SteveSpohn

We just released a new torque arm. This unit is adjustable like all of our units, but it mounts in the factory location on the transmission into a supplied polyurethane bushing.

Part # 399 - $295.00

Details are here:

http://www.spohn.net/product.cfm?productid=1475


Thanks,
Steve

JMatlock88

Well it's the product that we've all been waiting for...Finally be able to run Spohn and LTs!

(BUT....I sure wish there was another way to do it becides bolting to the trans...aka a new ta crossmember design that clears mufflex or some sort of bracing on the trans snout.)

Thanks, Steve!

joshwilson3

.

JMatlock88

Totally 100% agree. He definetly knows about the problem because we've been bugging him about it for a long time. I think clearances are MUCH worse in our application, but I think it is doable. Thanks for posting those pictures!

SteveSpohn

That's a G-Body, it's impossible in a thirdgen. The Mufflex y-pipe is 1/8" from the stock crossmember, there's no way to make a crossmember strong enough to carry the load of a TA attached to it and clear the Mufflex. A better solution would be to get a company to make a different y-pipe, I was never a big fan of the fit and finish of the Mufflex myself.

Where the XM humps up on the driver's side is where the torque arm has to attach. We've looked at it, there's just no way.

Steve

ebmiller88

iTrader: (7)

Another fine piece, Steve. I have but one question: Why does it matter which way the stock torque are lips face if the front of your arm is tubular? Is it because the bushing body is shaped different for the respective mounts?


Ed

JMatlock88

Ya, a good solution to the problem would be an oval ypipe for a reasonable price. Despite the discouragement, I'll be attempting the impossible in December - worth a try. Worst case, I'll be out a few bucks worth of 4130.
A picture is worth a thousand words...

ZFORCE

Will there be the option to add a drive-shaft loop?

tj

joshwilson3

.

Justins86bird

Will this TA clear your bolt-on driveshaft loop?

JMatlock88

Directed to Josh,

Spohn's new product WILL work with Longtubes and the Mufflex ypipe.

All of Spohn's torque arms before this new product (refer to my pictures) required a Spohn crossmember because the front mount was relocated from the trans to the crossmember itself. The beefey construction of this crossmember and the mounting locations of the driveshaft loop and torque arm (old version) do not allow clearance for the Mufflex ypipe.

He knows that you did not want to make a new ypipe. What he is saying is he thinks it's impossible to design a new crossmember that would both clear the ypipe and be strong enough to serve as the torque arm mount. He thinks; therefore, that the best option is a different ypipe if you want to keep the ta mount away from the trans. (Oval would work well)

Basicly, if you want to run Longtubes..at this point the new product is your only bolt-on option. Though I have reservations about moving my torque arm back to the tailshaft, there's really nothing available to work. I'm going to make an attempt at a new crossmember myself next month, but I haven't got my hopes set too high. Worst case, I'll be out a few bucks - sell my torque arm - and buy this new one.

For the record, I am currently using the crossmember-mounted torque arm with a modified mufflex ypipe. Unless it's a race car, the ypipe is just too low for comfort.

I hope that helps.

SteveSpohn

Just to clarify. The new torque arm posted up top will work fine with any exhaust, it runs identical to the factory torque arm.

What I was discussing with some people was that we can't find any feasible way to build a crossmember mounted torque arm that will clear the Mufflex y-pipe (for Hooker long tubes).

Our bolt in driveshaft loop found here:

http://www.spohn.net/product.cfm?productid=1312

....will work fine with this new torque arm. However, that bolt in loop will not clear the Mufflex y-pipe.

We thought about offering a loop welded on to the arm, it can be done. But, if the tailshaft or factory mount lets loose and the arm has a loop welded to it it's gonna destroy your driveshaft.

The reason we ask what type bushing you have is because the outter factory clamshell is different for each bushing. The bushing we supply with this new torque arm is designed to fit in the 7-1609 style bushing clamshell. The majority of 85-92 cars use the 7-1609 style bushing, and all 93-02 cars use that bushing. 82-83 cars are different then both the 7-1609 and the 7-1611, they had their own funky set up. The 84-85 are hit or miss, some had a 7-1609, some had a 7-1611 style.

Steve

ZFORCE

Other than mounting locations what is the difference between this new torque arm (PN- 399) and the other one (PN-301).

Does this new arm offer less strength?

tj

ebmiller88

iTrader: (7)

Thanks Steve, that's what I thought..


Hell no...tubular design is much stronger than the stock pressed steel unit. That's your question, right?

Ed

SpeedJunkie

Now does this new torque arm be compatible with the one that cvan attach to the trans mount you have also? id rather get this first and then be able to get the trans mount and mount this torque arm with the mount you offer. Is it compatible?

ZFORCE

No I mean compared to the Cross-member mounted unit. What are the advantages / disadvantages of PN-301 vs PN-399?

tj

Dr G

Steve and others:-

Is it possible with Spohn 301 - older style torque arm - to custom fabricate a Y-pipe (or true dual) that will work with long tube headers? Has anyone done this? Or is there NO way of getting long tube headers to work with torque arm 301?

Many thanks,

JMatlock88

I have a modified Mufflex y pipe that I run with my Spohn setup. It's just too low. Your only choice for good ground clearance is to go oval pipe, notch the frame rails, or create a new crossmember. If you do the latter, please let me know.

SteveSpohn

As far as I know the only people with exhaust problems with our crossmember mounted torque arms are the guys with the Mufflex y-pipe.

You shouldn't have any problems if you're running duals. I have the TH400 torque arm kit on my car with 4" dual exhaust and I didn't have to modify anything for clearance.

Steve

ZFORCE

Steve---

Is PN-399 better than 301 in terms of rigidity and strenght?

tj

SteveSpohn

No. Make no doubt about it, the crossmember mounted torque arms are the ultimate in performance and strength.

The #399 torque arm is just another option that some people prefer to run.

Steve

1bad91Z

iTrader: (1)

Is the Spohn tranny mounted tq arm THAT much better than the stock tranny mounted TQ arm? I know the spohn unit is adjustable, but besides adjustabilty, what are the benefits of swapping out the stocker?

TRAXION

Adjustable pinion angle
Less deflection (stiffer design)
No ripped bolt holes (manual guys with 12-bolts can shred the stock TA right off the rearend).
Possible easy non-legal, non-safe Driveshaft Safety Loop

t

1bad91Z

iTrader: (1)

Yea, I'm thinking really hard about getting one with 2 bolt-on loops (one on the front, one on the back).

Need sub-frame connectors first though!