I have workshop manuals (chassis & engine 1968) and i thought id scan off the suspention specs as its handy when your ordering new springs and stuff if any one wants anything in particular let me know and ill scan it

Whoah this explains the small dab of coloured paint (red, yellow & white) that Brett pointed out to me a while ago. Hadn't paid it much attention beforehand. I wonder how these different rates got into different cars; Brett reckons it was years I reckon (was that right?) but this might show that they were all available at the same time. Or something. Handy post! Cheers

yeah might cover different engines? mine got white on the back that was a 1500 originally

Cool, mines got the white ones in the front now too, thanks to Dave

Now I know for sure that they are the hardest!

Thanks.

Easy for you.
We have all same coloured springs in Finland ; RUST BROWN ! .

Ari

I have a few more specifications to add to this.

Front Spring OD: 118.92mm or 4.682 inch
Coil Diameter: 14.28 mm or .561 inch
Front Spring ID: 90mm or 3.56 inch

Front shock free length: about 14 3/4 inch or 2915mm


The spring ID is a little more important than much of the information listed on those scanned pages (but I still wish I had that book), because the spring appears to seat on a mount that fits to the inside of the spring coil.

Eibach happens to sell coilover springs for offroad use in a standardized offroad coilover in a size of 3.63 inch ID.

For 11 inch length, the selection is 125-450 lb/in in 25 lb/in increments.
In metric that is 2.2375-8.055 kg/mm in .4475 kg/mm increments.
And then from 500-700 in 50 lb/in increments.
In metric that is 8.95-12.53 kg/mm in .895 kg/mm increments.

12 inch length has a narrower selection, 200-500 lb/in in 50 lb/in increments (compare to above for metric).

13 inch has the same selection as the 11 inch.

But for any performance tuning purposes, 11 inch with either rubber end pads or a threaded perch would be the choice for Belletts. 9 or 10 inch lengths might be nice, but don;t seem to be a standardized length. Eibach and Hypercoil can do custom springs, but they are a bit pricey.

I seem to have the same book as crownsixfour. My guess on date was before 1968. It lists the PR90 for a few things, but omits things like the disk brakes, or basically any detail of the GT that is different from the Sedan, most recently conspicuous is the lack of anything to do with the front disk brakes.

There should be some differences between the suspensions of the GT and Sedan. Small changes in the spring rates and lengths, the shock absorbers, etc. Pages 8-1 and 8-2 seem to specify PR20 and PRD10 without mention of PR90.

Anyway, I scanned in the shock absorber chart. Front max length of about 14.17 inches, min length of about 9.84 inches, mid point for at rest position under load would be 12 inches. Rear max length 13.78 inches, min length 9.25 inches, mid point for rest position under load would be 11.52 inches.
The bad news is that the shortest coilover we deal with is 15.68 inches at rest length, so it is too long for a Bellett. Looking at the Hakosukas, they have strut suspension with high mounted camber plates, so they look like coilovers are easy on those. The Bellett upper shock mounting point is a stud. And it looks like camber is adjusted via a shim between the upper trailing arm bracket and the body of the car. At some point, in 1964 or 1965, somebody in Japan made a decision to really mess up my plans and any chance of a Saturday afternoon alignment change from street settings to track settings for Sunday morning racing.
Worse news is that I am not seeing much in double adjustable shocks with a 14 inch max length and 9 inch min length. The muscle car stuff is too long and the formula car stuff does not have enough stroke.

