I got the spohn xmember/torque arm combo for my TKO. Very nice piece and it actually bolted into the car unlike verything else...

One thing, though, is that the mount for the rod end on the torque arm is cantilevered out from the centerline of the cross member about six inches or so. Im sure this is a necessary evil given that there is probably ony one length torque arm for all. Not the biggest issue in the world, but it will put a good deal of torque about the cross member, and load up the front two bolts pretty good. I did fix the stripped threads, so it shouldnt be able to extract the bolts out of the bushings, but it will still put a lot of force on them. Probably 750-1000+ lbs of force potentially on each frontmost bolt to restrain the xmember. Maybe even more if I get real aggressive with the clutch. Has this been an issue for anyone? Im just worried that the potential exists to possibly stretch or tear the sheet metal in that area on the subframe rails where those bolts are anchored.

 

Lets pose the question this way: Those who have the Spohn adjustable torque arm and crossmember with integral spherical rodend mount. How do you like it? Any problems?

 

Ehhh, shiet... Looks like my concerns are valid.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/orga...ohn+torque+arm

The torque arm mount on the xmember is a good concept, but the mount is located too far away from the centerline of the xmember. If it was within 2" or so of the mount points, it would be the best/easiest to use design out there.

 

yep, it is a valid concern, and there has been discussion in the past on this topic.

Another relevant thread:

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/susp...-question.html

unfortunately, the thread referenced within the above thread is no longer available at all - not sure if it got lost or deleted or what.

It would certainly be nice to see some new innovations in crossmembers/TA mounts in the aftermarket, but I guess solving these problems is left to the individual fabricator for now.

 

The solution would be to move the mount closer to the centerline of the crossmember, even if it makes installation a bit of a pain, or requires the use of a different type of mount. The installation was a breeze with the unit, but that doesnt matter if it causes the subframe rails to develop cracks over time from the stress.

 

that would make the torque arm longer, perhaps even longer than stock, which means you'd lose the advantages of a shorter TA.

Personally, I'd like to see some kind of bolt on link between the crossmember/TA mount and the SFC's. This would of course require the use of SFC's. but if some form of mount/bracket were welded to the crossmember and also to the SFC's, a tube/bar could be bolted up.

 

Itll move the instant center forward a few inches, but IMO, its alot better then having the crossmember open the bottoms of the sub-frame rails up like a can opener. Theres just going to be too much load on them, and eventually theyd crack around the bolts from fatigue.

Maybe I can return it and work something out. Id like to have the mount moved adjacent to the crossmember as close to the centerline as possible.

 

I got my TA/crossmember back. The customer service over at Spohn aint too bad. Sent them the old setup back with a CAD drawing showing how I wanted everything and they made a new unit to my specs, no questions asked.

Had the mount relocated to just past the crossmember itself. Just far enough to give some service clearance for the zirk fittings. Well, more like a token ammount of clearance, but it gets that mount off of that long cantilevered beam so it wont stress the front bolts as much.

 

any chance of a pic or two?