Ridetech kit vs Hotchkis tvs

[susniand]

hey all, im about to place order, but cant decide wheter go with
http://www.ridetech.com/store/1967-1969-chevy-camaro-complete-coil-over-system.html
or
http://www.hotchkis.net/stage-2-total-vehicle-system-19671969-camaro-firebird-coupe-small-block-2-drop.html
yourmsuggestions are very welcome...

[Schwartz Performance]

I personally like coilovers better, because you can adjust the ride height, swap out springs for little cost if the ride is too stiff, and have plenty of damping adjustment.

Leaf spring cars CAN and WILL handle well with the Hotchkis setup, but what cars now days do you see with leaf springs?

We're a RideTech dealer too if you're looking to save a few pennies.

-Dale

[Marcus SC&C]

Out of those two packages it`s a no brainer, the Ridetech. The TVS has no real geometry correction (just alignment correction). The Ridetech comes with a basic 4 link rear and the Ridetech/Fox shocks are a big step up vs. the old school steel body Bilsteins. That said, shop around before you buy and feel free to give our Free Suspension Counseling Service a call. :)

[Nicks67GTO]

Given the two choices I would go with Ridetech and opt for the adjustable HQ series coilovers for the extra $200 bucks.

[DippedInSauce]

Over the past twelve years my car has been outfitted with a vast array of suspension systems. At one point it had the Hotchkis kit. It was ironically installed by Hotchkis. After the drive from their shop in Southern California back up to Northern California the choice was crystal clear. I immediately removed the Hotchkis parts and threw them on Craigslist. I ended up going with SC&C's front street comp kit. The tall balljoints with their adjustable control arms were a MAJOR improvement. I've since worked with SC&C and upgraded to their Chassisworks "the works" package and drive my car daily as a result. I can say form multiple bad experiences, avoid Hotchkis.

[Project77]

Here's my opinion. I have the full Hotchkis TVS on my '77 Firebird... everything they make for my car. After a year of pretty much daily driving I'm looking into Ridetech and Chassisworks systems now.

[Hotchkis]

hey all, im about to place order, but cant decide wheter go with
http://www.ridetech.com/store/1967-1969-chevy-camaro-complete-coil-over-system.html
or
http://www.hotchkis.net/stage-2-total-vehicle-system-19671969-camaro-firebird-coupe-small-block-2-drop.html
yourmsuggestions are very welcome...

Hi Susniand. When considering what suspension system to buy for your car there are many things to consider - how and where will the car be driven most, are you planning on doing the installation yourself or is a shop going to do it, and whether you want a suspension system that is pre-set with the proper caster, ride height, and damping settings or if you want to have to figure those all out on your own. Our suspension systems combine the best of both worlds - everyday livability with proven track and autocross performance. Our goal when designing these systems it to create a package of complementary components that are designed to work together to deliver superior handling and ride quality without the need for excessive adjustments. Through our extensive track and road testing, we have dialed in a caster increase to our control arms that improves high speed stability and camber gain in corners. This added caster allows you to run less static negative camber because of the gain in dynamic camber you see under load. This helps maximize the contact patch of the front tires for better braking and stability while also returning more even tire wear. Our control arms also feature an offset cross shaft which allows you to add increased static negative camber without having to use an unnecessary amount of shims. All of our TVS suspension kits now come with our Hotchkis-Tuned by Fox SPS Aluminum Monotube Shock Absorbers. These shocks were developed using the latest in shock development technology and went through vigorous testing on the road, the shock dyno, and a Four-Post Shaker Rig that allowed us to fine tune the valving of both our non-adjustable SPS and single-adjustable APS shocks (which are an available upgrade for any TVS kit) for optimum ride quality and handling. All of our suspension packages are a true bolt-on and a direct replacement for the factory pieces that just about anyone can install at home in their garage with basic hand tools, come with a Lifetime Warranty, and are made in the USA.

