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

Torque arm replacent

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 26, 2005 | 03:12 PM
  #1  
Cruz'N Bruz'R's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
Torque arm replacent

I know people have nothing positive to say about lakewood Traction Action bars.
But I want to know if this setup can allow me to remove the torque arm altogether. It seems by looking at the setup that the bars can support the rear-end in every way that the torque arm does, I just want to know what others think.
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2005 | 04:08 PM
  #2  
Cruz'N Bruz'R's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
Tech support from Lakewood just e-mailed me back. I asked about the problems with the Traction Action brackets breaking. They said they had a problem with steel suppliers a while back, but they've gone to another supplier now.

Also, he said that they suggest that the torque arm be removed.

Seriously. They said the bars take care of it.

Any thoughts?
Reply
Old Jun 27, 2005 | 07:49 PM
  #3  
phoenix305's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 948
Likes: 0
From: Clearfield,Utah
Car: 1987 IROC, 1989 IROC
Engine: built 305, stock 305 tpi
Transmission: Corvette 700r4, t-5
Axle/Gears: 4.10 posi, 3.08 posi
They do, if you use traction bars there is no need for a torque arm.
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2005 | 10:51 AM
  #4  
Cruz'N Bruz'R's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
Thats good news. that will greatly help with the 3" dual project for clearance.
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2005 | 11:08 AM
  #5  
bluegrassz's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,449
Likes: 7
From: LONDON, KY
Car: Camaro
Engine: Carbed L98
Transmission: TH350
Axle/Gears: 3.73
I have heard that you could weld the brackets to the housing and it would be stronger.

Any drawbacks in using this setup without the Torque arm?
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2005 | 12:11 PM
  #6  
Cruz'N Bruz'R's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
Not that I can see. other than wanting to run my exhaust where the torque arm currently is. the traction bars really lock the rear end in place.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2005 | 07:41 PM
  #7  
michta's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: lake orion mich
Car: 1984 ta slightly modified
Engine: 350
Transmission: auto 350 w/reverse valve body
Axle/Gears: 410 ratio
Tried removing torq arm once for ladder bars........Not a good move for launching off line. Went back to torq arm.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2005 | 08:08 PM
  #8  
Cruz'N Bruz'R's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
No, the removal was in addition to the Traction Action bars.
There setup allows for torque arm removal. i left mine on though for good measure.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2005 | 08:47 PM
  #9  
nape's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
From: SW Chicago 'burbs
Car: American Iron Firebird
Engine: The little 305 that could.
Transmission: Richmond T-10
Axle/Gears: Floater 9" - 3.64 gears
Originally posted by bluegrassz
I have heard that you could weld the brackets to the housing and it would be stronger.

Any drawbacks in using this setup without the Torque arm?
Don't try to hit an autocross or road course using that setup, you'll wheel hop your *** off most likely.

All the mustang guys switch to torque arm setup for road courses because Ford stuck with the 4-link setup. Only took them until '05 to realize what GM realized in '82
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2005 | 03:38 AM
  #10  
83 Crossfire TA's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
Liked
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 8,028
Likes: 93
From: DC Metro Area
Car: 87TA 87Form 71Mach1 93FleetWB 04Cum
Originally posted by nape
Don't try to hit an autocross or road course using that setup, you'll wheel hop your *** off most likely.
Why would it wheel hop?

