Originally Posted by cosmick

There were later evolutions of the D44 that kept growing the ring gear. But traditional D44 gear sets can't be swapped in. The 4.30:1 is a bit much even for a T56 or a 200-4R, even on 29" drag slicks, and the wheel situation is a disaster. Plus $200 is too much for such a redheaded stepchild. No way getting it in and driving will even begin to approach the cost of a bolt-in 12-bolt, but the strength of the good-sized ring gear may be offset by the shafts or something else. No way to predict what will fail first.
It's probably no heavier than an S60, but nobody tries to get the heaviest axle weight they can get, even for street / drag cars.

Originally Posted by Noreaster

Well I do appreciate the replies and insight by everyone. Whether or not this idea is "worth it" I think I am still going to attempt it for the experience. And if it ends up being cheaper than a bolt in and lasts, then I will be satisfied and maybe we the job can help someone else out with their own swap. Like I said I am interested in metal fabrication and this car isn't a daily driver. Just a project for now. I think I'm going to take this over to the fabrication board after I take measurements and reevaluate the swap.

Originally Posted by Noreaster

OK for those who are still following and willing to brainstorm, I took measurements of the d44 and a few of the stock ten bolt. The first thing that will be addressed is the lower trailing arms. The Camaro arms are roughly 27 inches from bolt hole to bolt hole, while the d44 measure only twenty. Not really a big deal, I could use the existing Camaro trailing arms. The other thing that would need to be changed is the mounts on the d44 where the lower arms bolt to. The Camaro measures 48 inches from one arm to the other (outside of each bar) while the d44 is only 43.5. To solve this, I can simply cut off and re-weld the mounts for the lowers on the d44 two inches outwards.

The next biggest concern is the spring lands on each axle. The d44 and the ten bolt both use the same style mount on the axle tube, which is nice. However, the d44 spring lands measure only 33 inches from center to center, while the Camaro lands measure just over 41. Another problem solved by grinding away old welds and repositioning outwards.

More measuring and perhaps some dry fitting will be needed to evaluate the fitting of the upper control arms. The link to the photo shows the 8.9 Dana 44 on the bottom.

Originally Posted by TEDSgrad

Everyone's opinion gets opposition these days. But a bad 'tude is never well tolerated.


Torque Arm suspensions are also common as a factory style rear suspension in some cars. They are the simplest of the designs, allow a high degree of rear end articulation & can take high shock loads from hard launches. They can be made "a little" adjustable, but typically offer less adjustability than the other designs, as far as controlling the front Instant Center, rise leverage & anti-squat. If designed well & installed as instructed, these make a great all around suspension for the person that doesn't want to tune much.

3-links are very common in road racing, especially in full body cars like GT1 & the Trans Am series, because they allow for the most articulation & can be highly adjustable & tunable for track conditions. You also see them a lot on top AutoX racers.

For the best non-adjustable rear suspension for road racing, track car, or AutoX car, is the Torque Arm suspension, as it offers good articulation. The non-adjustable 3-link & parallel 4-link “can work well” … providing the instant center location provides a decent anti-squat percentage for your application. Triangulated 4-links are rarely adjustable, but still ranks at the bottom as the push pull forces aren’t parallel with the car (which is desired) and the roll center is not separately adjustable, as it does not use a panhard bar or Watt’s link.

For a "cruiser/driver" that will only occasionally see the track, with little or no tuning ... any of them will work fine ... but the Torque Arm suspension is best here & the triangulated 4-link 2nd ... which is why you commonly see these two suspensions in factory production cars. They both work fine in many hot rod & street performance applications. They are not better than the others, just simpler & effective. Plus these two allow you to keep the rear seat if that is important to you.



There is no performance reason to ditch the TA, unless you are racing competitively. In which case, you are rebuilding the car and it will not resemble anything factory or be street legal.

Originally Posted by skinny z

I remember that particular delamination issue from a magazine article.
That said, my 84 Z28 had the glass hood and that thing went many miles an hour without issue. Mind you that was before I had heard about the quality control issue but still it survived (I may have skipped the risk had I known).
Now my question here is, did all of the composite/glass hoods in 82 have this defect? I've just picked up an 82 Coupe with one of these and am questioning it's integrity.

Originally Posted by big gear head

You don't want to end up like this. Funny Drag Race Fail - YouTube

My guess is that you are going to have to cut out a large area of the floor under the rear seat and weld in a strong cross member to attach the upper arms. Then you will have to cover the area with sheet metal and carpet because the rear seat isn't going to fit anymore. If you don't get the geometry right the suspension won't work and your car will drive like crap. You are going to have to install the upper control arms at or near the same level as they were installed on the Isuzu so that it will work correctly. You need to study up on instant centers so that you can get this set up to work correctly.