Check out the video showcasing our shock development here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3q5RCsWwYw


I personally like coilovers better, because you can adjust the ride height, swap out springs for little cost if the ride is too stiff, and have plenty of damping adjustment.

Leaf spring cars CAN and WILL handle well with the Hotchkis setup, but what cars now days do you see with leaf springs?

We're a RideTech dealer too if you're looking to save a few pennies.

-Dale

I guess this really comes down to the preference of the end user. We prefer a suspension that you install and don't have to mess with so that you can go out and enjoy it right away. I think we have proven that not only can leaf spring-equipped cars handle, but their ride quality is typically superior to many coil-over equipped rides. Check out what Jim Campisano had to say about our suspension on Carl Casanova's '68 Camaro at the Super Chevy Suspension Test - http://www.superchevy.com/features/sucp-1103-hotchkis-1968-chevrolet-camaro/viewall.html. This is also the same car that posted the top lap times at the 2013 One Lap of America in the Vintage American class on Virginia International Raceway (Full Course), Virginia International Raceway (South Course), Pittsburgh International Race Complex, and on the Tire Rack Dry Skidpad against many competitors with full-blown race cars.


Out of those two packages it`s a no brainer, the Ridetech. The TVS has no real geometry correction (just alignment correction). The Ridetech comes with a basic 4 link rear and the Ridetech/Fox shocks are a big step up vs. the old school steel body Bilsteins. That said, shop around before you buy and feel free to give our Free Suspension Counseling Service a call. :)

Actually, our TVS kit has plenty of geometry correction. The control arms increase caster to 4.5-5 degrees which improves stability and camber gain in corners. Our TVS kit for the Camaro comes with a factory length ball joint so that cars with small diameter wheels will not experience any A-arm to wheel clearance issues. However for those that are running larger diameter wheels, we do have a 1/2-inch taller ball joint available which will lengthen the spindle to get the front suspension into a negative camber gain during cornering. Our kit is also compatible with the Guldstrand mod for those that are looking to really maximize the negative camber gain of the front suspension. Our upper control arms are also shortened compared to the factory pieces which further improves the camber curve. Finally our leaf springs utilize a 3/4-length over load spring reducing axle wrap and wheel hop under acceleration.

[k7king]

I started out with a full Hotchkis kit on my 2nd gen Camaro. Car drove good and handled good on the autocross. I decided to mini tub the car and upgrade the rearend to a 9 inch. I also switched to Ridetech coilovers front and rear along with the control arms and swaybar in the front. I have a Speedtech torque arm in the rear with ridetech coilovers. The ride and handling were greatly improved switching from the leafs. If I was to do it over I would just run the Ridetech 4 bar on the rear simply because of cost and ease of Exhaust install. You can't pick wrong if you pick Ridetech, Schwartz, Detroit Speed, Hotchkis,or Speedtech. Just pick one on Support, Quality, Adjustability, and lastly price. They all handle good. On a first Gen Camaro the Ridetech Trueturn steering is definitely a huge improvement over stock so I would look into that.

[Bad94]

I have installed both. And I personal like the ridetech.

[killer69]

I started out with a full Hotchkis kit on my 2nd gen Camaro. Car drove good and handled good on the autocross. I decided to mini tub the car and upgrade the rearend to a 9 inch. I also switched to Ridetech coilovers front and rear along with the control arms and swaybar in the front. I have a Speedtech torque arm in the rear with ridetech coilovers. The ride and handling were greatly improved switching from the leafs. If I was to do it over I would just run the Ridetech 4 bar on the rear simply because of cost and ease of Exhaust install. You can't pick wrong if you pick Ridetech, Schwartz, Detroit Speed, Hotchkis,or Speedtech. Just pick one on Support, Quality, Adjustability, and lastly price. They all handle good. On a first Gen Camaro the Ridetech Trueturn steering is definitely a huge improvement over stock so I would look into that.

Glad to hear your liking the Torque Arm, interesting you mention the exhaust cost. for anyone else considering the Torque arm keep in mind that with ANY 4 link 3 link Torque arm you will be building custom exhaust not just with the Speedtech Torque arm. we did design the Torque Arm to fit 3" tail pipes. I know some of the others it may not even be possible to install tail pipes.

