Geo?

[woodsracer144]

ok i kind of brought this up a long time ago but i want to talk about it again.

when leagers made the Narrow frame, did the upper arms go in as much as the lowers? or were the uppers left at a OE distance apart and the lowers brought in I.E. and inch.

now im going to talk about the walsh set up

on the front ends when they use the adjustable shock towers were there any weak spots or negative things from running them over the solid shock towers? i assume it matters how far apart the shocks are mounted both upper and lower but does anyone know what is better?

thanks

[Lasher]

I have an 89 frame and Walsh frame in the garage. I can measure the a-arm mounts when I get home tonight.

As for the adjustable shock towers...I have not noticed any "weakness" to them. I only have had the Walsh for a year, but the upper mount on the frame for the Walsh is much beefier than the upper mount for stock frame. Pretty much the Walsh design is much beefier than the stock in all areas.

On the stock frame, I needed to use the pre-load adjustments to set the ride height. On the Walsh, I used to the adjustable towers for the ride height. This allows the shock adjustments to be only for the shock functions...not wasted on ride height.

[C41Xracer]

i have a standard front laeger and a narrow to answer your first question. Yes they moved the upper and lower mounts in the same amount. the shock tower is also shortened the same amount on my narrow frame

[woodsracer144]

where the a-arms moved closer in a up and down action at all on the aftermarket chassis?? if you dont know what i mean i can go in greater detail.

[C41Xracer]

they were just moved in closer to the center of the chassis and thats it.