Can't Lower Car w/ G-Bar System

[69-er]

I just finished mocking up the ChassisWorks 4-Bar system for a 69 Camaro. I have discovered that the VariShocks included with the kit, VAS 11122-515, will not allow me to lower the car to the height I desire. I was under the assumption that this kit would allow me to lower the car in a typical Pro-Touring stance. At the moment, I have about 1 1/2" of travel before I bottom out the coil-overs.



I noticed that there is another shock, VAS 11111-425, that has a shorter compressed length. I would lose almost an inch of compressed length allowing me to lower the car with less of a chance of bottoming out. Do you think this would work in my configuration? The car will be strictly street driven.



I also thought about lowering the lower shock mounts and maybe even raising the upper shock mounts to gain additional travel. What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks!

[Vegas69]

This seems to be happening on a regular basis with the new G Link. I'd lower or raise the shock mount. Shock travel is a good thing.

[glr0212]

I was told the same thing.

This is supposedly the correct ride height for a g link. I was advised not to go lower.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/DSC_0150-1.jpg

[Rybar]

I ran into a similar issue with mine, the shop doing the install installed a shorter spring but I don't have any part #'s to help you out.

[6D9 Matt]

Subscribing...

I am interested in installing a 4-link over the winter and Im kinda between the Prodigy Bar and the DSE Q-Link. Im not a HARDCORE autocross guy, etc the car is just for cruising around mostly, but may see the drag strip once a year. I was going to go with the Prodigy Bar, but kinda undecided now that Im hearing of it cracking the frame rails, as seen in Vegas69's build thread (I plan on dropping in a 600+ hp BBC next year). So that lead me to the G-Link, but I have heard these issues of not being able to go as low as some may like.

I think Rybar got the best of both worlds and put in a shorter spring. I remember following his build thread and seeing this. I would look into this option...

[Rybar]

I think Rybar got the best of both worlds and put in a shorter spring. I remember following his build thread and seeing this. I would look into this option...

Well not quite, the decreased shock travel is not something I would have wanted. If I were to do it over again there would be a DSE Quadralink in my car no questions asked. I also think the Speedtech Torque Arm gets the car to sit pretty low, look into that as well.

[6D9 Matt]

Oh nevermind I got kinda confused and thought you had a G-Link in the car. I forgot you do not. Sorry for the confusion. :willy:

[Rybar]

Oh nevermind I got kinda confused and thought you had a G-Link in the car. I forgot you do not. Sorry for the confusion. :willy:

I do have the Alston G-Link in the car :_paranoid

[Vegas69]

Put the DSE in it and forget it.

I was basing my previous post off Rybar. I thought you had changed mounting locations vs. shorter springs. I've found that I need 2.5 inches of bump travel in the rear to keep from bottoming out in ALL scenarios. I got greedy and lowerd my car a little less than a 1/4" before I went to button willow last month. I got back and my LR oring was seated against the shock housing .Now, this is a very slight bottom out and I'm no concerned with it. For a weekend warrior and occassional drag car, I wouldn't be to concerned with a little less and you won't see the extreme forces that a road course brings into play. Even with the DSE set up, if you go to low you will also decrease shock travel.

[6D9 Matt]

I do have the Alston G-Link in the car :_paranoid

Im sorry I meant to say you dont have a DSE Qlink...

G-bar, G-link, Q-link... I got my keys mixed haha

Vegas - So if Im not going to be TOO ROUGH (no autocrossing, maybe once a year if that at the drag strip) but have around 550-600 rwhp, will the Prodigy Gbar (I guess more asking about the frame rails) hold up? Or would the DSE Qlink be the better option? I just felt the Qlink might be overkill/more than I need to pay for my project.

[Rybar]

Matt, I'd have to agree with Todd. I think the kits are priced similarily anyways just the DSE Q-link might be a bit more labour to install.

[Ron in SoCal]

Only thing I'd add - and I'm not 100% positive on this - but I believe you can get better A/S numbers w the G link as opposed to the Q link if you plan on drag racing?

[Vegas69]

Im sorry I meant to say you dont have a DSE Qlink...

G-bar, G-link, Q-link... I got my keys mixed haha

Vegas - So if Im not going to be TOO ROUGH (no autocrossing, maybe once a year if that at the drag strip) but have around 550-600 rwhp, will the Prodigy Gbar (I guess more asking about the frame rails) hold up? Or would the DSE Qlink be the better option? I just felt the Qlink might be overkill/more than I need to pay for my project.

It should......:unibrow: If I had it to do over again, it would have a quadralink in a New York minute.

Ron, it seems the DSE equipped cars get out of the hole better. That's my opinion. That could be as simple as shocks.

[TheJDMan]

I also installed the Alston G-Link and it came with 12-200 springs which set the car too high even on the lowest mount position. I simply purchased a pair of 8-200 springs from Speedway Motors and the shorter spring allows me the necessary adjustment to set the car where I want it to be.

http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Camaro1.jpg

http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Camaro2.jpg

[6D9 Matt]

Matt, I'd have to agree with Todd. I think the kits are priced similarily anyways just the DSE Q-link might be a bit more labour to install.

Well I know the G-link and Q-link are similar, but I believe the Prodigy G-bar is about $200-300 cheaper. I will probably just stay screw it and go DSE... when you are spending that much, what is an extra couple hundred? :cheers:

[BBC71Nova]

Sounds like your intended usage is pretty much inline with mine. I went back and forth with this decision myself and I ended up going G-link. No seat time yet but for multi-purpose setup I think it will work out nicely and has a good bit of adjustability.

The QuadraLink is awesome piece and especially so if you plan any serious auto-X/road race outings. As stated, the labor to install could make it more expensive than the other options. That's another reason I decided against it.

I'd recommend giving Marcus at SC&C a call and discuss it with him. Very helpful in understanding the pros/cons of the popular choices, e.g. G-link, Air Bar/Prodigy Bar, torque arm, QuadraLink.

[dhutton]

Take a look at the four bar setup from Art Morrison. Looks like less fab than the Quadralink but doesn't use the factory frame rails. I had a G-Bar in my Firebird and I'm definitely going to consider AME on my next F body.

Don

[glr0212]

How does it ride with the 10" springs?

I also installed the Alston G-Link and it came with 12-200 springs which set the car too high even on the lowest mount position. I simply purchased a pair of 10-200 springs from Speedway Motors and the shorter spring allows me the necessary adjustment to set the car where I want it to be.

http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Camaro1.jpg

[TheJDMan]

The car is not operational yet so I cannot tell you how it rides. Just FYI, the Prodigy bar and the G-Link are the same thing and both are manufactured by Alliston's Chassisworks.

[Vegas69]

The car is not operational yet so I cannot tell you how it rides. Just FYI, the Prodigy bar and the G-Link are the same thing and both are manufactured by Alliston's Chassisworks.

That's not correct. The G Bar was a joint venture between Air Ride and Chris Alston. Basically and air bar with varishocks. The prodigy bar is the same but with QA1 end links everywhere except the front spring pocket. The G Link is a fresh design from Chris Alston solely.

[TheJDMan]

That's not correct. The G Bar was a joint venture between Air Ride and Chris Alston. Basically and air bar with varishocks. The prodigy bar is the same but with QA1 end links everywhere except the front spring pocket. The G Link is a fresh design from Chris Alston solely.

What I can tell you is that I purchased a Prodigy bar from Frank and what arrived was the G-Link from Alston. That tells me that what Frank is selling as the Prodigy Bar is actually the G-Link. That said, I understand this suspension has been undergoing a number of improvements recently.

[realcoray]

What I can tell you is that I purchased a Prodigy bar from Frank and what arrived was the G-Link from Alston. That tells me that what Frank is selling as the Prodigy Bar is actually the G-Link. That said, I understand this suspension has been undergoing a number of improvements recently.

You mean G-Bar. There are two different generations of Alston things, the G-Bar which is what the Prodigy Bar is based off of, and the G-Link which is similar but different.

The G-link doesn't need it's bearings changed in general because they have spherical already (except maybe the lowest variant). The Cradle is vastly different and I believe offers much more adjustment.

[Vegas69]

What I can tell you is that I purchased a Prodigy bar from Frank and what arrived was the G-Link from Alston. That tells me that what Frank is selling as the Prodigy Bar is actually the G-Link. That said, I understand this suspension has been undergoing a number of improvements recently.

I'd have to talk to Frank but what I said is on the money since I can't imagine Frank is making any changes to the G Link. It has the trick end links and adjustments.

The Prodigy Bar is a G Bar with different end links that will last. I tore out the factory end links my 1st autocross.

[DEIGuy38]

I'm not sure what Frank has but the major difference is the Chassisworks g-bar has poly bushings for the end links the Chassiworks g-link has pivot balls for the end links. Both systems are available with either air springs or coil overs

http://cachassisworks.com/c-340-camaro-67-69-gm-f-body.aspx

[Vegas69]

That's not correct. The G Bar was a joint venture between Air Ride and Chris Alston. Basically and air bar with varishocks. The prodigy bar is the same but with QA1 end links everywhere except the front spring pocket. The G Link is a fresh design from Chris Alston solely.

G Bar(Mustang Photo)
http://scandc.com/new/node/534

Prodigy Bar
http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=16153

G Link
http://www.cachassisworks.com/gBar.html
Using G Bar due to marketing.