[DippedInSauce]

Here's my opinion. I have the full Hotchkis TVS on my '77 Firebird... everything they make for my car. After a year of pretty much daily driving I'm looking into Ridetech and Chassisworks systems now.

You'll be loving life once you make the swap. And there are always individuals on Craigslist willing to purchase your retired Hotchkis parts. When I went removed my hotchkis front suspension and replaced it with the SPC arms it was NIGHT and DAY. So upgrading from hotchkis to Ridetech or Chassisworks will in the words of Mike Tyson, leave you feeling ecstatic!

[Rod]

well I let everyone voice there opinion manufactures and installers...so what do you want to know about the RideTech Systems?

are you going to autocross once and a while? road trip it like the power tour long hauler guys, do a little canyon carving with friends....

if you said yes to these I would do the level 2 system and add the tru-turn...a lot of work has gone into the whole system and its continually evaluated and updated, for example the lower arms on the 4bar were offset to get even more tire width a few years ago because BIG tires rule, the tru turn was added to fix the HORRIBLE bump steer (NO other systems fix the bump steer) to the system about 3 years ago(because BIG tires rule) and 2 years ago the control arms were given more caster than the regular 4-5 degrees that most use (even your moms honda has more castor than 4-5 degrees) with Castor slugs and a forged cross-shaft, we moved the lower ball joint forward to center the wheel in the opening(because BIG tires rule) we have added NEW Delrin bushings standard on our arms because they work a hell of a lot better than poly or rubber. we use a tall spindle in all 3 of the different levels of the systems because a tall ball joint isn't enough to to correct the camber issues, how do I know.... I know because after 24,687 miles in 3 years on my camaro with lots of combos .500 ball joint is off by about 1 inch, and a little bit more...really....I could go on.....

[Rod]

I forgot to ask what do you have on the car now??? like sway bars? subframe connectors? what brakes? what steering box?

[GeoffP]

I bought the Hotchkis TVS and ran my car in several ASCS events before it was ASCS over a couple years. I just couldn't get the hang of the car. Even with the improvements the TVS provided, it was still unpredictable at times making the car un-nerving to my lack of driving experience. I did a ton of research and found that IMHO, RideTech provides the best value for dollars spent in overall cost so I decided to buy the full system for my car including the heim joint adjustable 4-Link. I also chose the HQ coil overs vs the TQ thinking I would be hard pressed to justify the difference in cost since I'm only able to attend 2-3 events a year. I have not been disappointed. My car was MUCH more predictable on the road course at Carolina Motorsports Park and the feel of the car overall is just so much better with RideTech's parts installed. My only regret is that I bought immediately before RideTech came out with their new front arm design so I got the old design arms. Other than that, I'm thrilled and on top of that RideTech's people are ALL so nice and very knowledgable about their products. It certainly helps that they come out to events all over the US. Heck I lost an adjuster cap for one of my coil overs last year and one of their guys gave me one at RTTH last year. You can't beat that kind of service.

Edit - forgot to mention that I have an "IROC" steering box - excellent upgrade for the money if you haven't already bought a Lee or other steering box.

[79-TA]

If I were to read this thread not knowing much about suspension, I'd think that Ridetech offered radical gains over Hotchkis. At the end of the day, both kits are using stock suspension mounting points and there is only so much that can be done. A little less hype would be nice. Again, there's not a lot to be changed. Overall control arm lengths can vary slightly from stock while the ball joints can be moved fore and aft a little bit to affect caster. After that, it's just steering knuckle/ball joint height to alter the rate of camber gain. Springs, anti-roll bars, and resulting ride height will determine what part of the suspension travel range is used.

Over simplifying the double A arm front suspension to a 2d projection, you're dealing with a parallelogram where two of four corners are already fixed and three of the sides don't change in length.



