Which rear suspension setup did you go with and why?

[Crash427]

Picked up a '69 Camaro back in October. It's a mild Pro Touring build, basically what I like to call a great starting point for where I want to end up with the car. Wanted something I could drive and modify at the same time. One thing the car didn't have that I wish it did was a coilover setup in the rear and mini tubs for a wider rear tire. The car is currently setup on Caltracks, air shocks, a monoleaf leaf spring, bolt in subframe connectors and 10 bolt rear end (that will have to go). It rides alright, kinda spongey though. Also with the front setup I have the rear setup gives the car an old school raked look and that's not my style. I also have a 2014 Viper TA and what I've always wanted or said to want would be a '69 Camaro that can handle similarly to my Viper. Yes I realize that we're talking about a 48 year old car that was never meant to do so, but I believe enough of these great aftermarket companies are making high quality parts that should allow me to get closer to my goal. So my question is: which rear suspension setup did you go with and why? I've listed 6 options I've looked at so far and if there's any other suggestions I should consider, feel free to post them.

-Ridetech seems to have what looks like a great product, bolts in for the most part and it's fairly affordable. Starts at $1950 with RQ Series Coilovers

-TCI has a good looking 4-Link setup and from some of the pictures on their site, would allow me to achieve the look I'm after. Comes with sub-frame connectors. Mostly bolt in components. Also fairly affordable until you start adding upgrades then the price goes up. Starts at $2011 with Ridetech single adjustable coilovers

-TCI torque arm suspension seems like an improvement over the 4-link. Starts around $2392 with Ridetech single adjustable coilovers.

-Speedtech's rear torque arm suspension has been recommended to me by another '69 Camaro owner and also looks like a nice setup and utilizes a torque arm with double adjustable shocks and coils and is reasonably priced. Starts at $2299 with Viking double adjustable shocks and coil springs.

-DSE Quadralink has also been suggested by a friend and I've seen nothing be good things said about all things from them. Their base kit does have a higher starting point than the others and goes up quickly if you want adjustable shocks. Starts around $2550 with their base shock setup $3000 for their single adjustable setup.

-Roadster Shop now their new Spec Series really has me thinking. Yes it's quite the investment and ultimately the best option as it's a full chassis, but it's still $10k and I'm not rich. I could probably make a little back selling off parts that come off the car, but doubt it'd offset the price of the chassis that much. Comes with both front and rear suspension and Wilwood spindles. Also includes a Ford 9" with 31 spline axles and a different rear end is something I'll end up having to buy anyway. With mini tubs it'll take up to a 345 which I would imagine any of the setups would do with the right axle sizes and mini tubs. Obviously this is the best route, but also pretty pricey.

[Crash427]

Here's my starting point and a pic next to the Viper

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g184/2006GT500/IMG_8868_zpsmwxpxi8u.jpg

[David Pozzi]

Check out the Art Morrison Multilink IRS. We have it on two of our cars.

After doing larger tires and suspension to the rear, you will find the front needs lots of upgrading too. A first gen is limited on front tire width due to the wide frame rails. An aftermarket front subframe should be added to your list which will gain you 2.5" per side. The stock front sub can go to a 275 x 18 with some careful wheel spacing and inner fender hammering (depending on ride height) so you shouldn't go larger in the rear than a 315 x 18 or you'll have understeer problems. Look for a balanced wheel, tire, & suspension package and try to get all your suspension from one manufacturer so it all works together.

[BMR Sales]

Based on what you are cross-shopping, please consider our Torque Arm Kit. We incorporate a Watts-Link vs a Panhard Rod.

This is in my '73

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/TractionControl/posted/73Camaro/_MG_2953_zpsr3he3hpy.jpg (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/TractionControl/media/posted/73Camaro/_MG_2953_zpsr3he3hpy.jpg.html)

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/TractionControl/posted/73Camaro/_MG_2959_zps6qm10j8c.jpg (http://s24.photobucket.com/user/TractionControl/media/posted/73Camaro/_MG_2959_zps6qm10j8c.jpg.html)

[Crash427]

Based on what you are cross-shopping, please consider our Torque Arm Kit. We incorporate a Watts-Link vs a Panhard Rod.

This is in my '73

Didn't know y'all did 1st gen components. Kelly Aiken is a friend of mine. I'll make sure to check them out.

[Mean Buzzen 6]

I have been thinking about getting the G-link set-up.

https://www.cachassisworks.com/p-1299-camaro-67-69-firebird-67-69-gm-f-body-g-link-pivot-coil-over-suspension.aspx

[hifi875]

any of the above

[rustomatic]

I like what comes on the Corvette, C4 or later . . . It fits in just about anything.

[TheJDMan]

I'm running a DSE subframe and Chasisworks G-Link canted 4link rear with custom AFCO coilovers at all four corners. 18x10 275 front and 18x12 335 rear with Corvette C6 Z06 brakes and Moser 9" floater rear end. Motivation comes from a 383 SBC and T56 Magnum. I think my 68 would come much closer than you might think to your viper in terms of handling.

http://hayes-ent.com/images/Camaro/CAMARO3.jpg

[Crash427]

I'm running a DSE subframe and Chasisworks G-Link canted 4link rear with custom AFCO coilovers at all four corners. 18x10 275 front and 18x12 335 rear with Corvette C6 Z06 brakes and Moser 9" floater rear end. Motivation comes from a 383 SBC and T56 Magnum. I think my 68 would come much closer than you might think to your viper in terms of handling.

Sounds like a killer setup. How much work did it take to get the T56 Magnum to fit up?

[pragmatist]

I built my own truck arm rear and I guarantee it's lighter than any of the aforementioned setups. Composite arms, 12.5lbs, each with a watt link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=San17XlQCGM&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrQm3iN2ry0&t=3s

[Sieg]

Sounds like a killer setup. How much work did it take to get the T56 Magnum to fit up?

I installed a T56 Mag close ratio with 3:73's in my '69 Camaro and it wasn't too tough and without a doubt the most enjoyable mod on the car in the 28 years I've owned it.

All the floor pan stampings appear to vary or sag over time so the amount of fitment varies. I installed a removable plate on the tunnel so I could access the shifter which also allowed me to crown the plate to gain tunnel clearance. If you ever have any shifter issues you won't regret investing the time in fabbing the access plate vs pulling the trans.

I'm using a Quicktime bellhousing and the firewall required a fair amount of massaging around the top for clearance and bolt access. Again, I imagine this varies a lot from stamping to stamping.

A coil over set up will aide greatly in setting pinion angle as the over-driven trans makes pinion angle critical to eliminate driveline vibration.....or minimize it depending on ride height.

Take a look at the Speedtech Extreme subframe and torque arm setup or a complete chassis. When it's all said and done with a Camaro a full chassis isn't that much more now and really helps eliminate flex.

[john1793]

If you have the cash up front, I'd agree with Sieg on getting a full chassis system. I pieced mine together over time, but then had to put the whole project in storage for three years. I wish I had held off, saved up the total and got exactly what I wanted. My car is still killer, and is incredibly composed and stable, whether in tight turns or getting rid of speed after a 150mph straight. The T56 is a tremendous transmission. It shifts great, is super strong, and for me, the close ratio version makes it plenty versatile. I literally get 28-30mpg on the way to the track and then pass everything that isn't a properly driven Gt3 on the track. It's great!

I have the Speedtech torque arm. I don't have enough experience with other suspensions to provide you with any comparisons, but I can tell you that there is no comparison to leaf springs. No wheel hop, it just sets and goes (with perhaps a little wheel spin ;). Even when sliding a bit, it feels completely composed and manageable, my chassis never feels overpowered or stressed. Coming to a stop is a straightforward affair, nice and composed there, too. I really like the Speedtech product. It was relatively inexpensive compared to other options and for me, pretty easy to install and required no cutting of the floors, etc. I would say to go with triple adjustable shocks, though. When I started out, I was advised against it (too many settings), but it turns out there's a ton of information these days, and if you are willing to use the scientific method, you can really make your car handle.

Mine's still a work in progress, but there you have it!

[Rallycamaro]

I installed a T56 Mag close ratio with 3:73's .....
Sieg, I'm trying to decide which transmission I want to put in my 73 AI car, Muncie M22 or T56 Magnum. How do you like the spacing on the gears in your T56? Since AI is power:weight limited I'll be running an old school small block and I'm concerned about the drop in rpm with the wider splits in the T56. Thanks in advance for any knowledge you can throw my way.

Rally

[Sieg]

Sieg, I'm trying to decide which transmission I want to put in my 73 AI car, Muncie M22 or T56 Magnum. How do you like the spacing on the gears in your T56? Since AI is power:weight limited I'll be running an old school small block and I'm concerned about the drop in rpm with the wider splits in the T56. Thanks in advance for any knowledge you can throw my way.

Rally
My car is an old school SBC probably similar wheel HP to AI regs. The gear ratio splits are close to ideal 1st through 5th IMO. I haven't ran the car on the track, but have track experience in better cars and think the ratios would be very good for road racing with a 3:73/3:89/4:11 ratio depending on the track. I'm running a 26.5" rear tire and pull about 124mph at 6,300rpm in 4th gear if memory serves me right.

I owned a '93 1LE Camaro with the wide ratio T-56 and it's not even comparable to the close ratio T56 Mag. The Hurst Blackjack shifter I run is a gem in it's own right and an integral part of the package.


In the 28+ years I've owned my car the T56 conversion was hands down the best money spent on the car. If I would have chosen a 4 or 5 speed instead I probably would have sold the car by now.

[RidiCat69]

Have you decided on a rear suspension yet?

Ill toss in my vote for a torque arm. I've driven them on track and they hook extremely well. Using a torque arm with watts on my track car build. I had the benefit of driving my exact rear suspension on another car. Was after I had purchased it, but it was positive reinforcement.

Pragmatist mentioned truck arms, other than being a little dated they certainly do work. Being so long, I don't think wheel hop is even a possibility. Hotrods to Hell makes a truck arm kit for your camaro that I've seen perform well on a similar car (68 Cougar) on track.

Something to think about is packaging; exhaust mainly. Not sure if you want to run your exhaust out the back but certain setups will make it more difficult. Truck arms in general, I think would be more difficult, but have never built one myself. A torque arm crossmember is something to contend with, and of the two lateral locating devices (panhard or watts), the panhard tends to be less difficult. I've run dual exhaust on both but I remember the panhard bar being a little less challenging

Never have been a big fan of a canted 4-link, though exhaust routing is probably the easiest. You're asking a lot of your upper links. Not only do they have to control axle wrap, the also have to control lateral location. The G-link is far better than any factory bushing car in the respect since it doesn't have rubber bushings, but its still a compromise in my opinion.

A torque arm divides the responsibilities of everything. Torque arm for axle wrap (also have really good anti-squat if done correctly), lower control arms for linear forces, and a watts or panhard rod for lateral location of the rear axle. The torque arm height usually isn't adjustable due to packaging, but they're kinda set it and forget it.

As for the parallel 4-link or quadralink, I've never driven one myself, but as others have mentioned I've heard good things. Kinda costly.

[alex n]

I have a second gen Camaro , I went with the DSE front subframe and the Speedtech rear torque arm, the rear DSE 4 link suspension is not good if you want functional rear seats, the only draw back to the torque arm is that putting an x-pipe in the exhaust is nearly impossible for me but my car is twin turbo so I really don't care, the rear seats were more important to me

[BMR Sales]

not a lot of room in the back seat.

on a Torque Arm, you can use a H-Pipe if you want to modify the exhaust.

https://i.hmjimg.com/images/2018/09/28/_MG_2959.md.jpg (https://www.hostmyjunk.com/image/OVvet)

[Gmachine1911]

I have a second gen Camaro , I went with the DSE front subframe and the Speedtech rear torque arm, the rear DSE 4 link suspension is not good if you want functional rear seats, the only draw back to the torque arm is that putting an x-pipe in the exhaust is nearly impossible for me but my car is twin turbo so I really don't care, the rear seats were more important to me

Not sure what part of the DSE Quadralink would render the back seat useless? It does require cutting/welding in two floor pockets but that has zero interference with the back seat (on a first gen). The use of DSE's mini tubs will, however, cause you to have to modify the rear seat. Not a huge ordeal but a stock seat won't fit between the wider tubs. I'm running the Quadralink in my 68 Camaro and I can say that I've been completely satisfied to this point with the quality, instructions and support. My car will soon be on the road so I can't yet attest to personal experience other than riding with guys that run the same setup. My advice is to stick with a company that is common and proven such as DSE or Speed Tech (to name a couple)...talk to them, go to an autocross event(s) and try to ride with people running those setups and go with who you feel the most comfortable with.
Another word of advice regarding the rear seat is the use of a roll bar. You'll wanna consider its use and who will ride back there as well as how often. Even with the removable cross bar, there's still sharp/hard places for someone to hit in the event of even a minor crash. As for padding, well that's just an appetizer!

Nice car, good luck!

[68EFIvert]

not a lot of room in the back seat.



on a Torque Arm, you can use a H-Pipe if you want to modify the exhaust.



https://i.hmjimg.com/images/2018/09/28/_MG_2959.md.jpg (https://www.hostmyjunk.com/image/OVvet)



My project is not a Camaro but a Volvo 1800. Here is a little tour of my exhaust routing. Lots of work but turned out great.

https://youtu.be/qRNKCX4-fmE


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BMR Sales]

Gotcha! :cheers:

I've sold Torque Arm kits design for F-Bodies to guys with Trucks, Studebaker, Dodge Coronet, Comet and who knows what else that they don't tell me

[RidiCat69]

Oval tubing can help get under the torque arm crossmember also, as long as you have the room to make the transition. Transmission choice will make room for an X-pipe tighter. My engine is moved back 8", but I'm running a 4-speed so the case is considerably shorter than a T56/TR6060. The system wasn't finished when I snapped these pictures but you get the idea. Room for an X if you work at it.

http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq60/marlowdrknes/2BF1E253-DC30-44BF-8CE7-8C6EBA2CD21A.jpeg (http://s433.photobucket.com/user/marlowdrknes/media/2BF1E253-DC30-44BF-8CE7-8C6EBA2CD21A.jpeg.html)

http://i433.photobucket.com/albums/qq60/marlowdrknes/614DD35F-F4B8-4705-AA0C-4D104AEE2329.jpeg (http://s433.photobucket.com/user/marlowdrknes/media/614DD35F-F4B8-4705-AA0C-4D104AEE2329.jpeg.html)