924Board.org

[gohim]

Ah, the Haynes manual, that probably explains a lot.

Just how do you expect to get the torsion bar carrier assembly past the drive tube since it is located above the drive tube?

Now that you've thought about the fact that the drive tube is mounted below the torsion bar carrier, and must be removed to get the torsion bar carrier out, you've got to think about how you remove the drive tube.

There are two ways to get the drive tube out. You can disconnect the shift linkage, then disconnect, and unbolt the engine, then pull it forward or pull it out, so you can pull the drive tube forward to get it out of the way of the torsion bar carrier. Or, disconnect the shift linkage, unbolt the transmission, and slide it back or take it out, so you can get the drive tube out of the car.

And that is after you removed the exhaust system, as you already pointed out. Don't forget the cv axles will also have to go.

The 924S weighs somewhere between 350-450lbs more than an earlier 924 (automatic transmission cars weigh add additional weight to the rear). The weight distribution is different when comparing an early 924 to an automatic transmission 924S.

So the odds are, the torsion bar set up in the torsion bar carrier is going to be off (ride height way too high) when you stuff the torsion bar carrier from a 924S with auto tranny into an earlier, lighter, 924. Most experienced mechanics will take 2-3 tries to get the torsion bars adjusted properly. Each try requires you to drop the torsion bar carrier assembly to be able to access the torsion bars. After you adjust the torsion bars, you have to put everything back on the car, lower it onto it's wheels and bounce it some to get the suspension to settle to see where the suspension is setting, before you can take measurements to decide if you got it where you want it. Then you take everything apart again, and make a change to based on where you landed and where you want to go.

You should also inspect the clutch set (pressure plate, driven disc, throwout bearing, pilot bearing), and plan on replacing it while you are in there, if it show significant wear, since everything will be out of the way.

Now you should be able to see why I don't think you can complete the entire job in 1/2 a day, right?

You can't even do the brake conversion for now, and leave the torsion bar carrier and rear lloy trailing arms for later, because you don't have that option with the brake set that you have. You have the wrong rear wheel hubs (wheel studs are the wrong length), parking brake cables (too long, but might work in a pinch), and no wheel spacers (can't add the spacers without the longer wheel studs, and I don't know if the wheels will clear without spacers (at the very least, the car will look very funny, and drive kinda strange).

[kaffine]

gohim:

When did they put the torque tube under the torsion bar carrier? I've tried to remove torque tubes before and the torsion bar carrier has to be removed first.
_________________
80 924
80 931

The best desciption of an atom boils down to something unknown is doing we don't know what.
Sir Arthur Eddington

[Helstrm]

wouldn't you be better off replacing the trailing arms. I thought the 924s had aluminum as the 924 were heavier?
_________________
87' 924s (944 Wide Body) Project
01' Suburban (To haul the kids around)
03' Eclipse GT (To keep the wife happy)

[gohim]

Kaffine:

You are probably right, now that I think about it, I may be getting confused about the order of disassembly now. It's been atleast a year or year and a half, since I took the drive tube out of my 944 to cut it up (last time I took one out). But, I have always had the transmissions out of the cars already (for some reason or other) before I dropped the torsion bar carriers.

The alloy rear trailing arms are much lighter than the steel arms, and they don't appear to have the same problem with the lower shock mounts breaking off. But the work to swap them was not worth the trouble for my purposes, so I stuck with the steel arms when I did my 924 brake conversions.

The spring plates are different for the alloy arms, and to replace the spring plates means dealing with the torsion bar carrier, torsion bars, and ride height. Since I have not installed the alloy arms into a car with stell arms, I do not know that you could not modify the spring plates for the steel trailing arm cars to work with the alloy arms to avoid the complication of dealing with the torsion bars and swapping the spring plates.

[-nick]

Wow, what a convoluted mess!

Mike,
Your '82 will have the same rear end weight of a 924S (except the ~10lbs that the spoiler and sunroof motor weigh). Any slight variation can easily be taken care of with the rear ride height adjustment. You're just pulling the entire rear torsion tube & control arm assembly out and replacing it with the 924S parts right? Nothing to worry about. It's pretty unwieldly to move around and sit in place, but 1/2 day isn't unrealistic.

