rocky2

He's mistaken again. No matter how elongated the top bolt hole is you can set the camber angle at "O" or wherever you prefer, + or - in any direction you want. The whole idea of elongating is to get zero or negative, you got no problems reaching positive camber at this point, do you? You don't want the hole to limit the adjustment that's what you got now. If it is longer it is adjustable in either direction. I like mine set at dead nuts toe with alittle negative camber. Tracks better going straight and feels better in the corner. Plus it looks better. IMO Good Luck and post those pics. Alot of them please!!

O.K. XPLORx4 is right Don't lengthen the strut -if you do by using AC coils-which does lengthen the strut! Don't even think about lengthen the rod in order to center the piston in the shock body, just deal with the "top out", because this can only increase the articulation of the suspension and CV angles when the wheel is off the ground and possibly cause CV damage and/or failure. Even though the ball joints limitation will prevent this from happening. As Phantom10Pathfinder says, "I see no way to extend the length of the strut to get rid of top out without it affecting the CV angle or balljoints or anything else in the front suspension that would lead to premature wear." "The rod not the strut" Oooops I'm sorry I most humbly retract everything that I have posted in this regard. I can't bring you kicking and screaming into the light, you'll have to get there on your own. I'm going skiing before I go to work. Ciao Huevones

Looks good never thought of that

You're gonna cut towards the inside where there's plenty of material not towards the outside of the knuckle attachment area. You want the top of the knuckle to move in towards the wheel well, it will make more sense when you yank the strut out again. Also mke sure the top hat or strut bearing cap is clocked correctly in relation to the lower spring perch when assembled. If this is not done correctly the angle of the strut gets funky. It's in the Haynes manual Ch. 10-10 refer to illustration 6.11 and 6.12

I stand corrected my good friend!!

Dude I see no way to extend the length of the strut to get rid of top out without it affecting the CV angle or balljoints or anything else in the front suspension that would lead to premature wear. You have already extended the strut assembly by putting a longer/stiffer spring in the system. I am not advocating making the strut longer, just centering the rod in its travel range. In the preloaded position. Of course,as XPLORx4 so eloquently points out, the CV angle could possibly be exceeded when at full droop or when the wheel is off the ground if a rod lenghtening device is incorporated. Which is yet to be determined.

Hey projekz "I'm positive it relies on the rod length to keep it from travelling too far" The ball joint is what it relies on, you didn't think that the engineers at Nismo would rely on strut "top out" for articulation control now did you? The control arm can only go down so far before the maximum angle of the ball joint is reached. Not the CV joint or the strut rod. Anything else you want to know just ask. Once you start accepting inherent problems without finding solutions, you are taking the apologists approach to logic.

Hmmmm, camber issues with AC coils and Nx4 spacers, never heard of this before!!! How is the "top out' ? Any CV binding yet? Do you have the numbers sheet, you know the print off from his machine with the alignment numbers ? I'm very interested. I know your guy is a guru and very experienced BUT all high end, performance, top quality struts have slotted top mounting holes for camber adjustment. So, I,m going to have to beg to differ with your alignment guy. The Nx4 web site suggests that you don't use the spacers with longer aftermarket springs, for various reasons. You can read all kinds of threads here between me and XPLOR4x to get better insight on this topic. "Note that when accompanied by NEW aftermarket LIFT springs, you may experience strut 'top out', a condition which may damage the strut over time. These spacers are best combined with OEM springs" I'm willing to bet it has nothing to do with going into a ditch. The alignment guy would have alerted you to a bent suspension item and/or you would have seen something. Remember, "Keep in mind, EVERYTHING is new. If it wasn't welded in, I replaced it.

Soooooo, do you advocate allowing "top out" or correcting it ? Does it really rely on rod length to stop it from taveling too far ?

O.K. Let me get my head around your hypothesis. Because I think you are being argumentative. We both agree that lengthening the strut is not optimal for an IFS and/or R50 Pathfinder. But we both have lengthened the strut assembly by using AC coils. Can we agree on this? I assume, cannot be absolutely certain, that the length of the entire strut assembly has been increased by 2", when using AC coils. Now the static weight of the vehicle and/or sag has at this point not been considered. Perhaps once the vehicle has been put back on the ground this is not exactly accurate. I am simply proposing that the rod now needs to be centered in the shock body in order to prevent "top out" and/or shock failure. I think you are commenting that this modification is inadvisable because excessive articulation, when unloaded, due to this mod will create CV failure. Am I correct? As to the comment: A 2" strut rod extension to a 7" long strut rod will yield only 9" total stroke, and will not achieve centering the piston, for the result would be +3.5"/-5.5". It certainly will center the piston if the rod has been stretched by using a 2" longer spring. My mathematics puts this at centered rod. If you pull the rod out by 2" by putting 2" longer springs on then I assume we need a 2" rod adjustment in order to center the rods piston. In order to center the piston in the strut, the rod extension would need to be 4", not 2": +5.5"/-5.5" (total stroke of 11"). I think your math is wrong here. The rod can only be extended to its 7" max with or without an extension or longer springs. I don't know where you are getting this 11" total stroke. This assertion, I certainly need enlightenment. 2+7= 9 I will reiterate my firm position that I cannot and do not advocate to any Pathfinder owners the use of any type of device that alters the overall distance between the chassis strut tower and the ball joint while the suspension is uncompressed, UNLESS such a device is accompanied by other hardware that also lowers the center of the differential output flanges by the same amount. Installation of such devices (not SFD) carries risks that may result in driveline failure. So, if I get your drift, you are saying go for a SFD don't use the AC coils or if you do just deal with the "top out", please clarify. Strut rod lengtheners do not make the overall strut assembly longer!! The springs are making it longer. I can't stress this enough!! The rod extension can only change the realitive position of the rods piston in the shock body and change the "top out"or "bottom out" O.K. I will concede that the articulation has increased with a rod extension and will increase the angle of the CV joint when unloaded. But I cannot and do not believe that this angle is severe enough to damage the CV joint and that "top out" should be ignored. Let me get the video camera out or you can too. Don't forget the scientific process. You can prove me wrong anytime you want. Did you look at that kid "snow4me" who just posted his lift pictures. His camber angle, assumed CV angle and one can only imagine "top out" issue is proof in the pudding. Get a SFD and don't mess with the springs. So, apples and oranges. Sacrifice the shock or the CV

That looks awesome Dude!! So that's what a 2" AC coil lift with 1" Nx4 spacers looks like with no camber adjustment. Could you please measure the drive shaft angle of the front CV shafts and your camber degrees before and after adjustment and post them ASAP. I'm really interested in the comparisons. Any "top out" in the struts as of yet? Looks level, tough and Pretty Cool Good work !!

I think I'm not understanding your terminology, so I'm getting confused. From what I can observe, replacing the coil spring in a stock strut will not lengthen the distance between the strut tower on the body/chassis and the ball joint on the A-arm when the wheels are off the ground. Yes it will, if the strut is longer or shorter but depending on "top out" or "bottom out" for that matter to prevent excessice CV angles seem disingenuous at best. In fact, you can completely remove the spring from the strut altogether, reinstall the strut, and the distance between the chassis' strut tower and the ball joint will still be the same as when the spring is installed. I think we are considering two different scenarios. You are taking only into account strut length when the wheels are off the ground. I'm talking about centering the strut rod piston in the shock body when using longer springs. You are right, if no spring is present the rod will only allow so much articulation downward between the top hat and ball joint. If I lengthened or shorten the rod now, with no spring, then yes further or decreased articulaion is present. But, I contend, is CV angles dangerously increased and at what point of length. I am postulating that when using longer coil springs, say 2" longer and lengthening the rod in an equal amount you're center the piston in the shock body and YES the strut can now travel further before "top out" when unweighted that it will not create damaging CV angles when, YES the wheels are off the ground. "However, if you increase the distance between the chassis' strut tower and the ball joint, whether by lengthening the strut rod," the distance is increased Not so at all, Lengthening or shortening the rod itself does not affect strut assembly length only rod piston centering. Lets say you use the stock spring and only lengthen the rod with an extension, you are pushing the piston at the end of the rod in the shock body in deeper, please refer to the first pic in my thread. This would create "bottom out" early. So it would be necessary to shortening the spring in this scenario. Would you not agree? "By no means am I advocating "topping out" as a means for limiting suspension travel. I'm just stating that this is what happens already" How does the factory/stock set-up prevent excessive CV angles and or "top out" when the wheel is off the ground? By the way, we both 100% agree that while there is weight on the front suspension on level ground, the best place for the shock/strut piston to be is centered in its stroke. How is this achieved when using longer springs, without correcting the length of the rod? I guess it's six of one or a half dozen of the other. Ruin the strut with "top out" or destroy the CV joint with angle. But I have to reiterate that correcting the rod length when using longer springs will not create overly excessive CV angles of 33%. Please enlighten me !

("it is inadvisable to lengthen the struts (simply to avoid "top out") I couldn't agree more, but this has already present (lengthened strut) when using longer springs. I am only advocating centering the rod in its travel. I think you believe that this will allow for even more downward wheel travel and exacerbate the problem and ruin the CV joint or am I mistaken. Maybe I am wrong, but I just can't get my head around using the "top out" as a means for limiting the travel and CV angle. Gotta go eat and will be back soon.

You're right XPLORx4 and I appreciate your insight. I think that we all can agree. The maximum CV angle should not be overly exceeded for prolonged periods of time and/or usage. But as the "theexbrit" has stated: "As for the CV angle, I measured the angle with the wheel off the ground & with the 2" AC lift my maximum angle was about 25 degrees, still well within OEM specs (33 degrees max I think) so you'll be fine" Of course I have no pictures at full wheel articulation and therefore, empirical knowledge of supposed excessive CV angle is as yet unverifiable to the skeptical. As you state: "So, lengthening the strut to provide it more extension seems like a good solution. The problem with lengthening the strut is that it can no longer prevent the CV axles from operating at excessive angles" I am stating and visually representing that the strut assembly overall has already been lengthened by using a longer spring. I am advocating lengthening the rod, Not the strut assemby, so as to return the compression/extension ratio back to 50:50 and addressing the "top out" issue. I do not think that using or allowing the "top out" of the shock is an acceptable means of preventing excessive CV angles and posssible catastrophic and destroyed CV joints, as I am sure you would agree! Theoretically, lengthening the strut rod to match what the spring has already extended and returning the compression/extension ratio back to 50:50 in its travel range does not exceed the recommended CV angle at full articulation. Angle measurements will be taken and posted at a later time. Exclusively yours Rocky

Check this thread out http://volvospeed.com/install_performance_parts_how_tos/performance_guides/koni_diy_coilovers.html

Lets take a look at the internals of basic shock/strut/damper design and discuss "Top Out" The optimal position of the rod piston "B" should be in the center of the stroke when the vehicles weight is loaded on the suspension system. ie. spring The available stroke in a R50 front strut is approximately 7" that's 3.5" in either direction if rod piston is centered. With a longer coil spring of lets say 2" the stroke is diminished to approximately 1.5" in the upward travel of the rod. If you put a longer spring in place, the stroke will be affected thus decreasing the upward movement/travel of the rod. In other terms, the articulation of the wheel in its downward motion will be limited and the shock absorber will reach the end of its travel commonly known as "top out". Now this may change over time and/or after the springs settle/relax or are weighted/loaded with accessories, more weight ie. bumper, winch or whatever. Obviously, if left unaddressed damage may occur to the shock/strut, a loud noise will be heard when the wheel travels through the available range and articulation is decreased. This is easily addressed on solid axle design by installing a longer shock that matches the spring length. But IFS axle design demands alternatives. Several remedies are available and are not limited to: 1) Limiting straps 2) Rod extensions 3) Strut modification (this is one possible design modification,the strut internal mechanism is being spaced upwards in the strut housing) Another possibility Coilover possibilities are endless Please comment to this post

Suzuki calls it TSCC or twin swirl combustion chamber, the intake opening in the head itself had a divider/partition which created a vortex or swirl in the air/fuel mixer entering the combustion chamber. Theory is sound.

Can't wait to hear back from you. Read this thread before you neglect anything. http://www.nissanpathfinders.net/forum/topic/32829-starting-to-get-really-frustrated-with-ac-2-lift/

Here we go again. By adding any spacer to the top of the AC coil or any longer aftermarket coil you are asking for problems. As the Nx4 site states "Note that when accompanied by NEW aftermarket LIFT springs, you may experience strut 'top out', a condition which may damage the strut over time. These spacers are best combined with OEM springs" So what are they telling you ? Middle mount spacer is pre-loading the spring,(making it stiffer) $170 Top mount is making the entire strut assembly longer. "This configuration moves the entire strut assembly downward. by 1". $110 Top out of the strut will not be your only issue. You're gonna get excessive CV angles and positive camber angle. Now you're gonna hear all kinds of opinions, testimonials and gerry-rig solutions. "Just get Locking hubs", will be the first commented solution to the CV angle, dosen't get rid og CV angles just allows you to unlock when not off-road which relieves stress on the joint because it's not be turned costantly just when you need it, but dosen't correct the excessive angle. Another $150 but you should get them anyway! Next will be, "get camber adj. bolts" most likely 2 per side another expense, $50http://www.amazon.com/Moog-K90474-Camber-Adjusting-Bolt/dp/B000HPQ1EW Then there will be the whole top out issue which creates alot of debate here at NPORA. I say go for it. Take alot of pics, before, after and during the process with a measuring device present for reference and let us know how it goes. Good Luck

I cut my rear AC coils, worked out perfect.

The FSM wants you to tighten it first in order to seat the bearings against the races, then back it off for correct pre-load. You're sort of bringing everything together to get any play or slack out of it and setting it firm but not too tight or lose. Technically, you can use a strain guage to measure exact torque required to rotate the hub. Myself, I seat the bearing and then back it off a little checking tightness just enough not to be really stiff when I turn the hub and then check for slop. My 2 cents

Dude Weld it up and see for yourself ! Report back and tell us what YOU think.

Look up strut rod extension. http://www.bits4vits.co.uk/store/vitara-/-x90/strut-spacers-2-25-machined/prod_79.html What you are doing is essentially lengthening the rod and therefore centering the rods piston in the strut tube housing and preventing top out. Now all kinds of guys here are going to chime in and come up with all kinds of opinions but think about it for awhile and visualize it. My fabrication didn't incorporate a shouldered portion that goes down over the the rod to the stepped spot and consequently broke. I also didn't use that high of quality steel when I made mine. But it's still a vialble solution and can be purchased or fabricated.

Looks solid to me!!

Where did you get them and how do you like them?