallel to the side of the arm when they should be welded on at 9 degrees so that they are in approx. alignment with the angled shock absorber.  In fact, even the 1.6 shock absorbers are at a similar angle, and the brackets on the 1.6 semi-trailing arms should also be welded on at an angle - probably the same angle, because the original semi-trailing arms were a different design and should have been designed to take into account the 20cm different rear tracking between the two models.  I've never had any original 1.6 rear arms to be able to verify this, but if Matra designed them correctly, this is what should have been the case.

Quote
The 2.2 bracket is different because the shock absorber is tilted slightly inwards at the top to accomodate the larger engine...

This is slightly mis-leading.  Both the 1.6 and 2.2 have rear shock absorbers coming down at an angle.  This has little to do with accomodating a larger engine.  It is simply good suspension design, combined with the wider rear track designed for the more powerful 2.2 model to allow for higher cornering speeds.  You rarely have this type of suspension with a vertical McPherson strut.  The strut should be angled so the line from top to ground meets the ground at the tyre contact area.

Quote
I "knew" the Politecnic would be correct, so I didn't suspect a problem with mine, but they're wrong too. The result was that getting it on was a really tough job. As can be seen, unfitted, the shaft of the shock absorber is offset outwards by about 3 cm. I managed to press it in and fit it, but the rubber bushes are now compressed. This is far from ideal so I'm going to write a complaint to Politecnic about this. And of course, I'm annoyed I didn't check this before fitting them.

The LH side was for some reason less of a struggle to fit than the RH side, but checking it, I see it's wrong too.

This may be a manufacturing problem with mine only, but a word of warning needs to be raised here: As Roy has mentioned earlier, the trailing arms from Simon have been found to be incorrect - and now the trailing arms from Politecnic might be too!

(Yes, my shocks need new paint and the new bolt is too long... I'll come back to that.)

/Anders


Whilst I can't dispute you've had a problem with the rear suspension assembly Anders, I have a couple of observations to make if I may.  I am not exactly clear from your description, so if I am wrong please correct me.

From your photo where the top of the shock absorber is not aligned with the hole in the chassis and the coil spring is also out of place, it seems you have attached the bottom of your shock absorber to the trailing arm before fitting the top into the chassis, is that correct?  Also I cannot see any coil spring clamps.  That is not the correct assembly sequence.  The coil spring must be clamped first and the top of the rod should be fitted in the chassis hole and secured, and then the spring clamps removed.  The semi-trailing arm is then lifted to fit the lower bush into the bracket on the arm.

Now even with an original car, undamaged, as my silver car has always been, when you lift the arm up, the lower bush and shock absorber eye do not naturally align perfectly and the shock absorber eye needs to be pulled into position.  Second, the new Politecnic arms are covered in quite a thick protective coating unlike the thin coat of paint on the original, and this will reduce the gap for the bush, so unless you removed the coating back to the metal it would need more effort to get the bush to go in, but that is normal.  Even the original is a tight fit.  It is meant to be.  Also since your lower bush does not look like it is new, and therefore has been fitted in a different arm for years, it will have become 'set' for that other arm, which will more than likely cause a slight difficulty when fitting it to the new arm.

Finally, in your particular case the shock absorber is not a standard original one, but is a Koni after-market unit, and could possibly be slightly different to an original.  I'm not saying it is, just that there could be slight differences and you only need a tiny difference to make something more difficult to fit.

One more thing.  These shock absorber brackets have changed design slightly since the arms have been remade.  They are now shorter with a larger hole at the bottom.  This has been done to stop one of the original design faults - namely the wedge shaped pocket caused by the angled brackets, used to fill with dirt which got wet and slowly corroded the metal.  By shortening the bracket, the 'bottom' of the angled bracket is much more open and means the dirt should simply fall through and if it can no longer stays in between the bracket and arm, it cannot cause the corrosion.  However, these shortened brackets, since they are not original, may be incorrect but it is important they are still welded at the correct angle.

Roy
« Last Edit: April 14, 2020, 11:35:36 am by roy4matra » Logged

Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #147 on: April 14, 2020, 06:05:45 pm »

Hi Roy

Thanks very much for your comments and clarifications. I agree to your points, of course, and apologize my mistakes. I'll try to answer below.

I base my *assumption* that a bracket from the 1.6 has been fitted based on measurements of the bracket. The new bracket is different from the old one in being shorter and open in the botoom which should prevent corrosion, but the bracket on my new trailing arms are also different in the measurements. Speciifically, I measure a width on the top back side of the old one of 18 mm, while the new one measures to about 10 mm (difficult to measure as it's now been fitted on the car). The old one tapers in to 12 mm on the middle of the inside of the trailing arm, while the new one is about 10 mm all the way down. In other words, the new one fits at the same angle as the inside panel of the trailing arm, while the old one is tapered. I haven't checked the measurements, but the new trailing arm and the old one seems to have exactly the same dimensions otherwise.

I've taken some photos showing the old bracket below.

About the shocks. These are the same Koni dampers my car has run with when you had it. I had them professionally refurbished 9 years ago. I can only assume they're correct.

