[RoadRunner]

Okay, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on this topic, and maybe it's for a good reason, i.e. it wouldn't work, or is just a dumb idea, but bear with me..

We know that GD ALK's will fit GC's. And we know that stock GD transverse links provide more caster than stock GC bits. We also know that the poly bushings in ALK's tend to increase the NVH a pretty substantial amount in the GC chassis. So, what I'm wondering is, why don't more people use stock or Group N GD transverse links? It seems like it would be a great alternative to an ALK.. my theory is that it would provide more caster over stock, and be a more comfortable ride compared to an ALK.

I also have a few more questions sort of on this topic..
-How much more caster do stock GD links provide over stock GC links?
-If an ALK increases the caster 0.5* over stock on both GC and GD models, and GD models have more caster stock to begin with, does that mean that a GD ALK installed on a GC would add more caster than a GC ALK installed on a GC.

-Corey

 

[Manny]

what is alk cel and nvh?

 

[RoadRunner]

ALK - Anti Lift Kit
CEL - usually Check Engine Light, but I didn't use it in my post..
NVH - Noise, Vibration, Harshness

 

[rallifreak]

Well, given that most subaru parts haven't and don't ever seem to change (besides engine and drivetrain stuff) I would think that they parts are exactly the same. And all I can think of for the extra caster is caused more by the different frame i.e. different suspension connection points (I would think).

 

[RoadRunner]

Well, given that most subaru parts haven't and don't ever seem to change (besides engine and drivetrain stuff) I would think that they parts are exactly the same. And all I can think of for the extra caster is caused more by the different frame i.e. different suspension connection points (I would think).

But that's the thing.. they aren't exactly the same. Here's a little sketch to illustrate the differences.. Top is stock GC, bottom is GD & ALK..

I was thinking about the subframe, and was wondering if that had some type of effect on it. I know GD's need some type of spacers or something for the crash subframe. Not sure exactly how it all works though, as I've never installed an ALK on a GD..

 

[spinninhye]

Interesting thought. Unfortunately I don't have much knowledge on this topic.

 

[RoadRunner]

Nobody?

 

[rallifreak]

I was thinking about the subframe, and was wondering if that had some type of effect on it. I know GD's need some type of spacers or something for the crash subframe. Not sure exactly how it all works though, as I've never installed an ALK on a GD..

Yea the subframe needs to be spaced so the larger transverse link can fit under it. It gets spaced about an inch or so which makes it hang down pretty low, but at least I bottom that out before I hit my headers . Why not just talk to someone over at www.globalperformanceparts.com or even Whiteline themselves. Personally, I don't see why your theory wouldn't be correct though. Try it?

 

[Storm]

Want more caster? Take a look at Legacy SUS control arm bushings. The car's got a body lift on it from the factory. Even the subframe has a 1" spacer between it and the chassis. It never dawned on me until this morning as I was resealing a ladies valvecovers.....

 

[RoadRunner]

Want more caster? Take a look at Legacy SUS control arm bushings. The car's got a body lift on it from the factory. Even the subframe has a 1" spacer between it and the chassis. It never dawned on me until this morning as I was resealing a ladies valvecovers.....

rly: I'll have to go take a look at the '99 SUS that's sitting in my driveway! Although, I wonder if they make Group N transverse links for the SUS..

 

[Tim.Flat4]

:bump:

Corey,

I saw that you ended up going with a Whiteline ALK instead of doing this. Did you come to the conclusion that it wouldn't work or did you just not want to go through the hassle?

 

[RoadRunner]

Actually I installed the whiteline alk before I had this idea, and never had the motivation or time to play around with any of it.

 

[Tim.Flat4]

Hmm, I may give this a shot. It's just more ammo for my 100% OEM upgrades

 

[kay95]

Want more caster? Take a look at Legacy SUS control arm bushings. The car's got a body lift on it from the factory. Even the subframe has a 1" spacer between it and the chassis. It never dawned on me until this morning as I was resealing a ladies valvecovers.....

I have a 96 outback with the factory lift on whiteline controls/gr2s with ALK. When I took the factory bushing off it looked the exact same as the one on my 95 impreza. Then I got the car aligned and it is within the stock range for caster. The lift must really kill the caster.

 

[n2x4]

SF foresters also have the offset bushings. This is what I was told about them:

The Forester, and Legacy SUS mounting point and the whiteline mounting point are both lower.

The forester bushing is meant for a forester, which also has subframe spacers. Because of that, the angle to the front bushing is different between the two. On the whiteline the bushing is angled upward to line up with the front mounting point.

The actual downward spacing on the two is also also different by 10mm. Whiteline put the stock geometry into some fancy program to determine what to change in order to do what they want to the geometry. That is, remove all of the anti-lift/dive from the front suspension.

The whiteline alk also moves the mounting point outward. That adds a bit of static caster. The stiffer urethane bushing reduces flex, which adds dynamic caster. Plus, it's a stiffer bushing, so the control arm moves quite a bit less and there's better feel in all conditions, especially braking.

One thing I'm confused on though, is differences in the shaft these bushings mount to on the control arm. Here's a shot of what the control arm on my Impreza looks like:

Notice how the blue section is larger than the red section. There's a taper there. Now, with that in mind look at these prothane bushings:

Image uploading. Refresh page to view

I purchased these to push into the stock mount. They were a lot cheaper than a ALK, but they provided stiffer bushings. The problem is that the sleeve inside the bushing has no taper! They're one size all the way through. They match the size of the "large" end before the taper down. Here's a shot of the stock mount showing the taper:

So my question is, at some point did subaru get rid of the taper design, or are the prothane pieces junk and defective???

 

[STiJard]

Bumping this from the dead...the last post talks about my issue.

I'm using an '01 Forester crossmember, control arms, and hubs on my '95 Impreza sedan shell. Something is obviously wrong with the geometry and I think it's the control arm bushings/mounts.

I need to get the car up and compare to my stock '95 stuff but does anyone have a guess about which front and rear bushings and rear mounts I *should* be using to make it right.

Right now the car squirms all over the road on transitions and slick surfaces.

 

[orionpa-x]

:stupid:

 

[smitch]

I've been reading in a couple threads now that Forester control arm mounts work as an Anti lift kit (read it first here and then again on DI). Looked out in the garage today to see if I still had a set.

From what I read the ALK is supposed to have even better results in the dirt. I dont know if I'll have these on before this Saturday, but Im going to try. I still have carpet and stuff to come out. It would also be nice to get my impact gun back from dear ol'dad.

Free mod for me:banana: .5 more caster on top of the caster camber plates.

from one of my build threads...quick copy and paste.

 

[orionpa-x]

from one of my build threads...quick copy and paste.

Yeah so....................... My question is can i use them safely on my 2000 2.5rs. i got out back control arms from the junk yard they are already on there and my left one exploded. everything is stock.

 

[Longinus]

^ would like to know this as well.