after long discussion with my brother and a couple of other f-body owners aka my friends, we decided we're going to try adding upper control arms to the rear my camaro like a 4 link i guess and see how it works. has anyone done this before? i if so do you have any advice or pics or is this just a stupid idea?i tried a search and it didnt come up with anything? either way i will probably try it. it wont be a expensive mod just alot of welding.

 

I've never saw it done. I'm sure it could work but not sure why you would want to. The torque arm set up on these cars works awesome. There is alot more to it then just throwing in some arms. Unless you have a pretty good grasp on suspension geometry I would leave it alone.

 

i just want to eliminate the torque are for various reason one is so i can clear some room for exhaust and the second and more important is i'm going to be running a super t-10 so i wouldn't have to worry about finding a mount kit for it. also i think it would be cool. but there is other stuff also in the furture that i'm planing that it would be better with out it i believe.

 

wasting time and money... i cant remember the company, but they have a shorter arm with its own crossmember... search its here

but hey its your car and money

 

I belive its the BMR tack pack or something like that, it is a very short tq arm.

I belive unbalanced eng. makes a "decoupled" arm for the 4thgens. Might beable to make it fit a 3rd gen.

 

i here spohn makes alot of different torque arms and mounts but i dont think they make them for the t-10

 

Jegs makes a short arm that bolts to the tranny tunnel.

 

I think that you heard right.

http://www.spohn.net/product.cfm?productid=1308

 

Fabbing up upper arm mounts is going to be MUCH more work then fabbing up a TA mount/pivot. All the exhaust clearance that you could want with the rear suspension can be had with a little creativity, and what really gets in the way of the exhaust is the PHR and brace which you’ll still need to have an effective 4 link or 3 link assembly.

If you insist on adding upper arms I’d go 3 link, like the new mustang setup (more supple, reacts better to bumps, less unsprung weight...), but I REALLY don’t see the point since you can have your cake and eat it too (handling and straight line performance) with the TA assembly that these cars come with.

 

what was thinking was just add a cross member to the backhalf somewhere and add the control arms like a g-body setup, if you make it like the g-body uppers then you shouldnt need a phb.

 

I talked to Jason about this, he say's there is no way it could be made to work.

 

basically i would be making it a g-body rear. i dont understand how it wouldnt work. there would be no change in the pinion angle. witha crossmember welded in the back i would have something to mount to. im not saying your wrong it might not be possible but i dont see why it wouldnt be possible.now if the upper werent angled out \_/ like that the were straight like the lowers then you would need phb

 

If you angle the uppers you won't need a panhard bar. The triangulation will keep the rear centered. Make sure your crossmember is properly braced. your upper arms will be controling the rotating of the rear once you eliminate the torque arm. Having the rear break loose could get ugly.

 

that's the right idea though ? right or wrong

 

In a perfect world, sure, in the one that we live in the linkage has all sorts of give. That’s why mustangs actually gain in the handling department when you add a PHR even though their control arms are angled (I believe in all cases the outside/lower arms are also actually angled slightly in, even on an f-body).

As far as the decoupled setup… anything can be made to work, but I’m betting that jason’s 4th gen setup ties into the stock 4th gen brace mounting point which will make it a difficult swap on a 3rd gen, I’d just fab something up to work with your car instead of wasting time fitting something designed for a 4th gen.

 

I agree completely. I know of a few G-bodies that have added a PHR as well. I was just stating that his idea of a triangulated 4 bar was in the ball park.

Personally I love the torque arm set up. In my local drag radial class we run stock style suspension on a 275/60 radial and my car out 60 foots all of them.

 

so i would be better off just taking another x-member and welding a TA mount to it,and then use another x-member for the trans

 

Just use Lakewood traction action bars and throw away the torque arm.... Very simple solution No fab work needed at all. I see 'em in the Jegs catalog all the time...

http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/store...tegoryId=13133

 

The separate crossemembers or even a single crossmember that deals with both is the best solution.

Honestly, I don’t see the point of setups like the Lakewood setup unless you’re just looking for a half assed drag only setup and are too lazy to do it right.

 

i dont believe with the traction action bar you can get rid of the TA. i dont see how the rear wouldnt twist.

 

As the brother mentioned in the first post . I still say quit being cheap, buy a torque arm and save yourself time and cussing, cause if it breaks replacement parts aren't readily available, your not gonna save much money and its gonna take alot of time. It would work but it would be a PITA

BTW your engine blew up cause you overheated it not from detonation

 

after long thought i think i'm either gonna weld up a TA bracket to the original X-member or buy a spohn.

oh and i'll beat the s-dime and the Firechicken when Camaro is finished