What I like about both kits:

Both companies give you a package with spring rates that will work well for the car at its new lower ride height. Both companies have made a good investment in improving dampers in just the last year or two and offer very nice adjustable units that should produce a usable damping ratio.

Both companies offer good clean bolt on kits that will make a noticeable difference.



What I like about Hotchkis:

By keeping the upper control arm and steering knuckle combination less radical, they can better accommodate the Guildstrand mod or who knows what else has been done to your car. The G-mod creates more camber gain while also creating more anti-dive. This is important as the tires need to be flat when braking in a straight line, not gaining camber and leaning over as if they're in a turn. The offset cross shaft Hotchkis makes is a neat trick. It may even allow them to play with the upper control arm length a bit. It makes for a cleaner and simpler installation for a typical pro-touring alignment.

(I've seen other kits where, due to either poor design or manufacturing, the upper control arm had way too much caster and the cross shaft had to be shimmed back with a large stack of shims on the front side. Stupid and ugly.)

I like that the Hotchkis kit uses a normal front coil spring. Adjusting ride height and cross weight more readily is ideal, but I have no desire to see the entire suspension load taken by the shock mount. Just picture 1.6x the weight of the corner (roughly the inverse of the motion ratio) being held up by that shock mount. A lot of companies mount coilovers to the shock mount and I've never heard of a failure, but no thanks.


What I like about Ridetech.

My favorite thing Ridetech has done is easily the Tru-turn for first gen Camaros. Other applications are often less limited. They attacked the 1st gen Camaro's greatest weakness, limited tire width, head on. It's nothing magical. They use a glorified A-body steering arm (no, it's not an exact stock A body arm) to relocate what the tire would first interfere with. They then did their homework and made a centerlink/endlink assembly that all but eliminated bump steer. They also provide information on how different common parts combinations affect the bump steer curve. It's really cool. The Ridetech stuff then gives the owner the option of air suspension or springs.

Ridetech uses Hyperco springs. From what I've heard, they're supposed to be very high quality in that they keep spring rates very consistent in production.



As for the rear, I don't know enough about the Ridetech kit to make any final judgements. Hotchkis leaf springs are simple and work. Improvements can be made by going to different rear systems, but I cannot say whether or not the Ridetech 4 link system is one of them. I do like the way it uses the leaf spring mounting locations.

Here's my concern. Ridetech appears to offer a 4 link with no panhard bar. Is this correct? My under-invested Mustang has a 4 link. It has 99 problems and lateral location of the beam axle with only 4 links is definitely one. A common Mustang upgrade would be to add a panhard bar. The DSE quadralink includes a panhard bar.

I'm sure there are Ridetech customers who are well pleased with their 4 link kits and find the lateral location satisfactory regardless, so don't take this question as any kind of harsh criticism.

[Rod]

If I were to read this thread not knowing much about suspension, I'd think that Ridetech offered radical gains over Hotchkis. At the end of the day, both kits are using stock suspension mounting points and there is only so much that can be done. A little less hype would be nice. Again, there's not a lot to be changed. Overall control arm lengths can vary slightly from stock while the ball joints can be moved fore and aft a little bit to affect caster. After that, it's just steering knuckle/ball joint height to alter the rate of camber gain. Springs, anti-roll bars, and resulting ride height will determine what part of the suspension travel range is used.

Over simplifying the double A arm front suspension to a 2d projection, you're dealing with a parallelogram where two of four corners are already fixed and three of the sides don't change in length.



What I like about both kits:

Both companies give you a package with spring rates that will work well for the car at its new lower ride height. Both companies have made a good investment in improving dampers in just the last year or two and offer very nice adjustable units that should produce a usable damping ratio.

Both companies offer good clean bolt on kits that will make a noticeable difference.



What I like about Hotchkis:

By keeping the upper control arm and steering knuckle combination less radical, they can better accommodate the Guildstrand mod or who knows what else has been done to your car. The G-mod creates more camber gain while also creating more anti-dive. This is important as the tires need to be flat when braking in a straight line, not gaining camber and leaning over as if they're in a turn. The offset cross shaft Hotchkis makes is a neat trick. It may even allow them to play with the upper control arm length a bit. It makes for a cleaner and simpler installation for a typical pro-touring alignment.

