Anyone see the good read and supension upgrade on the Thirdgen RS Camaro in the CHP magazine?

Very nice read and upgrades, they put some 17 Thrust wheels on it. (the ones that look like the rims on the GT stangs )

I would post a link, but CHP hasn't updated there website.
I'm a subscriber and got my magazine last week.

Overall, the car looks great. All suspension upgrades...
They showed some results from Braking, Handling, etc.


ps: I know this may not be the right place, but we are all TBI (RS) guys, so just wanted to share it here.

 

what where their braking and handling numbers?

did they test it on a skid pad, and slalom, or one or the other?

what upgrades did they do to it?

i may have to go buy the mag. just to see, but i thought i heard from someone that the results were actualy rather unimpresive considering the 91-92 F41 RS cars pulled .92g's on the pad stock.

 

Hey!

Not sure of all the numbers. I think they compared it to one of the new Stangs. I won't be home until 6pm cst, and that's where my Magazine is. I will post the numbers tonight if it hasn't already been done.

Yes they did test it on the skid pad.

Upgrades:
rear:
17 wheels with I think 240/?? tires.
Trailing arms
Adjustable Panhard Rod
I think some drop springs, not too sure though.


front:
17 wheels with I think 240/?? tires.
Strut tower brace(Triangular(sp?) for TBI/CARB)
1.6 Drop springs
Tie rod sleeves(not sure)

Adjustable Transmission torque arm.

That's all I can remember, I'm almost sure that's 98% accurate.
I know for sure they didn't put any subframe connectors.

 

would this be the same article that THIS thread is talking about?

if so, there is something wrong there. i run in the CP class in auto-x, and on my 15" BFG radial TA's i was only 1.5-2 seconds behind the guys in CP mustangs on full race tires, and i am still using STOCK LCA's, and STOCK ws6 springs. with a well planned otu suspension (springs/shocks/swaybars are critical, the rest is just extra) on a good set of tires, our cars can get right up to, or over the 1g mark.

 

I just read the article too. with all the suspension work, they took off 29 feet of the skid test. the wheels were from vintage wheel works. very nice looking car. someone said it handles like a "poor mans ZO6, if that doesn't get your blood pumping, check your pulse"

 

Yeah, that would be it... heh

 

Yeah, the car looks good with those wheels and drop kit.

"poor mans Z06" was said in the article in the Mag. LOL

 

Yeah, tha't why I quoted it ( " " )

 

I read the article and wasn't impressed. It was a another throw all of (enter company name here)'s parts on the car article. The skid pad numbers sucked, somewhere in the lows .8x's. The Firehawk made .92 g's 12 years ago.

I have yet to see any magazine really do a comprehensive upgrade of a suspension with the focus on cornering, not just showcasing one company's parts.

Other than that the car did look good.

 

I would be really interested to see what would happen to the numbers with a pure Spohn setup. I'm talkin' the works. And done with 1 mod at a time ie lowering springs then run it, then shocks and run it, sfc then. . . you get the idea.

If this is covered in the article sorry, I haven't seen it.

 

Here's the results...

Before anything was done....

60-0mph... 173 ft
600 ft slalom... 58.4 mph
200 ft skidpad... .74 g

After suspension mods still using 16" 245/50's...

60-0mph... 182 ft
600 ft slalom... 59.7 mph
200 ft skidpad... .72 g

After suspension mods w/ 17" BFG KDW 275/40's

60-0mph... 144 ft
600 ft slalom... 64.7 mph
200 ft skidpad... .80 g

 

maybe they didnt have it setup properly??? Im hoping there is an excuse! I have 17x9.5's like they did but none of the other mods yet and I wanted to do them! If factory cars were handling better what went wrong? Anybody have an idea? Is it just that they are retards and cant use the tools they have to measure by?Cant drive? If these parts did so little why do so many people sell them and consider it an upgrade? WE NEED ANSWERS!

 

they went backwards with the suspension mods?????

something tells me this is not a build up to follow. sounds like they just tossed parts on, and didn't consider how spring rates would work wiht alignment settings, and sway bars, ect.

 

I read the article also. Sounds to me that they only did half the job. They talked about how wore out the struts and shocks were and how inadiquite the stock lac's and panhard bar was and the fact that the car need a strut tower brace, and how it would be nice to have subframe connectors but they didn't address the other wear items like front end lower conrtol arm bushings, sway bar bushings or the need of a wonder bar. Go figure. With everything the didn't change and before they put the new stuf on it's a wonder the owner of the car didn't wreck it. I would have been embarassed to drive it myself.

Steve

 

I would say they moved the car closer to where it needs to be but it was half a$$ of them to not do the bushings and all. If the bushings on it look like mine (original) then that could explain some of it!