69 Camaro Rear Suspension Choice?

[GrnDragon]

I am slowly buying parts for my 69 Build, and I am now at the cross road of deciding which rear suspension to use and thought some input from others might be helpful.
Here are the 2 options I am thinking about...
1) AME Max G full frame with C6 front suspension and a custom Torque Arm 3-link setup and custom Watts Link. I know they already offer the complete frame like this, but I want a full length Torque Arm and I want the Watts link mounted to the frame not the rear end housing.

2) AME Max G full frame, just the bare frame and buy a complete C6Z06 drivetrain with LS7, Front and Rear Suspension, Transaxle, etc and mount the front suspension to the Max G then fabricate all that is necessary to mount the Transaxle.

This is for a 69 that will be more of a showcar/street rod that has the capability to hammered on when desired. It will never see anything other than 12x12.5" rear wheels with Michelin PS2 335/30R20's (no drag radials or anything that would break the IRS). I've already got a custom 15" wilwood brake setup for the front and rear. I plan to run either a built LS7 or Supercharged LS3.

Which setup would you recommend/choose for your own build?
Thanks for any input.

[tones2SS]

I would think option number 2 would be a little more money/time consuming, I may be wrong, but I think that would be the way to go. Since all these componets work together so well with the current set up of the C6Z06 and LS7 combo. Just my opinion.
GOOD LUCK!!:thumbsup:

[ProdigyCustoms]

Well, the absolute ultimate would be a full frame / independant suspension set up. The transaxle / torque tube set up creates some issues. When you channel the body over the frame the torque tube ends up making the tunnel look like a Hummer console!

Using a AME chassis to get the front suspension would be OK, wack of the back of the frame and do you own rear clip. Not a bad plan.

The overall cost difference of doing a full frame / independant set up is 4 to 5 times more then a killer subframe / rear suspension set up. The performance difference is probably not significant. The ride og the full frame / independant...Fantastic! The wow factor..........Un matched.

Tyler and Roger should be able to shed some ligfht on the "issues" associated wiuth doing this as they are deep into it again.

[Mean 69]

Your very best option for matching one of the newer, very capable front subframes from DSE, Art Morrison, or others is hands down the Lateral Dynamics 3-Link. While Torque arm setups can be applied with a bit less intrusion than the superior 3-Link capability, your choices of a full frame suggest that cutting the car isn't an issue. I see the late model F body in your sig, which is possibly/probably the motivation for you selection of a Torque Arm. Good choice, but a well executed 3-Link is even better. Also a good choice with going with a frame mounted bellcrank style Watt's, the very best option for controlling lateral motion while also eliminating roll moment changes while the suspension moves up and down.

As Frank notes, the added installation compexity associated with executing a full frame into a uni-body car, relative to doing an intelligent set of frame connectors, etc, most likely isn't worth it. If you are planning on a cage, then a full frame is even less important as you now have three dimensions with which to address torsional rigidity. A uni-body car will also almost certainly be lighter too.

To contact Lateral Dynamics, e-mail is best option, [email protected].

Best of luck with your project!
Mark

[GrnDragon]

Thanks for the info guys!!!
I had no idea that a 3-link is a better handling setup versus the Torque Arm design. I always thought that the longer center link helped in braking versus a shorter center link. The shorter is better for the take off, helps dig off the line?

The main reason that I am really liking the C6Z06 setup is the overall parts cost is MUCH less than the solid axle. I can find a complete drivetrain for about $15-$17k (engine, drysump, front/rear suspension, transmission, Acc drive, etc), and doing the solid axle chassis I would be buying a new engine and transmission and that alone would run about $15k for the engine and $3-$5k for the transmission.

I know most people have to pay tons of $ for shop work, but my father and I do everything.
He has built numerous hot rods including this 69...
http://www.lateral-g.net/members/strunk/
So my decision comes down to the parts cost only, I don't have to take labor into account. Yes, the C6Z06 option would be MUCH more expensive overall if I were paying for the shop labor.

[lil427z]

take a look at detroit speed.
rick k

[Steve Chryssos]

Wow! The green Dragon is Awesome! Nice work.

Historically, transaxle/torque tube installs have been the kiss of death for first gen projects. Many cars have been started, but not many have made it thru to completion. We're all having great success with conventional drivetrain layouts, so just be 100% sure before you pull the trigger on the transaxle/torque tube plan. And as Frank has stated, remember that with the transaxle, the trans tunnel will end up just south of the headliner (exaggerating for emphasis) It's way up there -- which severely divides the cockpit.

I would love to see it done. I'm sure we will see more of these conversions --just be sure to think it thru.