(I've seen other kits where, due to either poor design or manufacturing, the upper control arm had way too much caster and the cross shaft had to be shimmed back with a large stack of shims on the front side. Stupid and ugly.)

I like that the Hotchkis kit uses a normal front coil spring. Adjusting ride height and cross weight more readily is ideal, but I have no desire to see the entire suspension load taken by the shock mount. Just picture 1.6x the weight of the corner (roughly the inverse of the motion ratio) being held up by that shock mount. A lot of companies mount coilovers to the shock mount and I've never heard of a failure, but no thanks.


What I like about Ridetech.

My favorite thing Ridetech has done is easily the Tru-turn for first gen Camaros. Other applications are often less limited. They attacked the 1st gen Camaro's greatest weakness, limited tire width, head on. It's nothing magical. They use a glorified A-body steering arm (no, it's not an exact stock A body arm) to relocate what the tire would first interfere with. They then did their homework and made a centerlink/endlink assembly that all but eliminated bump steer. They also provide information on how different common parts combinations affect the bump steer curve. It's really cool. The Ridetech stuff then gives the owner the option of air suspension or springs.

Ridetech uses Hyperco springs. From what I've heard, they're supposed to be very high quality in that they keep spring rates very consistent in production.



As for the rear, I don't know enough about the Ridetech kit to make any final judgements. Hotchkis leaf springs are simple and work. Improvements can be made by going to different rear systems, but I cannot say whether or not the Ridetech 4 link system is one of them. I do like the way it uses the leaf spring mounting locations.

Here's my concern. Ridetech appears to offer a 4 link with no panhard bar. Is this correct? My under-invested Mustang has a 4 link. It has 99 problems and lateral location of the beam axle with only 4 links is definitely one. A common Mustang upgrade would be to add a panhard bar. The DSE quadralink includes a panhard bar.

I'm sure there are Ridetech customers who are well pleased with their 4 link kits and find the lateral location satisfactory regardless, so don't take this question as any kind of harsh criticism.

umm, if you say so

[WallaceMFG]

If you go the Ridetech route, for sure upgrade to the HQ shocks. From the sounds of it, the Tru Turn would be a good investment as well.

I got both sway bars for my Chevelle, and I did that based off the word of Ridetech owner Brett himself. They don't offer Tru Turn for Chevelles, otherwise I'd have that too.

[DippedInSauce]

umm, if you say so

My thoughts exactly! hahaha

[79-TA]

umm, if you say so


umm, if you ambiguously doubt so . . .

[Rod]

umm, if you ambiguously doubt so . . .

just replying to your statement..not ambiguous...just my interpretation.

I have experience with with many companies (as you well know) I wasn't bashing or negative about any of them the OP asked Ridetech kit vs Hotchkis tvs, and I gave him my evaluation, between the two its RideTech (with Hotchkis subframe connectors and Global West sub frame bushings) I have won titles on both Hotchkis and RideTech, I have used Global west arms and leafs, DSE arms and leafs, CPP arms, Hotchkis Arms and leafs, as intended by the builders and in different combos, you say both kits are using stock suspension mounting points and there is only so much that can be done. yes and no...were the arm mounts is the same the amount of caster we add is greater and that is split between the upper and lower arm to keep the wheel centered then we angled the ball joints for the exact ride height that happens with our coil-over and the predetermined preload on that coil-over next we use a tall spindle and that changes the pivot angle of the arm and its camber curve....and even with the bolts holding the arms are in the same place as factory the tall spindle moves the mounting point, just plot it on a suspension analyzer you will see the roll center drops....ok with that tall spindle if you add our tru-turn with the steering arms we use and the inner tie rod location of the new drag-link brace we have also speed up steering and changed the ackerman to assist steering

and on my own car my mounting points and anti-dive are changed from factory

[Ben@SpeedTech]

Jeeze Rod you've tried them all...wait I didn't see Speedtech in that list. Call me tomorrow, I think it's time to get a new pair of control arms on your car. :poke: lol!

