First Gen Camaro Tall Spindles on a budget

[Fish763]

I know this subject has been beat to death but why doesn't anyone make a cast f-body tall spindle, they are always drop spindles???? ATS and L&H Kustoms both make a really nice products but they are $750+. what about the buy that is on a budget? I am half tempted to take one of my spindles cut it stretch it make a mold and cast a new one. What are the budget guys doing other than the Guldstrand Mod???

David Pozzi, please feel free to chime in at any time LOL....

[79-TA]

I know this subject has been beat to death but why doesn't anyone make a cast f-body tall spindle, they are always drop spindles???? ATS and L&H Kustoms both make a really nice products but they are $750+. what about the buy that is on a budget? I am half tempted to take one of my spindles cut it stretch it make a mold and cast a new one. What are the budget guys doing other than the Guldstrand Mod???

David Pozzi, please feel free to chime in at any time LOL....

Your common budget options are either the guildstrand modification like you mention or tall upper ball joints. You can also run taller lower ball joints, but that acts like a drop spindle, even if only for half an inch.

CPP makes a cast iron slightly taller (just under an inch if I remember correctly) steering knuckle, but it's for use with C5/C6 hubs and brakes. IF you wanted C5 brakes, that would be something to consider.



Do look into camber gain curves and what you are actually trying to achieve with the car. The hype over "tall spindles" drives me crazy. There are a lot of products that create a curve that is too aggressive to handle transitions nicely.

[Fish763]

i have had a few PMs with David Pozzi in the past on a different forum and the g-mod even though it is just a few years younger than me really does work. i am running GW upper and lower a-arms the uppers with the g-mod should give me what i am looking for.

i am running a stock sub frame any suggestions on mods that may be needed to strengthen it? i will be running coil overs and i was thinking about finishing off the factory welds and maybe adding a gusset to add strength to the plate that the upper a-arm bolts to. just seems like there will be a lot of stress at that point with the a-arm and coil over.

[Kenova]

........ i was thinking about finishing off the factory welds.......
Definitely do this. Once you get the sub frame cleaned up you will wonder how the thing held together for 47 years.

Ken

[David Pozzi]

Your best cheap solution is to do a .9" tall upper ball joint. Drop spindles require a bit more height to generate the same camber gain curve as a stock spindle with .9" UBJ.
Use tubular upper a arms to increase positive caster. Positive caster alone helps a lot.

[rickpaw]

Your best cheap solution is to do a .9" tall upper ball joint. Drop spindles require a bit more height to generate the same camber gain curve as a stock spindle with .9" UBJ.
Use tubular upper a arms to increase positive camber. Positive caster alone helps a lot.

You mean positive caster?

[BMR Sales]

You mean positive caster?

Yes

[Fish763]

just to be clear and this is based on information i have from other posts so please forgive me if i got it wrong.

Options:
0. You cant do a-arms, g-mod, and tall spindles all at the same time because that is way too much negative camber. (wasn't even considering it but had to add it to the list).
1. Do the a-arms and tall spindles but ( please correct me if i am wrong) this only helps a little with gain in positive caster "built in to the a-arm".
2. Do a-arms and g-mod, you don't get as much in negative camber but gain more in positive caster because you are moving the ball joint back, but this can also cause binding at the ball joint because it was moved down changing the angle of the ball joint.

Question: "is the difference in positive caster enough to worry about"?

Most of the g-mods people are doing (lower .75" and move back .25") i think David has tried several variations this also. So if i do the G-MOD and install a tall upper ball joint (.5"-.9") i can achieve more Negative Camber, Positive Caster and and have to worry about binding, When this is all done i will need to measure my bump steer and address that if needed? If this is correct should i stay with the standard g-mod (.75"x.25") or does anyone have a suggested new g-mod that would work with my setup?


OH, and eventually i will be asking about alignment specs for this setup LOL.

I have the following on the car now i know it is a hodgepodge of different companies but i have been working on this car for 10+ years and i want to drive it next summer:
Stock Sub-frame
Global West upper and lower A-Arms
Global West aluminium body bushings
DSE sub-frame connectors
Ride Tech 4-Link rear just installed last week. I replaced my GW rear leafs with it.
Viking Coil Overs on all 4 corners
Hotchkis Handle Bars
Hotchkis front sway-bar

[Fish763]

I just found this on kinda the same subject. but they talk about a wedge to compensate for the change in the angle of the ball joint hens no binding. http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=214263 It sounds really good on paper but i worry about the long ball joint doesn't look safe. let me correct my self, the .5" looks okay the .9" looks unsafe.

[Fish763]

I have spent the past week talking to several people that know a lot more about suspension geometry than I do and what I have found is that you need to talk to the manufacture of your a-arms. You can put your car up on blocks and measure camber and cast to your heart content. The companies that build your a-arms do their testing on the ground. Load and roll from the weight of the car going in to the corner changes things. One important part of the equation that I do not see a lot of people talking about and how load affects sweep. I talked to GW and they recommended I stay away from tall ball joint because my arms where engendered around stock spindles and ball joints heights, also the G/M may or may not help me in my application.

Dse has a modified version of the G/M they recommend using with their product so in short make a phone call before doing any mods

GW is updating their negitive roll front system looking forward to comparing it to what I have now.

[iadr]

. The hype over "tall spindles" drives me crazy. There are a lot of products that create a curve that is too aggressive to handle transitions nicely.

Brett, could you talk about this? Not asking about you naming names of what kits, but more about the rues of thumb...
How much is too much- what measurement is the best to pay attention too- do you look at virtual swing arm length? Do you have a rule of thumb- like no more than .7deg per inch within the first 2-3 inches of travel?

What if someone's car is set up this way- what does it feel like? Is it something you can get used to?

[cdrod]

Do look into camber gain curves and what you are actually trying to achieve with the car. The hype over "tall spindles" drives me crazy. There are a lot of products that create a curve that is too aggressive to handle transitions nicely.

Brett:
X2 on the camber curve discussion. How much dynamic camber gain is enough?

Rodney

[slacker1965]

I have spent the past week talking to several people that know a lot more about suspension geometry than I do and what I have found is that you need to talk to the manufacture of your a-arms. You can put your car up on blocks and measure camber and cast to your heart content. The companies that build your a-arms do their testing on the ground. Load and roll from the weight of the car going in to the corner changes things. One important part of the equation that I do not see a lot of people talking about and how load affects sweep. I talked to GW and they recommended I stay away from tall ball joint because my arms where engendered around stock spindles and ball joints heights, also the G/M may or may not help me in my application.

Dse has a modified version of the G/M they recommend using with their product so in short make a phone call before doing any mods

GW is updating their negitive roll front system looking forward to comparing it to what I have now.

not trying to hijack your post, just not start a new post for topics that have been covered..... FWIW I am doing a stock subframed '68 build & am trying to figure out the best bang for the buck....not gonna be a track car....if the next owner wants to go with a complete subframe ir system, that's great, my budget won't allow for that
thanks
kevin

[David Pozzi]

The generally accepted amount of camber gain is .7 deg per inch of bump.

Camber gain will be an increasing curve, - less on the first inch, more on the second inch, more again on the third inch.
My test results: http://www.pozziracing.com/proforged_first_.htm

If you just lower your Camaro, the camber curve will be on the higher gain part of the curve but generating a pretty small gain. It is close to zero gain at factory ride height, but lowering the car just by itself puts it in a small gain part of the curve.

The Guldstrand mod and or tall ball joints will place the upper A arm at a higher angle which generates more negative camber. If the car is lowered, the upper arm is even more angled and in a higher gain part of the camber curve. The lower A arm is angled upwards to the ball joint at least 2" and probably more, which takes away a little of the gain.

If you add a tall drop spindle, you are going the other way, the lower A arm is closer to level, the upper A arm would also be on a very low gain part of the curve if the spindle were near stock height, the fix is to make the spindle taller, - around 1.25" taller. This places the upper A arm at a higher angle and increases camber gain. The thing to get is the drop spindle pretty much levels the lower & upper A arms and must be made taller to increase the camber gain over a stock spindle car that is lowered. When doing tests on tall ball joints, adding a .5" lower ball joint never helped camber gain because I had to adjust my starting ride height starting point .5". If you add a .5" taller lower ball joint, you would raise the car .5" to set the chassis at the same ride height as the previous test. This places the upper A arm more level which puts the spindle on a lower gain part of the camber curve.

The down side to tall ball joints is increased bump steer. There is a .5" tall tie rod end and it fixes the bump steer with a stock suspension if you use a good amount of caster. If you use .5" tall upper ball joints, then the .5" tall tie rod end will bring it to near stock amount of bump steer which isn't bad. If you do the Guldstrand mod with .5" tall UBJ, the bumpsteer will be poor. Same for the .9" tall UBJ.

As far as camber gain for autocross goes, you can do the G mod and .5" tall UBJ and have a good setup, but your bumpsteer will be poor and the .5" tall tie rods will only reduce it, not fix it. You would have to heat and bend the steering arms to fix the bump steer. You will need a bumpsteer measuring kit to measure what you are doing. I don't think the Baer Tracker kit would allow you to lower the tie rods enough to fix the problem.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://s117.photobucket.com/user/davidpozzi/media/Other/69CAMAROTALLBALLJOINTSTIERODEND.png.html)

Another issue is the tie rod hitting the rim or tire. Most drop spindles put the tie rod end 2" lower which will hit the rim if you go wider than 8" x 18". The Ride Tech Tru-Turn puts the tie rod end higher so it fits inside the rim, moves the inner tie rod end up to fix bumpsteer. The Global West system does something similar. Increased positive caster helps reduce bumpsteer.

The only systems that address these issues are:
ATS forged spindle with relocated steering arm angles. (tie rod ends still near rim, if you go to 19" rims it may clear better.)
Ride Tech tall spindle and Tru-Turn steering linkage. with their A arms.
Global West Negative Roll system.

They are not cheap but address the camber gain, positive caster, and bumpsteer issues.

CASTER
A arms with more caster helps nearly as much as high camber gain suspension. High caster will generate neg camber when the wheels are turned, but it goes away when the wheels are straight. This is the best of both worlds! Positive caster works best at an autocross where you turn the wheels sharper. It does the least on a high speed sweeper with small turn angles but high cornering loads.

Options for a low-buck fix:
GULDSTRAND MOD: Improved camber gain, a little more caster available, you can probably get 4 deg positive caster with stock arms and a lot of shims. Use .5" tall tie rod ends. (proforged) you will have bumpsteer near stock. Use tubular upper arm to help UBJ angles and get the caster to 5 degrees.

G MOD WITH .5" TALL UBJ: more neg camber gain, than above, down side is increased bumpsteer. would have to bend the steering arms down. How much, I don't know but probably 1/4" or more if you use the .5 tall tie rod ends.

.9' TALL UBJ: I would do this alone, same bumpsteer issues as above.

MY RECOMMENDATION:
You can do just the G mod or just the .5" tall UBJ along with .5" tall tie rod ends, and have the smallest bumpsteer. Add in even more positive caster than the "usual" 5 degrees, try to get 7 degrees to further reduce bumpsteer. More positive caster rotates the tie rod down and reduces bumpsteer. Bumpsteer causes toe-out in bump on a first gen Camaro.

THE CHEAPEST WAY:
On a street car, the best deal is Tubular upper A arms by Global West, all the caster is built into the upper arms, - they allow the most positive caster I've seen. Set the car up with 6 to 7 deg positive caster and don't do the G mod or tall ball joints. You can get by without tall tie rod ends if you aren't replacing yours, but they would help. Set camber at .5 deg and toe to 1/8" total. For doing aggressive street use and occasional autox, I'd up the neg camber to 1.5 deg & monitor tire wear.

[Ryanater]

G MOD WITH .5" TALL UBJ: more neg camber gain, than above, down side is increased bumpsteer. would have to bend the steering arms down. How much, I don't know but probably 1/4" or more if you use the .5 tall tie rod ends.
.9' TALL UBJ: I would do this alone, same bumpsteer issues as above.

What about with the Z/28 steering arms? Would there still be bump steer issues with the above combinations?

[David Pozzi]

What about with the Z/28 steering arms? Would there still be bump steer issues with the above combinations?

The arms I tested with are Z/28 arms. GM did make over the counter racing arms that were lower but they are very rare.

[DJW32]

not trying to hijack your post, just not start a new post for topics that have been covered..... FWIW I am doing a stock subframed '68 build & am trying to figure out the best bang for the buck....not gonna be a track car....if the next owner wants to go with a complete subframe ir system, that's great, my budget won't allow for that
thanks
kevin


Go go with Ridetech. Bret, and his crew, has really tested the limits on the stock sub frame.

[Rod]

I know this subject has been beat to death but why doesn't anyone make a cast f-body tall spindle, they are always drop spindles???? ATS and L&H Kustoms both make a really nice products but they are $750+. what about the buy that is on a budget? I am half tempted to take one of my spindles cut it stretch it make a mold and cast a new one. What are the budget guys doing other than the Guldstrand Mod???

David Pozzi, please feel free to chime in at any time LOL....

why do you want a stock height tall spindle?.....the reason there dropped is used, it allows the car to be lowered and the arm stays closer to parallel to the ground, without the drop spindle placement the arm would be angle upward to get the same ride level and that would limit bump travel

[slacker1965]

The generally accepted amount of camber gain is .7 deg per inch of bump.

Camber gain will be an increasing curve, - less on the first inch, more on the second inch, more again on the third inch.
My test results: http://www.pozziracing.com/proforged_first_.htm

If you just lower your Camaro, the camber curve will be on the higher gain part of the curve but generating a pretty small gain. It is close to zero gain at factory ride height, but lowering the car just by itself puts it in a small gain part of the curve.

The Guldstrand mod and or tall ball joints will place the upper A arm at a higher angle which generates more negative camber. If the car is lowered, the upper arm is even more angled and in a higher gain part of the camber curve. The lower A arm is angled upwards to the ball joint at least 2" and probably more, which takes away a little of the gain.

