Are front suspensions interchangeable?

Can you put a early type 1 bug torsion bar suspension on a 67 pan and vise
versa? I thought they were interchangeable. Yeah I know they are different
in the way they work but that the attachment points are the same aren't
they?

The folks at Airkeweled say they are not. They just released a new front end
for the 67 bug. How hard is it to build/re-build a front end anyway? I am
thinking of getting a narrowed beam set up from Airkeweled and using my
dropped spindles and disc brakes which have only about 40 miles on them.
Hope I can also use my control arms and steering damper.

I am leaning towards the airbagged front suspension so I can raise it when I
need to tow it. Right now I have only 1 1/2" ground clearance under my front
beam so towing is out of the question.
Any advice is much appreciated.

Mike West/chopped 66

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:20:32 +0200, Mike West > wrote:

> Can you put a early type 1 bug torsion bar suspension on a 67 pan and
> vise
> versa? I thought they were interchangeable. Yeah I know they are
> different
> in the way they work but that the attachment points are the same aren't
> they?
>
> The folks at Airkeweled say they are not. They just released a new front
> end
> for the 67 bug. How hard is it to build/re-build a front end anyway? I am
> thinking of getting a narrowed beam set up from Airkeweled and using my
> dropped spindles and disc brakes which have only about 40 miles on them.
> Hope I can also use my control arms and steering damper.
>
> I am leaning towards the airbagged front suspension so I can raise it
> when I
> need to tow it. Right now I have only 1 1/2" ground clearance under my
> front
> beam so towing is out of the question.
> Any advice is much appreciated.
>
> Mike West/chopped 66
>
>
Balljoint and linkpin beams are not interchangeable, the distance between
the torsion tubes differ.
Only solution is to swap(cut and weld) framehead on the pan.

Is this a street bug? If so, why would you want a narrow beam? If you
lower the front that much, the geometry is screwed and it handles like a
shopping trolley..
To keep handling intact, use the dropped spindels only, and make shure to
fit caster shims behind the lower torsion tube.

J.


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"P.J.Berg" > wrote in message
news
>
> Is this a street bug? If so, why would you want a narrow beam? If you
> lower the front that much, the geometry is screwed and it handles like a
> shopping trolley..

in all these years of lowering cars, i've never found this to be true... the
handling is greatly increased when suspension changes are done properly...
my car is narrowed 5 1/4" (due to wheel choice needing spacers to clear the
balljoint when using dropped spindles) and i can set the framehead on the
ground(air), and it handles great.... with air the ride is wonderful too...

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:05:39 +0200, Joey Tribiani > wrote:

>
> "P.J.Berg" > wrote in message
> news
> >
>> Is this a street bug? If so, why would you want a narrow beam? If you
>> lower the front that much, the geometry is screwed and it handles like a
>> shopping trolley..
>
> in all these years of lowering cars, i've never found this to be true...
> the
> handling is greatly increased when suspension changes are done
> properly...
> my car is narrowed 5 1/4" (due to wheel choice needing spacers to clear
> the
> balljoint when using dropped spindles) and i can set the framehead on the
> ground(air), and it handles great.... with air the ride is wonderful
> too...
>
I suspect the term great is ever so slightly subjective on you part Herr
Tribiani

Lowering the Vw, any Vw at the front only, changes the attack angle of the
pan.
This alters caster and toe in/out. Narrowing the beam alters the spacing
of ground contact fore vs. aft.
Not to mention it increases rear lift at higer speeds due to the body
shape, it being even worse than stock.

This is related to speeds other than putting around town.

Handling enhancemet lowering a beetle(Bug) can only be achieved by
lowering the fore and aft the same amount, whilst retaining correct caster
and toe in/toe out.
If it is a swing axle car you will also have to fight camber changes in
the rear, which can be good to a certain point, but not beyond.
Also lowering the rear of a swing axle Vw, the toe in/toe out changes.
So you see, to get everything right it takes knowledge and means.
I am not saying you have neither, but your post suggested to me an "seat
of the pants approach..

In fact all T1's set up to handle turns, better than straights are lower
in the back than at the front. Look at hillclimbing, hill racing,
rallycross etc.
Don't take my word for it, do a few searches online if interested.

My old beaten -56 T1 will indicate 100mph on the speedo whilst being semi
stable(Nose in the air), it needs new springplate bushings in the rear, as
sloppy ones makes for a wiggly ride, exept for this it is stable. Try the
same with a low nose T1..

J.
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"P.J.Berg" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:05:39 +0200, Joey Tribiani > wrote:
>
>>
>> "P.J.Berg" > wrote in message
>> news
>> >
>>> Is this a street bug? If so, why would you want a narrow beam? If you
>>> lower the front that much, the geometry is screwed and it handles like a
>>> shopping trolley..
>>
>> in all these years of lowering cars, i've never found this to be true...
>> the
>> handling is greatly increased when suspension changes are done
>> properly...
>> my car is narrowed 5 1/4" (due to wheel choice needing spacers to clear
>> the
>> balljoint when using dropped spindles) and i can set the framehead on the
>> ground(air), and it handles great.... with air the ride is wonderful
>> too...
>>
> I suspect the term great is ever so slightly subjective on you part Herr
> Tribiani

insult? notice the keyword "properly" then all you've said below is
redundant....try an air ride sometime, you might like it...

>
> Lowering the Vw, any Vw at the front only, changes the attack angle of the
> pan.
> This alters caster and toe in/out.

the toe is affected with any suspension movement...that is why you align the
car at the static point...simply lowering and not aligning a car would be
silly....ajusting the caster is part of a proper alignment.


>Narrowing the beam alters the spacing of ground contact fore vs. aft.
> Not to mention it increases rear lift at higer speeds due to the body
> shape, it being even worse than stock.

narrowing the beam doesn't lower it....


>
> This is related to speeds other than putting around town.
>
> Handling enhancemet lowering a beetle(Bug) can only be achieved by
> lowering the fore and aft the same amount, whilst retaining correct caster
> and toe in/toe out.

ride height is not what makes a car handle, but a lower center of gravity
does help... setting up a car to an individual's preference could mean many
different things.... when i played with auto-x i found that the vw actually
did really well(on asphault) with the rear higher than the front... under
power a vw tends to oversteer, but with the rear higher the weight transfer
is less(to the rear) and you can use the throttle to help turn the corners.

> If it is a swing axle car you will also have to fight camber changes in
> the rear, which can be good to a certain point, but not beyond.
> Also lowering the rear of a swing axle Vw, the toe in/toe out changes.
> So you see, to get everything right it takes knowledge and means.
> I am not saying you have neither, but your post suggested to me an "seat
> of the pants approach..

setting up suspensions is what i used to do. I am well aware of proper
setup.
>
> In fact all T1's set up to handle turns, better than straights are lower
> in the back than at the front. Look at hillclimbing, hill racing,
> rallycross etc.
> Don't take my word for it, do a few searches online if interested.

the main reason for the nose up is for weight transfer under power, to aid
with traction for accelleration. most of those are done on loose surfaces
where this really helps...

>
> My old beaten -56 T1 will indicate 100mph on the speedo whilst being semi
> stable(Nose in the air), it needs new springplate bushings in the rear, as
> sloppy ones makes for a wiggly ride, exept for this it is stable. Try the
> same with a low nose T1..
>

any time.. nose up vw's are likely to "wander" at 100mph...lowered helps
tremendously in giving a more planted and solid feel... gear ratios and
rpm's tell me that i max out at about 130MPH and the car is as stable there
as at 75mph... of course i don't drive nose up, nor do i drive dragging the
framehead... i have my suspension setup at what is about 4-5 inches lower
than stock.

"Joey Tribiani" > wrote in message
...
> different things.... when i played with auto-x i found that the vw
actually
> did really well(on asphault) with the rear higher than the front... under
> power a vw tends to oversteer,

*ahem*....understeer....