[79-TA]

just replying to your statement..not ambiguous...just my interpretation.

I have experience with with many companies (as you well know) I wasn't bashing or negative about any of them the OP asked Ridetech kit vs Hotchkis tvs, and I gave him my evaluation, between the two its RideTech (with Hotchkis subframe connectors and Global West sub frame bushings) I have won titles on both Hotchkis and RideTech, I have used Global west arms and leafs, DSE arms and leafs, CPP arms, Hotchkis Arms and leafs, as intended by the builders and in different combos, you say both kits are using stock suspension mounting points and there is only so much that can be done. yes and no...were the arm mounts is the same the amount of caster we add is greater and that is split between the upper and lower arm to keep the wheel centered then we angled the ball joints for the exact ride height that happens with our coil-over and the predetermined preload on that coil-over next we use a tall spindle and that changes the pivot angle of the arm and its camber curve....and even with the bolts holding the arms are in the same place as factory the tall spindle moves the mounting point, just plot it on a suspension analyzer you will see the roll center drops....ok with that tall spindle if you add our tru-turn with the steering arms we use and the inner tie rod location of the new drag-link brace we have also speed up steering and changed the ackerman to assist steering

and on my own car my mounting points and anti-dive are changed from factory

Ambiguous yes. What you were doubting was not clear. If I wanted to be facetious, I could assume your first post was doubting anything good I said about Ridetech (which there is a lot of.)

I'm very familiar with double a arm suspension geometry and familiar with the design of suspension parts for various muscle cars. None of that's lost on me. Excuse me if I'm cynical and don't buy that cars switching from current Hotchkis parts to current Ridetech parts are miraculously and radically transformed. Tru Turn in the case of the 1st gen Camaro is your best bet and getting a big difference in results. By all means continue to be (rightfully) enthusiastic about Ridetech, but this thread was taking an unreasonable turn. For instance, dippedinsauce just bashes Hotchkis whenever he gets the chance.

Yes, additional caster split between upper and lower arms with the ball joint angles relieved. I'm not trying to marginalize Ridetech for doing a good job here, but that's not a huge deal. There are certainly companies that skip over these design features. Since this is about Hotchkis vs Ridetech, I'm not sure that's an advantage to note.

I originally pointed out that the spring determines what part of the suspension travel range is used.

The spring length and stiffness determines the lower arm angle in this case. The knuckle cannot change the lower arm angle. I know they were chosen to work together. To rephrase and correct what you said, the lowering steering knuckle or "spindle" allows Ridetech to use a spring that keeps the lower arm at a flatter angle relative to the ground that minimizes scrub and uses a different part of the camber gain curve (than a car lowered with springs) and doesn't overly lower the roll center. (To illustrate that the knuckle does not affect lower arm angle, change the Ridetech steering knuckle for a stock one and you'll have raised the car while using the same lower arm angle and part of the suspension travel range.)

I very much appreciate that Ridetech lowers the car primarily with the knuckle while providing an appropriate stiffer spring.


I was unaware that ackerman was changed significantly. That's a nice consideration by Ridetech. Since you say it assists steering, I'm assuming it's focused on auto-cross where pro-touring cars spend most of their time. That is, open road racing generally uses more negative or "anti-ackerman." There is no single right or universally better answer for suspension setup unless a dedicated purpose and goal are defined. The wide range of uses for pro-touring cars is what makes it complicated and fun.

[79-TA]

Rodney, we know each other. Not well, but well enough for me to consider you one of my car friends. I'm sorry for responding in a confrontational manner in the last two posts. It comes across poorly in the cold context of an internet forum.

Please understand my original intent of trying to keep Hotchkis from getting unfairly shorted in the way the exchange was going on the thread. I tried to give both companies a fair shake, and I do like what both of them do. Nothing in my first post warranted any kind of mockery and my points about suspension design stand on their own. You're not going to introduce anything new about double A-arm suspension to me. But that doesn't excuse me for escalating things.

[Rod]

Jeeze Rod you've tried them all...wait I didn't see Speedtech in that list. Call me tomorrow, I think it's time to get a new pair of control arms on your car. :poke: lol!

LOL!!! I should have called for the Rambler project!!! Suzys Rambler has DSE lower arms, Global upper west arms, Hotchkis front sway bar, Ridetech shocks, CPP C5 spindles and brakes, helwig rear sway bar, DSE steering Rack.....and so on!!!!

[Rod]

I'm sorry for responding in a confrontational manner in the last two posts.


yep internet sucks for that




You're not going to introduce anything new about double A-arm suspension

there isn't anything new, just the metamorphoses of current parts




dippedinsauce just bashes Hotchkis whenever he gets the chance.



thats his M.O.

[jlwdvm]

"Here's my concern. Ridetech appears to offer a 4 link with no panhard bar. Is this correct? My under-invested Mustang has a 4 link. It has 99 problems and lateral location of the beam axle with only 4 links is definitely one. A common Mustang upgrade would be to add a panhard bar. The DSE quadralink includes a panhard bar. "

I'm dealing with this with my Ride Tech 4-link install in my 69 firebird at the moment. With my new Strange 9" and lower arms installed (rear built leaf perches in stock locations) The rear is shifted over 3/4" to the driver's side. We initially thought this was only due to the car having 2 aftermarket quarters on. I measured everything about 1000 times as far as subframe square, wheel base equal, WMS diagonally square, etc and found that the WMS of the rear axle with the lower arms installed was nearly 1" to the driver's side as it relates to the center line of the car. However, with the rear hanging where the lower arms want it, the rear axle yoke was right on center line with the car and with the motor-trans center line. After talking with Ron Sutton (starts at #122), he suggested moving the rear 1/2 inch towards the passenger side to get the rear tire center line equal to the front:http://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=42568&page=13 The drive shaft u-joints will still be in phase since the trans center line is perpendicular to the rear axle. I also talked with Ride Tech about this: https://www.pro-touring.com/threads/107253-Ride-Tech-4-link-install-on-69-FIrebird
I guess my concern is: I now have the rear where i want it and am ready to weld in the upper tabs, is the rear going to just move back towards the drivers side after I remove the strap holding it where I want it for welding in the upper tabs? I didn't mean to hijack the thread, but the issue of needing a Panhard bar came up.

[dhutton]

I'm no expert but the Ridetech canted four bar suspension doesn't need a panhard bar because the canted bars position and hold the rear end centered. GM A body cars have canted four bars and they don't have panhard bars. Parallel four bars like the Quadralink need a panhard bar because the parallel bars do not hold the rear end centered. At least this is my understanding.

Don

[marolf101x]

a panhard (track) bar is not required when using a triangulated 4 link.

You can read about triangulated and parallel 4 links here:
http://www.ridetech.com/tech/air4link-tech/

[jlwdvm]

Thanks!

[Ben@SpeedTech]

LOL!!! I should have called for the Rambler project!!! Suzys Rambler has DSE lower arms, Global upper west arms, Hotchkis front sway bar, Ridetech shocks, CPP C5 spindles and brakes, helwig rear sway bar, DSE steering Rack.....and so on!!!!

Lol!. PM me an address and I'll ship you a Speedtech Key Chain! ;)

[Rod]

I now have the rear where i want it and am ready to weld in the upper tabs, is the rear going to just move back towards the drivers side after I remove the strap holding it where I want it for welding in the upper tabs? I didn't mean to hijack the thread, but the issue of needing a Panhard bar came up.

that is correct.....I actually put my wheels on the rear end and measured wheel to inner well clearance and simply cut wooden shims to the correct width to center the rear end and wedged them into place and welded up the rear, that way my tires have the exact inner clearance from side to side....simple:1st: