Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Folks, what is the easiest way to get the bolts out of the top mounts of coilovers. The bolts on mine dont have a hex head or allen key, they are simply round. The thread on the bolts is stuffed so I need to remove them and replace with other bolts. Any ideas how I can do that?

Cheers

Amir

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/450994-removing-bolts-from-top-mounts/
Share on other sites

Generally if there is no hex key in the top of the shaft there is a small flat section below the top where you can hold a spanner. If not I guess you need to try a rattle gun, and if you don't intend to reuse the coilovers lock a set of vice grips onto the shaft nice and tight.

Don't forget spring compressors before you start.....

Photo please. Duncan is talking about taking the nut of the shock piston (which is how you get it apart) but you said you want to replace them with other bolts, which sounds like you want to replace the piston.... Not making sense to me

Apologies guys, I should have been more clear. Yes I am talking about the studs which stick out of the shock tower. I removed some from my old suspension but these had an alen key head and were easy to move. I found that there is a small thread in the camber plate which they screwed into. Im assuming the ones I'm trying to get off are similar and have a thread in the camber plate/top mount so I dont really want to hammer them through so as not to damage the thread. Will upload photos soon

Cheers

Amir

They are punched/pressed in, in exactly the same way as wheel studs are fitted to hubs.

Put a socket under the stud so the stud can fit through the hole in the socket, sit assembly with the socket on a sturdy bench, whack threaded end of stud with a hammer so its pushed out into the socket.

The whole idea of the socket is to support the camber plate while hitting the stud back out into it.

If you find new studs to knock in and they fit a little too easily, you can go around the camber plate, right next to the stud hole with a center punch, this will shrink the hole a little to make the new stud a tighter fit.

Cheers Peter. But what if the studs actually screw into the plate? As I mentioned before, another set I tried - the studs were screwed in rather than punched/pressed in. If this is the case with these ones then hammering them out will damage the thread in the camber plate. Any ideas?

They won't be screwed in if there's no flats on the head to use to torque them up.

Exactly what he said. If they were screwed in then no need for the mushroom head underneath and there would have been a method to drive them in by a tool.

I highly doublt that they are threaded into a aluminium hat and just hold via some threads in alloy, notice the large flat mushroom head from underneath?

Its so they dont pull through the alloy when tightening the nut.

They are studs just like on wheel hubs.

I have seen a few manufacturers use this method on coilovers and normal struts on OEM assembies, we had one broken on the rear on our GTR, it was snapped off by the previous owner, when looking at it it was a punched in stud, next time i have the rear coilovers out i will be punching it out to replace it.

Support the yellow alloy top from under where the mushroom head of the stud is with a socket that is large enough for the musroom head to fit through as you hammer it down.

You need something tubular like a socket to fit around the stud but not touch it, it must sit against the yellow alloy top to support it and provide room for the stud to pass through.

I managed to get 3 out of 4 studs out. I grinded some of the stud off, hammered it down and finished the rest of with a nail punch. One stud I cut to close to the camber top and I cant hammer it down and the nail punch is simply not doing anything. The stud is sitting flush with the camber top and seems to have welded itself to the camber top from all the hammering etc. Any ideas?

  • Like 1

Heavier hammer with the punch?

This.

Use a solid punch that covers the whole stud face that you cut and use a heavyier hammer so you have some force behind it.

I wouldnt have cut the studs.....

Edit, i just noticed your using a nail punch NOooooo......use a pin punch thats a similar or slightly smaller diameter than your stud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_%28tool%29

Edited by GTRPSI

Thanks for the help boys. Finally managed to get them all off by hammering them, punching them through and swearing at them. All that work and when I was looking at one coilover when it was lying on the ground noticed it was slightly bent. So I have to get it to the suspension place and see what they say. Good times

Amir

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...