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:09:49 +0200, Joey Tribiani > wrote:

>
> "P.J.Berg" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:05:39 +0200, Joey Tribiani >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "P.J.Berg" > wrote in message
>>> news >>> >
>>>> Is this a street bug? If so, why would you want a narrow beam? If you
>>>> lower the front that much, the geometry is screwed and it handles
>>>> like a
>>>> shopping trolley..
>>>
>>> in all these years of lowering cars, i've never found this to be
>>> true...
>>> the
>>> handling is greatly increased when suspension changes are done
>>> properly...
>>> my car is narrowed 5 1/4" (due to wheel choice needing spacers to clear
>>> the
>>> balljoint when using dropped spindles) and i can set the framehead on
>>> the
>>> ground(air), and it handles great.... with air the ride is wonderful
>>> too...
>>>
>> I suspect the term great is ever so slightly subjective on you part Herr
>> Tribiani
>
> insult? notice the keyword "properly" then all you've said below is
> redundant....try an air ride sometime, you might like it...
>
>>
>> Lowering the Vw, any Vw at the front only, changes the attack angle of
>> the
>> pan.
>> This alters caster and toe in/out.
>
> the toe is affected with any suspension movement...that is why you align
> the
> car at the static point...simply lowering and not aligning a car would be
> silly....ajusting the caster is part of a proper alignment.
>
>
>> Narrowing the beam alters the spacing of ground contact fore vs. aft.
>> Not to mention it increases rear lift at higer speeds due to the body
>> shape, it being even worse than stock.
>
> narrowing the beam doesn't lower it....

Nope, but it is the reason why you narrow it.

J.
>
>
>>
>> This is related to speeds other than putting around town.
>>
>> Handling enhancemet lowering a beetle(Bug) can only be achieved by
>> lowering the fore and aft the same amount, whilst retaining correct
>> caster
>> and toe in/toe out.
>
> ride height is not what makes a car handle, but a lower center of gravity
> does help... setting up a car to an individual's preference could mean
> many
> different things.... when i played with auto-x i found that the vw
> actually
> did really well(on asphault) with the rear higher than the front... under
> power a vw tends to oversteer, but with the rear higher the weight
> transfer
> is less(to the rear) and you can use the throttle to help turn the
> corners.
>
>> If it is a swing axle car you will also have to fight camber changes in
>> the rear, which can be good to a certain point, but not beyond.
>> Also lowering the rear of a swing axle Vw, the toe in/toe out changes.
>> So you see, to get everything right it takes knowledge and means.
>> I am not saying you have neither, but your post suggested to me an "seat
>> of the pants approach..
>
> setting up suspensions is what i used to do. I am well aware of proper
> setup.
>>
>> In fact all T1's set up to handle turns, better than straights are lower
>> in the back than at the front. Look at hillclimbing, hill racing,
>> rallycross etc.
>> Don't take my word for it, do a few searches online if interested.
>
> the main reason for the nose up is for weight transfer under power, to
> aid
> with traction for accelleration. most of those are done on loose surfaces
> where this really helps...
>
>>
>> My old beaten -56 T1 will indicate 100mph on the speedo whilst being
>> semi
>> stable(Nose in the air), it needs new springplate bushings in the rear,
>> as
>> sloppy ones makes for a wiggly ride, exept for this it is stable. Try
>> the
>> same with a low nose T1..
>>
>
> any time.. nose up vw's are likely to "wander" at 100mph...lowered helps
> tremendously in giving a more planted and solid feel... gear ratios and
> rpm's tell me that i max out at about 130MPH and the car is as stable
> there
> as at 75mph... of course i don't drive nose up, nor do i drive dragging
> the
> framehead... i have my suspension setup at what is about 4-5 inches lower
> than stock.
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"P.J.Berg" > wrote in message
news
>>
>> narrowing the beam doesn't lower it....
>
> Nope, but it is the reason why you narrow it.
>

not always.... I'd even venture to say that the majority of the off the
shelf 2" narrow beams(puma style) buy them because wheels like the popular 8
spokes/etc and disc brakes both push the wheels outward... if they add
dropped spindles to the mix the wheels are pushed out even further... the 2"
beam wouldn't even quite get the front track back to stock specs with 8
spokes and disc brakes on dropped spindles... the main reason(as i stated
before) for my narrowed beam was to get the porsche pedrini wheels to work
with the dropped spindles... the pedrini's will not work with dropped
spindles without binding on the lower balljoint...i narrowed then had to use
one inch spacers on each front wheel to clear the balljoint... but, as you
alude, slamming it to the ground does benefit from a narrowed beam if you
want to turn your wheels...