I bought my G Bar in 2007. I don't want to sound like a prick, but I know what I'm talking about. HA HA

[6D9 Matt]

Yeah check out Vegas's project thread... he knows every inch of his car which includes a 4-link stated previously. Hes been through this a couple of times Im sure. :P

[67XR7]

if you get on their website and look at the pictures you will see that they are using a fab 9 housing which has a ton lower mounting points for the coil over. you want to maintain shock travel as its a good thing! im sure with the various housing mount points and a tiny bit of coil over adjustment you can get the ride height desired.If you already have your rear end "built" im sure the shop or your self could order these brackets and weld them on. hope this helps.-JEFF

[Rybar]

if you get on their website and look at the pictures you will see that they are using a fab 9 housing which has a ton lower mounting points for the coil over. you want to maintain shock travel as its a good thing! im sure with the various housing mount points and a tiny bit of coil over adjustment you can get the ride height desired.If you already have your rear end "built" im sure the shop or your self could order these brackets and weld them on. hope this helps.-JEFF

The kit can be ordered with the brackets to weld to your own rear end. The springs are too long for a super low ride height and the fact that the cross bar sits under the stock trunk floor makes them sit in a lower position vs the DSE which has the shock cross member and mounts the shocks higher up so you can still sit low and have the correct travel. Sorry I'm not a suspension engineer but that is the thought in my head. Here are pictures of the Alston G-Link as Todd stated it is different than the older G-bar/Prodigy bar.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_01.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_02.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_03.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_04.jpg

[pokey64]

For what it's worth here's a pic of our G-Link and Fab9. These were bought form Prodigy last winter.

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_5995-1.jpg

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_5999-1.jpg

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_5994.jpg

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_5913.jpg

[frojoe]

You wouldn't happen to have any pics of full compression with frame-to-axletube clearance, would you?

Thanks anyways for those pics tho!

[pokey64]

You wouldn't happen to have any pics of full compression with frame-to-axletube clearance, would you?

Thanks anyways for those pics tho!

Ride height. I never took any from the side this summer...
http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_78612.jpg

Clearnace with no gas tank and an empty trunk.
http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_67462.jpg

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_67432.jpg

I haven't measured the clearance yet. I bulit my own exhaust pipes this spring. Tail pipes are on the list for this winter so I'm sure I'll be getting to know this area well.

[69x22]

If I had it to do over again, I would have went with the DSE rear suspensing. I have the same g-bar rear as Todd, 2000 miles, 1 autocross, 600 RWHP and small cracks in the same place. If you do run this set up, box it into your frame and tie it into the floor pan.

[67XR7]

The kit can be ordered with the brackets to weld to your own rear end. The springs are too long for a super low ride height and the fact that the cross bar sits under the stock trunk floor makes them sit in a lower position vs the DSE which has the shock cross member and mounts the shocks higher up so you can still sit low and have the correct travel. Sorry I'm not a suspension engineer but that is the thought in my head. Here are pictures of the Alston G-Link as Todd stated it is different than the older G-bar/Prodigy bar.

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_01.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_02.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_03.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_04.jpg

wow it does look like you get the same amount of lower mounting holes either way. the pictures i looked at showed about 3 different positions with a fab 9 and only 1 with the bolt on lower arms. must be old pics.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Ride height. I never took any from the side this summer...
http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_78612.jpg

Clearnace with no gas tank and an empty trunk.
http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_67462.jpg

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/Camaro/IMG_67432.jpg

I haven't measured the clearance yet. I bulit my own exhaust pipes this spring. Tail pipes are on the list for this winter so I'm sure I'll be getting to know this area well.

what are the weights on your current springs Ed? Might come down a bunch when you get the tank and stuff in. You can go to a shorter spring, it will put your adjuster nut mid shock.

[Vegas69]

If I had it to do over again, I would have went with the DSE rear suspensing. I have the same g-bar rear as Todd, 2000 miles, 1 autocross, 600 RWHP and small cracks in the same place. If you do run this set up, box it into your frame and tie it into the floor pan.

Damn, your rails must have been weak or that babies digging. The new g link is way worse in my opinion. It's missing the front cross member in the cradle that we enjoy. One thing I found after going to a 10" spring with my G Bar, you need to be careful at full extension. The design of the alston shock will allow the spring collar to fall off the shock mount with no spring tension. I safety wired my spring collar to my shock mount. This will only be needed if you go fairly low with a 10" spring. No idea on the G Link but all you need to do is jack the car up and let the rear end droop to check.

Found a photo that shows what I'm tallking about. Notice the shock collar sitting on top of the spring. This is exaggerated but there will be about .25-.375 gap depending on ride height.
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa251/Payback1969/010-2.jpg

[Ron in SoCal]

^ My Strange (brand) shocks do the same thing. Freaked me out the first time I jacked up the car. Good idea w the safety wire Todd...

[pokey64]

what are the weights on your current springs Ed? Might come down a bunch when you get the tank and stuff in. You can go to a shorter spring, it will put your adjuster nut mid shock.

Vince,
They're 12 200s now. I took a quick cell pic this morning of ride height with tank. I still need to throw some weight in the trunk to account for a sub box and full spare that Beth wants. We put around 300 miles on it this summer so it should be settled. I would like to get the tire tucked a bit so I'll probably be looking at shorter springs.

Todd,
Good info on what to watch on shorter Springs.

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/utf-8BUm9jay0yMDExMTEyNC0wMDEyNC5qcGc.jpg

[Vegas69]

I actually safety wired my spring to the shock mount. That keeps the shock collar up against the shock mount. I fastened both twice.

[DETON8R]

If I had it to do over again, I would have went with the DSE rear suspensing. I have the same g-bar rear as Todd, 2000 miles, 1 autocross, 600 RWHP and small cracks in the same place. If you do run this set up, box it into your frame and tie it into the floor pan.

Got photos of those cracks? Or do you have a better description where they showed up? Was it for a mini-tub application, or was it in the factory sheet metal/frame rail?

I'm installing a G-link for a mini-tub application and I'd like to see where I might need re-enforcements welded in. I will be running a roll bar and supports into the trunk to spread the load around, so I should have a little bit more strength into the rear end section of the car than a regular bolt-in/weld-in installation as Chassisworks recommends.

[frojoe]

pokey64... are those 17" rims? Look forward to any measurements you can grab when you start to "intimately familiarize yourself" with the area while making tailpipes! :lol:

[Rybar]

wow it does look like you get the same amount of lower mounting holes either way. the pictures i looked at showed about 3 different positions with a fab 9 and only 1 with the bolt on lower arms. must be old pics.

I just googled these pics and I think they are from Franks album. I'll see if I can find some showing my setup.

If I had it to do over again, I would have went with the DSE rear suspensing. I have the same g-bar rear as Todd, 2000 miles, 1 autocross, 600 RWHP and small cracks in the same place. If you do run this set up, box it into your frame and tie it into the floor pan.

I'd have to agree with you Tony, I bet a good chunk of these G-bars and G-Links were sold by Frank and they aren't as fully tested as DSE suspensions. Although the Ridetech Airbar is the same layout as Todd and Tony's G-bar. Haven't heard much issues on their end.

Here's a photo where mine sits now, with the shorter springs.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d125/Rybar/Picture026.jpg

[Gandalf]

If I had it to do over again, it would have a quadralink in a New York minute.

Amen to that statement right there!
G.

[Gandalf]

^ My Strange (brand) shocks do the same thing. Freaked me out the first time I jacked up the car. Good idea w the safety wire Todd...

I saw same on my Strange fronts and Varishock rears. One of the things I really like about swapping all 4 to the RideTech coilovers - the collar does not have that freak-you-out-might-fall-out notch. Plus with the built-in, tapered rubber "bumper" they just seem to find home everytime as well. (Can't tell you the number of times I've been working on the car and the previous setup would "click" back into place a minute after lowering the car - scarred the bejesus out of me lol!)

As Todd says - should not be an issue under most circumstances but the safety wire is a great idea for sure. Plus, it is my understanding that coilover spring adjustment is designed to be for pre-load, NOT ride-height adjustment but you will rarely see that behavior around here lol!

Gregg

[Vegas69]

My rear springs will support the car with 0 preload. I have changed over to a stiffer hypercoil spring. The 12" alston spring did need a bunch of pre load. You definitely don't want that collar popping on and off of the shock body. That won't lead to anything positive.

[pokey64]

pokey64... are those 17" rims? Look forward to any measurements you can grab when you start to "intimately familiarize yourself" with the area while making tailpipes! :lol:


Yep, 17s. I will let you know what I find out.

[dhutton]

I saw same on my Strange fronts and Varishock rears. One of the things I really like about swapping all 4 to the RideTech coilovers - the collar does not have that freak-you-out-might-fall-out notch. Plus with the built-in, tapered rubber "bumper" they just seem to find home everytime as well. (Can't tell you the number of times I've been working on the car and the previous setup would "click" back into place a minute after lowering the car - scarred the bejesus out of me lol!)

As Todd says - should not be an issue under most circumstances but the safety wire is a great idea for sure. Plus, it is my understanding that coilover spring adjustment is designed to be for pre-load, NOT ride-height adjustment but you will rarely see that behavior around here lol!

Gregg

You can get helper springs to take up the slack. They are made from flat stock have a very low spring rate and only decompress when the suspension is not loaded. Eibach makes them among others. You also need a collar that installs between the two springs. I had to use them on my Art Morrison subframe to get the ride height I wanted without worrying about the springs falling off the perch.

Here they are, the picture is not accurate:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EIB-HELPER250/

These are the collars:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EIB-SPACER250/

A pricey solution but one that guarantees safety.

Don

[69x22]

Got photos of those cracks? Or do you have a better description where they showed up? Was it for a mini-tub application, or was it in the factory sheet metal/frame rail?

I'm installing a G-link for a mini-tub application and I'd like to see where I might need re-enforcements welded in. I will be running a roll bar and supports into the trunk to spread the load around, so I should have a little bit more strength into the rear end section of the car than a regular bolt-in/weld-in installation as Chassisworks recommends.

I don't have any pictures yet, the cracks are still hairline. I already had the cradle welded in and at the paint shop before I heard that this was happening, so I've been keeping a close eye on it. It is mini-tubbed, 4 point roll bar and the frame rails are the flawless originals. Once the Autorama is over with, I plan on addressing this problem. If you go to Vegas69 thread probably page 230 something, Todd has some pictures of his and another Camaro that this has happened to. In my opinion it is a flaw in the design that can easily be repaired, just sucks if your car is already done and the underside has nice paint on it.

[DETON8R]

I don't have any pictures yet, the cracks are still hairline. I already had the cradle welded in and at the paint shop before I heard that this was happening, so I've been keeping a close eye on it. It is mini-tubbed, 4 point roll bar and the frame rails are the flawless originals. Once the Autorama is over with, I plan on addressing this problem. If you go to Vegas69 thread probably page 230 something, Todd has some pictures of his and another Camaro that this has happened to. In my opinion it is a flaw in the design that can easily be repaired, just sucks if your car is already done and the underside has nice paint on it.

Thanks for pointing me to that photo. Thanks for that info. I've attached for others to see. I don't know that I'll knock my car around that hard, and I'll keep an eye on it when the car hits the road.

[Vegas69]

That's not mine but a g link failure. Mine was just cracked around all three sides.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Vince,
They're 12 200s now. I took a quick cell pic this morning of ride height with tank. I still need to throw some weight in the trunk to account for a sub box and full spare that Beth wants. We put around 300 miles on it this summer so it should be settled. I would like to get the tire tucked a bit so I'll probably be looking at shorter springs.

Todd,
Good info on what to watch on shorter Springs.

http://i923.photobucket.com/albums/ad79/edspokey64/utf-8BUm9jay0yMDExMTEyNC0wMDEyNC5qcGc.jpg

I'd get full weight and a few miles on them before you make the changes. But before switching to a shorter spring try a 150# or 175# 12" spring you should get a bit more compression out of it and still maintain a good ride.

[DETON8R]

That's not mine but a g link failure. Mine was just cracked around all three sides.

Todd, Thanks for your input and comments on the subject. I've read through your problem description and fix, and it looks like you have had a chance to beat it pretty hard since the repair. Is the fix holding up?

I'll fab up some supports and have the shop weld them in when I get my G-link welded in.

I've wondered what might happen by cutting the rear of the car to get the mini-tubs in. Looks like we can get a few things to bend and break that weren't supposed to.

And 2,500 posts on your build thread, you are the man!!:unibrow:

[frojoe]

I'd get full weight and a few miles on them before you make the changes. But before switching to a shorter spring try a 150# or 175# 12" spring you should get a bit more compression out of it and still maintain a good ride.

I agree.. also measure the eye-to-eye of the shock when the springs have been broken in, or at least with some added weight in the trunk to simulate the sub box, full tank, etx. I believe the shocks are supposed to be 13.5" i2i at normal ride height leaving about 2.5" for bump travel and 2.5" for rebound travel.

If the spring is broken in and the i2i measurement is ~13.5" with normal weight on the 200lb/in springs, I don't think shorter springs or lighter weight springs would be the answer.

Lighter weight spring would be taking the same coilover but asking it to sit deeper into it's travel at regular ride height, so i might have 2" of bump travel and 4" of rebound travel, and on top of that the reduced stiffness of the spring will allow the shock to come that much closer & that much easier to bottoming out over a same bump for a heavier rate spring.

To use a shorter spring, the spring rate would have to go up (to keep same ride quality and 13.5" i2i) or else say a 10" or even 8" spring (to exaggerate) might coil-bind under full compression on the same 5"-travel shock body.

Really the ideal way to lower the rear end even more would be to get an overall-shorter-bodied coilover that maintains the same 5" travel (VariShock is 16.10", Koni is 16.10", Ridetech is ~15.9".. hard to find any shorter), to get a shorter-travel coilover with stiffer spring (due to reduced bump travel, at a sacrifice of ride quality), or to either lower the axle-side coilover mount or raise the framerail/body-side coilover mount.

[DETON8R]

I'd get full weight and a few miles on them before you make the changes. But before switching to a shorter spring try a 150# or 175# 12" spring you should get a bit more compression out of it and still maintain a good ride.

Mike at CAC recommended and sold a set of 12" / 175 lb springs for the G-link rear. So that is the recommended set up from them. When I purchased they wanted to know how I planned to drive and what kind of power train package I was running. With a mild LS1/T56 and with my intended use of local grocery getter, summer time commuter up and down mountain roads in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and an auto cross/drag strip half a dozen times a year (fun not competition) that was the recommendation. They didn't recommend a stiffer spring unless it was really going to be used for competition.

And while the mountain roads are fun up here, this County and State are broke and the roads have their problems here and there. Having a stiff suspension would just result in my fillings popping out of my teeth if drive it too hard all the time.

Just my 2 cents.... ;)

[Vegas69]

Todd, Thanks for your input and comments on the subject. I've read through your problem description and fix, and it looks like you have had a chance to beat it pretty hard since the repair. Is the fix holding up?

I'll fab up some supports and have the shop weld them in when I get my G-link welded in.

I've wondered what might happen by cutting the rear of the car to get the mini-tubs in. Looks like we can get a few things to bend and break that weren't supposed to.

And 2,500 posts on your build thread, you are the man!!:unibrow:

So far....:unibrow: And my thread is at least half a bull **** fest. :thumbsup:

[realcoray]

Just a FYI I just set my 72 Nova down with the G-Link on the lowest possible settings and it visually looks a lot better than the camaros here. The top edge of my rear wheels is tucked 1/4 of an inch or better and this is with an empty gas tank, no deck lid etc. I'm running 18 inch with 275/40 tires.

It's all just mocked up but I'm happy with the height.

[frojoe]

Mocked up on lowest possible setting combination. Here is full compression with an 18" rim and 275 tire...

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328525d1322809733-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-1.jpg

1.75" clearance to framerail at full compression, with axle rotated forward a bit more than it would otherwise be if the upper link tabs were welded on, so figure actually 2.0" clearance...

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328528d1322809733-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-2.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328526d1322809733-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-3.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328527d1322809733-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-4.jpg

2.0" rim tuck at full compression..

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328530d1322810778-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-5.jpg

Recommended ride height for "race" of 50/50 bump travel (~2.5" bump, ~2.5" rebound, total 5.10 travel) equals ~13.5" eye-to-eye on the VariShock (full extended length is 16.10")...

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328534d13228112950-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-6.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328529d1322809733-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-8.jpg

At 2.5" of bump travel, 18" rim is hanging 0.5" below wheel lip.

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328531d1322810778-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-9.jpg

[fillpot]

Guy's i'm also courious about this,i have a g-link installed in my 69 camaro mini tubed,etc,and was wondering what the ride height difference would be between the 12-200 and the 10-200 spring i have the 12-200 spring now.THANKS!

[dhutton]

Guy's i'm also courious about this,i have a g-link installed in my 69 camaro mini tubed,etc,and was wondering what the ride height difference would be between the 12-200 and the 10-200 spring i have the 12-200 spring now.THANKS!

Trouble is that you still want to be roughly centered in the travel of the shock. If you go too low you will not have any shock compression left and you will be bottoming out the shock. Centering the shock travel determines ride height. You can vary from that a little but not a whole lot.

Don

[frojoe]

Realistically for a 5" travel shock, you're not gonna want to lower it much more than to 2" bump/3"rebound for street driving. The absolute lowest I would ever let the shock "live" purely with a shorter spring would be with 1.5" bump/3.5" rebound, and that would have to be a lighter car and a very stiff spring, for racing conditions only. And that would only lower the rear end 1" past the max adjustment in ride height from suspension linkage. That's why I would recommend moving the upper shock mount higher or the lower shock mount lower, relative to the frame/rear axle :cheers:

[Musclerodz]

reducing spring height will limit shock travel and will either coil bind or damage the shock for running it too low. if you want to lower the car you need to run a shorter shock and longest spring will give a softer ride.

