Hey John,

 

If your comment was made as a joke....I apologize for missing it. It is not always easy to read the intended tone of a comment. 

 

Yeah, it's been 10 years. 10 agonizing years....and it would be even more agonizing if anything structural was off. That would kill me at this point. 

 

Anyway....lots of good info here. Thanks to ALL.

 

Look forward to having you over BLUE. :-)

I will take some better photos of how it is sitting.....but I do want to share my excitement of 10 years. :-) 

 

The car is actually sitting better now than in this photo. Springs were backwards in this one.

cool!

love those wheels...

Are you using stock suspension bushings or aftermarket urethane?  Looks like a fun car but the important details are sparse, re your problem.  And springs don't care if they're upside down or downside up, it doesn't matter, unless the perches match the ends (which would be unusual).  If you meant front to back backwards, that's a whole different thing, since they're different rates.

Urethane bushings.....and stock (for now, anyway). The Springs were front to back backwards. DOH!  The car is sitting much better now, but still seems high on the driver's side. (front and back)

 

Although I was out-of-line with John (thanks for setting me straight everyone).....I am going to take his advise and see how it sits after all the weight is in it. I think he is correct that there is likely no structural issue. As I mentioned, the body panels and doors line up better than ever. 

don't beat yourself up w/having reversed the springs - i did it when i went to a set of eibach progressives and found that this is a fairly common mistake. it sure would be nice if they were labeled for those of us who don't know...

 

also, i found that when i re-did my suspension it took a little bit of driving for it to settle in to the correct ride heights - probably because the bushings/sway bar/etc. were tightened when the car was up on stands and things needed to find their center under load. you may find the same applies in your case. just out of curiosity - did you grease up all your bushings prior to assembly?

One issue with the urethane front lower control arm bushings is:  torquing them to the factory specs induces a lot of bind.  I've had cars come in where I can do a pull-up on the end of the LCA once the strut is removed.  What I do is replace the 14mm nut for the LCA bolt with a Nylock and tighten the nut and bolt until there is some drag on the LCAs rotation but no serious bind.

The source of the problem is that the bushing is wider than the sleeve that goes through it. It might not be when you look at it on your workbench, but when installed in the control arm, the sleeve will be 1/16" or 1/8" shorter than the unloaded bushing. When you tighten down the bolt it squeezes the poly bushing between the control arm and the xmember and its that pressure applied to the bushing that creates the huge amount of friction between the bushing and the sleeve, leaving it unable to rotate easily. John's nylock solution undoubtedly works to reduce the friction and make the suspension work better, but it may also let the sleeve rotate, so essentially the suspension is now pivoting on the control arm bolt itself instead of the bushing moving on the sleeve and the bolt locking the sleeve down securely. I'd fix it a different way: sand the ends of the bushing down - belt sander is great for this - until it is just about the same length as the sleeve that goes through it (when installed in the control arm). Now you can tighten the bolt to spec and the bushing works as intended. Also a good idea to drill a hole and install a zerk in the control arm so that you can grease the bushing later on. 

 

One way or the other, it's worth dealing with it. If the control arm is that hard to move, then they won't be reacting as quickly or accurately to smaller bumps on the pavement, nor will they allow the suspension to extend into dips. 

Pretty good video for anyone interested, takes it a little farther than I did with the belt sander: 

I've seen the same thing with the urethane bushings. Seems like the people who make those things should be able to figure out how wide to make the bushings and how long to make the internal spacer tube so they work right and don't require excessive crush.

 

Once on my 300ZX I had to use poly (because I needed aftermarket camber adjustment) and I had to remake the spacer tubes myself so they would control the bushing crush a little. The bushings fit snug between the ears (at stock width) before the bolt was tightened, but bound up with the bolt tight. In other words, the bushing width was good, but the spacer tube was too short causing the ears to be pulled in until they were crushing the poly enough to squeeze inward to contact the spacer tube.

 

I'm no suspension guy, but it seems you need some crush on the poly. Just enough to insure no play and maybe a tiny bit more, but certainly not so much as to introduce too much rotating friction.

Edited February 24, 201510 yr by Captain Obvious

How about some of these - http://www.traxxion.com/Shock-Spring-Torrington-Bearing-Kit-by-Traxxion-Dynamics-0/

 

I don't think the people that designed the urethane bushings put a ton of design effort in to them.  They're just stiffer and cheaper than the stock rubber parts.  Same durometer urethane compound, a bunch of different shaped molds.  Easy money.

 I noticed after tightening the the nuts on the front and rear swing arms (after lowering the car to the ground) when I replaced all the rubber bushes with new ones, that the new rubber bushes also locked the swing arms so there was very little movement. Unlike poorly designed poly bushes that make the swing arms stick, the new rubber bushes allow movement but also act like a spring by bringing the swing arm back to the position they were tighten into.

Would it be beneficial to sand down the sides of rubber bushes and lubricate them for easier movement?