Varishock question

[brianjw4]

Does compressing the spring on the varishocks actually lower the ride height? I have these on an alston g-bar setup.

[dhutton]

If I am following you correctly, preloading the spring will raise the ride height.

[brianjw4]

That's what I thought. I'm want to get the car to sit lower and wasn't sure if compressing the spring would lower or raise it.

Any thoughts on how I get it to sit lower? I have the varishocks mounted as low as they will go.

[barraza]

Whats it on?

[dhutton]

That's what I thought. I'm want to get the car to sit lower and wasn't sure if compressing the spring would lower or raise it.

Any thoughts on how I get it to sit lower? I have the varishocks mounted as low as they will go.

There are limits to how low you can go because you have to maintain reasonable shock travel in both directions. Is the car complete, in other words is it the final weight?

Lighter springs would lower it assuming you still maintain correct shock travel.

Post some pics.

Don

[brianjw4]

Yes, it's fully loaded and I would like it to come down around 1 to 1.5 inches to get my desired ride height.

here's a picture:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/03/0101-1.jpg

[dhutton]

What is the eye to eye length of the shock as it sits in the picture? I know there is a specified length in the instructions. It seems odd that you are sitting too high, I had the opposite problem with my G-Bar. Maybe Frank will chime in here, he is the G-Bar expert.

[barraza]

That looks a little like mine:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2010/03/68camaro-1.jpg

Mine has a g-link with the same shocks, mounted in the lowest position, with the spring collar in the lowest position. The issue is that to have reasonable wheel travel, and keep the shock under the floor, that is what you get. If you could mount the shock any lower, you would have clearance issues with the top of the axle hitting the floor. A shorter shock would be at the ragged edge of not enough wheel travel. You don't have everything in yet and it will come down some. Another alternative would be to use softer springs, or shorter shocks. I didn't want either of those, as I have to be able to go over speed bumps to even take my son to school. Wait until you get everything in and drive it before you make a decision.

[brianjw4]

I like your taste in cars :)

You make a great point about the drivability with the current ride height. Maybe I'll just leave it alone for now...

[barraza]

Read the varishock website

http://www.varishock.com/vas_products.html

The shocks are available in roughly 1" travel increments. You could possibly swap them for the next shorter size, but too little travel can make it ride like crap when it reaches the limits. The next softer spring would probably be your best bet.

Or you could go with air rides shock unit, I think they offer one that is sized for the glink.

[barraza]

The other way to make a change is to ignore the actual height, and change the size of your tires. A 67-68 camaro really needs about 1.0 to 1.5 inches height difference between the front and back tires to account for the visual difference between the wheelwells and to take into account some back to front rake. There is not as much room to fudge it as on a 69, where the top of the wheel well hides the actual top of the rear tire. The problem is that rear tires are not always available in the preferred size. Fronts are not as much problem, the only restriction being that they look strange when they get too short.

[brianjw4]

Rears are 19 and the front are 18, I'm pretty happy with the overall look.

[ProdigyCustoms]

You need to have 60% of the shock travel available for compression. I do not have the eye to eye measurment in front of me, but it is very important to have that compression and extension at ride height.

You should be able to adjust it 1" lower with no issue

[Rybar]

This is an interesting thread. Is this why DSE has the upper shock mount used in thier Quadra-link kits, to raise the upper shock mount point and allow for proper travel and a lower ride height. Hmmmm

[barraza]

This is an interesting thread. Is this why DSE has the upper shock mount used in thier Quadra-link kits, to raise the upper shock mount point and allow for proper travel and a lower ride height. Hmmmm

Wrong

The DSE suspension cuts a huge x enormous hole in the trunk, and fills it with an ugly rectangular metal box, but doesn't have any more suspension travel, it just mounts the shocks higher. With the gbar at it's lowest adjustment, it stuffs the tires and axle up as far as possible at full compression. There isn't any way to go further without cutting out the rear frame rails. You can run the suspension as low as a DSE rear with shorter or softer springs.

[ProdigyCustoms]

Barraza is dead on. There is only so much travel room between the rear end housing and the floor on the stock floor no matter what suspension system you run. The G Link has full tavel at the lowest setting ride height setting and comes with in a spidge of the rear end housing fully bottoming into the body. As close as any system can come.

No 4 link, including a Quadra link, or Torque Arm or leaf spring can ride any lower because of the limitation discussed above.

If Barrazas car was a 69 the quarter panel wheel opening would go accross the top edge of the wheel. With the 67 wheel openings you will never cover the tires on a stock floor car.

[Rybar]

Bringing this thread back up, Frank what is the way to get the G-link to sit lower? What length shock or spring rate would be required to get Barraza's ride height like Rupp's Penny?

Can different shock lengths or spring rates be ordered with the G-link kit?

[barraza]

Bringing this thread back up, Frank what is the way to get the G-link to sit lower? What length shock or spring rate would be required to get Barraza's ride height like Rupp's Penny?

Can different shock lengths or spring rates be ordered with the G-link kit?

I don't think you would ever want a stock subframe camaro to ride as low as penny. The biggest reason is that penny was a back-half car to start with, and doesn't have rear frame rails in the stock position. Penny therefore has more room for upward travel. The real issue is how much travel do you want? Varishock recommends having 5 inches of rear shock travel, with 40%-60% available for compression depending on the cars usage, ie drag, street, handling. I will have to go outside and measure, but I know the shocks in the kit are at least 5 inches of total travel, maybe 6". I think you can order the kit with whatever shocks you want, even without them. If you want to live with less available travel, just get shorter shocks, but remember to limit travel with bumpstops. I have run my car with less travel in the past, when it was on leafs. To tell you the truth, a 67-8 really needs to have 18's front and 19's rear to look perfect, by that I mean with a little forward rake and about the same distance between the top of the tire and the wheelwell. I chose to keep mine at its current height because I must get over some speed bumps just about whenever I drive it, it's all a compromise.

Lots of info is available on the varishock site:
http://cachassisworks.com/Attachments/Instructions/899-031-226_handling.pdf

[barraza]

To expand on some points I made above. IMO a 67-8 needs a less than 26" front tire to sit well, really something in the 25.0 to 25.5" range works perfect. That size fills the wheelwell, and doesn't leave too much gap while still allowing for adequate wheel travel. In an 18' wheel, that corresponds to a 245/40 @ 25.7" or a 275/35 @ 25.6 if you have an aftermarket sub. The only appropriate rear in 18" for minitubs is the 335/30 @ 25.9". This tire is common and will likely be for a long time because it came on vipers for years. The problem is that the 335 is a little too short. A better size would be the 325/30 -19, that is the size on a z06 and is 26.7" tall. The other alternative is to keep the 335-18 and shorten the front to a 245/35, but that front steps all the way down to 24.7", which is getting pretty short looks wise and is substantially less protection for the rim. I may try a 255/35 -18 next set, they are 25.0"

At the rear, the problem with running low is complicated by the stock floor and frame. Mine is a one owner SS car, and I just couldn't stomach cutting enough of the floor away to allow allow it to run slammed. I wanted to be able to make it look stock again with bolt on parts.

Everyone has different ideas of what looks best.

[Rybar]

Thanks again for the responses. I have to run 18's front/back. So rears will be 335-30-18

One thing that keeps puzzling me with the G-link's Varishocks vs the DSE Quadralink Koni's is that the DSE shocks seem shorter visually. So their kit must have less suspension travel and be closer to bottoming out then the G-link kit.

Franks has recommended 175lb rear springs. Do you think this would work for me?

[barraza]

I couldn't find any specs on the Konis DSE uses, but I did find a picture

http://www.lateral-g.net/tech_articles/DSE_quadralink_install/koni_shocks.jpg

It's hard to give concrete numbers because there is no reference point, but it appears that DSE uses a much shorter spring than the varishock. The DSE spring above has about 7 coils counting the flat ones on each end, the varishocks on my car have 10 coils. The springs are the same diameter, and look proportionally similar, so it is probably safe to say the DSE springs are at least an inch, maybe two inches shorter. The DSE springs thus have more adjustment to lower the car. Most coilover springs are interchangeable, so you can adjust it as close to the bumpstops as you want if you spec shorter springs on the varishocks in the g-link kit. As mine sits at rest, it has about 3 inches of compression travel available, and a little over 2 inches extension, with the standard springs. I think they are 190#. Three inches is a pretty generous amount for a street driven car, and I wouldn't be against a shorter spring if that's what you want. I have certainly run my car within 1.5"-2" of the bumpstop in the past.

[Rybar]

Hey thanks for looking into this for me. I really appreciate it.