[R0LLDAMTIDE]

Does anyone have a pic of a 68 camaro with g-link that sits low? And explain how it was achieved? I see some that are low but it sounds like something other than recommended parts are used in conjunction with the g-link....? Thanks

[DEIGuy38]

Does anyone have a pic of a 68 camaro with g-link that sits low? And explain how it was achieved? I see some that are low but it sounds like something other than recommended parts are used in conjunction with the g-link....? Thanks

Frojoe sent me some great pics of how he raised the shock mounting cross bar and modified the trunk floor so it kept the shock in the middle of its travel. Maybe pm him to get the pics. Check this thread post #56 for him.

[R0LLDAMTIDE]

Thanks! I'm gonna check it out

[TheJDMan]

You mean G-Bar. There are two different generations of Alston things, the G-Bar which is what the Prodigy Bar is based off of, and the G-Link which is similar but different.

The G-link doesn't need it's bearings changed in general because they have spherical already (except maybe the lowest variant). The Cradle is vastly different and I believe offers much more adjustment.

No, G-link!!! Frank sold me what he called his Prodigy 4 link. As I stated previously, what arrived was the Alston G-Link (NOT a G-Bar). BTW, the yellow section of the spring is a take up spring from Speedway Motors. This keeps tension on the upper spring retainer when the suspension is unloaded. The take-up spring became necessary when I swiched to the shorter 8-200 springs.

http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Camaro/camaro130112%20001.jpg

[Musclerodz]

Does anyone have a pic of a 68 camaro with g-link that sits low? And explain how it was achieved? I see some that are low but it sounds like something other than recommended parts are used in conjunction with the g-link....? Thanks

part of that issue is the higher wheel lip openings over the 69. Second gen firebird guys have the same issue. We had to go to a shorter coilover, but you better make sure your good on ground clearance.

[TheJDMan]

Does anyone have a pic of a 68 camaro with g-link that sits low? And explain how it was achieved? I see some that are low but it sounds like something other than recommended parts are used in conjunction with the g-link....? Thanks

This has been posted numerous times before but here it is again. DSE subframe and G-Link with 8-200 springs which allows for more adjustment down. See my previous post above.

http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Camaro/Camaro%20001.jpg

[onevoice]

No, G-link!!! Frank sold me what he called his Prodigy 4 link. As I stated previously, what arrived was the Alston G-Link (NOT a G-Bar). BTW, the yellow section of the spring is a take up spring from Speedway Motors. This keeps tension on the upper spring retainer when the suspension is unloaded. The take-up spring became necessary when I swiched to the shorter 8-200 springs.


In the interest of people searching this in the future, do you have 8-200 springs, or 10-200? You said 10-200 earlier in the thread.

Also for reference, the Prodigy Bar was produced when the only option was the g-bar, or air rides version, both of which had poly bushings. Frank sold what was a g-bar that had been modified to have swivel links. He also at one time sold a kit to do the modification yourself, it included the swivel links and taps. When the G-link came out, there was no reason to do the modification, because the G-link was essentially the same thing

An interesting thing I noticed was that there is evidently different adjustment holes in the g-link brackets. The first pic has 5 adjustment holes. The second picture has 6 adjustment holes. Both are the bolt on mounts.


http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328534d13228112950-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-6.jpg

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u212/ProdigyCustoms/Chassisworks_Camaro_g-Bar_04.jpg

In the below picture, with the shock bottomed out(on the 5 hole axle bracket), the axle isn't against the frame, but notice that you can see where the factory axle bumper was attached. There isn't much room under there, and getting into the factory rubber bumper too hard will let the axle kiss the floorpan.

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/328528d1322809733-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-2.jpg

That is why the DSE 4link has the shock mount that cuts out so much of the factory floor, it is to provide axle clearance when the axle tube is bottomed out.

[John510]

Wow Im having this same issuer right now with my car not going as low as I want it.

Looks like I need smaller springs.

[Musclerodz]

Wow Im having this same issuer right now with my car not going as low as I want it.

Looks like I need smaller springs.

you need a shorter shock. the pic showing the shock bottomed out before hitting the bump stop is not ideal. If you run a shorter spring, it in turn has less travel and trying to get the car lower could ultimately damage the shock by bottoming it out.

[onevoice]

Wow Im having this same issuer right now with my car not going as low as I want it.

Looks like I need smaller springs.

Is there any wonder threads go around in circles forever? You already started a post about your car sitting high, but it isn't even assembled. What do you expect? How exactly is a car supposed to sit at ride height when it is just a shell?

This isn't rocket science guys. Coilovers exist so that springs and ride heights can be easily changed. Alston specified a coilover with 5 inches of travel, because it is generally accepted that a rear suspension needs 2-3 inches of bump travel for good handling and ride. We all know that our cars often run with less suspension travel to get the look we are after. So if you want to run lower, get shorter springs. There is plenty of adjustment on the threaded part of the shock, the different shock mount attachments, and springs, so that you can find an ideal setting for your needs. Its not like it comes welded together in one fixed position.

It really is as easy as that.

Anyone care to guess how many people would complain that there wasn't enough travel if the suspension came with a 4 inch travel shock, and bottomed out into the floorpan? :rolleyes:

[onevoice]

you need a shorter shock. the pic showing the shock bottomed out before hitting the bump stop is not ideal. If you run a shorter spring, it in turn has less travel and trying to get the car lower could ultimately damage the shock by bottoming it out.

The Alston installation instructions show the factory bumpstop is retained. In that picture, the bumpstop is missing. The shock is fine if the bumpstop is installed, which it always should be.

[Rybar]

Anyone care to guess how many people would complain that there wasn't enough travel if the suspension came with a 4 inch travel shock, and bottomed out into the floorpan? :rolleyes:

I am no suspension engineer or expert and I know you support Frank and his business. But everyone has a different idea of what they want for thier car. And when an experienced salesman like Frank tells you the car will sit where you want or need it to sit without any of these problems like most of these guys are experiencing, this is why these people are complaining. If it was known or disclosed from Alston or its dealers that the standard 10" spring would have alot of these cars sitting like 4x4's even if they have the correct amount of travel, I doubt alot of the kits sold would have ever been ordered in the first place.

I think I specifically asked you in a previous thread about the DSE shock cross member allowing for a different shock position hence thier suspension being able to work at a lower ride height and you said I was incorrect. Now your saying it's there to allow axle tube clearance when bottomed out?

[John510]

Is there any wonder threads go around in circles forever? You already started a post about your car sitting high, but it isn't even assembled. What do you expect? How exactly is a car supposed to sit at ride height when it is just a shell?

This isn't rocket science guys. Coilovers exist so that springs and ride heights can be easily changed. Alston specified a coilover with 5 inches of travel, because it is generally accepted that a rear suspension needs 2-3 inches of bump travel for good handling and ride. We all know that our cars often run with less suspension travel to get the look we are after. So if you want to run lower, get shorter springs. There is plenty of adjustment on the threaded part of the shock, the different shock mount attachments, and springs, so that you can find an ideal setting for your needs. Its not like it comes welded together in one fixed position.

It really is as easy as that.

Anyone care to guess how many people would complain that there wasn't enough travel if the suspension came with a 4 inch travel shock, and bottomed out into the floorpan? :rolleyes:

Do you have a G link with a Fab 9 or 12 bolt.

[TheJDMan]

In the interest of people searching this in the future, do you have 8-200 springs, or 10-200? You said 10-200 earlier in the thread.

My Bad! That was a typo which I corrected. I'm running 8-200 springs. The G-Link was delivered with 12-200 springs.

[BBC71Nova]

If you are curious like I was then simply remove the springs and use a jack and stands to raise the rear until you reach the minimum 13.5" eye-to-eye length for the shock. That will tell you roughly where your ride height will be. You may later end up needing shorter springs to get to that value but no need to worry about that too much until you get the weight in the car.

Yes, I just did this last weekend because I was curious :).

John

[onevoice]

I am no suspension engineer or expert and I know you support Frank and his business. But everyone has a different idea of what they want for thier car. And when an experienced salesman like Frank tells you the car will sit where you want or need it to sit without any of these problems like most of these guys are experiencing, this is why these people are complaining. If it was known or disclosed from Alston or its dealers that the standard 10" spring would have alot of these cars sitting like 4x4's even if they have the correct amount of travel, I doubt alot of the kits sold would have ever been ordered in the first place.


Can't miss an opportunity to continue beating a dead horse, can you?

It is simple, the purpose of buying an adjustable suspension is to take advantage of ADJUSTING

To say any of them look like 4x4's is just ignorant. Given the different rear floorpans (you did know 67's have less clearance before the top of the axle hits the floor didn't you?) and the production tolerances, G-links can be adjusted to get as low as the factory floorpan and bumpstops will allow.

[Rybar]

Can't miss an opportunity to continue beating a dead horse, can you?

It is simple, the purpose of buying an adjustable suspension is to take advantage of ADJUSTING

To say any of them look like 4x4's is just ignorant. Given the different rear floorpans (you did know 67's have less clearance before the top of the axle hits the floor didn't you?) and the production tolerances, G-links can be adjusted to get as low as the factory floorpan and bumpstops will allow.

Like I care if you call me ignorant or beating a dead horse. I am trying to help other Lateral-G forum members learn from my mistake in listening to a good salesman. Not bashing them for trying to help eachother out to solve a problem. You obviously have an agenda to stick up for what's in your car and who sold it to you and installed it for you. So again. Have fun with your 4x4 67 with correct geometry.

So my advice, do your due dilegence in researching a rear suspension design that meets goals of looks, performance and adjustability. And don't always think a salemans words are as good as gold.

[frojoe]

OK let's all just calm down a bit.

A rear suspension is a rear suspension is a rear suspension. GBar, G-Link, Quadralink, LateralDynamics 3link... all have the same hinderance if you want your car low... framerails and trunk floorpan.

There's no way about it, if you want your car silly low you will run into differential axletube clearance to the framerails at full bump. GLink is designed to retain the factory bumpstops and not to have the pumpkin collide with the trunk floorpan. Quadralink cuts the trunkpan out between the framerails and raises it, for two reasons: 1) so that a stronger reinforced boxed section can be put in there to support the load from the shocks, and 2) to gain additional pumpkin clearance at the low ride heights that Quadralink is lusted after for. I'm guessing the Quadralink relies on the coilover's bumpstops for full bump/bottomout protection, and if that's true and the factory framerail bumps stops can be removed, then there you go, that's a good extra 2" of low that can be had without worrying about the rear end hitting the framerails.

As for the topic of just using shorter coils on the G-Link, I can't believe it's still going on. IF you're to use a short coil (but to be safe can only be marginally shorter) then you have to up the spring stiffness to better protect against harsh shock bottomout with the reduced bump travel available. Simply reducing the free length of the spring without increasing spring stiffness is a disaster waiting to happen. And when you consider the recommended bump travel range of a 5" shock is 3" (street) down to a minimum of 2" (racing)... is reducing the bump travel of the shock via shorter coil really worth it for ~only~ a maximum of maybe 3/4" drop (depending what eye-to-eye you're starting with) overall?? I don't think so.

[Vegas69]

Does the DSE Quadralink modify the driveshaft tunnel? Not that I'm aware of....

Joe is exactly right, you can put shorter springs on the car but you lose precious bump travel. All you need to do is lower your bottom shock mount to retain your travel. Mock it up as has been said at the ride height you want and then modify your lower shock mounting point. Just make sure you take into account the pumpkin/yoke clearance. The more POSITIVE pinion angle you run, the less freedom you have.

I've got mine setup as low as it will go while having 2.25" of bump and having a realistic margin of tunnel clearance.(Old G Bar) But it's the same concept. I believe it's around 24.25" to the crease on the quarter at the centerline of the axle.( I can check my notes) I set mine up at 24.5" with 50/50 bump/rebound and have since lowered it a .25". It didn't bottom out at 2.5" but it will lightly at 2.25 under extreme conditions.

[chevynut69]

Hi there i am new to this site but i just finished installing the g link air ride this spring i am runing a 10 bolt and my diff hits the shock bar when lowered. to fix the problem i just cut the shock bar above the diff and rewelded it in 1.25"futher to the back

[onevoice]

Does anyone here have a Glink with a 12 bolt? If so does your 12 bolt hit your shock mount cross bar?

Mine has a 12 bolt, and it does not hit the shock crossbar.

[BBC71Nova]

I noticed a couple weeks ago that my shock crossmember is the first thing to hit with my setup too. Specifically the oil filler on the Fab9. Seems like maybe Chassisworks could come up with a solution since both the housing and the G-link are Chassisworks products. I plan to call them soon. I'm actually debating on whether to raise the trunk floor and redo the entire shock mounting setup to gain a lower ride height and exhaust clearance. And I thought this would be a "bolt-in" like setup... :rolleyes:

[onevoice]

I am trying to help other Lateral-G forum members learn from my mistake in listening to a good salesman. Not bashing them for trying to help eachother out to solve a problem. You obviously have an agenda to stick up for what's in your car and who sold it to you and installed it for you. So again. Have fun with your 4x4 67 with correct geometry.

So my advice, do your due dilegence in researching a rear suspension design that meets goals of looks, performance and adjustability. And don't always think a salemans words are as good as gold.

I'm not understanding where you are coming from about your "mistake", because your car has leafs. I don't have an agenda, yes my car has a g-link, no it doesn't sit like a 4x4 (nor does vegas69's). I'm not sticking up for who sold it to me, and he's not responsible for the thing anyway. Alston Chassisworks designed it and built it. The subject doesn't have anything to do with salesman. I got a g-link because one of my priorities was not cutting the floor out of a 68 one owner car like the dse rear suspension requires.

How a car sits visually, is largely dependent on the tire sizes. A 67-8 looks quite different with an 18 335 tire than a 69. Doesn't have anything to do with the suspension, its the shape of the wheelwell. They can all look good, the g-link, the DSE, and yours on leafs also.

If you are trying to help other forum members like you say, why not listen to others who actually have a g-link, instead of inflammatory comments like saying they make a car sit like a 4x4. John510's problem is apparently a rear filler tube on a fab9, the tube or the shock crossmember can be moved. It isnt the end of the world. It's probably not a rear that the suspension was originally designed for, but since they sell it, redesigning the crossmember would be a good idea. One modification effects another, that is hot rodding. Fix it and go on.

You don't like one of the vendors who sold them, I understand that and assume you have good reasons, but it doesn't make any issue his fault. If you read Vegas69's build thread, you will see he has recently changed to double adjustable shocks, and reports improvements from the change. Does this make the stock g-link shock junk? Not necessarily, everything has a price point, and not everyone needs double adjustable shocks. Shocks prices go to the moon, go price out some Penske's if you want a heart attack. If you wanted, you could spend more than the price of a DSE front sub on shocks.

The running height of the DSE 69 test car and Vegas69's car look to be almost identical. If you search, you will find magazine photos of the DSE 69 that look lower, but shots of it at events look like it usually runs a little higher, ie about where vegas 69 runs his. This is because a good performing suspension needs adequate travel, and the limits of travel are the floorpan and frame rails. DSE engineers good parts, and I guarantee they don't bottom theirs out on the frame rail, neither does a g-link. If there are any differences, they are probably because of the difference between the 67, and the 68-9 floorpans. The 67 is different right above the differential, and has less room. The DSE suspension eliminates the issue by cutting the whole area out. Find a picture of the DSE rear with the shocks installed and no springs, fully compressed, and the glink the same way and I bet you will find the whole discussion is splitting hairs.

Bottom line is that any differences are minor at best, and they are both good performance suspensions.

[pokey64]

I'm not understanding where you are coming from about your "mistake", because your car has leafs..

http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=29563 :_paranoid

[Rybar]

http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=29563 :_paranoid

Barraza I do have a G-Link in my car now was upgraded last year. I did upgrade to the double adjustable Varishocks in the rear. The overall system performance has been fine I was not happy that an engineered kit had to be modified to get right in the car it's designed for. (IE Ride height) I don't have a problem with Frank, he got me my parts and for a good price. He did not rip me off at all. Just logistics and delays. I asked him probably 100 times about the ride height before I ordered as I couldn't find many G-Link cars sitting like the Q-Link cars online. He just kept emailing me the same pictures of a Yellow 69 they did. And I think pictures of your install with a 12-bolt.

FYI Vegas 69's suspension is the older style G-bar/Prodigy Bar/Air bar not the later design G-Link like were running. So comparing his car is a little different, he knows what I'm talking about.

Anyways thanks for the reply, sorry to call your car a 4x4 you should really post some pics of it and your install to help these members out.

[onevoice]

I do have a G-Link in my car now was upgraded last year.

Sorry, I looked at your feature page and it said leafs.

I haven't run mine down to see how much clearance is available at the frame rail when the differential touches the floorpan, maybe I will just for grins. Doesn't matter to me though, mine sits where I want it for the speedbumps I have to go over to drop my son off at school daily.

One of the issues is that many of us, me included, have run our cars at much less than the 3 inches of bump travel that suspension designers like to see. Alston is obviously going to design to reasonable ride standard (3"), and I bet the DSE Q-link has a similar design height. However, just like when we were running leafs, we are free to go lower depending on our personal needs. The problem is that the kit as sold didn't really leave much adjustment room to go lower, whereas the DSE design apparently lets you adjust lower. It is still not clear whether a lower ride height Q-link has any more meaningful travel, ie are we talking 1/4-1/2" or something more? You can't just measure from the axle to the frame and call it good, because I bet DSE's also bottoms before hitting the frame. Hitting the frame directly with the axle on a hard bump would surely bend it. Shorter springs are the easy answer, and there is nothing wrong with them as long as the user knows that they are limited in travel and still has bumpstops. I would still like to see a Q-link and a G-link bottomed, I doubt there is much difference.

The floor cutout of a Q-link is an advantage running tailpipes, but because the coilovers don't drop near as far as a leaf, it is actually pretty easy to run the pipes under the rear without them hanging low. I suspect one of the original reasons DSE went with the raised shock crossmember, was that to get the travel needed, you end up with a shock as long as they are. You can raise it into the floor, or lower it down below the axle. Lowering it down can potentially limit your rim size, ie a 15 rim on a g-link at its lowest adjustment may have the bottom of the shock below the rim. Illegal to run at an SCCA autocross that way. It is all tradeoffs, DSE and Alston took different routes, but arrive at virtually the same place.

The other issue is that I believe a 335 18 is not a tall enough tire, especially for a 67-8, because there is no way to tuck the front tire enough, unless it is short, which ends up eating ground clearance. The front of a 67-8 needs a 25.5 " tall tire. The problem is the lack of very many sizes in the range we need them. A 345 19 @ 27.2"is almost too tall, a 325 19 @ 26.7"might be the best.

