Shagwell

.....not to challenge some one's book, and maybe I'm wrong, but:
after LOTS of tuning on my suspension, I agree with Al. The 3-link still acts like a 4-link. Not exactly, because of the slider, but very similiar. The IC changes with LCA angle and tq arm angle. Lowering and raising my tq arm front mount point drastically changed my IC.(I say drastically, because I didn't build it with fine increments) The lower it was mounted, less weight was transfered, and less front lift was created(same as upper link on 4-link). - I also under stand that a shorter arm will react faster, thats common sense. (one point stationairy, the other swinging, a shorter arm means less movement to achieve same amount of height/angle change)
- I do understand that due to the slider, the tq arm is not a direct pull on the car like the upper links of a 4-link, but it still has the same end effect. I believe this from experience. Like I said, I made mine adjustable because this is how I understood the suspension to work, and I think a 1.66 60ft(consistent 1.6X) on 17's with a stick in a 4000lb street car says I'm not entirely incorrect.

Dewey316

I didn't say it didn't effect it. Re-read what I wrote, the location of the IC, is percendicular to the torque arm. Yes, if you lower the mount, the point where you LCA's plane, crosses the custruction line, moves down , and back a little. THen when you calculate the anti-squate, that little bit of down and rear-ward IC movement, changes the A/S quite a bit.

I am saying, you guys are wrong with trying say the IC caclulation and behavior is the same as a 3-link, or 4-link. It absolutly is not.

I really do not know how to say it nicely. I have offered up very detailed diagrams, I have tried explaining it several diffrent ways. and as simply as I can put it.

2tone

John, I'll help explain. You are correct and yes it is so hard sometimes to show something in words.

Simply put, we all have stated and can confirm that a torque arm is a sliding link and is NOT horizonally rigid like a 4-link setup is. A 4-link is solid on the upped arms and DO NOT SLIDE FORE AND AFT. The uppers of a 4-link TUG the car backwards as the lower links push the car forward.

Torque arm setup LIFTS the car pushing upward on the sliding point as the lcas push the car forward. HENCE- this is why the IC remains perpendicular the contact point on the front of the torque arm slide position.

The longer arch swing of the torque arm in the sliding mount barely moves fore and aft more than about 1/2" max under load- it moves fore and aft more in large up and down supension travel over bumps and dips. Even on a pivot mounted front setup like Spohns, you are getting about 1lb rear tugging force for every 100lbs of upward lift force. The tug force is so small its irrelevant.

Dewey316

Thanks Dean.

I tried to bring up the direction of force earlier. Basicly, since the Torque arm, is an extension of the rear end housing (it is solidly mounted to it, not a pivoting linke, like a 4-link upper), the twisting force is trasfered to the torque arm mount (sliding link) in a verticle direction. that is why the calculation has the verticle plane there.

In a 3-link, the upper mount either gets compressed, or pulled, so the calculation is based on the direction of force, and thus is the calculation is based on its orientation.

Al Miles

2tone,

Thank you for your input, as the Milliken information leaves a lot to be desired when posted out of context. You wrote the following;

The IC on a torque arm suspension is centered fore and aft on the torque arm length. The parallel imaginary line from the LCA angle crossing that vertical plain of the torque arm "length" is what determines the HEIGHT off the ground of the IC

I would interpet this to mean that the IC is half way between the rear axle CL and the CL of the slider mount. A vertical line is then drawn from the ground through this point. Then a line is drawn through the mounting points of the RLCA and extended until it crosses the vertical line. This is the IC for a torque arm suspension.

This leaves me a little confused when I read this.

Dewey316 posts this from Milliken

"Next a line is drawn perpendicular to the front end of the torque beam where it is attached at its rubber slider joint. This is basically a vertical line."

Millikin is working from the TA at the front mount by drawing a line that is perpendicular to the "front end" of the TA. In order for this to be a true "vertical line" the TA must be mounted parallel to the ground. But, as specified by Milliken this is a perpendicular line to another unspecisied line, the end of the TA? Could this unspecified line be from the center of the rear axles to the center of the slider mount?

I am not faulting any of us, I hope what we are trying to accomplish is posting the correct information. I can still see common factors the TA has with the upper 4 link as the TA does pivot in the front at the slider mount and in the rear the whole housing povots on the center line of the axle. I can also see each of you have merit in your posts, but each method yeilds a different IC. It would be interesting to plug in some real numbers and calculate the anti squat percentage results for each method. We already know each method yeilds the same results when the mounting points are parallel for both arms and I suspect the anti squat percentage will be very similiar in all other senarios.

Dewey316, does Milliken give the formulas involved? I have my 82 on the lift and I will take some measurements so we can test our theories.

2tone, can you determine what is included in the length of the TA in your senario?

Sometimes there is more than one way to skin a cat, I'm always willing to learn.

Dewey316

Here is my best shot at things. I'm going to bring in more text, more diagrams, and more definitions. I myself don't need to hash this out. But I am going try to explain it. There is a disconnect between what I can see, and know. And how I can type it out on an internet forum.

In this diagram, you can see the DETAILED calculation for Anti-Squat. Notice the IC location. Notice how it is figured based on the T/A lenght. The instant center, is located on the plane that is 90* from the center of the sliding link, and a line drawn back to the axle centerline (pivot point for that arm).



For more information, read this thread

Now, This ONLY works for a sliding link. If you have a diffrent type of mounting for the front of the torque arm, these calculation all change.

Al Miles

Shagwell,

I am also making my front Ta mount adjustable. I am using a shoter TA (drive shaft length) with a fabricated crossmember that contours to the tunnel. I plan to use a 3/4" course threaded adjuster with a polyurathane bushing that mounts above the TA. with a Spohn type connector. Do

Shagwell

thanks Dean! (who is AGAIN banned...someone really doesn't like you....)
That makes sense. I guess I never really fully calculated IC. I just know how to move what where to change how the suspension reacts to achieve what I want/need.
I just built my front mount as a slotted bolt hole. I used two tabs(one either side a poly rod-end) with 3 holes(different heights). Your idea would give you much greater adjustablity for better fine tuning. - My new one will probably be the same as previous, except I'm gonna build it with 4 holes, and I'm going to put small bearings on the outside of each plate(tied with the link bolt) and weld a small tab above each slot, that way it is 100% bind-free, and squeak free. My lca's will also have 3 front and 3 rear holes for more infinite adjustment. (note: I'm building a full chassis, and eliminating all uni-body crap.)

brutalform

Great thread. Thanks to all who contributed. This is the #1 mod to make our cars hook, besides slicks. I know its helped mine hook big time! This is now a sticky.

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

Holy crap, why is this so difficult?

For those of you that don’t know, the Milliken & Milliken book is pretty much the bible on many things automotive engineering and has probably the best chapter on Kinematics that I’ve seen anywhere, hands down.

To start with, part of the issue here is that people are confusing terms and messing up definitions, to keep from writing a book here I’ll just stick to the biggest/worst ones:
- 3 link: has nothing to do with a torque arm suspension, it’s basically a 4 link suspension removing one of the top links and centering the left over top link and then adding a locating device like a PHR or Watts link. If you want to see one on a production car take a look under an ’05/06 mustang. The instant center on a 3 link is found just like on a 4 link, where the planes of the UCA and LCA cross.
- Torque arm: this is not the type of suspension that we have either. This the suspension used on the GNX. It has a pivot at the front of the TA and traditionally has LCA’s that are in the same plane as the actual axle and are only used to locate the end of the housings and the pivot on the TA is the instant center of the suspension. The GNX version is actually a modified TA suspension in that it retains the normal GN LCA position which puts the instant center where the plane of the TA and LCA’s intersect, like the Car Crap drawing and Al’s and other’s descriptions show. The problem with this setup is that it binds and limits the suspension travel to what the bushing deflection allows. If you put solid ends on the pieces you would HAVE to have the LCA’s inline with the axle and the same length as the TA to keep from breaking things. Incidently, there was at least one aftermarket 4th gen TA setup that actually relied on this and made the rear suspension on an f-body work a lot like an axle welded to the frame like a rail dragster…
- Sliding link Torque arm: that is what we have on an f-body. Since the sliding link moves the point that it pivots around does also and it is defined as a vertical line through that link, like Dewey posted. The IC of the suspension ends up being where the plane of the LCA’s crosses the vertical plane of the TA sliding link, just like the millican book shows.

Now because of the sliding link geometry we have a few interesting things going on (OH, and the animated drawing at the beginning ends up being COMPLETELY wrong). The main interesting thing that is going on is that you can still have significant anti squat in the rear suspension with the front of the LCA’s pointing downwards, as long as the intersection of their plane does not cross the ground plane before it crosses the vertical plane of the front sliding joint of the TA.

This is why a slight downward angle to the LCA’s is not necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, as Dean has posted here and I’ve written dozens of times, a slight downward angle is actually beneficial on the street and where handling is an issue. The reason is what happens when you compress the suspension like when you enter a turn or when you’re applying power leaving a turn. With the front pivot parallel or slightly lower then the rear when you compress the suspension that link gets effectively shorter, pulling the tire slightly forward resulting in toe in and a little understeer. If the LCA has the front pivot slightly upward the opposite happens, the effective length gets slightly longer and results in oversteer.

That slight bit of toe in results in a car that is stable in transients. With the front pivot higher you have a car that has a tendency to toe out and oversteer as it enters a turn and can be almost uncontrollable exiting the turn since with a decent engine we already have plenty of throttle oversteer plus now we’re adding a natural tendency to oversteer. In the end to make this work you end up having to dial in some additional understeer slowing the car down everywhere.

Now the other end of this, in a straight line… Yes, lowering the rear pivot does make for a significant increase in antisquat, as a matter of fact a very small change can put your antisquat way over 100%. So you’re saying “great, the more the better.” Well, not really, there is usually a limit of what you can use, and that limit is actually the amount of energy that can be absorbed by the tire sidewalls under acceleration. At some point they accelerate downward fast enough that the tires literally bounce off the pavement after a few feet. That is what happens with LCA brackets and low profile radial tires… they feel freaking awesome coming off the line because the suspension is pushing down on the tires and you can leave hard, but a few feet out they literally bounce off the pavement and you loose traction. Some slower cars this still feels great because at that point they don’t have enough power to spin the tires anymore either, but it doesn’t work well for most cars. Putting a softer sidewall tire on the car (a slick) will let you use a lot more antisquat before it becomes a problem, but eventually you hit the point where the same thing happens or more likely because of the low tire pressures that people run in them, the actual sidewall deflects all the way and the rim hits the surface of the track (this used to be a very common thing when Lakewood bars were popular with mustangs that basically worked the same way)

Daniel U

Although I'm no geometry major, and don't understand all of the terms, the diagrams worked well. Great thread!

Shadygrady

iTrader: (3)

So on a stock ride height car which one of the adjustment holes should I use?High or low.From what i understand it should be one of the lower ones.Or should I just play around with it find what works best.Nevar mind,found it.

Mekano

Hi everyone!

I'm new in here and i have read all the post about this thread and i just want to be sure that i have well understand. I made a draft to show the difference between stock suspension and a lowered one. Is what a drew is good or i'm wrong?


I have a 83 trans am with eibach sportline spring (1.3" front and 1.6" rear i think) since i have changed the springs, the feeling i have when i do a "start" is totally different. Before, the front of the car has a tendency to raise, but now, i don't feel that anymore. Now the feeling i get is more like if the rear end of the car is trying to dig in the ground. The car litteraly "seat" on the rear end. The car become more predictable but it propably slow my 1/4 mile time.....
So... Did i learn something.....
Thanks!

(I usually speak french so I'm sorry if i did some grammar mistakes . At least i hope that you were able to understand me!)

neagan

iTrader: (7)

I have a 1988 IROC that I am in the process of replacing every bit of the suspension and installing an engine with approx 365hp. /3.27 rear with factory 16" rims/ 2200 stall on a 700r4/3800 pounds full. I'm trying to keep it the factory height that the IROC came with; which I believe was set lower than it's siblings. Did GM adjust the LCA's when they did this and did it make much of a difference between the 1320 or autocrossing?????

I am attempting to add in some suspension adjustment, such as fully adjustable KONI shocks, so that I can switch from long drives along the North Cali twisting coastline highway and visiting my local 1320's weekly Wed night drags.

I do not, absolutley not, have the inner engineering eye that those of you who put together the past two pages of suspension theory, but I want to be the best I can at driving the car in both worlds. What more adjustment can I add to be able to switch driving characteristics between the two very different styles. I've purchased a spare set of rims and as soon as I take my first trips down the quarter mile and can verify what me finish line RPM is, I'll choose an appropriate drag radial tyre size. Can I install a set of adjustable LCA's and switch back and forth or?????
Seriously concerned about pushing the envelope safety issues..... Nitro-Nicky

ohiotemplar

I have chosen the eibach pro kit for my rebuild. Thanks for the great thread. Just one question, where can I find the Lower Control Arm Relocation kit?

Timothayyy

iTrader: (2)

I got mine from UMI

Fords88Bird

Wrenchead84

so first of all i hope people are still looking at this thread. and next i am buildig an 89 rs on a super tight budget and just purchased the drop zone 1.75 in f/r lowering springs. unfortunately i just began to read that more would need to be done along with the springs to get a great handling car, which is my goal. anywho, i have not installed the springs yet but would love to do so and i'm wondering which modification; LCARB's, adjust. panhard bar, adj. torque arm, etc.. is the most important. and in what order of importance would someone on a tight budget purchase and instl such parts???

thanks for all the help

neagan

iTrader: (7)

Hey Wrenchhead,

You are actually asking a very vague question on an **** retentive thread.
You might want to include why it is that you want to mess with a basically great handling/driving ride (remember; these were the 'supercars of the 1980's)? You also should mention what type of budget you're needing to work with.
Not everybody needs to make their F-body a Speed-Racer in order to enjoy good handling characteristics, and once you start switching things around, you're going to need a lump sum of cash to finish. So what is your goal and are you absolutely sure you need to dive into modifying everything underneath the floorpans? Cause that's what it usually ends up needing to be. How good are you with mechanics and geometry? Have you already purchased the book: Camaro Performance Handbook?
These cars have a long front nose and if you start lowering things it's going to start hitting and scraping. If you have rough roads you're driving on there's limits. If you need more of a track car, circle-1320-autocross-road coarse, etc; there's lots of variables. So hit us up with some specifics. If you're looking for something that's more street performance and artistic styling, you should search long and hard for a set of drop spindles instead of lowering springs. With a two ton mass on a unibody framed, long nosed vehicle that has lots of built in factory flex, you're going to suffer ride quality quick. Nitro

Wrenchead84

alright neagan, well i am working with a few hundred a month at most or nothing if work sucks. i do want to eventually get into some autocross, possibly scca. i raced asphalt circle track back in the day and i'm getting the itch again. i really like this car and want to get the most out of it. the p/o cut up the original suspension to acheive the typical ******* rake, no offense to those with a rake. i'm pretty good with mechanics, i used to be one, and fair with steering and suspension geometry as long as we dont go to far into physics, like others. and nope i dont have the book.

thanks for the help

neagan

iTrader: (7)

I'm going to PM you with some info, since it's not all thread specific. Got your other note; thanks. Nitro

83 Crossfire TA

iTrader: (2)

Well, I don't see the point of going offline with this.

If the question is handling and you've done nothing but springs, I'd look at stiffer front control arm bushings and shocks/struts first, mainly because stiffening just the the front of the car is safe (will cause understeer, which is safer than oversteer caused if you stiffened the rear suspension on it's own). Try not to cheap out on the shocks/struts... I tend to be a cheap bastard, and I'm even fine with cut springs if done right, but this is one place that I spring the $$$ and go with Koni's if I can possibly swing it somehow. Also, you pretty much have to take the same things apart to mess with the front control arms, front struts and springs, where you can do the rear suspension parts piecemeal without duplicating your effort much if any.

I generally like stock, boxed rear control arms with stock rubber bushings in the rear. If you're going to go any further you'll need to make sure you have a bearing on one end or the other or the rear LCA's to keep them from binding, but I don't really see the point in spending the money in all but the most serious cars. OTOH, I like an aftermarket adjustable PHR, but I've gotten away with boxing a stock one and adding poly bushings... that will affect rear suspension performance more then most other things.

TA is mostly a waste of time, shimming the front pivot busing tight and making sure it stays lubed and doesn't bind makes a difference, otherwise messing with geometry isn't going to make things better. Aftermarket is lighter in some cases, and more rigid in some cases (not always) but for the most part is a waste of time until you get into a really serious setup.

Tune the what you have a this point by using poly or rubber sway bar bushings and front end alignment (more negative camber generally = more front grip). Of course, for different use my recommendations would be different

neagan

iTrader: (7)

Good points on the binding issue with standard boxed LCA and tightening up the front control arms.

I sent him a bunch of info from the factory spring rates to the factory sway bar sizes on the 89 & up cars, shock info combo's with springs, etc. He's actually pretty knowledgable with circle track driving and great mechanical skills. It would have been a really long thread to post here and I threw in some basic info outside of suspension thread material which is why I sent it out PM'ed.

I installed the Torque Arm assembly on mine but didn't recommend it to him as neccessary or needed; another good point you made.... Nitro

500hp89

what kind of deals can you get on tubular arms? 1984 camaro?

Guest

.

V6canvas

iTrader: (1)

Vetruck,
Any chance we could get a recap with all the 'right/corrected' info?

janson327

After reading through all the post, I feel that the tubular LCA and Panhard ROd without relocation brackets will be the best bet for my stock hight 83 Z28.

mater53

I have a 1953 international 1 ton short bed dually pickup. Ive built a 351 ford to replace the old 6 cyl. Im installing a 1988 trans am macphereson strut front suspension. I need to know a few things but one question at a time. What is the spec or measurement from the center of one strut to the center of the other strut. I have the frame portion tacked in place and am ready to build the strut towers. Can you help me?

SR-71

If I can get it to upload properly, here is a dimension chart for a 1992 Firebird. It will be the same as your '88 TA parts car. This came from a body shop reference.

If you can read it, it shows every dimension under the car. All measurements are in millimeters.

Here's a link:
http://www.newcovenant.com/portals/0...dimensions.jpg

This may not give you the exact measurement you are asking for, but it WILL give you the exact dimensions that a body or frame shop will use to make sure the car is set up properly.

element114401

iTrader: (1)

Just a quick question: Are the relocation brackets necessary if the car is still at stock ride height? I'm assuming no...

mater53

Well, the trans am suspension is going onto a 1953 international Havester 1 ton dually short bed pick up. I have to make my own strut/shock towers and this measuement is very important. ive built a strong V-8 to push it along and needed to upgrade the suspension. The trans am was free so i took on the challenge to fab it in. I will be using the rear end as well for better gearing.

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

I needed them was having wheel hop issues!

DRIVE2FAST

ANYBODY GOT A RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT SET UP TO RUN FOR A 90 MILE TOP SPEED RUN ON A GOOD ROAD ?
IM LOWERING THE CAR TO KEEP AIR OUT FROM UNDER IT AND LOWER THE CG FOR ADDED STABILITY.
*ITS NOT A DAILY DRIVER
ARE LCARBS AND A ADJ PANHARD BAR MANDATORY WHEN LOWERING ?

SR-71

I've been building my 'Bird for highway and top speed, so I have definitely been looking into all of this.

When lowering for top speed only, I would say that LCARB's might not be needed, and an adjustable panhard will be needed. Also, you will probably want an adjustable torque arm.

You may think you were asking just about handling, and that's important. But more important are your driveline angles. If you're running an overdrive and your engine speed tops at 4500, your driveshaft will be spinning over 6000 rpm. If you have the 0.61 top gear option, 7400. With a T56 and 0.5 top gear, your driveshaft could be spinning up to 9000 rpm or more.

Lower Control Arms--
For top speed, not launch on the drag strip, the LCA angle is not so critical. If the LCA's are level, when you lower the car the axle will move slightly forward. Again, not critical for top speed.

What will change is the rear axle pinion angle. The pinion angle will be pointing more "down" at the front. Normally, folks want the pinion angle to point about 1 to 3 degrees "down" in front from "parallel with the transmission shaft," since this compensates for axle rotation and "pinion climb" under hard acceleration.

For our cars, 1 degree is more normal, since the torque arm stops most angle change under acceleration.

For top speed, you want the pinion angle to be as nearly parallel to the transmission shaft angle as you can get it "at speed." You may need to compensate for up or down force at speed. If you have serious down-force, then you may want the pinion angle to be slightly up. If your car will lift, then you'll want it slightly down. All this so the pinion and transmission shaft will be as close as possible to perfectly parallel at speed.

Something I learned from the guy who built and balanced my driveshaft is that you want the driveshaft angle to be about 2 degrees off of the pinion and transmission shaft angles, for maximum power transfer and smoothest operation. It seems strange, but if the transmission, driveshaft, and pinion are all in a perfect line, you'll get vibration. You want the pinion to be off-center from the transmission shaft (up, down, or to the side) to make about a 2 degree angle in the U-joints.

To summarize: Pinion and transmission shafts as close to perfectly parallel as possible "at speed," and the driveshaft at about 2 degrees angle.
1. Lower the car to where you want it.
2. Put a level on the engine block pan rail to get the angle of the engine and transmission.
3. Put a level on the front of the pinion yoke and adjust the pinion angle so the yoke face is 90 degrees from the measure in step 2.
4. Put a level on the driveshaft to see that it is 2-3 degrees off of the engine/transmission angle.
5. Adjust engine/transmission mounts, torque arm, etc., as needed to get into these specs.
6. If you can get info on lift or downforce at the speeds you'll be running, adjust accordingly.

Now, all that said, back to the LCA's--
If your speed run has dips or bumps that will make the rear suspension travel up and down, then you will want to install LCARB's to make the LCA's level as possible "at speed."

Panhard--
If the existing panhard bar is level or high on the driver side right now, when you lower it the rear axle will move to the right. If it is low on the driver side, the axle will move to the left when you lower the car. The torque arm, being mounted up at the transmission and stationary, will make the wheels point left or right, accordingly, causing the rear of the car to track left or right off center.

For street use, the difference would probably not be noticeable. However, for a top speed run, you want the rear axle perfectly square with the car (or at least I would).

And like what I said about the LCA's, if the road has dips or bumps that will make the rear axle rise and fall, then you will want to add a panhard bar bracket that will make the panhard bar as level as possible "at speed."

DRIVE2FAST

EXCELLENT INFO. NOW TO GET THE $$$ 2GETHER FOR SILVER STATE CLASSIC.....

SR-71

I figured from your location and "90 mile top speed run," that you were talking about the Silver State. I've looked at that thinking I'd like to do it, but distance from home and costs keep me away. At least for a while.

It always amazes me when I read the results, that the winners are hitting within hundredths of a second of the target times. Even knowing how they do it, I'd be happy to hit it within a couple hours!

What class are you planning to run in?

DRIVE2FAST

MY CAR IS IN A MILLION PIECES. IM NOT AT THE POINT WHERE I HAVE OFFICIALLY ENTERED .... YET. FIGURED I BETTER DO IT NOW BEFORE I REALLY DO GET OLD.
I HAVENT DECIDED TO GO WITH DROP SPINDLES AND / OR SPRINGS YET.
I HAD GOOD LUK WITH DROP SPINDLES IN THE PAST ON OTHER CARS.

SR-71

Since I have wide tires which could interfere using drop spindles, and 'cuz I'm low-budget, I'm in the middle of lowering mine by adjusting the spring pads and cutting coils. The other reason I'm doing it this way is because no aftermarket spring maker could (or would) tell me how theirs would compare with my existing WS6 springs. So, I decided I go with slightly stiffer springs by cutting them, and know exactly what I'm getting.

I know that not using drop spindles will change the geometry up front, but the thing already has that "4X4" stance. I think lowering with the springs will actually make it more like it should have been in the first place.

DRIVE2FAST

I HAVE CUT SPRINGS IN THE PAST. IT WORKED OK. TOOK ME A FEW TRYS WHEN I GOT THE CAR BAK 2GETHER IT WASNT LOW ENOUGH SO I HAD TO DO IT AGAIN. PITA FOR SURE. I DIDNT WANT TO ACCIDENTLY TAKE OFF TOO MUCH COILS SO I DID 1/2 COIL AT A TIME.

SR-71

Yeah, a pain. Put it together. Get it equalized. Measure. Take it apart. Repeat. But I will finish with exactly what I want, not what some manufacturer decided that I want.

At least on mine, I'm changing all the bushings and mounts, a complete suspension rebuild, so I'm working with all new bolts and pieces. Makes it a lot easier.

DRIVE2FAST

WHAT ABOUT CAMBER ADJ PLATES ? SEEMS LIKE YOU WOULD NEED EM AFTER CUTTING SPRINGS.

SR-71

Definitely in the "as needed" category for me. Like I said, mine is one of those Formula's that you needed a ladder to get into. So I'm hoping that lowering to a more "normal" height will still give me a good alignment. If I need'em, I'll get'em.

I see your new sig. Mission 150 mph. I like that. Definitely attainable.

I've been building mine on computer first, using multiple software packages and online sources. Then I buy parts and assemble. So far, the computer has been spot-on with acceleration and handling predictions. The latest computer models claim a top speed of 186-193. I doubt I'll ever really get to test that. I think even the Silver State requires a bunch of extra equipment if you can go that fast, and I'm not willing to alter the car from it's original looks, especially the interior. No roll cages, 5-point harnesses, or floor-mounted extinguishers for mine! But it's fun to know it'll likely do it if I wanted to.

DRIVE2FAST

LET ME KNOW HOW IT GOES. HOW MUCH YOU CUT OFF THE COILS ETC...
ILL BE DOING THE SAME IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. ILL POST PICS AND SPECS ETC....

DRIVE2FAST

IM GONNA PUSH MINE AS FAST AND AS FAR AS I KAN. *EVIL LAUGH*

SR-71

I'll do the same. I'll start a new thread when I do, since we have wandered from the main subject of this one. I just finished the posi rebuild on my rear axle. Got it all back together yesterday, with new brake components. Tonight I'll start to cut an access door to the top of the fuel tank from inside, so I never have to drop the gas tank again. Then I'll start putting the rear suspension back together and fitting/cutting the back springs. Possibly this weekend, if life smiles on me this week.

DRIVE2FAST

I DIDNT WANT TO CUT THE SHEET METAL ABOVE MY TANK SO IM GOING TO RUN SIDE EXHAUST TO MINIMIZE THE WORK TO GET TO THE SENDER/FUEL PUMP. IVE ALREADY CUT DOWN THE OLD RUSTED EXHAUST OUT OF THE WAY AND REPLACED THE TANK / SENDER / PUMP.

SR-71

I guarantee, when I get done with mine, it will be sharply finished and sealed. It'll look like a factory job.

I actually had side-pipes on mine (the Corvette look-alikes from Hooker). Looked terrific. Sounded fantastic. But they were too close to the ground for speed bumps. Plus they rattled, and I was never able to fix that. So I went back to stock layout. 3-inch, of course. Thrush glasspack (got tired of rusted-out mufflers, plus I prefer the glasspack sound with zero sound inside). I'm welding up my own single tail pipe wrapping around the left side to two 1/2" x 8" rectangular outlets hiding under the center of the rear bumper.

Have we gotten off-topic?

Zaar

Question for you guys out there with lca's and oem lower control arms i am doing an axle swap and i cant seem to free the lower control arm bolt and bushing on the axle ive heated grinded and pryed at the damn things for three friggin days no help any info would be helpful... its a disc rear out of my 88 iroc...
i think the lower control arms from spohn might be the next step and hopefully i can cut the bastardos out thoughts???

Rayzor32

iTrader: (1)

air chisel

ZZ3 Z28

Bump. I like reading old threads and this one's got a lot of good 411.