> > > Take the units out and put the cones in subframes are the same.
> > I don't remember if they're identical or not. I know the front
> > hydro subframes have locating tabs to retain the hydro displacers,
> > and I have an inkling there was some minor complication which I
> > can't remember from when I changed a hydro Minimatic front
> > subframe to rubber for my Mokematic. It's just it's a long time
> > ago and I don't remember WHAT the complication was!
> graham no the subframes are different
I remember that there are a couple of holes for the little tab which
stabilises the hydro displacer, which obviously isn't used in a dry
setup. I know I used a pair of rather crummy hi-lo copies to get the
height I wanted, which with the Moke was rather tall. I have this vague
memory that there was some complication, I think perhaps the space for
the hydro displacers is slightly deeper than for rubber donuts, so that
with no other modifications the suspension sits far too low? I only did
a front subframe, because all Minimatic subframes in Australia are hydro
and all Mokes are rubber suspension. Since I needed a rubber automatic
subframe, I had to fit rubber to a hydro subframe.
Drew - 29 Jul 2003 18:31 GMT
>>>>Take the units out and put the cones in subframes are the same.
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> and all Mokes are rubber suspension. Since I needed a rubber automatic
> subframe, I had to fit rubber to a hydro subframe.
I would suggest the reason for it not sitting at the right height was
not that the space for the displacer was deeper, rather that the top
arms and radius arms have the knuckle joint holes in a different place.
It is a common one when people do this conversion. You either need to
use hilos as you did, or swap the top arms and radius arms.
If the two types of arms are placed side by side they are quite markedly
different.
Drew.