When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
With growing questions involving our products that we are using on our 1988 Camaro 2.0 build thread, I have decided to create this one to further assist you all. I will be including our 4 part install series that you can find on our website or YouTube channel with the links below... Thank you!
Link to Detroit Speed, Inc. 1982-1992 F-Body Products...
Come on guys, eventually the stock sheet metal becomes a limiting factor and you will have to start cutting to build a better car. Be happy that the aftermarket community is starting to make new offerings for this platform.
Come on guys, eventually the stock sheet metal becomes a limiting factor and you will have to start cutting to build a better car. Be happy that the aftermarket community is starting to make new offerings for this platform.
I agree and that's with many old school muscle especially when trying to compete with newer modern muscle
more and more thirdgen aftermarket parts are hitting the scene and I like it
DSE, how about some bragging videos showcasing your 88 Camaro and what your products improve on over others!
Your CC plates are sweet!, but not $500 Sweet!
Please show us what makes your products superior to others and justify the price points and we'd gladly cough up the dough!
Will you offer inner subframe connectors?
Do you have any proof the sub frames are more Ridgid than a competitors?
What about your quadralink, proof it rides better, corners harder? Etc??
Your company is well known in the hotrod world, but show us some proof you can box before you just jump in the ring.
Have you mess with other Camber plates there pain to adjust
500 is worth the extra thought put into them
They provide quadralink for other cars as well should do some research as far performance no different then our thirdgens
I'm pretty sure they been in the ring for min lol
But question for dse
Do you guys carry various spring rates and what are the spring rates for front to rear
Originally Posted by BrutalT/A
DSE, how about some bragging videos showcasing your 88 Camaro and what your products improve on over others!
Your CC plates are sweet!, but not $500 Sweet!
Please show us what makes your products superior to others and justify the price points and we'd gladly cough up the dough!
Will you offer inner subframe connectors?
Do you have any proof the sub frames are more Ridgid than a competitors?
What about your quadralink, proof it rides better, corners harder? Etc??
Your company is well known in the hotrod world, but show us some proof you can box before you just jump in the ring.
I think once this project car is complete, you'll have plenty of videos. I would expect that they would follow the same development and display profile as they've done with any of the previous platforms.
It'll be sweet to watch a 3rd gen tear up the Optima Challenge or similar events.
Come on guys, eventually the stock sheet metal becomes a limiting factor and you will have to start cutting to build a better car. Be happy that the aftermarket community is starting to make new offerings for this platform.
WTF is that suppose to mean?
I'd love to be able to purchase a "kit" that DOES NOT HAVE the square edge seam (I believe it's called a pittsburg seam/joint). IMO it's this joint that creates the biggest issue with retaining the interior plastic and OEM look. DSE has done it for several other platforms including 1st and 2nd gens f-bodies, why not 3rd gens? Just saying.
I'd love to be able to purchase a "kit" that DOES NOT HAVE the square edge seam (I believe it's called a pittsburg seam/joint). IMO it's this joint that creates the biggest issue with retaining the interior plastic and OEM look. DSE has done it for several other platforms including 1st and 2nd gens f-bodies, why not 3rd gens? Just saying.
Relax buddy, seriously
Its not the same platform, the cars are totally different in every aspect aside from being considered the 'F body'. Maybe its not possible to install the same equipment, the same way, in a completely different chassis. I agree that the quadralink I stall intrudes into the body a bit much but maybe its the only way to make it work.
I love being able to maintain a stock interior and appearance, but sometimes its not possible or you need to get creative to trick the eye. My mini tub job in my 86 is completely hidden by the interior plastics, however I modified and widened my interior to accommodate it. Aside from the missing back seat, you wouldn't know the difference unless you were very familiar with the car and took some time to notice.
Who knows, maybe DSE will find a way to install all this stuff in a way to make everybody happy, maybe not. Either way, as it goes with everything else, if you don't like it, nobody is twisting your arm to buy it. Maybe get creative and design and build your own parts as quite a few people, including myself, do.
DSE, how about some bragging videos showcasing your 88 Camaro and what your products improve on over others!
Your CC plates are sweet!, but not $500 Sweet!
Please show us what makes your products superior to others and justify the price points and we'd gladly cough up the dough!