Like I said, everyone gets to pick what is important to them. I have a one owner car that I didn't want to cut the floor out of, nor destroy the rear seat structure . It is bolt ons to make it original again, and it would take a concours judge to see the wide inner tubs. Handles well, reasonably priced and pretty easy to install. If I wanted it lower, I would have no qualms getting shorter springs.

[Vegas69]

DSE and Alston products can't even be talked about in the same conversation. There is that big a difference in engineering, customer service, reliability, and performance.

[Rybar]

DSE and Alston products can't even be talked about in the same conversation. There is that big a difference in engineering, customer service, reliability, and performance.

Gotta agree with this 100%

Barraza I guess the whole point of this thread is to help people trying to decide on what setup works for thier individual needs. There were none like this as the G-link was fairly new at the time I ordered. There weren't alot of cars running them and Frank had sold/installed most of the ones known.

I understand most of your points for me not being a suspension guy. I've just NEVER seen a thread about issues like this with so many installs in regards to the DSE Quadra-Link. In fact, I don't think I ever recall one complaint to be honest about ride height issues, CRACKED frame rails after some use, having to modify the shock cross members, having to change springs or issues with thier system bottoming out on the floor pan, be it 67, 68 or 69 Camaros or 68-72 Novas. Every car with the DSE Q-link is pretty slammed low and have never heard or read of one complaint.

If the G-link works for you and you need to drive over speedbumps that's great. Just that a thread like this can be very useful for the guy with cash in hand ready to order but not knowing what will work for them for thier needs. I sure as hell would have appreciated it and our members honesty rather than relying on a salesman looking to make better margins on one brand vs another..

Thats why I gotta agree with Todd here.

[onevoice]

Gotta agree with this 100%

Barraza I guess the whole point of this thread is to help people trying to decide on what setup works for thier individual needs. There were none like this as the G-link was fairly new at the time I ordered. There weren't alot of cars running them and Frank had sold/installed most of the ones known.

I understand most of your points for me not being a suspension guy. I've just NEVER seen a thread about issues like this with so many installs in regards to the DSE Quadra-Link. In fact, I don't think I ever recall one complaint to be honest about ride height issues, CRACKED frame rails after some use, having to modify the shock cross members, having to change springs or issues with thier system bottoming out on the floor pan, be it 67, 68 or 69 Camaros or 68-72 Novas. Every car with the DSE Q-link is pretty slammed low and have never heard or read of one complaint.

If the G-link works for you and you need to drive over speedbumps that's great. Just that a thread like this can be very useful for the guy with cash in hand ready to order but not knowing what will work for them for thier needs. I sure as hell would have appreciated it and our members honesty rather than relying on a salesman looking to make better margins on one brand vs another..

Thats why I gotta agree with Todd here.

And I would disagree. For a thread to really be informative, it needs to be based purely on facts. Todds statement DSE and Alston products can't even be talked about in the same conversation. while valid as his opinion,is just not a provable or unprovable fact. The Alston was newer when he installed it, and anything new will obviously require more tuning than a developed system. He has learned a lot tuning his, and may end up with an advantage, who knows? IF he comes across a setup that wipes up the DSE cars will he be glad he stuck it out? I would guess yes. Sometimes being an innovator leads you to the front, sometimes it doesn't, but you'll never know if you don't try.

The internet forum world tends to think we are the be all end all, but the truth is that both companies have sold a LOT of these suspensions, many to people who have never even heard of Lat G. For us to draw conclusions based on posts on this forum without any volume information is just flat out irresponsible. It is especially unreliable when some of the issues were brought straight to the internet without the manufacturer even having the chance to correct or respond. The DSE product has been around for a long time, the alston not as long. Does anyone know whether alston has even seen a cracked frame? or is it an internet only issue? A quick BBB search shows DSE had a recent complaint, and Alston doesn't show any. Neither are BBB members. Does that prove anything? Not really. A search also shows Alston has been in business over 30 years, does that prove anything? nope. Does vegas69's car getting beat by a DSE suspended car at an autocross prove anything? Not in the least, considering the DSE guys probably autocross 25 plus times a year. These are big damn cars, and it doesn't matter how much tire or what suspension you stuff under them, on a typical autocross a well driven miata will wax us. Does that mean a miata is a better car? not hardly. The key point is that It all depends

You mention myriad problems, which are real? Cracked frame? yes it exists, apparently on a glink and an earlier version. What caused it? unknown. Speculation centered on welding, but it may just be because the "frame" rail is just weak and not much thicker than the floor pan. I'm not seeing how the DSE design is any better. Anyone with either should probably keep an eye on theirs, especially if you are racing with big HP and tires. Bottoming on the floorpan? I thought the complaint was that it won't go low enough to bottom the floorpan? I don't think this is a problem. Modifying the shock crossmember? This one I don't really understand. The clearance is admittedly tight, but mine was build using the alston jig (I was there and saw it), and mine clears fine with a 12 bolt, a 10 bolt should be smaller, and there is apparently an issue with the fill tube on a fab9. Possibly there are issues when pinion angle is at the extremes, really need more info to pin down. I wouldn't call changing springs a problem, they are meant to be easy to change, and not at all expensive.

You mentioned a vendor, so I'll weigh in. Not because I am trying to defend anyone because I only know the facts of my transactions(which were 100% perfect), but because it is an example of how things get could get blow out of proportion. Probably a year ago, issues of order time come up, business competition is fierce, and a move into bigger facilities is in process, allegations of stealing money are batted around, reputations suffer, business undoubtedly declines(though not admitted to), 6 months go by, more late orders, more allegations, more business evaporates, vendor goes silent. Is it possible the internet allegations helped put the final nails in the coffin? Did the speculation pull the rug out from under a recovery plan? Do you see the similarities? Is the above scenario accurate? I don't know, but I see no reason to do something similar by joining in piling on any vendor because of a few internet posts about ride height. Facts are one thing, speculation is another.

You will notice that many vendors don't have an internet forum presence. Probably because anyone with a beef, can argue forever. There is an old saying about never arguing with someone who buys ink by the barrel, it is in reference to newspapers. The internet has made everyone a newspaper. Air Ride has a sterling reputation, and has people on the forums up to and including the owner. And they occasionally still get hammered about products, even when they do everything possible to help customers. Maybe they just have the profits to absorb more, I don't know. I do know that trying to undercut each other has driven a couple of big wheel sellers under in the past year. And that is just a wheel, imagine how much tougher it would be on a more complex product.

Moral - Don't believe everything you read on the internet or magazines, good or bad.

[Vegas69]

Just to be clear, I don't have a G Link, I have a G Bar. They are NOT the same thing even though they seem to get thrown in the same bowl. A G Bar is a Ridetech Air Bar with Alston Varishocks. A G Link is an all Alston product.

Alston stuff is a couple rungs down the ladder and that's a FACT. I don't like the design and it's not engineered for the desired ride height of most pro touring cars. A triangulated 4 link is not ideal for our thin rails. Then Alston went and designed his G Link with no front crossmember so it doesn't tie in the rails nearly as well as a G Bar. The DSE upper shock mount not only allows for a lower ride height, but it reinforces the structure of the car and utilizes a panhard bar. I also don't see Alston out proving their products in our venue. For MOST guys, it's a great set up. It's just not on the same level.

[TheJDMan]

Just to be clear, I don't have a G Link, I have a G Bar. They are NOT the same thing even though they seem to get thrown in the same bowl. A G Bar is a Ridetech Air Bar with Alston Varishocks. A G Link is an all Alston product.

Alston stuff is a couple rungs down the ladder and that's a FACT. I don't like the design and it's not engineered for the desired ride height of most pro touring cars. A triangulated 4 link is not ideal for our thin rails. Then Alston went and designed his G Link with no front crossmember so it doesn't tie in the rails nearly as well as a G Bar. The DSE upper shock mount not only allows for a lower ride height, but it reinforces the structure of the car and utilizes a panhard bar. I also don't see Alston out proving their products in our venue. For MOST guys, it's a great set up. It's just not on the same level.

Hey Vegas guess who makes both the G-Bar and G-Link! BTW, you are correct the G-Bar and G-Link are not the same. The G-Bar is the cheaper version of the Chassisworks suspension.
http://cachassisworks.com/c-340-camaro-67-69-gm-f-body.aspx

[John510]

Hey Vegas guess who makes both the G-Bar and G-Link! BTW, you are correct the G-Bar and G-Link are not the same. The G-Bar is the cheaper version of the Chassisworks suspension.
http://cachassisworks.com/c-340-camaro-67-69-gm-f-body.aspx

Dude he has the original G bar and NO they are not the same. The original ones were the Airbar. The do not sell the original ones anymore.

[Vegas69]

Now I see why it's so confusing. I didn't know Alston still marketed a G Bar.

For the last time. :lol: The original G Bar was an Air Bar from Ridtech with Varishocks marketed by Chris Alston as his own.

[Swain]

I have a G link with a 9" if it won't go low enough I'm going DSE.

Rodgers 67 from
Ironworks has the G link with fab 9 have you talked to him about ride height issues ?

[John510]

I have a G link with a 9" if it won't go low enough I'm going DSE.

Rodgers 67 from
Ironworks has the G link with fab 9 have you talked to him about ride height issues ?

Put the bend in the shock cross bar and it will go lower.

[onevoice]

Alston stuff is a couple rungs down the ladder and that's a FACT. I don't like the design and it's not engineered for the desired ride height of most pro touring cars. A triangulated 4 link is not ideal for our thin rails. Then Alston went and designed his G Link with no front crossmember so it doesn't tie in the rails nearly as well as a G Bar. The DSE upper shock mount not only allows for a lower ride height, but it reinforces the structure of the car and utilizes a panhard bar. I also don't see Alston out proving their products in our venue. For MOST guys, it's a great set up. It's just not on the same level.

Todd
I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think you are being fair about the comparison. I agree that any frame cracking is a serious issue, but have you noticed that DSE has also changed their panhard attachments to the frame?

I am not going to link pictures from their site, but look at the older version in the the Bolin68 album, then look at a later version with a boxed shock crossmember and vertical braces in the Kyle Busch album. They are very different. I also found a mention of DSE reinforcing frames on another forum. Because everyone is dealing with similar forces transmitted into thin framerails, my guess is that they also found cracking issues. As a point of reference, I had cracks develop in the front subframe of my 67 when I was frequently autocrossing it twenty five years ago. Racing breaks stuff. Given the power levels and tires available, anyone racing any suspension should be regularly checking all suspension attachments and links.

As to shocks, you can bet that DSE isn't running their standard package at shows across the country. Their upgraded double adjustables are a plus $1300 charge, plus another $150 to get poly link bushings that they recommend for competition.

The two suspensions were designed with different criteria, and have very similar performance when equipped comparably. I still think if you don't want to cut a huge chunk out of your floor for the crossmember, and still need to carry rear seat passengers ( ever sat on those upper link boxes?:D ), the g-link is the pick.

Make your choices and take your pick, but in the end, neither is junk, nor are either the absolute best way to attach a solid axle for racing.

[nicks67ca]

Now I see why it's so confusing. I didn't know Alston still marketed a G Bar.

For the last time. :lol: The original G Bar was an Air Bar from Ridtech with Varishocks marketed by Chris Alston as his own.

yep....and ride tech still offer's the air bar

http://www.ridetech.com/store/1967-1969-chevy-camaro-firebird-airbar.html

I have the original G-Bar in my car and FWIW I am happy with it. I have a bunch of seasons out it and one auto cross / track day session it feels solid. I am looking to upgrade the bushings to a better Heim ends and move towards the ride tech shock.

[Vegas69]

I've got my G Bar working well and I'm certainly not unhappy with the real world performance. I'm simply saying that the Quadralink is a better product from start to finish.

Barazza, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You have a G Link in your car and you're happy with it. That's all that matters.

They all serve their purpose.

[nicks67ca]

I think the quadra link looks to be a better design.....if I was to do it again i'd probably go with the torque arm from JRS or Speed Tech.

[TheJDMan]

Vegas got me curious so I was comparing pictures of the Alston G-Link and Ridetech 4-Link frame bracket designs and I see only one major difference on the mount bracket. The G-link is bolted to the floor in front with no cross member where as the Ridetech 4-Link has a crossbar in front but no bolts.

I was then looking at my G-Link installation on "Dust Off" and realized that it would be very easy to increase the front bolt size to 1/2" then fabricate a cross bar that would bolt to those two front bolts thus tying the front mounts together side to side. There is plenty of room to fit a simple 1" dia crossbar up against the body and bolt it in place. This would give me the same crossmember as the Ridetech mount with the added strength of the two front bolts which Ridetech does not have. Now that I have my plan of attack I can order some material and start to fabricate the cross brace.

[frojoe]

Vegas got me curious so I was comparing pictures of the Alston G-Link and Ridetech 4-Link frame bracket designs and I see only one major difference on the mount bracket. The G-link is bolted to the floor in front with no cross member where as the Ridetech 4-Link has a crossbar in front but no bolts.

I was then looking at my G-Link installation on "Dust Off" and realized that it would be very easy to increase the front bolt size to 1/2" then fabricate a cross bar that would bolt to those two front bolts thus tying the front mounts together side to side. There is plenty of room to fit a simple 1" dia crossbar up against the body and bolt it in place. This would give me the same crossmember as the Ridetech mount with the added strength of the two front bolts which Ridetech does not have. Now that I have my plan of attack I can order some material and start to fabricate the cross brace.

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/339956d1329099908-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-2.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachments/conversions-hybrids/339957d1329099908-lq4-into-3rd-gen-1972-nova-3.jpg

[TheJDMan]

That is the idea. But since my G-Link is already installed, welding in a crossbar like that is not possible. My plan is to use a 1" square tube and weld tabs on each end then simply bolt it to the front mount bolts.

Here is the Ridetech 4-Link mount:
http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Camaro/ridetech4link.jpg

Here is the Chassisworks G-Link mount:
http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Camaro/chassisworks4link.jpg

My plan is to make a bolt in bar to connect the two front bolt mounts together side to side.

[frojoe]

Ok I see. One suggestion. Since there will naturally be play between the holes supplied on the G-Link, the holes you drill, and the bolts used, there could still be some side-to-side slipping/flexing allowed of the frame rail brackets relative to the center cross-brace. Since repeated flexing/movement of even 1/16 of an inch could be enough to allow the framerails to fatigue, it would be ideal if your bolt-in cross-brace secured to each frame rail in two directions. Such as using the forward bolts as you plan on but also having tabs that bolt to the framerails. Only difficult part would be finding a flat surface for said side tabs to mate to, as well as getting up in there with a drill to make the thru-frame holes. This would be ideal, altho your idea would still be an improvement over the stock brace-less design.

I should maybe clarify.. even with a bolted surface like the cross-brace to the forward mounting tabs/holes, I feel the side load from the triangulated UCA's could be great enough under hard cornering/acceleration to allow the two mating bolted surfaces to slip against each other.. that's what I meant by "slipping flexing". It shouldn't be a regular occurrence, but if you're only securing the sideloads with bolts in shear, it's a very real possibility of happening at some point, or worst case happening repeatedly.

[TheJDMan]

I understand your point about movement and the use of an additional brace but I see no easy place to add the second pair of cross brace mounts without welding. The car is already undercoated so welding now would be a real pain. That is why I plan to drill out the existing holes to 1/2" and bolt it all together with 1/2" grade 8 fine thread bolts so I can apply maximum torque to limit movement as much as possible. Had I been aware of the frame cracking issue before I installed the G-Link, I would have fabed a cross brace like yours. My goal now is to add a bolt-in brace without having to remove the rear end or weld on the car.

[BBC71Nova]

It looks like Chris Alston himself has put out a writeup discussing some of these concerns. Lengthy read but I felt it was worthwhile. Kudos to him for taking the time to do the writeup. You can find it in the tech section of their site but here's a link.

Chris's Corner - G-Bar Misinformation (http://www.cachassisworks.com/redirect/g-Bar_Misinformation.html)

He seems like a straight-shooter based on the writeup. Sort of entertaining for a piece discussing suspension design :) .

John

[Vegas69]

Chris makes a good point about the improper installation of the MODERN G Link/GBar. Clearly not using the tab for support compromised the design.

Since he drug me into this deal I'm not afraid to give you my opinion. :unibrow: The changes I made to my suspension set up were MANDATORY. I tore up the end links in two autocrosses and my car wasn't anywhere close to where it is today. I'm talking my first two autocrosses with a green car. The upper link design required pulling the end links to make a pinion angle change. What a pain in the butt so I naturally went to an end link that would handle the load required in a triangulated 4 link and easily adjustable upper sleeves.

I agree with Chris, the G Bar wasn't engineered for my cars capabilities. I've modified it and it works great.

Regardless, I still feel you will see frame rail problems with either set up. A triangulated 4 link just isn't ideal for 40 year old paper thin frame rails. My reinforced rails are holding up just fine. To take it one step further, I think any car that is used to it's full extent could benefit from new, thicker rails, regardless of suspension design.

[dhutton]

It looks like Chris Alston himself has put out a writeup discussing some of these concerns. Lengthy read but I felt it was worthwhile. Kudos to him for taking the time to do the writeup. You can find it in the tech section of their site but here's a link.

Chris's Corner - G-Bar Misinformation (http://www.cachassisworks.com/redirect/g-Bar_Misinformation.html)

He seems like a straight-shooter based on the writeup. Sort of entertaining for a piece discussing suspension design :) .

John

Thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read.

Don

[Rybar]

Well I think it's good that they have taken notice of these issues and addressed them sort of. No mention of Tony's cracked frame rails (69x22) only Todd's and Rodgers. Looks like they are looking into other options like that 2nd gen kit with complete new framerails. That would be a good kit for a 1st gen.

I think this thread can really help people decide to buy this kit or not. And I think that's why it's very beneficial.

[frojoe]

I like his response, but am somewhat disappointed in the "lower shock mounting extension bar things" In the lowest lower shock position, the aluminum bracket is a good 3-4" off the ground (18" wheels) which is a little close for my comfort, but ok. Lowering that a further 2.5" should not be condoned by the manufacturer especially if the manufacturer knows and openly admits it's for "fairgrounds only". He says that he knows it will likely hang below the rim of an 18" wheel at the lowest setting, which is illegal as far as I'm aware. Even the 1-1/4" lower position is stretching it, but would be okay as the maximum additional lowest setting that should have been offered.

I also find it funny that these lowering brackets are included in the sub-section of reducing bump travel.. in fact the only thing these lowering brackets do is decrease axletube-to-framerail clearance, but do nothing to reduce shock bump travel. A stiffer spring would absolutely be mandatory.

I'm not in any way knocking Chris Alston, on the contrary good on him for having the balls to step up and write such an all-encompassing.informative piece of literature to customer present & to-be. However, myself coming from a manufacturing industry where warranty and risk-to-customer is so critical, I think the decision to produce/sell, such lowering brackets is too risky regarding liability as well as possible customer complaint. If the customer wants lower than the GLink can possibly go (even with say a 0.5" or 1" bracket lowering block), then customer has to realize that floorpan modification is required like all the other systems out there.

Good on ya Chris, good read regardless!

Joe

[BBC71Nova]

I notice he didn't mention anything about the filler tube on the fab 9 hitting the shock cross bar when the car is lowered. They should change the angle of that bar for future orders.

That was covered in the last page iirc. Ideally those of us that went with the complete glink and fab 9 setup could simply swap our crossmember for one they've already modified. Presumably they have the jigs and such to do it better than most of us. Then again, like Chris kinda says, it isn't the end of the world and some level of this type of thing is to be expected.

[TheJDMan]

I now have a little over 1000 miles on "Dust Off" running the G-Link with 8-200 springs and double adjustable vari-shocks in a soft setting. I have inadvertantly hit a couple of rather large bumps (I really have to pay more attention) and I have not experienced any suspension bottoming out. I have a Moser 9" and it too has the filler tube which will hit the shock cross mount but so far this has not been a problem. I still plan to fabricate a cross brace and tie the two front mount bolts together, but I am happy with the handling and ride quality.

[Roe]

Can someone recommend a good suspension for a 69 Camaro (Best bang for the buck)

[Musclerodz]

Can someone recommend a good suspension for a 69 Camaro (Best bang for the buck)

how much fab do you want to and what is the budget?

[Blake Foster]

Can someone recommend a good suspension for a 69 Camaro (Best bang for the buck)

I'M not going to say a thing.

[Roe]

As little fab as possible. In terms of budget just looking for the best bang for the buck. Just trying to figure out approximate costs before I decide. Relatively new at this so my knowledge isn't great at the present time but I am learning quite a bit from this site.

[FETorino]

As little fab as possible. In terms of budget just looking for the best bang for the buck. Just trying to figure out approximate costs before I decide. Relatively new at this so my knowledge isn't great at the present time but I am learning quite a bit from this site.

Depends on the definition of good? Good ride, good track manners, which is more important? Can you live with one and without the other?:D

Did you read the subframe sticky?
Did you read the how to get a good deal on parts sticky?

I'd start your own post with.

1. What you intend to do with the car
2. A budget of what you could spend if you got everything you wanted.
3. What you are willing to cut on the car.
4. Are you doing the work (what is your skill level if so) or are you paying a shop.

I think on this post you will get a lot of don't buy a g-bar. ;)

[FETorino]

Your answers are in this thread.

Just remember that the "cheapest and less fab" suspension may end up costing you more to fix and in headaches later down the road.

Was this set up discussed in this thread ? Jakes rod shop?

http://www.jakesrodshop.com/public_html/Products.html

[Flash68]

It's pretty well agreed that a torque arm is very nice for its ease of installation compared to the Q-Link, et al.... and a big reason why I went with one. Worth looking into with SpeedTech and Jake's Rod Shop.

[Musclerodz]

I'M not going to say a thing.

I think you just did. :thumbsup: Speedtech would be a good choice if you want to keep everything under the car.

[Vegas69]

G Bars work. If you can figure them oiut. :unibrow:

[DFRESH]

I followed Todd's setup on his car and had great confidence going into the purchase of my G-Bar (Original Version) since it was proven by him at the track and on the street (even though I knew I would need to modify the end links). Like many of you, the fact that there was only a small amount of fabrication required was also a draw.

At the time of this purchase, some others vendors had just come into the market with new designs, specifically Torque arms. When Todd ran into the framerail problem, I knew that at some point my car would also have 335's and track tires like Todds. Now, I know that the framerail issue can be resolved through additional efforts, however, after seeing Speedtech's Nova at RTTC run, and the simplicity of the setup, I will be putting one in my car. It removes the upper bar/framerail stress issue completely for me, allows for the ride height I like, there is very little fabrication, and it is proven on the track as well.

I'm not saying my car doesn't work, it does very well for what its got in it. But I am currently running 300 treadwear tires with 275/35 20's on the rear. It's not putting nearly the stress on the frame through the G-Bar that some 335's and 100 treadwear tires would, thus my frame rails have been ok thus far. I did modify my end links to heim's, but that's it.

At the end of the day, for me, it's what has been proven to work on the track. If it works there, then I have no worries about street miles. Todd's car is the testimony of the G-Bar--how it's worked, and the shortcomings.

The G-Link, after seeing Roger's car and being able to get in it and driving it a few laps through the Auto X, is impressive. However, the fact that both this car and Payback suffered respective framerail issues helped make my decision easier.

Doug

[Blake Foster]

As some who have installed and run the Speedtech torque arm can confirm there is no floor modifications or cutting that need to be done, The upper shock X member is the only part that requares welding. (if you purchase the complete rear end) the ride height is as low as you can go and still drive the car if you want it that low. It has proven itself on the track and the street as well. and the cost is right in line at 1995.00 that includes the shocks/springs.

[tmadden]

As some who have installed and run the Speedtech torque arm can confirm there is no floor modifications or cutting that need to be done, The upper shock X member is the only part that requares welding. (if you purchase the complete rear end) the ride height is as low as you can go and still drive the car if you want it that low. It has proven itself on the track and the street as well. and the cost is right in line at 1995.00 that includes the shocks/springs.

Now you said something!! I'll be calling the 1st of the year!!!:D :D :D

[Vegas69]

Doug, it's my opinion that any rear suspension design could compromise these paper thin frame rails. I push things until they break or prove themself. I'm not sold that a panhard bar is the answer.

[XLexusTech]

As some who have installed and run the Speedtech torque arm can confirm there is no floor modifications or cutting that need to be done, The upper shock X member is the only part that requares welding. (if you purchase the complete rear end) the ride height is as low as you can go and still drive the car if you want it that low. It has proven itself on the track and the street as well. and the cost is right in line at 1995.00 that includes the shocks/springs.
Hi Blake, interested in your Torque Arm Suspension. Looking at the pictures wondering can you use frame connectors?

[Blake Foster]

Sure can, I have them in my Nova

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff425/killer72nova/subframeconnectors-1.jpg
you can see them welded into the floor. in this shot.

[Musclerodz]

Doug, it's my opinion that any rear suspension design could compromise these paper thin frame rails. I push things until they break or prove themself. I'm not sold that a panhard bar is the answer.One of the reasons i like the quadralink so much. plus the panhard mount reinforces the frame rail as apart of the design.

[XLexusTech]

Sure can, I have them in my Nova

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff425/killer72nova/subframeconnectors-1.jpg
you can see them welded into the floor. in this shot.

cool but how does the connectors front Sub and front torque arm all meet up?

[Blake Foster]

Here are some more detailed pictures

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff425/killer72nova/DSC09300.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff425/killer72nova/DSC09299.jpg

http://i1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff425/killer72nova/DSC09298.jpg

hope that shows what your wanting to see.

[onevoice]

Doug, it's my opinion that any rear suspension design could compromise these paper thin frame rails. I push things until they break or prove themself. I'm not sold that a panhard bar is the answer.

FYI - Over on PT, there is a thread about a broken DSE panhard bracket, and a report of another. Racing breaks stuff, always check your parts.

[Musclerodz]

FYI - Over on PT, there is a thread about a broken DSE panhard bracket, and a report of another. Racing breaks stuff, always check your parts.

The panhard bracket was inproperly installed. It was not welded to the frame. That is not a DSE failure.

[onevoice]

The panhard bracket was inproperly installed.

It was in one of the reports, but unknown in the other. So were the 4 link brackets referenced in this thread.

The point is that there isn't a lot to weld to in the rear of an f-body, which is a problem of any of the contemporary rear suspensions. It is essential to keep an eye on suspension links of ANY vehicle used in a racing application.

These cars were not structurally capable of harnessing 450hp and 8" wide tires in the trans-am series 40+ years ago. Tires 335 wide and 600-700hp can break lots of parts.

[Musclerodz]

It was in one of the reports, but unknown in the other. So were the 4 link brackets referenced in this thread.

The point is that there isn't a lot to weld to in the rear of an f-body, which is a problem of any of the contemporary rear suspensions. It is essential to keep an eye on suspension links of ANY vehicle used in a racing application.

These cars were not structurally capable of harnessing 450hp and 8" wide tires in the trans-am series 40+ years ago. Tires 335 wide and 600-700hp can break lots of parts.

very true.