SWB Camber Plates

[chris_seven]

I believe that this has been covered before but I can't find the relevant thread.

I understand that the camber plate used on the front suspension of early SWB911s was introduced from chassis number 302695 and that this entailed a change in the design of the inner wing.

The PET shows that the early front strut had two rubber bushes (no longer available) and no camber plate up to 1968, which I believe is incorrect.

The first camber plate shown in the PET for model year 1969 is 901.341.018.01 which appears to be supplied compete with a rubber bush and is used in conjunction with the 1969 Strut.

I have recently obtained a pair of very early struts on EBay and they were complete with camber plates which had a pair of rubber bushes 901.341.695.03.

When I compare these camber plates to those from a much later car the relative position of the holes in relationship to the piston rod seems differnet.

From 1970 it appears that the camber plate had part number 911.341.018.00 and this was described as either a Strut Mount or Strut Mount with Rubber in the 1975-1977 Turbo section.

There was also a Strut Mount 911.341.019.00 for a 'Spring Strut' and I imagine that this was to suit Boge Oleodynamic legs.

Does anyone know what was used from ealry 1965-1968? I am particulalry interetsed to know it these camber plates used 'loose' rubbers.


I am also interested to know the differences between the 1969 Camber plates in terms of rubber type and any geometry differences.

I realise that these parts are all probably interchangeable but the detail is interesting.

Thanks

Chris

[304065]

Chris,

Fine questions all.

Of course you are correct about the early non-adjustable struts. Not really a performance approach these days, unless one wanted to sacrifice an early chassis and weld in some SmartRacing adjustable camber towers. Nor do I think that the WEVO camberking is suitable to achieve more "modern" alignment-- I don't think there's any room in the tower.

Next: I don't actually know whether the 65-68 and the 69- camber plates are the same or not. The parts books show different numbers. I can tell you that the early ones (I have a couple sets) have removable rubber bushings.

They certainly LOOK the same, but until I get one in my hands I can't tell exactly. I plan to use slightly harder but otherwise indistinguishable bushings in my '66 and will send them to Chuck Moreland at Elephant, Chuck has offered to do the comparison.

This looks like a job for the classifieds, for a WTB for an old set. I sold the ones from my '71 with integral monoballs when I upgraded suspension a few years ago.

[chris_seven]

John,

I have a set of the 65-68 plates and they certainly measure differently to the later plate.

I will try to produce a drawing to show the differences.

It is the 69 Plate that I don't have and I am just interested to know the difference.

I have a good set of bushes out of the 1965 Camber Plates and the cost of making a suitable mould isn't too bad and I am keen to make a batch of bushes just for the long term.

I think it may be worth uprating the rubber slightly.

In the meantime I will try to search for a 1969 Camber Plate.

[Will 1967]

Just raising this topic; I would say SWB strut tops must be different as it was new to me that also front strut towers are NOT the same in LWB's and SWB's. I have Celette set for both SWB and LWB and center of the strut mount is clearly on different position depending what set I use, this can be seen also if you compare factory drawings (from factory workshop manual).

Then my question; I'm also planning to use full front suspension from 3.2 Carrera and this got me thinking if it will work in SWB what comes to strut top mounts, do I need to change at least camber plates etc?

[chris_seven]

From what I have measured if you use a 'late' camber plate in an early body shell the amount of caster that can be set is limited to around 4.5 degrees. Camber is unaffected.

I am sure you could open out the holes in the inner wings slightly to allow more caster adjustement but the general shape is slightly different.

The position of the rubber in the camber plate is also slightly lower so in effect the piston rod would be sitting a little lower in the insert - at least for a car with early struts and late camber plates. I think the difference is around 20mm.

I have heard comments about lowered race cars having problems with gas dampers and maybe using the later camber plates with ealry struts and Gas filled Koni Sports could be an issue - any ideas?

The long and short is that I have just ordered the tooling to re-manufacture the early top bushes in a uprated Natural Rubber (about 80 Shore A Hardness) and should have new bushes and steel tubes available in about 3-4 weeks.

The price will be about $75 a car set. I don't imagine there will be a huge demand but I think it will be good to have the correct parts available.

[Will 1967]

Great info Chris! What do you suggest as I'm using late struts in SWB, SWB or LWB camber plates? Also do you tend to want to use more negative camber than factory recommend in "performance" setup? (as I had to spread out strut towers a bit, but to get bonnet sit nicely strut towers could go bit closer to each other, So if more negative camber is OK, I could quite easily get it. )

And again thank you very much for your help couple of weeks ago!!!

[chris_seven]

The above photograph shows a pair of camber plates.

The Left hand plate I believe is from a 1969 strut and has Part Number 901.341.018.01.

The ones I have use rubber mounts Part Number 901.341.695.03.

These are not listed in the PET for a 1969 Model.

The early camber plates are on the right and have come from some very early struts. I don't have the Part Number for this plate and any information would be helpful

These two plates seem to have the same geometry.

I don't have one of the later plates 911.341.018.00 but will try to find one and see differences.