Will you offer inner subframe connectors?
Do you have any proof the sub frames are more Ridgid than a competitors?
What about your quadralink, proof it rides better, corners harder? Etc??
Your company is well known in the hotrod world, but show us some proof you can box before you just jump in the ring.
Great videos btw.
Due to our first 1988 being wrecked early in the testing phase of the build, there was limited video of that car. However, Bruce Raymond of Raymond's Performance has been out running his fully Detroit Speed equipped Camaro at various Optima and SCCA events. At this time, we do not have any plans to produce inner subframe connectors for the 3rd Gen platform.
Have you mess with other Camber plates there pain to adjust
500 is worth the extra thought put into them
They provide quadralink for other cars as well should do some research as far performance no different then our thirdgens
I'm pretty sure they been in the ring for min lol
But question for dse
Do you guys carry various spring rates and what are the spring rates for front to rear
We are able to get you the spring rate you need front or rear. Our front spring rate sold in our weight jacking kit is 950lb/in and the rear coilover conversion/speed kits is 275lb/in.
OK thanks what would be comparable rear spring rate with out coil over iirc coil overs utilities different spring rate by design Vs conventional springs in had weight Jack with 1000lb iirc I know it was over 1000 and 200 rear and really like that combo I think 950 is great rate prob be a little bit more comfy with street driving all in all tho comparable to any euro tube suspension as
Very good spring combo indeed though to start with really makes balances out car and front stick better
Definitely looking forward to more. Those SFC's, CC plates and Quadralink are making my mouth water. The CC Plates are Hardcore in design, love it. No soft edges for my Roxie.
My plans are to throw this Camaro sideways more than anything. It will take a lot but with companies like yours I have high hopes. Any future involvement in possible Drift Projects? Extended A-Arm Kits, Complete Weight Jack Systems, Drift-Spec Cages (that tie into the SFC's and/or Quadralink), Fuel Cell Cage, Custom Seat Brackets to either raise or especially lower the seat position further.
If anything these are suggestions based purely on things I'd like to see done to our cars to expand their division in motorsports. Mainly Drifting ;P ;P
Definitely looking forward to more. Those SFC's, CC plates and Quadralink are making my mouth water. The CC Plates are Hardcore in design, love it. No soft edges for my Roxie.
My plans are to throw this Camaro sideways more than anything. It will take a lot but with companies like yours I have high hopes. Any future involvement in possible Drift Projects? Extended A-Arm Kits, Complete Weight Jack Systems, Drift-Spec Cages (that tie into the SFC's and/or Quadralink), Fuel Cell Cage, Custom Seat Brackets to either raise or especially lower the seat position further.
If anything these are suggestions based purely on things I'd like to see done to our cars to expand their division in motorsports. Mainly Drifting ;P ;P
Drifting is something that we've never (intentionally) gotten into. We have some employees that drift competitively, but out main market is street/road course/autocross. If you've watched the videos of Bruce's car, his car is no stranger to going sideways!
Is anybody running just the drop springs (with pictures) on an otherwise stock suspension? The website says 2" drop for rear, none listed for front (but I guess 2" as well).
Is anybody running just the drop springs (with pictures) on an otherwise stock suspension? The website says 2" drop for rear, none listed for front (but I guess 2" as well).
We did a giveaway at LS Fest for the winner of the Engine Swap Challenge. It's 2" drop front and rear...
Drifting is something that we've never (intentionally) gotten into. We have some employees that drift competitively, but out main market is street/road course/autocross. If you've watched the videos of Bruce's car, his car is no stranger to going sideways!
That's becasue a 4-link and road course/autoX should not be in the same sentence. Are you kidding me? Both those videos the guys have their hands full and sawing at the steering wheels. This is not a handling setup, more like a drag car thing. You guys may fabricate very well, but you have a lot to learn in the manners of suspension setups.
I should also point out that massive rear wheel shutter and bind the car did in the second video towards the back half of the track- pretty damn violent wheelhop.
Last edited by SlickTrackGod; 12-02-2016 at 10:36 AM.
I should also point out that massive rear wheel shutter and bind the car did in the second video towards the back half of the track- pretty damn violent wheelhop.