There was indeed a spring compressor fitted on the spring in the picture, though it's not visible. I bought mine while I had my Phase 1 Espace where there is no room on the top of the spring, so it extends downwards when compressing, unlike most other screw type compressors.

I agree that the correct way to fit the shock to the trailing arm is to do the bolt. It was impossible to push the bolt in place. I managed to fit the it only by doing the job "incorrectly".

Best,
Anders
Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
roy4matra
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1051



« Reply #148 on: April 16, 2020, 12:04:07 am »

Hi Roy

Thanks very much for your comments and clarifications. I agree to your points, of course, and apologize my mistakes. I'll try to answer below.

I base my *assumption* that a bracket from the 1.6 has been fitted based on measurements of the bracket. The new bracket is different from the old one in being shorter and open in the botoom which should prevent corrosion, but the bracket on my new trailing arms are also different in the measurements. Speciifically, I measure a width on the top back side of the old one of 18 mm, while the new one measures to about 10 mm (difficult to measure as it's now been fitted on the car). The old one tapers in to 12 mm on the middle of the inside of the trailing arm, while the new one is about 10 mm all the way down. In other words, the new one fits at the same angle as the inside panel of the trailing arm, while the old one is tapered. I haven't checked the measurements, but the new trailing arm and the old one seems to have exactly the same dimensions otherwise.

I've taken some photos showing the old bracket below.

About the shocks. These are the same Koni dampers my car has run with when you had it. I had them professionally refurbished 9 years ago. I can only assume they're correct.

There was indeed a spring compressor fitted on the spring in the picture, though it's not visible. I bought mine while I had my Phase 1 Espace where there is no room on the top of the spring, so it extends downwards when compressing, unlike most other screw type compressors.

I agree that the correct way to fit the shock to the trailing arm is to do the bolt. It was impossible to push the bolt in place. I managed to fit the it only by doing the job "incorrectly".

Best,
Anders

Now I've seen your latest photo of the new arm, Anders, you are indeed correct as that bracket appears now to be parallel to the side of the arm which is wrong.  It should be angled like the old one.  The fact that is shorter is not a problem as long as it is angled, and as I said previously the shorter one has the open space at the bottom so the dirt drops through and you don't get that area filled where is will get wet and cause corrosion, and although this a modification to the original bracket it is sensible and better.

I understand your difficulty in fitting the shock absorber, but it is strange that the bracket is not welded at the correct angle as I have photos here from an earlier Politecnic semi-trailing arm that shows they were being welded on at an angle. (see photo)  I wonder why these are not?  I would certainly write to Politecnic to complain and and show them the photos showing how they are wrong.  We need them to change back to have them correct.

As we have someone here in the UK with an arm on order at the moment this is even more urgent.

Thanks.

Roy
« Last Edit: April 16, 2020, 12:25:08 am by roy4matra » Logged

Anders Dinsen
Administrator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3091



WWW
« Reply #149 on: April 19, 2020, 08:33:15 pm »

I understand your difficulty in fitting the shock absorber, but it is strange that the bracket is not welded at the correct angle as I have photos here from an earlier Politecnic semi-trailing arm that shows they were being welded on at an angle. (see photo)  I wonder why these are not?  I would certainly write to Politecnic to complain and and show them the photos showing how they are wrong.  We need them to change back to have them correct.

Thanks Roy. I'll keep you updated on their response. I agree, at least we should make sure future ones will be correct!

My next job is taking the engine out. I've never done it before, but I know it's not complicated. However, I can't fit a crane in my garage so I've thought about how to do it. I'm considering buying an engine bar like the one in the picture below. The workshop manual describes a similar tool for suspending the engine while removing the gearbox on the 2.2 (pictured too). My idea is using the bar and the handles on it to carefully lower the engine to the ground. This is my plan:

  • With the front on the wheels, I will put the rear on axle stands
  • I'll remove the trailing arms, hub nuts (they're still loose) and remove the trailing arms again
  • Remove: Carburettors (at least the airbox), throttle cable, air filter, cooling hoses, electrics unplugged, battery plus, ignition coil, clutch slave cylinder
  • Drive shafts will be removed
  • (I've previosly removed the front brace under the engine, and the gear change rod)

I then plan to suspend the engine with the bar and undo the right side engine mount. I have oil seeping out, and it looks like it might be the sump gasket. I have a spare, which I'll fit.

With the sump back, I'll then undo the two other engine mounts, lower the car as far as possible with two jacks (one either side), then using the bar and the handles, lower the engine the last bit until it sits on the floor supported by wooden blocks, and on a peice of board so I can pull it out the back if necessary.

I plan to then lift the chassis back up as high as possible and put it back on stands. I should then have access to do the jobs I need to do:

  • Renew the cam chain cover gasket
  • Work on cleaning the engine and engine room from oil sludge
  • Inspect the tank straps
  • Whatever might show up

Any thoughts on this?

/Anders
« Last Edit: April 19, 2020, 08:58:48 pm by Anders Dinsen » Logged

'82 Murena 2.2 prep 142
'01 Grand Espace 24v
'08 Smart Fortwo 0,8 cdi
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to: