five7kid

iTrader: (14)

On the 16th pass with the new BMR Trak Pak torque arm, the adjuster link broke off, causing the pinion to reach for the sky. The carnage ain't pretty - other than the torque arm being broken, the driveshaft was wiped out, the bottom of the shocks almost broken off, and the tranny output yoke is stuck on the output shaft (I assume the output shaft is damaged - won't know for sure until I figure out how to get it off). Oh, there's also a hole in the floorpan.

Apparently the Quick Performance method of providing a torque arm mount allows side-to-side motion that the Trak Pak simply cannot handle. The adjusting link fracture was reverse bending in the side-to-side direction.

I'm either going to have to go with a non-adjustable torque arm that can take the side-to-side motion, or abandon the Quick Performance housing-mounted torque arm mount.

This is getting frustrating.

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

ouch dude.

Not to sound morbid, but I'm looking forward to pics. Hopefully the pics will help others avoid similar problems.

Ramair21

iTrader: (3)

so did the BMR trak pak caused all this? your not the only one dude. Another guy over on Ls1tech had the same problem. I was looking into getting the BMR but i dont know now.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

It's the combination of the Quick Performance torque arm mount that uses swivel joints, and the way BMR does their adjustment - the eyebolts between the mount plates and torque arm tubes are not squeezed tight. The torque arm basically "bent" back & forth at the BMR links between the mount plates and torque arm tubes. Here's a pic of the BMR set-up for reference:



With a solid torque arm, or with a solid torque arm mount on the axle, I would have been fine.

cam-

I must have missed a post or two but when did you abandon the Petes Z bars? Or the mini ladder bar deal?

As for torque arms? I've had excellent luck with Spohn I couldnt complain a bit. I also prefer the cross member relocation rather than the shorty style like this one or the Jegs. Not a fan.

Not saying they dont work for VERY fast cars but even still... A cross member relocated torque arm is not going to hurt you much until lower than 10.0

BTW if you want a solution that no one has complained about yet.. see sig. Six seasons in the 9's now and not one single failure yet

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I've been discussing the ladder bar conversion fiasco on the Organized Racing forum. With any kind of traction, it literally pulled the rear tires off the track. Even without doing that, it was pretty violent.

I might be penny wise and pound foolish, but exhaust routing is dictating the tranny crossmember, which dictates/limits the torque arm choices. This was working well, right up to the point that the adjusting link broke. I was concerned about their crossbar limiting ground clearance, but for the short time I had it out, it wasn't a problem.

This can be made to work, but the extra joint in the middle has to be eliminated.

cam-

Ahh yes exhaust nuff said. Regardless its a bummer to see these troubles happening for you. Im sure you'll get it sorted in no time

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I'm going to set this to the side and concentrate on the LS1/4L60E swap in the other Camaro. Should be able to get it going by the end of the month (especially if I "steal" some parts from this one). I'm most likely going to have to go through the T56, which I prefer not beginning until the other car is running.

built91Z28

That really sucks. If anything though, it does make me feel a little better about how I went overboard on my torque arm mount. I dont know how much you are up for fabricating, but I am using my old Spohn torque arm (8 inches shorter now) and a crossmember mount and have my exhaust tucked up as high as the floorboards. My X is 8 inches off the ground and I am on Sportline springs.

cam-

Dont rub it in... My L92 swap is sitting idle yet again. I cant believe a simple engine swap is dragging on for months and months and months... Business is good though so cant complain but man if i could back up the clock? I would NEVER have taken the LS1 out

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

I took my ls1 out and sold and it my new motor swap has taken months and months.....hmmm I think I agree with cam on this one.

Jim85IROC

iTrader: (2)

Yeah, it's a bitch. I bought my LQ9 back in what, march I think? I'm still staring at a bare block, wondering if I'll even get the motor assembled by christmas.

Fortunately, I'm actually doing a 2-car musical-engines swap, so hopefully that means I won't have as much down time. I can yank the 305 out of the GTA, clean up the engine bay, and then yank my 350, clean it up, and toss it into the GTA so that I can keep using it while I have the IROC apart forever. Unfortunately, as great as that plan sounds, I have a bad feeling that I'm going to wind up with 2 cars with empty engine bays for an extended time.

Falconiroc

Sorry to hear about this! It is a real bummer to have something break like that and cause such carnage to your undercarriage. I can totally understand what you guys are saying about projects dragging out. I initially thought I'd already be swapping in an engine. I guess I could be part of the way there now, but I wanted to get into a car so badly and get off the bike so I purchased the '95. I think in the end its going to be a positive experience. Its looking like this project is probably not going to be on the road until sometime next year, but I guess that's ok, it just means that I can really focus on it.

57Kid,
I considered doing the BMR Track Pack as well because of the same reason you did: Exhaust. Would you recommend it, or should I do something more along the lines of what Ghettocruiser did by welding a bung on to attach the spohn torque arm to?

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Getting exhaust past the transmission crossmember seems to be the most difficult part. After that, you can follow stock routing.

In hindsight, it doesn't appear the drop in the BMR crossbar is necessary to get 3" exhaust through the stock routing. But, a straight transmission crossmember would make life very difficult.

Tony89GTA

iTrader: (7)

Any pic's of this carnage ? Would also like to see how Quick Performance does their torque arm mounts compared to mosers.

When my spohn torque arm failed I was kind of lucky my drive shaft didn't pull out but I did find a bunch of long metal shavings inside the yoke that I thought was odd, wonder if you have something similar that's wedging the yoke on.

Edit: Just found some of the pic's in another post. Yeah I can see what you mean about the Quick housing, wonder if you can brace it some how or swap housings with a moser.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I've considered a couple of bracing schemes. And seeing if Strange would sell me a TA mount center section housing (BMR doesn't like the Moser TA mounting).

I hadn't thought about slivers jamming the yoke. That would be nice if that's all that it is (and the slivers came from the yoke, not the output shaft).

I looked at the rear u-joint caps closer tonight, about a fourth of the needles are broken or smashed in each cap.

Atilla the Fun

I just found this thread, and all I can say is: !!!
Sorry it was you who "took one for the team"

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I spent the evening installing the replacement adjustment link and the rear u-joint (sans needles) so I can move the car out of the way. Looking at the set-up as it exists now, I think I'm going to either try to get a Strange center section housing with TA mount, or take it to a local chassis shop and have them modify/fab a TA that fastens to the housing in a similar manner (brackets/eyebolts), with the adjustment back there and the rest a solid link. The existing Quick Performance brackets aren't in the correct place to do the latter, so I'll let them handle it.

This will be after I get the LS1/4L60E finished, figure out what's going on with the tranny output shaft/yoke, and have a new driveshaft fabricated.

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Sounds expensive, i am always checking the TQ arm bolts on my moser 12 bolt since everyone swears they back out, but nothing has moved, your problems are what i would be afraid would happen if for some reason the backed off and broke the bolts.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Not to beat a dead horse, but after thinking about this for several months, watching video of launches, hearing other stories, I'm thinking I'll go with a non-adjustable aftermarket torque arm that mounts to the tranny. Seems to be the cleanest and easiest without needing to modify the rear end mount. We'll see...

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

whew i wouldn't mount a thing to my trans, ever. Too much stress put on that in a race situation. Take some pics of what you're working with and I'm sure we can figure out something better.

cam-

Sorry to hear that sucks

mw66nova

iTrader: (13)

a non adjustable jegster arm might actually be ideal in your situation.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I thought about the Jegster. It's a short piece like the Trak Pak. I wasn't particularly impressed by the tire planting, although I didn't have time to try different LCARB holes before disaster struck. I'm also a little concerned about transmitting the force into the floor pan sheet metal - I understand it's spread out over a goodly amount of area, but I don't believe there are any reinforcing members between the pan and the frame (or even subframe connectors) where the saddle fits.

Mounting it to the transmission has a couple of advantages: 1) puts the reaction point closer to the greater mass; 2) pivots the pumpkin at the same point the driveshaft is pivoting. And, the longer the arm, the less the reaction force at the attach point. I do appreciate the concern about the possible effect on the transmission, though.

It's not like I have a 600 RWHP, 3800 lb car here. But, I haven't clicked the "submit order" button yet.

grover85

iTrader: (1)

Bump,
FYI quick performance uses solid mount joints on there rearends now. Mine came with the non solid ones so I called them and they sent me solid ones for no charge. He stated they switched to solid ones two years ago. This is only necessary if you have rod ends in an aftermarket torque arm.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I had heard that, but didn't come in to update this thread.

Still needs a side brace. Just too much movement possible.

I ended up putting an S&W torque arm kit on it. That one is built like a battleship. And, has a side brace.

Then I sold the car.

grover85

iTrader: (1)

I got the arm installed last night. Same setup as yours but with the solid joints. No side to side movement what so ever. But we will see. Would not be hard to add a side brace.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

It may not move freely, but there is too much lever arm for the joints to handle. It needs a side brace, preferably a triangulating one (which is exactly what S&W did).

grover85

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the heads up. Easy enough to do.

V8Rumble

iTrader: (2)

Hmmm. OK five7kid, you've got me a little bit nervous now. I don't suppose that we might be able to schedule a bit of time when you could wander on up this way, & show me (on my car) what you're talking about?? Whenever possible, I kind of prefer to learn from others' experiences, & (since I also have a Trak-Pak) this definitely seems like one of those situations...

(EDIT: JUST what I need, more custom work to do in order to get the flippin' thing running...)

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

If your TA mount is solid on the rear, you won't have any problem. The issue is QP used links to tabs on the 9" housing to put the TA mount out in space beside the 3rd member. It needs a triangulating brace to stabilize it.

Atilla the Fun

I'd suggest a pyramid design over a tripod design.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

The primary force is resisting the twisting of the axle housing, which is a nice in-line load. QP put the tabs for the links offset from the TA mount, which introduces the side component. With the TA mount hanging out in space, without its "legs" directly under it, havoc reigns. The BMR adjuster link fatigued to failure from a reverse bending load with only 15 passes, and a little street time (basically to and from the track, 6 mi each way, a couple of times).

S&W puts the tab mounts directly in line with the TA, which limits the side loading. But, they still put in the triangulating link, which isn't nearly as beefy as the top/bottom member. Excellent design. It didn't whimper with 5500 RPM clutch dumps with sticky tires. A triangulating link for the QP would have to be beefier than what S&W uses.

But, if you found room for a pyramid setup under a 3rd gen, it would probably work fine. That lack of room is the basic reason I abandoned their setup.