Possible top strut bearing problem - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Possible top strut bearing problem

  1. #11
    Registered User Bainzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,390

    Default

    My O/S front wheel has some movement in it (only a bit but noticable)when rocked back and forth at the top of the wheel. Its not there when the wheel is off the ground? but is when the cars on all four wheels, the drivers side is fine and theres no wheel wobble/nocking/pull to one side etc. Weird!
    Nigel Baines

    MG ZT 385 SE Starlight Silver
    Reg 29 Sep 04 Vin No 496
    `Roush Supercharger fitted 07 Feb 11`

    `Do...or do not, There is no try.`

  2. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    79

    Default

    Yes just got the complete mounts on the same ebay link. No sense faffing about changing the bearing when you get the whole shebang for a few more ££s. I noticed that there is a little bit of adjustment of camber possible when you bolt up the clamp bracket on the strut so I went for as much of the negative side camber as it would allow as my front tyres always wear more on the outsides than insides - It could be that was exactly where it was however then nothing has changed!

  3. #13
    Shot Silk & Supercharged
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    2,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VMax1000 View Post
    Why mess about with the bearing only at £22 if you can buy the whole lot for £29 ????

    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-GENUINE-MG...item415607b2b3
    Are these parts handed, some other sellers are quoting for Left hand and right hand, and are they the same part throughout the 75/ZT range?

  4. #14
    Ex-Admin, RIP Herman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swindon, , United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Willieo View Post
    Yes just got the complete mounts on the same ebay link. No sense faffing about changing the bearing when you get the whole shebang for a few more ££s. I noticed that there is a little bit of adjustment of camber possible when you bolt up the clamp bracket on the strut so I went for as much of the negative side camber as it would allow as my front tyres always wear more on the outsides than insides - It could be that was exactly where it was however then nothing has changed!
    The parts are meant to be mounted the right way and can't be used for camber adjustment afaik. It will only put undue stress on the damper shaft and the bearing as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by ksilver View Post
    Are these parts handed, some other sellers are quoting for Left hand and right hand, and are they the same part throughout the 75/ZT range?
    Parts are the same for both sides and also used throughout the complete ZT/75 range.
    Fear keeps you alive. Fearless gets you killed

    Herman

    Vin#076 pics, Black, modified and with 234 RWHP and 276 lb/ft (275 BHP and 440 Nm @ flywheel)

    FJ1200, DynoJet Stage 1, K&N filter

    Alfa MiTo 1.4 Cloverleaf, 170 BHP, Alfa Rosso.

  5. #15
    no. 172 ZT SE Monogram
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Epsom, Surrey
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    I think that's correc that the only way to slightly adjust the camber is where the lower clamp bracket of the strut bokts with two large nuts and bolts to the hub assembly.

    I think it's fine to alter that as needed, that's my understanding of what they would do during a full wheel alignment. i.e. where the check camber as well as toe?

    I intend to do the same on mine especially passenger side because that one always wears the outside of the tyre too.

    I cant see otherwise that there is any mechanism for adjusting of the camber?
    MG ZT 260 SE Monogram, Olive black 2004 (LPG)
    Ford Mustang 289ci V8 (4.7) Convertible 1967, Silver
    Chevy Corvette convertible 350ci V8 (5.7), 1974, Metallic Blue
    Pontiac Firebird 403ci V8 (6.6), 1977, red
    Rover 214 Si 16v 1994 M White/grey (1600 k series)
    Rover 220 Turbo Coupe FDH 1995
    Rover Mini Cooper 1997 P
    Volvo 960 24v 2.9 estate 1991 J (in family from new)
    VW Polo 1.4SE auto 2005 (in family from new)
    Jaguar Mk 2 resto project
    Mercedes GLB 200d (lease)

  6. #16
    Ex-Admin, RIP Herman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swindon, , United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2V8s View Post
    I think that's correc that the only way to slightly adjust the camber is where the lower clamp bracket of the strut bokts with two large nuts and bolts to the hub assembly.

    I think it's fine to alter that as needed, that's my understanding of what they would do during a full wheel alignment. i.e. where the check camber as well as toe?

    I intend to do the same on mine especially passenger side because that one always wears the outside of the tyre too.

    I cant see otherwise that there is any mechanism for adjusting of the camber?
    Camber can't be adjusted on the front wheels. If you were to go that route you have to get adjustable wishbone bushes which are not available for the ZT as far as I know
    Fear keeps you alive. Fearless gets you killed

    Herman

    Vin#076 pics, Black, modified and with 234 RWHP and 276 lb/ft (275 BHP and 440 Nm @ flywheel)

    FJ1200, DynoJet Stage 1, K&N filter

    Alfa MiTo 1.4 Cloverleaf, 170 BHP, Alfa Rosso.

  7. #17
    no. 172 ZT SE Monogram
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Epsom, Surrey
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    Are you sure?

    That was initially what I thought but now I think there is a small degree of adjustment possible, and reading page 3 of this thread below, sees a readout from a garage where the front camber had been out and then corrected?

    https://www.two-sixties.co.uk/mgoc26...=camber&page=3

    of course I could be reading this wrong
    MG ZT 260 SE Monogram, Olive black 2004 (LPG)
    Ford Mustang 289ci V8 (4.7) Convertible 1967, Silver
    Chevy Corvette convertible 350ci V8 (5.7), 1974, Metallic Blue
    Pontiac Firebird 403ci V8 (6.6), 1977, red
    Rover 214 Si 16v 1994 M White/grey (1600 k series)
    Rover 220 Turbo Coupe FDH 1995
    Rover Mini Cooper 1997 P
    Volvo 960 24v 2.9 estate 1991 J (in family from new)
    VW Polo 1.4SE auto 2005 (in family from new)
    Jaguar Mk 2 resto project
    Mercedes GLB 200d (lease)

  8. #18
    Ex-Admin, RIP Herman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swindon, , United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2V8s View Post
    Are you sure?

    That was initially what I thought but now I think there is a small degree of adjustment possible, and reading page 3 of this thread below, sees a readout from a garage where the front camber had been out and then corrected?

    https://www.two-sixties.co.uk/mgoc26...=camber&page=3

    of course I could be reading this wrong

    Initial reading of the camber was within limits and after toe-in adjustment still was. Side effect of adjusting the toe is that it will affect camber ever so slightly.


    btw: camber front is the second reading from top, camber rear is the second from bottom
    Last edited by Herman; 01-04-2011 at 07:29 AM. Reason: found a typo
    Fear keeps you alive. Fearless gets you killed

    Herman

    Vin#076 pics, Black, modified and with 234 RWHP and 276 lb/ft (275 BHP and 440 Nm @ flywheel)

    FJ1200, DynoJet Stage 1, K&N filter

    Alfa MiTo 1.4 Cloverleaf, 170 BHP, Alfa Rosso.

  9. #19
    no. 172 ZT SE Monogram
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Epsom, Surrey
    Posts
    1,310

    Default

    I thought id just mention, having just last weekend also changed out the passenger side strut for the new one (of the pair) I bought, that you definitely can adjust the camber - in a limited range that is.

    This can be affected in two ways.

    1. The upper bearing mount can move in and out slightly in the holes of the suspension tower in the engine bay before being tightened in position. (will give very fine adjustment)

    2. The lower strut mount to the wheel hub can also move within the bounds of the two bolt holes (upper and lower) before being torqued. This is a surprising amount of movement.

    As my passenger tyre always wore on the outside, I have set this as far to negative camber as possible, so I'll see what result I get when I have the alignment done, and once I start to guage tyre wear.

    For the lower mounts, I put everything back in position with the bolts loosly tightened. You will find the whole hub assembly can pivot on the lower arm ball joint by moving inwards and outwards at the top (I had the disc on so grabbed the disc), so the upper and lower clamp bolts move in the slightly larger diameter holes for them horizontally from e.g. lower bolt inward against hole edge i.e. towards engine, upper against outer edge will be minimum negative camber, and then the opposite (which I set) for max negative camber. so lower bolt is against outer edge, top bolt is against inner edge (towards engine). The tightened and torqued up.

    If it was then found you still didnt have enough negative camber, in theory you could drill slightly to oval in a horizontal plain the upper and lower clamp holes to give move movement, and I cant see a problem with doing this if necessary?

    Im sure I recall effectively reading the same thing written by Scooter somewhere?

    in the pic below, though this is drivers side, you can just see the upper clamp bolt above & behind the disc. If you were to loosen this and the lower, you will find the camber can be adjusted IMO.

    It is also worth noting, that due to the weight of the hub assembly, it will tend to default to pulling itself outwards at the top, i.e. less negative camber and I wonder if this was the case in factory assembly that may lead to the tyres wearing on the outside?

    Last edited by 2V8s; 31-03-2011 at 10:27 PM.
    MG ZT 260 SE Monogram, Olive black 2004 (LPG)
    Ford Mustang 289ci V8 (4.7) Convertible 1967, Silver
    Chevy Corvette convertible 350ci V8 (5.7), 1974, Metallic Blue
    Pontiac Firebird 403ci V8 (6.6), 1977, red
    Rover 214 Si 16v 1994 M White/grey (1600 k series)
    Rover 220 Turbo Coupe FDH 1995
    Rover Mini Cooper 1997 P
    Volvo 960 24v 2.9 estate 1991 J (in family from new)
    VW Polo 1.4SE auto 2005 (in family from new)
    Jaguar Mk 2 resto project
    Mercedes GLB 200d (lease)

  10. #20
    Ex-Admin, RIP Herman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Swindon, , United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,132

    Default

    Arent we clasping at straws a bit here. I remember Peter Esling strugling with something similar.

    The amount of adjustment you find will probably be within the range specified for the camber anyway.

    I am also wondering what will happen if you put weight on the front again as the suspension is not positively locked (ie locking nut or dowels) but kept in place based on the friction in the clamps so I assume it will find it's natural position again, as well as the top strut bearing.

    Maybe with a strut brace keeping the top struts forced in position you may see some results.

    Would be interesting to see how you get on with your experiment though
    Fear keeps you alive. Fearless gets you killed

    Herman

    Vin#076 pics, Black, modified and with 234 RWHP and 276 lb/ft (275 BHP and 440 Nm @ flywheel)

    FJ1200, DynoJet Stage 1, K&N filter

    Alfa MiTo 1.4 Cloverleaf, 170 BHP, Alfa Rosso.

Posting Permissions

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