Drop "spindles" shouldn't affect your static alignment settings. But they may limit how much wheel backspacing you can live with (think outer tierod end to wheel/tire clearance).


Norm

 

My 17"s are right next to the outer TREs but would 18"s clear or come close to clearing?

 

Ok,
I think I have this now. Took weight off the nose, front suspension raises, causing positive camber change and toe (out?) change. Camber adjustment is already almost maxed out (inwards/negative) on struts. Installing drop spindles will drop the car, but leave the rest of the alignment untouched, so it is necessary to install the intrax IA kit/bolts. This will allow IA to be brought in line, but the camber to get worse. 1" drop springs and the Sphon adjustable a-arms mentioned at the outset of the post should be able get the neg camber back? That seems like a lot of lowering though (3") total.

gotta do more reading, thanks for the info!

 

The 18" wheels will give another 1/2" of clearance. From pictures I remember seeing, it just barely fits around the tie rod.

 

I have this same problem... I have taken over 100lbs off the nose of the car AND put MOOG replacement springs (stock height) AND 4th gen isolators which apparently are thicker than 3rd gen ones... The car sits way too high for my tastes and the camber is positive and can't go more negative than +0.5 on one wheel... The other one won't go more negative than +1.0!

I bought J+M strut mounts, spohn's adjustable strut to spindle bolt kit, and will possibly be buying a set of racecraft spindles. I just stored the car and it's sitting on the suspension so I want to wait and see how it sits after the 5 months of sitting there on the suspension, i'm thinkin it will sag/settle a bit since the springs and everything was new.

Also, how would spohn adjustable a-arms bring back negative camber?

 

you can adjust the length of the arm (chassis mount to ball joint length). By making that longer, you will add negative camber.

 

What about this for us V8 guys
just weld triangulated braces to the wonder bar and behind the steering box(semetrical on other side).Rod ends on the angled braces for removal. could be tight on driver side but possible
anyone think this would help?(or hurt?)
Maby add some beef to the opposite side of the wonderbar so as to prevent flex and add preload.

 

Ahhh i see now. Would making it longer push the wheel out further or just change camber angle?

 

it would do a little of both but mostly just change the camber. It would move out just fractions of an inch.

 

Both.

Lengthening the control arm pushes the balljoint outward, which also causes the strut and knuckle to pivot about the upper strut attachment point as seen in front view. You don't gain camber all that fast (compared to a short-knuckle SLA suspension) due to the relatively long length of the strut but you do gain.


Norm

 

.

 

Not that I have had the adjustable arms in my hands, but I'd also pay close attention to thread engagement as losing a control arm, would make a hell of a mess. Whats the general rule of thread engagement? 1.5 times the width of the bolt?

I'm not sure how much adjustment I'd be comfortable doing at the A-Arm side of things, more for fine tuning. Personally I feel that between lowering, slotting the towers, and aftermarket strut mounts their SHOULD be plenty of adjustment.

 

I agree i'd be worried about a-arms detaching... I think personally for my street driven car poly tubular non-adjustable a-arms are fine. J+m strut mounts should provide more than enough adjustment for caster camber for my tastes.

 

I figured you wouldn't gain either that quickly because as the ball joint was pushed out, the negative camber would increase which would tilt the hub on the spindle back. Since the hub is higher then the ball joint you essentially lose some of the distance that the A-arm was moved out, leaving only a camber gain which would still be very little. That's why I think the negative camber gain would probably be a greater gain then the length of the A-arm. This is just some theoretical thinking... I haven't made a model to check anything, but it seems right... no?

 

.

 

.

 

Bringing back this thread..

For the track width begin equal front and back topic: Bigger brakes add 3/8" in the front I believe (such as LS1 brakes or others). This is very small but how would one go about bringing either the rear wheels out or the front wheels back in? (I would assume that bringing the rear wheels out gives an overall wider track width, which is good for handling)

My thoughts on this are that the adjustable a-arms, can be adjusted to bring the wheel back in 3/8", OR add a 3/" spacer to the rear (if that even exists).. OR does getting bigger brakes in the rear push the rear wheels out the same 3/8"? I don't want to drift too far off topic and talk about brakes but I felt that since alot of people use bigger brakes for cars that run at the track that this information might be useful.

 

Hopefully Dean will chime in but, what I feel I can offer input on is... You probably wouldn't want to use adjustable a-arms to "pull" the wheel back in as you may run out of camber adjustment, then. also, if you moved the strut (via slop from bolt to clearance hole) to compensate for needed camber, you're hurting scrub radius.
I remember seeing somewhere that Dean pointed out that you want your rear tire to follow in the tracks of the front. this would lead me to believe you'd want to widen the rear. now, i don't have experience with these brakes, so, 3/8" per side or overall? 3/8 per side, you'd probably want to adjust the rears out. 3/8 total, probably not going to be thhhhat big of a deal.
Dean, if any of this is wrong, I'll edit it out following your post.