I can't give an opinion on the DSE 4 link, but the wheel hop appears to be mostly driver inflicted. That was about 20 secs into the run and hes on it hard, then braking hard. You can see the black marks from several other cars that had done the same thing.
He may of had too much rear brake bias. Don't know. But he was a very aggressive young driver.
I can't give an opinion on the DSE 4 link, but the wheel hop appears to be mostly driver inflicted. That was about 20 secs into the run and hes on it hard, then braking hard. You can see the black marks from several other cars that had done the same thing.
He may of had too much rear brake bias. Don't know. But he was a very aggressive young driver.
I can't give an opinion on the DSE 4 link, but the wheel hop appears to be mostly driver inflicted. That was about 20 secs into the run and hes on it hard, then braking hard. You can see the black marks from several other cars that had done the same thing.
He may of had too much rear brake bias. Don't know. But he was a very aggressive young driver.
Wrong. Why? If he got into my car and did the very same driving technique that car would never violently shutter wheelhop like that....REGARDLESS of what driver input. You obviously are not familiar with the notorious 3rd gen wheelhop if the rear suspension links are too short and the instant center is changed. Poor performance value if you can not get hard on the binders without such violence. period.
Before either of you above go putting your feet further into your mouths, I had a 3rd gen that documented 60-0 braking in 102feet on street rubber 8" wheels and factory sized tires. Your car is suffering from rear chassis jacking combined with decreased invert leverage to prevent the wheels from yanking upward off the ground during hard braking inputs due to poor geometry. This is why others like UE for instance tried and failed with the decoupled TQarm. Chassis balance has to involve front and rear of the chassis as a marriage of components and setting. Anyone buying this setup is merely lighting their pocketbook on a product that is inferior to factory geometry. I will strongly suggest you go back to the drawing boards. That is about as violent a wheelhop as a car will get. I am shocked after all these posts I was the only one to comment on it.
Last edited by SlickTrackGod; 12-24-2016 at 02:18 AM.
Wrong. Why? If he got into my car and did the very same driving technique that car would never violently shutter wheelhop like that....REGARDLESS of what driver input. You obviously are not familiar with the notorious 3rd gen wheelhop if the rear suspension links are too short and the instant center is changed. Poor performance value if you can not get hard on the binders without such violence. period.
That is about as violent a wheelhop as a car will get. I am shocked after all these posts I was the only one to comment on it.
I'm thinking your'e referring to the second video at 45 seconds, the first time I saw it I assumed he ran over a cone and it got caught by the wheel! Not until you replied did I actually watch closer and see that's what it was. He didn't hit any cones. That's violent.
Was thinking along the same lines - just not into the technical aspect; just that the car "didn't appear right" during the video and seemed like a real handful to drive. Personally have seen a lot better stability with 3rd gens on factory geometry (aftermarket parts) than this IRS car. I had a heated discussion with the engineer of the system on FB telling me that even with a fully redone stock suspension and larger tires, the DS car with only the IRS would be much faster - called BS and he never did give an explanation of how that was possible.
Originally Posted by SlickTrackGod
Wrong. Why? If he got into my car and did the very same driving technique that car would never violently shutter wheelhop like that....REGARDLESS of what driver input. You obviously are not familiar with the notorious 3rd gen wheelhop if the rear suspension links are too short and the instant center is changed. Poor performance value if you can not get hard on the binders without such violence. period.
Before either of you above go putting your feet further into your mouths, I had a 3rd gen that documented 60-0 braking in 102feet on street rubber 8" wheels and factory sized tires. Your car is suffering from rear chassis jacking combined with decreased invert leverage to prevent the wheels from yanking upward off the ground during hard braking inputs due to poor geometry. This is why others like UE for instance tried and failed with the decoupled TQarm. Chassis balance has to involve front and rear of the chassis as a marriage of components and setting. Anyone buying this setup is merely lighting their pocketbook on a product that is inferior to factory geometry. I will strongly suggest you go back to the drawing boards. That is about as violent a wheelhop as a car will get. I am shocked after all these posts I was the only one to comment on it.
Wrong. Why? If he got into my car and did the very same driving technique that car would never violently shutter wheelhop like that....REGARDLESS of what driver input. You obviously are not familiar with the notorious 3rd gen wheelhop if the rear suspension links are too short and the instant center is changed. Poor performance value if you can not get hard on the binders without such violence. period.