[itsals1]

Not trying to stir the pot ,but is Lateral Dynamics still in buisness? I thought that not that long ago, someone had posted there 3-link was no longer available. I hope they are, seems they have a great product.
Travis

[Mean 69]

Yes, we are still in business, but on a part time basis. Still use all the same suppliers, still the same product, but it is not on a full time basis which won't work for all customers (and we realize that). Because of this, don't expect someone to answer the phone. Unfortunately, a lot of the calls we took when it was a full time basis were more about tire-kicking, or trying to get free advise on how to build their own setups, etc, but that's part of this business. I can tell you that I have never, ever been busier in my life, but if a customer makes the decision to move forward with a purchase, they are kept informed every step of the way with regular updates, get my personal cell number, etc. Not ideal, but that's how it is.

The main benefit to a well executed 3-Link, relative to a T/A setup is adjustablility. You are correct, a shorter T/A will result in a shorter "SVSA," which stands for Side View Swing Arm, and if you go too short, brake hop can be and often is a very real issue. Honest, no kidding. For the late model F Body cars, this is one of the well documented drawbacks of the early Global West T/A setups, though they may have altered their design in recent years, I don't know. A longer T/A has less of a tendancy for brake hop, but as you pointed out, offers less potential for forward bite (relative), as the Anti-Squat values will be reduced. The problem is, you need to pick your poison, or develop a setup that allows you to change the actual T/A itself to longer or shorter setup, in order to alter SVSA or A/S. With the Lateral Dynamics 3-Link, there is adjustability for these parameters without the need to replace parts, though nothing is free, you need to unbolt the links are locate to other pickup point on the rear housing (pretty easy). The imaginary intersection point of the links, in side view on a three (or four) link setup define the Instant Center/SVSA, so altering their inclination allows these to move forward, back, up and down.

Very high powered drag cars on slicks benefit from an I.C. (the Instant Center, relative to the center of gravity and wheelbase of the car, defines the Anti-squat percentage) that is low, and towards the rear of the vehicle. Autocross cars need a compromise of forward bite (moderate to high A/S), but need good braking behvior. Very fast road courses (such as Willow Springs, etc), with heavy braking zones demand predictable no-hop braking and this is generally obtained with a long SVSA (resulting in relatively lower A/S).

None of this is important to a lot of folks, but it is to the customers that we attract, which is why we designed things the way we did. Works exceedingly well, and is getting faster with every tuning session.

I think the ultimate would be a mid engine conversion, which I dream about every once in a while, but that's be harder to pull off than the C6 conversion on most car. Guess I'll have to save my pennies for a Lola or McLaren Can Am car!!!

Mark

[itsals1]

:thumbsup: Good to know your still providing the 3-link, I will be choosing a rear suspension system and had hoped to be using your 3-link or the quadra-link. I just need to decide on which one will work best for my camaro.
Thanks, Travis

[Mean 69]

Travis, the decision between the Lateral Dyanmics 3-Link and the Quadra-Link is an easy one. ;)

[Steve Chryssos]

Interesting:

http://www.eckertsrodandcustom.com/chassis.php

[GrnDragon]

Interesting:

http://www.eckertsrodandcustom.com/chassis.php

That seems pretty interesting, but I'm a little cautious about the shortened Control Arms for the Nova's and Camaro's. Wouldn't that really screw with the suspension geometry, shortening the control arms and still using the same height spindle will totally change how the tire contacts the ground through suspension travel.

I REALLY wish AME would make their MaxG with the ability to mount the transaxle to the rear!

I am basically going to make my decision based on the price I find a complete C6Z06 drivetrain for. If I can find it at or near the price I am willing to pay I will be trying that suspension, if not I won't feel bad going with the Torque Arm 3-link Watts setup.

[CraigMorrison]

I REALLY wish AME would make their MaxG with the ability to mount the transaxle to the rear!


It's on the drawing board, but it's on a pretty long time-line.

[ironworks]

Interesting:

http://www.eckertsrodandcustom.com/chassis.php

Why not just narrow the cradle and shorten the rack? Seems like the long way to go about things. Um Shorten 4 pieces or narrow one and order another one modified from the factory....Or just widen the fenders like Tyler to accomadate the wide track width and Big old tires.

Rodger

[68protouring454]

by a max g without rear susp, and make your ow cradle for the transaxle.

[ironworks]

OR just call Ironworks for some super fabulous tube chassis deluxe. Or have you seen what they have been doing with Rectangular tubing? It is out of this world.......

[tones2SS]

I am basically going to make my decision based on the price I find a complete C6Z06 drivetrain for. If I can find it at or near the price I am willing to pay I will be trying that suspension, if not I won't feel bad going with the Torque Arm 3-link Watts setup.

If you can find what you're looking for in the price range of the C6Z06 drivetrain, that would be cool. If not, have you seen DSE's set-up or Speed-tech's. Both look very good and are raved about.
GOOD LUCK!!!:thumbsup: