Ford Focus Forum banner

Camber Plate Design Question.

321 views 8 replies 6 participants last post by  P-51 
#1 ·
I'm looking again at my camber plate design. It's a classic top mount, and in theory should keep the spring and strut in the stock vertical position.

If the design was such that you had to take a 3" hole saw, and cut the "hump" or bulge out of the top of the strut tower... would that make the design unacceptable?

I realize HS guys would be screwed... or something. But what about everybody else?

It should be a fairly simple proceedure. A 3" hole saw appears like it would self-center on the hump, just take it slow, and it *should* work fine. Obviously, I'd be the guinea pig if I do this.

Just wondering what people would think of such an invasive proceedure.

I'm not really sure why the hump is there. I can see it's obviously there to clear the raise stamped steel cup at the top of the stock plate. But why didn't they just make the hole bigger? Maybe it's to add stiffness to the top of the tower?

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the hump has to go to make a top mount work.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
I think it is a fantastic idea, it just isn't compatible with SCCA autocrossing, for better or worse.

Stock, Street Prepared, and as mentioned STS and STX are out. Street Mod, Mod, and Prepared would be the only autocross users.

Truthfully, I think the track-day folks need it more anyway, and they'd be more willing to make such a modification.
 
#4 ·
I'm looking again at my camber plate design. It's a classic top mount, and in theory should keep the spring and strut in the stock vertical position.

If the design was such that you had to take a 3" hole saw, and cut the "hump" or bulge out of the top of the strut tower... would that make the design unacceptable?

I realize HS guys would be screwed... or something. But what about everybody else?

It should be a fairly simple proceedure. A 3" hole saw appears like it would self-center on the hump, just take it slow, and it *should* work fine. Obviously, I'd be the guinea pig if I do this.

Just wondering what people would think of such an invasive proceedure.

I'm not really sure why the hump is there. I can see it's obviously there to clear the raise stamped steel cup at the top of the stock plate. But why didn't they just make the hole bigger? Maybe it's to add stiffness to the top of the tower?

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the hump has to go to make a top mount work.
Hump has to go for any serious amount of adjustment. I had to enlarge mine just to able to get max camber out of my SP plates. Just reinforce the top with some 1/8" plate and drive on.
 
#6 ·
Rich, are you suggesting to WELD the plate to the tower, or just use it on the underside?

Currently, the design would allow 1* positive, and 2* negative camber. I've got -1.3* already, so theoretically it should give up to -3*+ camber on lowered cars.
 
#7 ·
Well, the underside would raise the car on the springs, and since that would compromise travel for a given ride height, well, I'll let you figure out the rest. Personally, if I had the capabilities and facilities, I would basically remake the strut tops to suit my needs.
 
#9 ·
Well, the underside would raise the car on the springs, and since that would compromise travel for a given ride height, well, I'll let you figure out the rest. Personally, if I had the capabilities and facilities, I would basically remake the strut tops to suit my needs.
Actually, the top mount design would use a 1/8" stud plate from the underside, and would NOT affect the ride height at all.

I'm still considering a bottom mount, but trying to figure out how to do it without raising the car. There's not much room to work.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top