| Author | Topic |
|---|
Registered:
November 2005
|
 Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Wed, 23 November 2005 00:01
|
 |
Hi guys,
I've read the lower control arm conversion threads in this forum, and I've decided to put longer lower control arms on my TA22 to help push out the wheels a bit so that they won't look like they're hiding inside the arches. My wheels are 6.5 inches wide and have +10 offset.
I noticed that a few people were mentioning Sigma arms as the one to be used. I don't know about Sigmas (because I live in Malaysia), so I've used Mitsubishi Galant Sigma model A121 arms instead. They're about a balljoint's diameter (-+ 35mm) longer than the original ones.
The arms fit into the crossmember, wheels were pushed out as I hoped, but what happened was I couldn't achieve zero camber! It's not that I want zero camber, but I want to have the satisfaction of being able to achieve zero camber. Now the car was dragging the tyres while moving, causing the inside of the tyres to wear out badly and making screeching noise all the time.
Now I've changed back the A121 arms to stock TA22s. I'm using Cusco camber adjustable strut tops and standard TT132 struts.
Now the questions are:
1. If I use shorter struts, will it make the camber go negative a bit (thus pushing the wheels out)?
2. Is Sigma same as Mitsubishi Galant Sigma A121?
Please help!
Reply to this posting or e-mail me at prodg6@hotmail.com if you have any suggestions.
[Updated on: Wed, 23 November 2005 00:06]
|
|
|
Location:
Canberra
Registered:
June 2005
|
|
Re: Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Wed, 23 November 2005 02:10
|
|
Hi SubVerSiv
A couple of things to think about.
What do you intend to use the car for?
The Sigma arms I beleive are the same across both models and give you a lot of negative camber.
For the street I recommend 1-1.5 negative, anything more and as you have experienced, you end up wearing out the inside of the tyre.
The Sigma arms are good if the car is used for the track or for drifting.
Have you had the front aligned since adding the arms? If not, you may find that there is a lot of toe-out adding to the tyre wear problem and would be also creating the tyre noise.
Shorter or shortening the front struts will increase negative camber but only marginly and then raises issues about ride height, shocks and springs.
I suggest that you stick with the Sigma arms and use the strut tops to reduce the negative camber back to a street setting.
Once the wheels/steering is aligned, then you could use the camber tops to set camber for street and then track without effecting the alignment.
Regards
Rodger
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
Re: Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Wed, 23 November 2005 09:18
|
|
|
dont the AE86 boys use the early {aus only} GH/GK arms
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2005
|
|
Re: Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Thu, 24 November 2005 00:02
|
|
Thanks yrhkira and Mr DOHC for the replies!
| Quote: |
For the street I recommend 1-1.5 negative, anything more and as you have experienced, you end up wearing out the inside of the tyre.
|
True, that's what exactly happened, too much negative camber.
| Quote: |
I suggest that you stick with the Sigma arms and use the strut tops to reduce the negative camber back to a street setting.
|
Problem is, even with the use of strut tops, I couldn't reduce the negative camber to a streetable setting.
| Quote: |
dont the AE86 boys use the early {aus only} GH/GK arms
|
Mr DOHC, the Sigma GH/GKs, are they Mitsubishis?
|
|
|
Location:
sydney,nsw.oz.
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Thu, 24 November 2005 01:51
|
|
| Quote: |
dont the AE86 boys use the early {aus only} GH/GK arms
|
Mr DOHC, the Sigma GH/GKs, are they Mitsubishis?[/quote]
Sigma GH/GKs are Mitsubishis.
The were made in the late 70's/early 80's in Australia.
Rear Wheel Drive 4 door sedan/wagon.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
October 2002
|
|
Re: Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Thu, 24 November 2005 06:14
|
|
you forgot P.O.S. 
|
|
|
Location:
Campbelltown
Registered:
November 2003
|
|
Re: Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Thu, 24 November 2005 06:20
|
|
| FWDCelica wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 12:51 |
| Quote: |
dont the AE86 boys use the early {aus only} GH/GK arms
|
Mr DOHC, the Sigma GH/GKs, are they Mitsubishis?
|
Sigma GH/GKs are Mitsubishis.
The were made in the late 70's/early 80's in Australia.
Rear Wheel Drive 4 door sedan/wagon.
[/quote]
Some may be badged as Chryslers too ie the earlier one can't remember what year Mitsubishi took over 
|
|
|
Registered:
November 2005
|
|
Re: Mitsubishi Galant Sigma Arms into TA22: Failed!
|
Thu, 24 November 2005 23:59
|
|
| Quote: |
Sigma GH/GKs are Mitsubishis.
The were made in the late 70's/early 80's in Australia.
Rear Wheel Drive 4 door sedan/wagon.
|
If Sigmas are Mitsubishis, then I believe they are Mitsubishi Galant Sigmas with model code A121.
I guess I have the same Sigma arms as what was suggested in the earlier lower arm conversion threads.
Well, I guess they don't fit TA22s. Even with the use of adjustable strut tops.
|
|
|