All the mustang guys switch to torque arm setup for road courses because Ford stuck with the 4-link setup. Only took them until '05 to realize what GM realized in '82
1- In most cases the mustang designs are true torque arm designs unlike our sliding link torque arms.
2- There’s nothing really wrong with the 4 link setup, besides the soft factory bushings that most suspension setups are saddled with.
3- GM originally designed the torque arm setup that was used in the f-bodies for use in an economy car in the early/mid 70’s, it was used in the Vega
4- not sure what you mean by ford realizing what gm did in 82… if you mean the TA setup… well, GM was using it well before that AND ford isn’t using a TA in the ’05, it’s a 3 link, essentially works the same as a 4 link but the 2 upper/middle links are replaced with a single one to give a little more articulation to the suspension. Without the 2 angled upper links they had to add a panhard rod to locate the axle side to side. Both of these mods were also changes that were made by assorted road racers in the fox and SN95 mustangs…
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2005 | 06:58 AM
  #11  
Cruz'N Bruz'R's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 2,031
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Car: 87 Iroc Z
Engine: 383ci.
Transmission: WC-T5
I don't know what setup your thinking of, but the car handles twisties awesome now.
It would take some road race tires to keep the traction on the ground, but I could rip it around a road course no problem, with no wheel hop.
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2005 | 11:23 AM
  #12  
nape's Avatar
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
From: SW Chicago 'burbs
Car: American Iron Firebird
Engine: The little 305 that could.
Transmission: Richmond T-10
Axle/Gears: Floater 9" - 3.64 gears
Originally posted by 83 Crossfire TA
Why would it wheel hop?
From what I understand, you lose all the anti-dive when you remove the TA.

Originally posted by 83 Crossfire TA
1- In most cases the mustang designs are true torque arm designs unlike our sliding link torque arms.
2- There’s nothing really wrong with the 4 link setup, besides the soft factory bushings that most suspension setups are saddled with.
3- GM originally designed the torque arm setup that was used in the f-bodies for use in an economy car in the early/mid 70’s, it was used in the Vega
4- not sure what you mean by ford realizing what gm did in 82… if you mean the TA setup… well, GM was using it well before that AND ford isn’t using a TA in the ’05, it’s a 3 link, essentially works the same as a 4 link but the 2 upper/middle links are replaced with a single one to give a little more articulation to the suspension. Without the 2 angled upper links they had to add a panhard rod to locate the axle side to side. Both of these mods were also changes that were made by assorted road racers in the fox and SN95 mustangs…
1 - OK
2 - Why do most Mustang road racers switch to a 3-link setup if their class allows it then? Why not just build arms with heim joints that will locate the suspension better? I don't even mention poly because it would just bind up anyway.
3 - I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info.
4 - I was talking about a 3-link setup.
Reply
Old Sep 30, 2005 | 09:03 PM
  #13  
BackInBlack86's Avatar
Member
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 189
Likes: 1
From: Elkhart, IN, USA
Car: 77 K20 80 K2500 93 C2500 94 K1500
Engine: 350 350 454 350
Transmission: 350 465 80E 60E
Axle/Gears: 4.10 3.73 5.13 3.73
Originally posted by Cruz'N Bruz'R
There setup allows for torque arm removal. i left mine on though for good measure.
and suspension bind... the Traction Action bars alter the geometry of the rear suspension, leaving the torque arm on, you effectively have 2 suspension systems under your car. remove one or the other, and i bet it handles 10x better.
Reply
Old Oct 1, 2005 | 12:33 AM
  #14  
my3rdgen's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
From: Dixon IL
Car: 2013 Challenger RT
Engine: 5.7
Transmission: 6 spd
Axle/Gears: 3:92
I bought a set of these Lakewood traction bars. I might be mistaken, and I will have to read over them again, but I do not recall the instructions calling for removal of the TQ arm. But like I said I haven't read them in like 6 months and will have to reveiw them.

I have not installed mine yet as the car is in the shop for the body work, and this project is taking for ever. But this is somthing for me to look into, because I am NOT removing the TQ arm at all.

I will sell these lakewoods and build my own shorter adjustable TQ arm setup before I get rid of the TQ arm setup.

Cruz'N Bruz'R, did you see a drastic improvement in off the line traction with the Lakewoods?
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jklein337
Tech / General Engine
2
Sep 19, 2018 06:23 PM
Nervous2
LSX and LTX Parts
8
Mar 10, 2016 09:49 PM
IROCZ1989
North East Region
7
Jan 24, 2016 03:55 PM
sweet_87_iroc
Camaros for Sale
5
Sep 25, 2015 10:01 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 AM.