If you add a tall drop spindle, you are going the other way, the lower A arm is closer to level, the upper A arm would also be on a very low gain part of the curve if the spindle were near stock height, the fix is to make the spindle taller, - around 1.25" taller. This places the upper A arm at a higher angle and increases camber gain. The thing to get is the drop spindle pretty much levels the lower & upper A arms and must be made taller to increase the camber gain over a stock spindle car that is lowered. When doing tests on tall ball joints, adding a .5" lower ball joint never helped camber gain because I had to adjust my starting ride height starting point .5". If you add a .5" taller lower ball joint, you would raise the car .5" to set the chassis at the same ride height as the previous test. This places the upper A arm more level which puts the spindle on a lower gain part of the camber curve.

The down side to tall ball joints is increased bump steer. There is a .5" tall tie rod end and it fixes the bump steer with a stock suspension if you use a good amount of caster. If you use .5" tall upper ball joints, then the .5" tall tie rod end will bring it to near stock amount of bump steer which isn't bad. If you do the Guldstrand mod with .5" tall UBJ, the bumpsteer will be poor. Same for the .9" tall UBJ.

As far as camber gain for autocross goes, you can do the G mod and .5" tall UBJ and have a good setup, but your bumpsteer will be poor and the .5" tall tie rods will only reduce it, not fix it. You would have to heat and bend the steering arms to fix the bump steer. You will need a bumpsteer measuring kit to measure what you are doing. I don't think the Baer Tracker kit would allow you to lower the tie rods enough to fix the problem.

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif (http://s117.photobucket.com/user/davidpozzi/media/Other/69CAMAROTALLBALLJOINTSTIERODEND.png.html)

Another issue is the tie rod hitting the rim or tire. Most drop spindles put the tie rod end 2" lower which will hit the rim if you go wider than 8" x 18". The Ride Tech Tru-Turn puts the tie rod end higher so it fits inside the rim, moves the inner tie rod end up to fix bumpsteer. The Global West system does something similar. Increased positive caster helps reduce bumpsteer.

The only systems that address these issues are:
ATS forged spindle with relocated steering arm angles. (tie rod ends still near rim, if you go to 19" rims it may clear better.)
Ride Tech tall spindle and Tru-Turn steering linkage. with their A arms.
Global West Negative Roll system.

They are not cheap but address the camber gain, positive caster, and bumpsteer issues.

CASTER
A arms with more caster helps nearly as much as high camber gain suspension. High caster will generate neg camber when the wheels are turned, but it goes away when the wheels are straight. This is the best of both worlds! Positive caster works best at an autocross where you turn the wheels sharper. It does the least on a high speed sweeper with small turn angles but high cornering loads.

Options for a low-buck fix:
GULDSTRAND MOD: Improved camber gain, a little more caster available, you can probably get 4 deg positive caster with stock arms and a lot of shims. Use .5" tall tie rod ends. (proforged) you will have bumpsteer near stock. Use tubular upper arm to help UBJ angles and get the caster to 5 degrees.

G MOD WITH .5" TALL UBJ: more neg camber gain, than above, down side is increased bumpsteer. would have to bend the steering arms down. How much, I don't know but probably 1/4" or more if you use the .5 tall tie rod ends.

.9' TALL UBJ: I would do this alone, same bumpsteer issues as above.

MY RECOMMENDATION:
You can do just the G mod or just the .5" tall UBJ along with .5" tall tie rod ends, and have the smallest bumpsteer. Add in even more positive caster than the "usual" 5 degrees, try to get 7 degrees to further reduce bumpsteer. More positive caster rotates the tie rod down and reduces bumpsteer. Bumpsteer causes toe-out in bump on a first gen Camaro.

THE CHEAPEST WAY:
On a street car, the best deal is Tubular upper A arms by Global West, all the caster is built into the upper arms, - they allow the most positive caster I've seen. Set the car up with 6 to 7 deg positive caster and don't do the G mod or tall ball joints. You can get by without tall tie rod ends if you aren't replacing yours, but they would help. Set camber at .5 deg and toe to 1/8" total. For doing aggressive street use and occasional autox, I'd up the neg camber to 1.5 deg & monitor tire wear.

thanks for your time David & the rest of you.....lotsa options & combos.....

[red67camaro]

Outstanding post David! Some excellent info. Just one more thing to think about that I discovered the hard way. Trying to adjust to 6-7 degrees of caster with stock lower arms or aftermarket arms that retain the original lower ball joint location will probably move the wheels back far enough for the tires to contact the rear of the fender wells while turning. This would depend on your particular suspension mods, wheel/tire combination, ride height, and fender well configuration. Just one more thing to consider before spending money on alignment if you're not aligning it yourself.

[David Pozzi]

Yes, the recommendations I made above were aimed at a low-buck improvement. Companies like Ride-Tech and DSE move the lower BJ forward & upper rearward to keep the wheel centered. If you have stock lower A arms, you can bump back the rear side of the splash panel and get by.