Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Suspension / Chassis
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?

Suspension / Chassis Questions about your suspension? Need chassis advice?

Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-27-2009, 01:02 PM   #51
Member
 
Norm Peterson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Delaware Twp, NJ
Posts: 408
Car: '79 Malibu
Engine: 355
Transmission: º º 0 . . . |-|-|

Classifieds Rating: (0)
Re: IROC Handling vs GTA WS6 Handling

Quote:
Originally Posted by GICATA View Post
Okay, so it seems I'm talking out of my tailpipe...sorry I don't mean to blab about things I don't know enough about. I come more from the drag racing side and have always been led to this mod.
That mod works much better for drag racing because you actually want additional rear resistance to the car rolling. The more roll resistance you put back there the better you get to use the engine torque reaction to "re-plant" the RR tire that wants to go light. Some of the G-body guys use a HUGE rear sta-bar for the same reason, and ladder bars are just another way of doing the same thing.

Together with stiff poly bushings, you get a little less roll and a lot more lateral head-toss going over one-wheel bumps and diagonal dips in the road, so I can see where it would be easy to think that more stiffness back there has to be better. Unfortunately, it isn't. You can tune around it a little, but that's kind of like putting a band-aid on a self-inflicted cut.


Quote:
I wanted to replace the arms on my TA...but not for the curves I guess?

So the vehicle wants flex in a rotational manner at the axle, but no flex in a horisontal manner? Doesn't the Torque arm (axle to trans) keep this from happening? Does the upgrade aftermarket adjustable torque arm afford less flex and cause problems as well? Help!
The vehicle wants to roll in the turns. The axle mostly doesn't (tires do deflect so it does a little). Anyway, all of the links between the axle and the chassis need to be able to accommodate this movement without putting up a lot of resistance. As OE stock, this is mostly accomplished by flexibility in the bushings, though the LCAs have been left torsionally flexible partly to help this (another reason might be to avoid creating water/crud traps in these rather mission-critical components). As soon as you stiffen up the bushings for a cornering situation, you need to find another way to provide this flexibility, and if all you do is further stiffen the LCAs - you're going in exactly the wrong direction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "flex in a horisontal manner".

The torque arm resists side view axle rotation about the axle shaft center(think pinion angle change). That's all it's supposed to do.

The PHB resists lateral axle movement. In terms of controlling axle movements, that's all it does.

The LCAs keep the axle ends in place, which also keeps the axle mostly perpendicular to the vehicle centerline as you look down on the whole business (plan view rotation).


Norm
Norm Peterson is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2009, 08:40 PM   #52
Supreme Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: northern jerz
Posts: 2,864
Car: heavily modded formula
Engine: 521cuin big block ford!
Transmission: bullet proof ford C-6
Axle/Gears: ford 8.8, 3.55 gears

Classifieds Rating: (4)
Re: IROC Handling vs GTA WS6 Handling

no one has any thoughts about the formula350?
customblackbird is offline vBGarage Page   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2009, 08:40 PM
ThirdGen
1992 Camaro




Paid Advertisement


Reply

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards > Tech Boards > Suspension / Chassis

Tags
adjusting, axle, bolt, c3, camaro, camber88, corvette, difference, force, front, iroc, kit, rear, rims, rs, solid
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright © 1997 - 2012 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.

Emails & Contact Details