Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Front Strut Mount Question

  1. #1

    Front Strut Mount Question

    Hi All.

    I'm about to reassemble my front suspension (69E) and found the following difference in the strut mounts that were installed. The one on the left has a thicker base and the hole is offset roughly 1/3 along the total length. I was given another one of these by a local Porsche expert who said it is correct for my car.

    The one on the right has a thinner base and the hole is rouhgly in the centre. I am curious to know what car this came from, Porsche or otherwise.

    The interesting thing is that the left one has very little fore/aft adjustment, just side to side. In contrast, the right one has a lot of available adjustment in both directions. Basically it seems like a better fit to give more adjustment.

    Could someone be kind enough to confirm which one is right for the car and what the donor car might have been for the other one?

    Thanks!
    Darren
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  2. #2
    Looks like monoballs, too.

    According to PET there are two different camber plates ... 1965-1969 and 1970-1989. The difference being a 901 vs. a 911 part number and, apparently, the differences seen in your photos.

    I'd say the one on the left is 1970-89 and the one on the right is 65-69, but I don't know and am basing my wild ass guess on a few part numbers. I've never run into this issue so I don't know for sure...
    -Marco
    SReg. #778 OGrp: #8 RGrp: #---
    TLG Auto: Website
    Searching for engine #907495 and gearbox 902/1 #229687

  3. #3
    Thanks Marco. I think that solves the issue. You are right, the PO converted to monoballs. I will try to find a SWB part to compare with as there aren't any stampings on either part

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr9146 View Post
    Looks like monoballs, too.

    According to PET there are two different camber plates ... 1965-1969 and 1970-1989. The difference being a 901 vs. a 911 part number and, apparently, the differences seen in your photos.

    I'd say the one on the left is 1970-89 and the one on the right is 65-69, but I don't know and am basing my wild ass guess on a few part numbers. I've never run into this issue so I don't know for sure...
    Marco,

    You are quite correct in terms of the date of the different Camber Plates and I have tried to make this point on several occasions. LH is the later plate and RH is the 65-69 plate.

    The change in plate also corresponds to a change in the profile of the inner wing and the strut tower angle.

    If you fit the later plate to the early car then you will restrict the amount of caster that can be set.

    If you fit late plates to early cars you will have a maximum caster adjustment of 4 degrees which is insufficient. It will lighten the steering and have a damaging influence on turn in behaviour.

    If the Right Hand Plate had not been modified you would also see that it has two rubber bushes (see my thread on Camber Plate Bushes) which are the same as those fitted to the early 1965 non - adjustable cars. The later camber plate has the one piece bush which is now supplied as a like for like replacement BUT is incorrect and will upset the steering.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    190
    The early and late plates are manufactured differently, and in order to install a monoball (as has been done on your plates) the early mount plate must be perimeter welded at the seam between the two parts that make up the locating flanges and then the center area that is spot-welded machined out. As Chris stated, the movement of the location within the mount, yields less caster, and therefore lighter steering feel as there is less lift as the steering is turned. This does not seem to be a problem on my 912, and probably works better with the wider tire profiles available now. The mount change, especially to monoball, contributes greatly to reduced instability felt in the rear end of the car, which could be fairly scary even in the 912 with the original bushing setup.

    Name:  Early-Late-front-strut-mount-plates.jpg
Views: 398
Size:  107.4 KB

    SV

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by chris_seven View Post
    Marco,

    You are quite correct in terms of the date of the different Camber Plates and I have tried to make this point on several occasions. LH is the later plate and RH is the 65-69 plate.

    The change in plate also corresponds to a change in the profile of the inner wing and the strut tower angle.

    If you fit the later plate to the early car then you will restrict the amount of caster that can be set.

    If you fit late plates to early cars you will have a maximum caster adjustment of 4 degrees which is insufficient. It will lighten the steering and have a damaging influence on turn in behaviour.

    If the Right Hand Plate had not been modified you would also see that it has two rubber bushes (see my thread on Camber Plate Bushes) which are the same as those fitted to the early 1965 non - adjustable cars. The later camber plate has the one piece bush which is now supplied as a like for like replacement BUT is incorrect and will upset the steering.
    That's some great info, Chris.

    Thanks for "fleshing out" my initial response. I can definitely say I learned something.
    -Marco
    SReg. #778 OGrp: #8 RGrp: #---
    TLG Auto: Website
    Searching for engine #907495 and gearbox 902/1 #229687

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by savaden View Post
    the movement of the location within the mount, yields less caster, and therefore lighter steering feel as there is less lift as the steering is turned. This does not seem to be a problem on my 912, and probably works better with the wider tire profiles available now.
    SV
    The 67 911S uses a caster of around 7.5 degrees and reducing this to 4 does make a difference to the level of understeer even with a 6" wide wheel and a competition tyre. I much prefer the car with the correct caster but I have never tried a 912.

    Current Appendix K Rules only allow spherical bearings on Sway Bars so we always use NBR bushes in the camber plates.

  8. #8
    I wanted to come back to this thread with some information I discovered. I went to several restoration shops locally and looked through bins of these camber plates. Most were the late style with the wrong locaiton from what I need. I found some of the earlier style pictured above with the smaller hole that is made differently and figured I would have to take one of those and do some welding. However, it still bothered me that the one I had that was right didn't look like it had been modified.

    We moved our search to a row of complete front suspension strut assemblies. All were of the same type until Eureka, we found one on an old hydropneumatic strut.

    So I got lucky and totally baffled the restoration shop who had never seen one like that before. Is it possible this is a 69E only part?

Similar Threads

  1. WTB: Suspension Strut Mount
    By Djthom in forum For Sale: 911 Parts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-15-2013, 03:25 PM
  2. Upper strut mount bushings
    By Merv in forum Australia
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-15-2013, 02:08 PM
  3. FS: Upper strut mount kit
    By 9seriesguy in forum For Sale: 911 Parts
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 07:32 AM
  4. front bumper mount question
    By robmog in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 10:10 PM
  5. Upper strut mount bushings
    By mcguillc in forum Technical Info
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2001, 09:47 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Message Board Disclaimer and Terms of Use
This is a public forum. Messages posted here can be viewed by the public. The Early 911S Registry is not responsible for messages posted in its online forums, and any message will express the views of the author and not the Early 911S Registry. Use of online forums shall constitute the agreement of the user not to post anything of religious or political content, false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise to violate the law and the further agreement of the user to be solely responsible for and hold the Early 911S Registry harmless in the event of any claim based on their message. Any viewer who finds a message objectionable should contact us immediately by email. The Early 911S Registry has the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.