But he didn't get in your car now did he?
No one here has said this car was set with a perfect suspension.
I'm pretty sure they were having issues the first day. The second day they did better if I remember correctly.
Our car didn't hop in the same section.
I'm thinking your'e referring to the second video at 45 seconds, the first time I saw it I assumed he ran over a cone and it got caught by the wheel! Not until you replied did I actually watch closer and see that's what it was. He didn't hit any cones. That's violent.
Conveniently that video is gone, the post has been edited to just show the first video 2x... If anyone knows where it is I'd love to see it (not that I'd buy the DSE setup anyway, this is one time I'll agree with Dean, the 3rd gen rear suspension is about as good as it gets for an all around setup with a little tuning).
Problem is that many get romanced into thinking that a more modern rear suspension design retrofitted into a 3rd gen is going to work as well as a car designed to have it in the first place. The compromises for the most part are too much to overcome the simple, yet highly effective 3 link OEM system.
When I hear "4 link", I automatically think fox body ford and g-body, both of which are not anywhere near the handling to a 3rd gen, even modified.
Call me crazy...
Originally Posted by 83 Crossfire TA
Conveniently that video is gone, the post has been edited to just show the first video 2x... If anyone knows where it is I'd love to see it (not that I'd buy the DSE setup anyway, this is one time I'll agree with Dean, the 3rd gen rear suspension is about as good as it gets for an all around setup with a little tuning).
Agreed.
Torque Arm suspensions allow the rear axle to articulate more (roll angle in relation to frame) than the 4-links. Therefore, the 4-link will go into bind much sooner than the TA.
4-link offers more adjust-ability, but our cars don't need that much in rear, and the aftermarket offers what adjust-ability we need. It is so important to have an adjustable rear suspension for serious track & AutoX cars. We need to be able to adjust the anti-squat, track width (spacers, rear only), rear steer & roll center.
But then a custom offset 3-link is better than the 4-link. It has more articulation and the offset can be used by knowledgeable folks to zero out torque steer. If you want to remove the rear seat, and feel that you can use/dial-in more adjust-ability and have money to burn, then spend the time and $$. But the $$ can better be spent on the front.
I've been looking into this and how it pertains to helping the 60' time in a drag racing application. My latest arrangement (provided it ever gets completed) involves a crossmember mounted torque arm that has several options for positioning the front TA mount location.
My understanding is that this adjustment will change the anti-squat characteristics and effect the "hit" on the rear tires from a standing start.
Any resources you care to cite that I might refer too?
(with thanks to Detroit Speed for the loan of the thread)
I don't do drag, nor do I strip; so I don't have much practical advice. The TA suspension can take high shock loads from hard launches, though.
I don't think Brandon (BDNBLK) converted to 4-link. Would be interesting to see his and DSE's prototype up against each other for comparison and data testing.
My comments were around road racing and autoX. Those four underlined segments need to be adjustable in order to tune at the track. You can click on the above mentioned link to Lat G and Ron Sutton's comments on rear suspensions (post #12 for anti-squat).
Here is how he defines the term: Anti-Squat percentage is a calculation of mechanical leverage of the rear suspension. It is calculated utilizing the location of the rear axle CL at ground level, the car’s center of gravity point & the instant center of the rear suspension. Each rear suspension model is different, but all have an instant center forming the swing arm arc the rear suspension pivots on (think side view).
So the 4-link, 3-link, and TA would all have differing IC's that effect the swing arm arc.
And: For drag racing … high power, high rpm, side step the clutch launches … the 4-link is better suited to deal with the launch forces. While the bottom links “push” on launch … the top link(s) “pull.” Pulling the rod ends is more susceptible to failure than pushing. Two links with four rod ends are obviously twice as capable of handling this “shock” that can be so powerful, the 4-link suspension is lifting the front of the car off the ground.
The 4-link and 3-link have more adjust-ability to match the car, conditions, and track. But again, the cost and learning curve is steep (probably why the car in this thead wasn't sorted out properly);and the benefits for most of us (street and some track) is not there (plus the back seat prob). That's OK. Well sorted 2nd Gens are commanding big bucks, and the move is starting towards 3rd Gens. Ron and SpeedTech are going to produce a front clip for 3rd Gens, but it's a ways off (but announced). Maybe a better rear suspension would be needed to match that front. But that kind of car is no longer a 3rd Gen platform, but still awesome.
I think all this is fantastic. Don't want to discourage anyone. As for me, I justified the resto-mod expense by committing to drive the dollars out of the car, and have fun/learn at the track while not being a ******. I'm not a competitive driver nor am I a guru. My aspirations are more modest, and my pockets are, too. And I'm having a lot of fun driving to and from with no trailer (I live close). The fun quotient is still there after 28 years of ownership and 230k miles! I want to hit 400k.
Problem is that many get romanced into thinking that a more modern rear suspension design retrofitted into a 3rd gen is going to work as well as a car designed to have it in the first place. The compromises for the most part are too much to overcome the simple, yet highly effective 3 link OEM system
The thing that most don't realize is that new, modern and sexy <> fast. Getting everything working together and well sorted = fast. There's plenty of buggy sprung cars out there that will run circles around the same car with the latest chassis/suspension swapped under them.
When I hear "4 link", I automatically think fox body ford and g-body, both of which are not anywhere near the handling to a 3rd gen, even modified.
Call me crazy...
well some of them do modified... when you add a TA to them
Originally Posted by TEDSgrad
Agreed.
Torque Arm suspensions allow the rear axle to articulate more (roll angle in relation to frame) than the 4-links. Therefore, the 4-link will go into bind much sooner than the TA.
4-link offers more adjust-ability, but our cars don't need that much in rear, and the aftermarket offers what adjust-ability we need. It is so important to have an adjustable rear suspension for serious track & AutoX cars. We need to be able to adjust the anti-squat, track width (spacers, rear only), rear steer & roll center.
how do 4 links offer more adjustability? Unless you're comparing an aftermarket setup to a stock TA suspension?
But then a custom offset 3-link is better than the 4-link. It has more articulation and the offset can be used by knowledgeable folks to zero out torque steer. If you want to remove the rear seat, and feel that you can use/dial-in more adjust-ability and have money to burn, then spend the time and $$. But the $$ can better be spent on the front.
I feel like the 3 link gains would be marginal compared to a TA, but I'd love to tinker with one and learn about countering the torque
Originally Posted by skinny z
I've been looking into this and how it pertains to helping the 60' time in a drag racing application. My latest arrangement (provided it ever gets completed) involves a crossmember mounted torque arm that has several options for positioning the front TA mount location.
My understanding is that this adjustment will change the anti-squat characteristics and effect the "hit" on the rear tires from a standing start.
Any resources you care to cite that I might refer too?
(with thanks to Detroit Speed for the loan of the thread)
Messing with the front pivot point location (height) on a sliding link TA will have very little/no effect on the instant center and anti-squat. The only thing that will move the A-S is changing the length of the TA or the angle of the LCAs
Wrong. Why? If he got into my car and did the very same driving technique that car would never violently shutter wheelhop like that....REGARDLESS of what driver input.
What is your rear setup?
I've heard of two 'real' solutions for wheelhop using stock style suspension from two former A Sedan racers. One is a torque arm with a bearing at the front. The other was described to me as a brake delay valve.
Unfortunately, neither are legal per my class rules, so I've ended up with the accepted rear 'street-ish' pad with race front pad.
What I was told was they (the ASedan guys) would cut off the front few inches off of the stock torque arm and weld a solid round bar there (so pretty much similar to many current aftermarket ones). The difference is that now most have a poly bushing with a round hole thru it where as they would weld a bearing to the clamshell.
Would love it if Detroit Speed would start making these.
wanted to ask Detroit Speed. could this 4 link be moved inboard say 1 to 1 1/2 inch.
with a 9" housing... thinking of bigger tubs (for a 11" wide wheel)
thers a 9" under the car now..
running 325 50 15 tire now all tucked under.. but wanted to go a bit wider and taller 29.5 to 30" tall tire.
in the 13 to 14" wide size..with rear coil overs..also on car now..
11-21-2016, 12:44 PM
He didn't hit any cones. That's violent. 