Gohim, where in the world are you getting that the tranny and torque tube need to come out? As well as problems with mating up spring plates/etc. The spring plates don't need to be touched. And weight/ride height problems? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

nick

[gohim]

Yeah, I know what I'm talking about.

While I may have an occasionally error in memory (try keeping all the service information for seven cars that you own in your head at the same time, along with all the specs), I probably have forgotten more about these cars than you ever knew or know, and still prbably remember more than you know.

Possibly because I've been driving 924s and repairing them longer than you've been breathing.

Are you saying that a 924S with an automatic transmission weighs the same thing as the 924 with a manual transmission, and as exactly the same weight distribution, and the torsion bars will be set exactly the same way from the factory? I don't think so....

But, you know what? That's easy enough to check and verify. Just whip out your 924 and 924S owner's manuals and/or the factory service manuals, and/or the factory new model information pamplets, and check. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, you don't own those cars, and you don't own all the technical information, so you can't check with a reputatable source.

Here's some facts, the 924S with automatic weighs about 2770lbs, which is about 35lbs more than the 924S with manual transmission. The 81 924 is supposed to weigh about 2610lbs, and about 35lbs more with a automatic transmission. Cars with the snail shell transmission weigh about 50lbs less, because of the lighter weigh of the snail shell tranny. The lighter weight, and the slight shift in the location of the weight is enough to change the weight distribution of the 924 by a little over 2%. The 924S/944 engine weight is significantly higher than that of the 924 engine.

All of these facts point to the idea that the torsion bar setup in a 924S with automatic tranny WILL be different than than that of a early 924 with manual tranny. Anyone who is planning on a rear end conversion needs to know that the car will probably need to have the torsion bars settings adjusted, because the small amount of adjustment in the ride height adjusters will not be enough to compensate in the change in the weigh of the cars. AND NOBODY HAS MENTIONED THAT THE CAR IS GOING TO NEED FOUR WHEEL ALIGNMENT AFTER THE RIDE HEIGHT HAS BEEN SET. Some time ago, someone in a foreign country posted some photos of a car that was converted to alloy rear trailing arms. I warned that guy of what was going to happen, and his photos clearly showed that I was right. The guy's car came out looking like a dragster with the rear end stuck way up in the air. In fact, I think the guy may have mentioned something about the rear shocks being at their upper travel limits.

[WhoDak]

Ah ok, the water is clearing now. I looked under my car today before I left for work and was thinking...what's he talking about, the carrier is certainly under the torque tube and tranny.
I do see your point about the ride height from the manual tranny vs the auto tranny. I'll have time to deal with it once it's all on and functioning, I really just need to have it on wheels to roll after each day we can work on it. And I'm also aware of the 4 wheel alignment being nessicary...not looking forward to the cost, but you've got to do what needs done. Thanks.
_________________
Mike
'82 924 N/A
'91 Toyota Pickup SR5 4x4 Xtra cab

[-nick]

Good grief. This has gone from bad to worse. To answer the actual question (which isn’t my genitals/tech book shelf is bigger than yours, at least the last I checked), the auto won’t have any more than 50 lbs extra over the rear wheels than your ’82. The total weight differences between the auto 924S and ’82 include this 50 lbs on the rear axle, and the additional weight of brakes of engine make up most of the rest of the 170lbs difference.

Keep this in mind: my 931 tank holds 22 gallons of fuel, which weighs in at 6 lbs/gallon. That’s a 132 lb change over the rear wheels if I fill up from empty. My rear ride height does change, but very little. Don’t sweat 50 lbs.

Gohim is basing this wild ride height change on seeing photos of Titchati’s car (“the foreign guy”). Titchati pulled over 300 lbs out of his car and used a 951 rear suspension, which is intended for a reasonably heavier rear end (heavier transmission, rear diffuser, larger spoiler, heavier interior with power seats, etc.). His car was sitting noticeably higher in the rear, but so was the front. And he hadn’t even tried to lower the rear using the eccentric.

Once again, don’t sweat it too much.

Good luck,
nick

[WhoDak]

Digging this one up again,
Does anyone have a more detailed list of what is done for this conversion. Taking front and rear suspension and brake setups from an 87 924S to put onto my 82 924n/a. The rear is clear enough to me, drop exhaust, carrier and reverse with the new one.
The front is where I'm not completely sure of yet. I have the entire front assembly from wheel stud to wheel stud including the crossmember and struts. What parts should I put on the 82 from that setup, as I've read you can't put a 944 engine(like the 924S) into and earlier 924 without modifying the crossmember. So where do they switch at? The arms and outward?
Also just checking on one last thing. My 82's master cylinder will be enough for the 924S setup correct? Or do I need to track down a late 944 or 924S MC?
Thanks for the info here.
_________________
Mike
'82 924 N/A
'91 Toyota Pickup SR5 4x4 Xtra cab

[gohim]

You can use the front struts if they are still good. If they are the original front struts, they should be: none-adjustable gas struts (same ones spec'd for M474 on 924/931 option, were standard on the 924S. The part number should be stamped on the mounting bracket/flange close to where the lower mounts on the strut are that bolt to the steering knuckle. The single-piece rubber upper mount/bearing is the same one that superceeds earlier 924 multi-piece assembly. But the ones from a 924S would be close to 20 years old now, so you should serious consider replacing them while the struts are off the car, as they shrink, collapse, and get hard. The 924S springs are a higher rate, which is good (stiffer), but will probably raise the front of your car, since the 944 engine weighs more than the 924's. I chose to stay with 924 springs at the time I did my brake conversion.

Your car is an 82, so you should already have the correct size ball joints on the steel a-arms, so you don't need to replace the arms or the ball joints. If your car is a late 82, it should have the 944 style sway bar, so the a-arms do not need to be replacement, unless the ones on the car are damaged. The 924S arms are the same as the early 944, and the late 924, so you should keep them as spares for your car, if you don;t use them.

Unless you are considering a conversion to the 944 engine (and the welding fabrication that it would require), you might as well sell off the alloy front crossmember when you are done with the front of the car, and recover some of the conversion cost. Salvage yards (with the exception of the self-serve places get between $50 and $150 for an alloy crossmember, I would think you could get at least $50-$75 from an eBay auction. If you use the 924S front struts, you can sell off the old 4-bolt front brake assemblies, but I would consider holding on to the 924 struts themselves. Some of the 924S struts are sealed units, and inserts cannot be installed, whereas your 924 struts should be unsealed, so you can install inserts in them if needed.

You do not need the 944 master cylinder. You do need to used the longer flex brake hoses from the 924S that run from the hard line under each fender to the calipers. The flex hoses in the rear run from the hard line to the hard lines on the trailing arms. They are the same for the drum brakes and the rear disc brake calipers. This would be a great time to switch to teflon lined stainless steel.

[WhoDak]

Ok, So I'll keep my front struts that I've got as long as they check out ok. I'll check on those rubber mounts too.
Is there a big advantage to switing the short flex hoses to teflon lined stainless? I've got the lines from the 924S with the other things.
_________________
Mike
'82 924 N/A
'91 Toyota Pickup SR5 4x4 Xtra cab

[WhoDak]

I was digging a little more and saw a potential issue with mounting the rear shocks on the stock mounting plates. If I've read correctly the pre 924S uses a smaller bolt size for the shock mount in the rear than the 924S/85.5+944's. So then also the mounting hole is smaller on the pre 924S cars, but the shock's mounting hole is bigger.

If I'm understanding this correctly, what's the best way to go about solving this problem. I'd rather not drill out the hole to make it bigger if it puts it at a risk of breaking. Sleeve the mounting bolt inside the shock hole?
_________________
Mike
'82 924 N/A
'91 Toyota Pickup SR5 4x4 Xtra cab

[-nick]

The consensus seems to be that only the lower shock bolt is different (larger for the later alloy arms) and the top mount is the same size. You can easily check- just look at the shocks from the 924S and compare the top hole to your early shocks.

Good luck!
nick

[WhoDak]

I looked at them today and it is the arm mount thats larger. There's one more thing off the list. Thanks.
_________________
Mike
'82 924 N/A
'91 Toyota Pickup SR5 4x4 Xtra cab

[Smoothie]