Rear fit in easily. Had to unscrew about 3/4" to take out the play when shocks are in.

Yup. Sounds like you got it right. I mean... they came with the kit for a reason, right? Glad you've got them in.

I want it as low as I can without modifications. And I think that is what I achieved, since I'd have to extend the hi-lows to make up the difference. Otherwise, they would bounce around and out of possition.

Richard,

If you're not too concerned with lowering the car considerably, you'll have no issue having that spacer in there. If you're after stock ride height, it's probably better that you used it as it will mean less thread needs to be showing on the Hi-Lo's in order to achieve the height. If you do want to go lower than stock height by any considerable amount, you'll want to remove it.

The size was perfect for the opening in the hi-low, so I figured that is how it should go. With that it only took a couple of turns to take out all of the play and hold it tight.

I see that you put the spacer inbetween the spring and hilo. are you sure you need that piece? I believe that less is more.

Here are the fronts installed, with a repaint of the subframe.

Fronts are in. Super easy, 15 min per side without any compressor. Just put the sub frame upside down. I glued a thin (1/8") fiber reinforced circle of rubber on the frame where the spring sits.

(of course I had the engine out, so it was easy to flip the frame)

Today I got a new battery for my caliper, and discovered the difference in the front and back. Once you take them off the aluminum plates, they are the same height. But front coils are 14.9mm and the rear are 14.4mm. I guess that extra 0.5mm is for the extra weight the front carries.

Aye, and it's full of eels.

This is what I purchased for the metric version:

I made mine using standard 1/2  x 13  threaded rod and welded a metric cap screw on the rod tip ( cutting the hex head off first ) and ground grooves  for thread cleaning.

I added a note about the tip.

The core material seems to be a tool-grade steel. With old, hard cones, the forces needed can be quite large. Standard grade threaded rod may not be enough, but judging form your work, you'll do OK!

Thanks. I'll rig something close enough.

I have one simialr to this: (measurements using tape measure!)

• outer shell  217mm, inside diameter 17mm, outside diameter 25mm (heavy wall!), base palte 100x40x8mm
• main pulling shaft with threaded T-pulling handle and sliding insertion handle (smaller one) 15or 16mm dia x 267mm overall. Bottom end bored and threaded for alternate metric or imperial pulling extension.
• pulling extension: diameter 12 or 13mm, oveall length 220mm which includes 10mm x 11mm diameter pointed unthreaded alignment tip, 20mm cone end thread (metric or imperial) and 25mm long x 9mm(+/-) dia threaded joining section with lock-nut.
• assmbled length of core : 465mm
• All theads right hand!

 Note the bottom alignment tip is small enough to slide into the threads in the cone plate. The cone engagement tread has 3 thread-cleaning kerfs. The thread is not tapered like a threading tap and the kerfsa re not intednded to cut thread, but to only clean it. Insertion needs to be gradual and gentle so as not to damage the threads, which are probably compromised already in an old cone. The tip needs to be fully inserted into the cone.

Riley, you have a hovercraft?

Anyone know the length of the spring compression tool?

What a tuss.

Leun a sylli yw ow skath bargesi.

They also have another saying "herro!!!"

From what i have seen the older donuts last a lot longer than the newer 90's ones. Supposedly Rover sofened them up on the 90's cars to improve the ride. I have seen some older ones switched from front to rear with decent results.