all the workshop manuals are the same, ie: the same specs listed throughout.
i've been told that the pics of the cars themselves were changed late in the Bellett life from the early to late style, but i haven't seen this myself, so i can't confirm.
the GT's, both 90 and 91, had theiir own separate manual "suppliment" that wasn't supplied with the standard manuals. it was, for want of a better term, an "option". that's why there is very little in the way of GT info.
as the disc brake option was done with GT parts, that's listed in the GT manual as well.
we get custom coils made, as the same problem is over here... there's nothing on the shelf for them.
you are correct on how the front end alignment is done. but...
don't think you'll get a suitable amount of camber and castor out of a Bellett front end for use with today's radial tyres and make it handle anywhere near well enough for any track-style use. these things were designed to have positive camber and very little castor for use with crossply tyres, and were recommended to have approx 1.5 deg of positive camber and only 0.5 deg of castor!!
the best camber i've ever seen on a standard Bellett front end was 0 deg camber, and that was with every shim removed...
put simply, ALOT of front end work is needed to get usefull camber and castor from a Bellett.
as a reference, my GT uses about 1.5 deg of negative camber, and this obviously to work to achieve, and the race car has about 4 deg of neg camber, with took a hell of alot more work!! i can't remember what the castor setting are, from memory, the GT has a couple of degrees, and the race car is around the 4-5 deg mark.
the best part of all of this is that once it's set in the way you like, then it won't go out of adjustment by hitting a bump or 2 like alot of other cars do.
we use shocks that fit Holden's, i believe you are in the US, so that won't help much... for the info of the AUS an NZ users, the early type Holden shock for a HD/HR Holden front is perfect for a "standard" type shock with more than enough travel.
the later HQ Holden front is for a more "solid/harder" feel, but has a shorter shock stroke, so they won't open as far as the early Holden item.
you need 2 pairs of shocks for the front of these Holdens to do all four on a Bellett.
a very small amount of metal (and were only talking 1-2mm) is needed to be filed from the hole in both the front and rear lower suspension arms to make the shock body/tube fit through, as these have a very slightly bigger body/tube.
in my GT, i use the early Holden shocks. it has "heavy duty" gas shocks in the front, and "normal" gas in the rear. it drives very well, and while it does ride harder than a normal Bellett, it's definitly not harsh or rough.

OK, that explains several questions I hadn't even asked yet.

I read the description "..the wheels are farther apart at the top than the bottom when viewed from the front side." and I was reasonably sure that Australian English reversed the meanings of "top", "bottom, and "apart".
I had previously noticed that the suspension arms are completely horizontal, and appear asymmetrical, and lacked any of the rear leaning shape like the 117 Coupe.

Castor I'm not sure how to fix without redesigning the whole layout.

Camber could be fixed though.
Shorten the upper arm. Problem: Might interfere with coil spring clearance.
Move the upper ball joint mounting position in. Move mounting holes in arm, mounting taps shorter and reweld to ball joint.
Lengthen the lower arm between the lower shock mount and the ball joint mount.
Lengthen the mounting tabs on the lower ball joint and reweld, or move the mounting holes farther out.
Modify the spindle.

I'm leaning toward the lower arm or lower ball joint solutions. Shortening the upper arm or moving the upper ball joint in might make tire clearance a bigger problem. But, lengthening the bottom arm might require a longer tie rod end on the steering rack.

I should probably keep better track of the separation in sections in the manual between PR and KR. The lower KR arm would be easy to section and lengthen. The PR arm would be a little more difficult.

I'm also noticing that the lower arm bolts to the front lower cross member. Something that can actually be removed from the car, instead of tabs formed into the frame rail. That cross member could be removed, the mounting points cut out, and reattached farther out to correct the camber.

I'm between kicking myself for not hitting the auction for used control arms, and the auction for the used cross member.

I'm still leaning toward the lower ball joints, because I see having to make those from scratch anyway.

I took a good look at how the front lower control arms attach to the cross member. The book calls the bolt that goes through the lower control arm and holds it to the ends of the cross member a "fulcrum pin". The fulcrum pin attaches to the cross member via U bolts, and it mounts on an angle pointing toward the ground, not toward the side.

If it pointed toward the side, simply shimming it would move the lower control arm out and providing enough camber to adapt the car to run correctly on radial tires.

The solution might be to turn a new fulcrum pin out of steel, with an offset mounting surface. Instead of U bolts, switch to studs, threaded into the ofset mounting surface of the fulcrum pin. This would allow for the pin to me moved diagonally to the mounting surface, and move the lower control arm out to correct the camber.

RE: correcting camber for radial tires.



Is there any chance the Gemini front lower ball joint shaft that fits into the lower part of the spindle matches the Bellett ball joint shaft?

The Gemini piece does not have a mounting bracket welded onto it and instead presses into the lower control arm.

Making a bracket which has a duplicate of the mounting hole of the Gemini lower control arm, and the Bellett mounting bracket shape with increased offset, would provide camber correction and a source for lower ball joints that are available from aftermarket sources like Raybestos, Mevotech, Beck/Arnley, Moog, and AC Delco.