 

Hi Alan, Yes for the most part a agree with what you wrote. There really is no right answer to this because it is really based on what your intended use of the vehicle is. If it is autoX then the narrower track witdh (as well as shorter wheelbase) will favor faster times in transition cornering. Thats why the little cars like Miatas are so hard to catch on an autox course---they just fit better.

The only real concern when altering the front A-arm length is to also alter the tie rod length which is generally not a problem. For the most part, the longer arms are more stable in geometry but also have less camber gain. This is so small of an amount though, but it is still acting on reduction, not gain.

I have had an idea for a few years now that I will let out of the bag based on suspension mount points. I always thought it would be great for a manufacturer to make a K-member with raised & widened A-arm mounts to push the factory a-arms outward (not extended, just standard arms mounted in a wider track) as well as a widened center link to match. This would allow for people to mount 4th gen backspaced wheels onto a 3rd gen without the use of wheel spacers. What this would also do is to allow the suspension to increase hub width withouit increasing articulation leverage or weight (unsprung weight) and actually decrease unsprung weight with a 2" more positive offset wheel compared to the close to neutral offset factory wheels. Rear is easily matched with a 4th gen rear or with what I would perfer is just do 2" wheel spacer on the rear for lighter unsprung weight compared to the wider axle.

Dean (Vetruck)

 

Yeah, i forgot I was gonna type something about that. That also isn't touching the handling characteristics that track width influences.

 

Wow I thought a wider track width would be better for handling! So, wider wheels with the same centerline, delivers better handling, but the same wheels, pushed farther outwards thus widening the track width will make the handling worse, correct?

 

.

 

Ok. No, I understand though, now this opens a new door here, stock camaro track width is pretty wide as is compared with most cars, so that is one of the reasons why it takes turns so well at higher speed and is difficult to change directions quickly.

On another note, I was able to turn a corner at 130km/h (i believe this is like 75MPH) and keep grip on a well paved road surface.... It was scary nonetheless but I survived through with no slippage, but alot of tire noise lol.. Car felt like it was lifting on the driver's side (I was doing a left turn). The car very quickly regained complete stability coming out of the turn. Question: Is the car too stiff?

 

.

 

lmao 280,000$ car, ur nuts lol.. anyways, i think it's partly because I have Tokico blues which are not that stiff really, but it's hard to tell except that I pulled myself nearly out of my seat lol. it was awesome, but ur right, i can't really say it did lift or not! I remember reading a post you made about the Tokico blues being like a "5" on 10 for stiffness, and the Koni's being a 10 on 10... Are the Koni yellows really that much better than the blues? If so, I'll invest in them, just wanna be sure..

 

.

 

Gotcha. Koni's it is. Are the Koni's harsh over bumps, i know they're adjustable, stiff for racing but soft for the street i assume?

 

I have the Koni Yellows front and rear, street driven in pot-holed Michigan. I have not had a problem with the car being too stiff at all. The rear is full soft, I think the fronts are too. That can be change for the track easily enough.

 

Sweet. That's what I wanted to know.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's no Caddilac, but it won't try and shake your fillings out either. I think they and a decent alignment have made a HUGE difference it the way the car handles. Next up is tires (the current ones are shot and old), then next year as budget allows, I'd like to see what rear LCA brackets can do, as well as maybe a few other goodies.

 

Koni yellows also seem to be responsive to adjustment.

On the '08 Mustang, there is a clear difference between 3/4 of a turn up from full soft and one full turn, and 1/8 turn adjustments can be felt. But even +1 turn still provides a surprisingly good highway ride. Other than using a 3-link out back instead of a torque arm and putting the front springs on the struts instead of on the control arms, it's not that much different from what you have, so I think those impressions will transfer over.

The next step up on the damper food chain can get REALLY expen$$$$ive.


If Tokico Blues are valved by the same team that does Illuminas, I'd expect them to be a little on the harsh side over sharp little bumps for the level of chassis control provided.



Norm

 

Yes it does seem harsh but not too harsh.. kinda in the middle.. My old worn out shocks were slightly harsher.. But I think camaros just ride harsh :P

 

Mods,

Please unsticky this as the pertinent data has been removed. This thread is no longer of value.

 

What the hell happened to all the original text that Dean wrote?

 

For whatever the reason, Dean removed the text.

JamesC

 

Go read the other thread; part 1, post 1. It's spelled out clearly.

Google cache still has a version from January so all is not lost. I saved it.

Thank you Dean for what you've shared and sorry for your experience / conflict with another forum member.

 

I've got the first page of part one copied down.

 

.

 

Vetruck,

Sorry to hear that, I've been a member here for a long time, and these were the most useful threads on the whole site when it comes to 3rd gen suspension. Basically renewed my interest in getting my iroc's handling to a new level. Please tell us you copied it somewhere for those who are truly interested in your perspective towards suspension tuning.

Sad news indeed.

 

Dang that sux, Hope this issue will be resolved. Im a big fan of Deans post. Hopefully other moderators will look into this.