65 chevelle, new suspension?

[bowtie65]

I'm new to the board, I hope someone can help. I'm looking to upgrade my 65 chevelle suspension front and rear. hotchkis, global west, what else is there? Pros and cons for all will help. Thanks.

[Travis B]

I have all air ride tech stuff on my 64 chevelle....I also have a 66 caprice with all hotchkis stuff on it!

On the front I would do hotchkis control arms and springs
along with sawy bars and a spindle of your choice...maybe ATS

For the rear the edlebrock arms are about the best out there..then do springs and a sway bar!

WELCOME by the way

[sinned]

How are you Bowtie? Nice to have you aboard...https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif use the search button.

[Bill Howell]

I used GW on the goat(65), should be the same stuff on your car.
They sell a complete package, front and rear, with some newly designed spindles and can do the brake system(wilwood) also. Call and talk to Kevin.

[sinned]

Ha, I actually went to GW's site for the 1st time a few years and scrolled through briefly. Interesting one of the self proclaimed leaders in early GM suspension would post something like this as a reason for using their tall spindle method-
Front ride height will drop 1-inch because of the taller spindle and lower ball joint combination. This lowers the center of gravity and improves vehicle appearance without sacrificing suspension travel. This combination also lowers the front roll center providing a more favorable roll axis. So the folks at GW think that lowering the FRCH even further below zero than it already is and increasing the difference between the RRCH and FRCH is a good thing? I swear the idea was to bring the FRCH and RRCH as close to each as possible without inducing any unusual jacking affects.



I’m not knocking guys who know what they buying and choose GW, just the company itself for doing such a poor job of attempting to sell a product preying on the unsuspecting and uneducated consumer. To someone who doesn’t know any better that statement sounds pretty good I guess.



To answer the question at hand, do some research and understand what you are buying before shelling hard earned greenbacks, most of the bigger names in suspension have jumped on the PT bandwagon and are charging huge money for gimmick parts (stuff you could easily do yourself or flat out junk that doesn’t work as described).

[andrewb70]

Ha, I actually went to GW's site for the 1st time a few years and scrolled through briefly. Interesting one of the self proclaimed leaders in early GM suspension would post something like this as a reason for using their tall spindle method- So the folks at GW think that lowering the FRCH even further below zero than it already is and increasing the difference between the RRCH and FRCH is a good thing? I swear the idea was to bring the FRCH and RRCH as close to each as possible without inducing any unusual jacking affects.



I’m not knocking guys who know what they buying and choose GW, just the company itself for doing such a poor job of attempting to sell a product preying on the unsuspecting and uneducated consumer. To someone who doesn’t know any better that statement sounds pretty good I guess.



To answer the question at hand, do some research and understand what you are buying before shelling hard earned greenbacks, most of the bigger names in suspension have jumped on the PT bandwagon and are charging huge money for gimmick parts (stuff you could easily do yourself or flat out junk that doesn’t work as described).


Denny,

Might I suggest that if you have a better solution for suspension thay you state what thay may be?

What is FRCH? RRCH? English man....we are not all suspension gurus. Please explain further what you are talking about in more simple terms. I am sure that everyone here would love to learn something.

Andrew

[sinned]

There are lots of better solutions out there, especiallly lately. ATS has the A/F/X spindle, Marcus at SC&C has had the tall Howe ball joints available for quite some time, Fatman has a tall spindle in the works, and I don't recall the name but there have been spindle extenders on the market for a couple decades now.


FRCH/RRCH= front and rear roll center height

In a perfect world the roll axis (the imaginary line that runs from the front roll center to the rear roll center) would run roughly perpendicular to the ground at around 6" or so. The prblem with running the front that high is that in most cases it would produce a jacking affect which could lead to very unpredictable handling, running the rear that low is nearly impossible due to ground clearance issues.

Most classic cars the FRCH is somewhere between -4 and 2", the rear is typically 16-24". Properly done the front can easily sit at 3-4" and the rear at 7-10"....much better roll axis overall.

[andrewb70]

Perfect!

So whats wrong with using the F-body tall spindle that people have done for years?

Andrew

[MrQuick]

yes, for years with no problems....heee hee

[sinned]

Go ahead Vince keep pushing the poly/tall spindle button.



Andrew, the typical tall spindle swap that improves the negative camber gain during roll/bump conditions also lowers the FRCH even more than stock, increases bump steer more than stock (which is already borderline unacceptable), increases turning radius by ~10 feet, slows steering ratio even more, and really tears up the Ackerman.

[gchandler]

I will take this oppourtunity to plug the new Hotrods to Hell lower arms. I use their front setup on both of my chevelles, as well as the truckarm rear and I am quite happy with how the cars handle.

When I upgraded the rear to truckarm I started from a full hotchkis setup with eibach springs and the improvement was night and day. I can maintain much higher speeds with confidence, especially when the road surface is irregular.

http://www.hotrodstohell.net/new_products/new_products.htm

[MrQuick]

Go ahead Vince keep pushing the poly/tall spindle button.
I love it... I can see it now; leaps out of chair puts his banana down, takes a deep breath and starts typing standing up... :comp3: sorry you know I had to.
Hey, he wants pro & cons so give em up!

Edelbrock TVS front and rear ( check for application)... great for spirited street driving and mild race. Might not like the harshness... adjustable shocks help. Not cheap but you get alot for you $$$

Edelbrock and tall spindle...ok hard street, light track. Cheap if you don't factor in the bump steer and tire wear associated with the swap. Also will get you on Dennis's banned list... :injured: LOL

Global west, excellent heavy street and frequent track usage. Pricey for a mild street driving and YOU WILL HAVE TIRE WEAR DUE TO UNCONTROLLED DRIVING BEHAVIOR... I've seen it. Harsh for ordinary usage.

Hot rods to hell, very tunable kit. Surprisingly smooth but notchy feeling on rough roads. Not too bad for price but lots of cutting and fab work for your average joe. Difficult to return to stock if need be.

SC&C no experience with there product.

Spindle extentions nice attempt but I would not trust in a high speed turn much less on a California high way.

ATS spindle, have yet to use but from its poppa it should be a nice balance when used with a tubular arm kit. Pricey but when you take in account its benefits, it pans out in the end.

Ok fine i'll spell it out... gives you the ability to use any brakes a C5 can use, improved suspension geometry, light weight, serviceable ball joint sleeves, can be adapted to use different ball joint tappers, bigger bearing pack, and can be replaced back to stock easily. BTW bowtie welcome to the site.

[andrewb70]

Go ahead Vince keep pushing the poly/tall spindle button.



Andrew, the typical tall spindle swap that improves the negative camber gain during roll/bump conditions also lowers the FRCH even more than stock, increases bump steer more than stock (which is already borderline unacceptable), increases turning radius by ~10 feet, slows steering ratio even more, and really tears up the Ackerman.

I would really be curious to dig into this deeper. I am just not experiencing any of the things that you are talking about. Perhaps it is because I am using a Bell Tech dropped spindle for a 96 Impala?

Andrew

[DarylH]

I would really be curious to dig into this deeper. I am just not experiencing any of the things that you are talking about. Perhaps it is because I am using a Bell Tech dropped spindle for a 96 Impala?

Andrew
Now you have my curiousity. I experience all of the issues Denny lists,but I'm using a salvaged set of impala spindles. I would expect you to at least be experiencing the reduced turn radius.

I love the improvements that were gained by the tall spindle conversion, but am very interested in finding a way to eliminate the negative aspects as well.

Sooo Denny, I guess I'm going to push the button a little too:yeah:

[Elusive R]

I'll jump in, too. I have the b-body spindle on mine (95 Caprice) along with the police car steering box (12.7:1). I obviously experience the shorter turning radius, but it's really not a problem unless you frequently get lost and need to make U-turns. I have not experienced any bumpsteer, but I also installed a Howe adjustable centerlink.

I love the handling compared to the stock spindle arrangement. The car bites hard on corner entry and holds a line very well, even on 225-70/15's. I will probably need to step down to a smaller front sway bar since mine is 1 3/8". Other than that, I don't think I would change a thing. Parts are very easy to come by, bearings are cheap, and I got 12" brakes out of the deal.

I did figure out my FRCH, but I don't recall off the top of my head what it was other than I think it was about 2" negative. RRCH is about 20", but that will come down with a 3 link (soon). The car is very stable in traffic, on the freeway, rough roads, you name it. Maybe I'm just crazy??

Ryan

[sinned]

Many of the ailments of running the tall spindle are not nearly as evident until you have removed the tall spindle and re-driven the car in the same parameters...that is when you kick yourself and ask "why the hell have I been living with this so long".

There is no fix for the bump steer. You would have to completely start from scratch including relocating the steering box and idler arm to correct it.



Andrew, you either have a fast ratio box or just don't remember how much quicker the steering was before the change, it slows it a bunch, it has to (mechanical equations are not subjective).



There is no fix for the increased turning radius, again, it’s a mechanical equation based on the length of the steering arm.

I'd like to add that while the increased radius is most noticeable trying to make u-turns it also shows during spirited driving where hand movement on the steering wheel, turns that normally wouldn't require repositioning of your hands (not ideal when trying to concentrate on your line) now require you to move your hands.

[Blown353]

Denny, you CAN still make U-turns with B-body spindles... you just need a steering box with more throw. My car still pulls U-turns with the best of 'em... AFTER I removed the internal stops in my steering box.

Again, this is a result of the longer steering arm on the B-body spindle which causes an overall "slower" steering ratio (i.e. the longer arms on the spindle require more degrees of output of the steering box shaft to turn the wheels X number of degrees compared to the stock spindles.) Steering stops removed or not, you still have a slower overall steering ratio with the B-body spindles than with the stock spindles.

I will admit after initially swapping spindles it was VERY VERY annoying having to do 3-point u-turns everywhere (or right foot u-turns, safety permitting... LOL) With no stops in the steering box it now turns tightly enough that the outside tire rubs the frame/sway bar. Not going to turn any tighter than that!

I still do have bumpsteer issues though, although it has to be a very sizeable bump to make the suspension jounce enough that it pulls the car. Over typical road irregularities, it's not noticeable. However, put soft floaty springs on the car and the front will definately bob enough to result in some major pulling and darting, my friend's 72 Elky with B-body spindles and 400 lb springs goes all over the road after a whoop in the freeway as the front is bobbing up and down. Will it go left or right? Hang on tight and find out! LOL.

Definately better options out there than the B-body setup as has already been mentioned-- stock spindles and Howe tall BJ's, AFX spindles, or the new fatman spindles. The latter two can also be combined with the Howe BJ's.

Troy

[gchandler]

I will also note that I upgraded to quicker boxes without the internal stops that allow my wheels to turn to the frame. I am able to make u-turns reasonably, but will concede that a slow ratio stock box or one with internal stops does not work great with the b-spindle setup.

If you are building a performance car, you will most likely want to upgrade your steering box anyhow.

Also you can run a tall lower balljoint with the tall spindle.

[sinned]

Troy and Geoff, you are both invited to test drive WHILE CLOSELY SUPERVISED when I get the shorter steerring arms with the 12.7:1 box to see how much of an impact the longer steering arms make. Even though removing the stops and going to a faster box helps, it just hides the underlying problem of long ass steering arms.

[Blown353]

Troy and Geoff, you are both invited to test drive WHILE CLOSELY SUPERVISED when I get the shorter steerring arms with the 12.7:1 box to see how much of an impact the longer steering arms make. Even though removing the stops and going to a faster box helps, it just hides the underlying problem of long ass steering arms.

What's this CLOSELY SUPERVISED stuff? Afraid I'll put it in the dirt? :poke: (couldn't resist, sorry dude! LOL)

I never said my steering ratio wasn't slower than with the stock arms (nor would I, can't dispute a FACT)-- I only said you could still make u-turns with B-body spindles with a steering box with greater than stock throw.

I know the ratio is slower, and I can feel it. I drove over 30,000 miles on my car with a 12:1 IROC box and the stock spindles and believe me I noticed the ratio difference with the B-spindles backing out of my garage with them for the first time. I was not and am still not happy with it. Right now I'm running a DSE 600 box and I'm right at 3 turns of the steering wheel lock to lock. With my stock spindles and the 12:1 box I was more like 2.5 turns lock to lock. Big difference.

It will all get fixed in due time. :naughty:

[gchandler]

Here is a spindle that is the same height as the b body and has bolt on steering arm.

http://www.stockcarproducts.com/susp16.htm

The only problem is that you will spend a whole bunch of money by the time you have everything said and done. It also requires a 5x5 bolt pattern if you want the lightweight aluminum hubs. (I did end up using the aluminum hubs).

I looked into doing a setup with these spindles and came up with around 4k for everything that I would need to get it done.

For my 1964 Chevelle I ended up using a b-body spindle and worked to get things as best I could with ball joints, alignment, steering box, and right height. I aligned the car today and ended up with 3 degrees of positive caster, 1/2 degree negative camber, 1/8" toe in. At ride height my lower arms are pretty much level. The car feels good so far driving around town and on the freeway to about 110, but I need to get the offset on my front wheels changed before I can drive the car hard over Angeles Crest (my proving grounds) as I am too close to the outer fenders right now. Hope that I will get that done next week. Some real rear tires and a good seat and I will post more impressions.

I did spend a considerable amount of time with the car in its stock configuration so that I have a fair basis for comparison. I drove it on the 2004 power tour and had a chance to drive through the Rocky Mountains non stop in the middle of the night. At that point I had the same springs, shocks, steering box and swaybar that I am running with the tall setup. I can say that the drive was a lot of fun (I would love to do it more often, but I live in Los Angeles so the Eisenhower Pass is a bit further then a afternoon jaunt), but the handling of the cars front end left much to be desired.

Anyhow I am rambling. So here is the short summary:

Is my setup perfect? No.
Is it better then stock? Night and day.
Is it optimal? Nothing ever is.

How can you say that nothing ever is?

Because every car and driver is different, and that factor must also be taken into consideration when designing a suspension system.

How does the monkey behind the wheel behave under different circumstances?
What does the driver like?
What sort of feedback does he need?
What is the intended use of the vehicle?
What type and size of tires will you be running?
What is the rear Roll center height?
When do you want to drive your car?
How big is your wallet?
...
etc
...

[sinned]

How can you say that nothing ever is? You can't




Because every car and driver is different, and that factor must also be taken into consideration when designing a suspension system.

Now to answer-



How does the monkey behind the wheel behave under different circumstances? Not relevant in the pitfalls of the tall spindle

What does the driver like? No driver likes bump steer or RC migration EVER

What sort of feedback does he need? Bump steer and RC migration mitigate all other feedback

What is the intended use of the vehicle? Anything other than city streets driving will reveal the pitfalls eventually

What type and size of tires will you be running? Not relevant in this case although bigger tires will accentuate the bump steer sensation

What is the rear Roll center height? Way too low with tall typical tall spindles

When do you want to drive your car? All the time

How big is your wallet? Never big enough

[Mike Holleman]

I apoligize to bowtie65 for jumping in to his post, but some major questions have come to me while reading the responces.
Yes Denny I did use the search and it brought me right back here.
Here is my dilemma.
I have a 64 Tempest that is becoming a pro touring car. I already have a bumpsteer issue. I have sitting in my shop ready to install GW upper A arms,Modified stock lowers, Hotchkis front springs(one inch lower) and on order Baer Track front brakes with their B body spindles. Currently using a 1.25 " sway bar and have a 12 to 1 steering box. From what I'm reading it appears that I may be creating a monster. I obviously want to improve handling and performance. Do I scrap my plans or can I adjust this setup and avoid the majority of the negatives it would create? And several folks have mentioned Howe products. What do they have that might help my setup?

[DarylH]

I apoligize to bowtie65 for jumping in to his post, but some major questions have come to me while reading the responces.
Yes Denny I did use the search and it brought me right back here.
Here is my dilemma.
I have a 64 Tempest that is becoming a pro touring car. I already have a bumpsteer issue. I have sitting in my shop ready to install GW upper A arms,Modified stock lowers, Hotchkis front springs(one inch lower) and on order Baer Track front brakes with their B body spindles. Currently using a 1.25 " sway bar and have a 12 to 1 steering box. From what I'm reading it appears that I may be creating a monster. I obviously want to improve handling and performance. Do I scrap my plans or can I adjust this setup and avoid the majority of the negatives it would create? And several folks have mentioned Howe products. What do they have that might help my setup?
I also would like to apologize to Bowtie65, but hopefully this whole thing can continue its course while providing Bowtie with some useful and valuable information.

Mike, I have a very similar setup to what you are considering. Although I do notice and desire improving on the conditions that Denny has identified, I'm not driving a "monster" like Denny tries so hard to get us all to accept. I've noticed enticing handling improvements and because of that alone, I am not willing to condemn the conversion the way that some are.

That being said, if I were just starting out again I would definitely use Denny's experience and data to "give it a better shot". There are products available now, that if nothing else, tame the negative aspects to a point that the average driver won't even notice the issues.

I think that the most important component of the decision-making process is to positively identify how the car is going to be used. I have friends that have done the B-body conversion with stock components and haven't even noticed any of the things that have been pointed out as reasons to not do it. These guys aren't trying to set the track record either...hence my point.

Denny, are you still planning to release something in the near future that a feller like me can use to get to the next level?:dunno:

[Mike Holleman]

Daryl, Thanks for your comments. I also know several folks that are running B body conversions that are not dissatisfied. But I do have a bumpsteer issue already and I can go a different route even though I have bought some components. I would like some input from those that know more than I do about suspension and making it work better.

[DarylH]

I would like some input from those that know more than I do about suspension and making it work better.
I'm right there with you. There's lots and lots of opinions and I believe that I've narrowed it down for myself...except that Denny keeps teasing us with his solution.

I'm just waiting for my $$$ situation to get where I can actually make my next move, which is my case is most likely the ATS spindle for the front and hopefully some sort of a 3-link in the rear.

[gchandler]

No response to the spindle? It is the correct height and has a bolt on steer arm. Even has the option of adjustable akerman sleeves. I see from your site that you are going to use the coleman spindle, but the SCP is a viable option. Why no response?

Also I think that you were refering to Front Roll Center Height when you stated way to low. As for rear roll center height not everyone is running quadrabind rear stuff, and some of us can adjust our rear roll center height.

Bigger tires, and lower profile tires do make a differance. This makes them relevant as suspension design is about compromise. If tire and wheel selection can impact how a car handles and how feedback is sent to the driver then how are they not relevant to a cars suspension design?

Also I think that it bears mentioning that the weight of the vehicle and the spring rates also come into play as bump steer is impacted by suspension compression and rebound. Suspension compression and rebound are controlled by spring and shock selection as well as overall vehicle weight. This means that changing springs and shocks, or reducing vehicle weight will have an impact on experianced bump steer.

Just some more food for thought.

I hope in the future, when I have more money, to play around with SCP spindles on my 1964 chevelle and see what I can get done. I do like the geometry of the ATX spindle, but I really like using the 5x5 GN hub. I made sure that the brake setup that I went with could be used with the SCP spindle for future changes.

I would like to give the ATS spindle a try on my 66 chevelle so that I can make a comparison. No sense in building two cars to the same spec. Besides I just happen to know someone that has hubs, rotors and calipers from a C5 without a good home. I also like the idea of a bolt on steering arm because I want to take my '66 out drifting and would need to be able to shorten the steer arm to get more steering angle out of the front end.

This is the best thread that the suspension form has had in a long while, let us keep it going. Please no flames.

[andrewb70]

I wish that one of the ATS guys would jump in here and say a few words. Shane? Tom? Tyler?

I really think their new spindle might offer a great solution, including brake systems.

Andrew

[Norm Peterson]

. . . the typical tall spindle swap that improves the negative camber gain during roll/bump conditions also lowers the FRCH even more than stock . . .Does this come from a stub axle that's mounted higher up on the knuckle or am I missing something else entirely?

Norm

[andrewb70]

Does this come from a stub axle that's mounted higher up on the knuckle or am I missing something else entirely?

Norm

Norm,

The axle on stock F-body spindles is about one inch higher than on a stock a-body spindle.

Andrew

[DarylH]

I would like to give the ATS spindle a try on my 66 chevelle so that I can make a comparison. No sense in building two cars to the same spec. Besides I just happen to know someone that has hubs, rotors and calipers from a C5 without a good home. I also like the idea of a bolt on steering arm because I want to take my '66 out drifting and would need to be able to shorten the steer arm to get more steering angle out of the front end.

This is the best thread that the suspension form has had in a long while, let us keep it going. Please no flames.

I noticed in your earlier response that you figured about 4k for the SPC spindle. Have you considered the cost for the ATS...not including your freebie parts?

[sinned]

Yeah Norm, the "tall" spindle snout is ~1" higher on the spindle.


Geoff, yes the SCP stuff will work fine. I was going to use it and decided on the Coleman parts instead (only because I have seen them and like the quality).

Mike, scrap your plans. Look to Wilwood for a more impressive brake kit that works with stock spindles. Then look into some taller ball joints (see Marcus at SC&C). After all that you can look into tuning out what little bump steer remains.

Daryl, I should have all the details worked out by spring; hopefully with some actual track time to evaluate at the extremes. :drive:. In all honesty Tylers AFX spindle will offer a very nice compromise with minimal fabrication and easily replacable parts.

[DarylH]

Daryl, I should have all the details worked out by spring; hopefully with some actual track time to evaluate at the extremes. :drive:. In all honesty Tylers AFX spindle will offer a very nice compromise with minimal fabrication and easily replacable parts.

When you say minimal fabrication, is your's going to require something out of the ordinary? I'd still like some insight to your approach before I make my mind up. I'm very interested in having removable/replaceable parts for testing/tuning.

I agree with you on the replaceable parts...that's probably the most appealing to me right now, not only for wear but for testing/tuning too.

[Mike Holleman]

Denny, I appreciate your comments. Got a link to Marcus at SC&C ?

[sinned]

Mike- http://www.scandc.com

Daryl- I am going to be running circle track uprights which require truck ball joints (either running circle track arms or modify OE arms to fit), GN hubs (no off the shelf local parts store brakes), and will require running at least 16" if not bigger wheels for the steering arm to wheel interference (the uprights have about 2" of drop built into them).



This will be the closest arrangement to perfect without custom designing the spindle (which I did but don't want to use) but does require sourcing parts from the circle track suppliers (no quick fix if something breaks).

(edited: fixed your link)

[gchandler]

Today I took a hard drive in both my 66 with a tall spindle and the 64 also with a tall spindle, but with a taller lower balljoint and lower unsprung weight due to the aluminum hub setup. I really liked the feel of the '64 and if I do not go with something based on the ATX spindle, I will certainly be adding a taller lower balljoint to the '66 as well.

Maybe the taller lower BJ and the ATX spindle will work together.

Also worth mention is the front of the '66 toed out 1/8 inch vs the '64 in 1/8 which impacts both bump steer and akerman. I will be setting the '66 to 1/8 toe in. Both cars are set about 1/2 degree negative camber and 3 degrees of positive caster.

I am sure that the lighter weight of the '64 also played a factor, but overall the car felt more "confident."

I also hope to try out a set of the HTH lower arms with the wider spring track and heimed shock ends. The handling of both cars right now is quite good, but this thread has inspired me to go for some more. I will be using the HTH arms regardless of whether of not I go with a set of ATX spindles.

As for a cost of doing an ATX spindle this is probably a question better answered by one of the guys from ATS.

The major factor that caused my to go with the b-body over the SCP spindle is that it allowed me to run GM brakes. If I go to the ATX setup I will also be running GM brakes. I do not like having regular service items on my car that I can't get parts for at any parts dealer. This is not a concern for everyone, but I am often quite far from home in my cars and it give me piece of mind.

[bowtie65]

Hey Guys! Now i'm confused, I might not do anything[ha ha]. I guess I have to give you some more info. My 65 chevelle has a 400 SB, 200 OD trans, 12 bolt rear w/ 410 gears. It has a completely stock suspension with 1 coil cut off the front. I don't go to the drag strip that much. I want to drive it. I finally came up with a couple of $ to spend. Everyone gave me alot to think about on the front, some on the rear. I'm probably going to change to a 373 rear gear and go with mini tubs, to get a bigger tire. Looking for the best system for the dollar. I want to thank everyone for there input, I'm glad I posted these questions. Happy Holidays!! Frank

[DarylH]

Bowtie, What are your specific goals. I think that we've all been ASSuming that you're interested in making a corner carver. Is that correct or have we taken your question off into left field?


Dennis, I'm not opposed to any of your parts until the GN stuff. I'm with Geoff when it comes to replacement parts. I'm already planning on upgrading the wheels, since pretty much all of the good brake choices require it anyway. Do you know of any alternatives to the GN hubs? I'm very interested in the performance of your modifications...so please keep me posted.

[sinned]

I'll be happy to post seat pants feel, actual track testing, and a complete parts list once it's done.


There is no alternative to GN style hubs when using the SCP or Coleman spindles.

[gchandler]

The GN hubs do let you use factory style brake pads. They also come in aluminum and are quite light weight.

You need 5 x 5 wheels with 3.090 hub centers that go all the way through. A common source for this setup is chevrolet 5 lug trucks. That is where I got the wheels that are currently on my '64.

A lot of aftermarket wheels will not work. Torque Thrusts and many others can be ordered 5 x 5, but the hubs will not clear the tapered center bores that those wheels have.

[sinned]

Winter Bros. have a GN hub that utilizes the 5X4.75 bolt circle, that's the only reason I'm willing to go that route.

[andrewb70]

The GN hubs do let you use factory style brake pads. They also come in aluminum and are quite light weight.

You need 5 x 5 wheels with 3.090 hub centers that go all the way through. A common source for this setup is chevrolet 5 lug trucks. That is where I got the wheels that are currently on my '64.

A lot of aftermarket wheels will not work. Torque Thrusts and many others can be ordered 5 x 5, but the hubs will not clear the tapered center bores that those wheels have.

It sounds like you guys are talking about something similar to what I used on my GTO. Here is a picture:

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/pt/2005/11/newbrakes-1.jpg

The goldish colored hubs are billet pieces from Coleman. I felt that steel was better for my application since the GTO is no lightweight. Precision Brakes Company did the modifications to convert the hubs to a 5x4.75 bolt pattern.

Andrew

[sinned]

More like this- http://www.stockcarproducts.com/susp24a.htm

[DarylH]

Dennis/Geoff, how much time have you spent evaluating the unsprung weight of your efforts. Do you consider this as a part of your combinations, or is the correction of poor suspension geometry more paramount to your efforts?

I could be convinced of the use of the circle track parts if:

1) the cost isn't prohibitive(although my goals are large, my budget isn't).

2) I can find repair/replacement parts conveniently and reasonably.

3) I won't have to go out and replace my current parts(a-arms, steering box/components) with a bunch of specialty parts in order to even be able to mount the spindles, etc.

4) I won't have to use Nascar wheels. Don't get me wrong, I love the sport but prefer to have the car maintain more of a stock "sleeper" look.

Most of my budget concerns are related to spending mega-$$$ on "upgrades" to factory components that actually perform just fine and discovering that improvements could be found in other parts of the process - as it was in the b-body spindle conversion. For the average driver, there's simply nothing horribly wrong with it. For the driver seeking something in a streetable racecar, it not only misses the mark it introduces behaviors that aren't desirable.

My bottom line - I want to find the most budget friendly way to take the improvements that the b-body conversion gave me and eliminate the bumpsteer, ackerman, etc. to give me a real version of the slot car I had as a kid.

[sinned]

Daryl, using the Coleman spindles and GN hubs with Wilwood brakes will be a HUGE weight savings over what I currently run (cast spindles with PBR calipers, cast hubs and 13" rotors). The spindles are fabricated steel uprights, very light (not like Al but way lighter than cast), the hubs are Al with fairly thin hats, and the WW calipers are forged Al. I would guess at an overall weight savings of about 10lbs per side (I'll get exact numbers when I gather all the pieces).



Cost is going to be ~ 1000.00 for the entire swap.



Replacement parts are 2-3 days away



A-arms will work but you will need to run special ball joints.



I'll double check but the Winters 5X4.75 should work with most aftermarket wheels.

[gchandler]

Here is the setup on my '64.

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=6208

I am running the spindles with the big pin and bearings so the wheel centers need to be larger then what Andrew has on his GTO, but it looks like the hubs that Andrew is running will allow you more wheel choices. The 5/8" studs that I am running do not help either nor do the 1" lug nuts, but I am going for a certain look.

The hubs, rotor hats, and calipers are aluminum and if I remember correctly I saved 9 lbs over a stock style rotor and caliper.

One thing that the setup will do is clear a 15" wheel, but for most people on this site that is not a concern.

I am running the box that came on my car when I bought it. It is a quick ratio unit, not sure what it is from. As for center link, idler, pitman, they are stock.

I had to change the outer tierods lower ball joints and upper control arms.

I have the car aligned at 3 degrees castor, 1/2 degree negative camber, and 1/8 toe in. The wheel has a nice self centering behavior without being to aggressive.

I am running the stock steering wheel and the steering input is quick enough to keep up with spirited driving without any hand over hand action. I would like to have the steering effort increased a bit, but I think that can be accomplished with adjustments to the pump and box.

I believe that the akerman was around 1.5 degrees at 20 degrees of steering input, but I may be incorrect on that.

As for bump steer I did not make any measurement of that.

The total cost for the setup was not ~1000 it was more like 3500 once I take everything into account. This includes things like a new master cylinder, new brake lines, new tie rods, new lower control arm bushings, new idler, etc.

[Marcus SC&C]

Here I am,late to the party yet again! There`s some good discussion going on here. I`ll put a few cents worth in. For those who would like to see our view of the B/2nd Gen F spindle swap go to www.SCandC.com and click on the FAQ. We`ve done many of them in our custom shop over the last 22 years and while aspects had merit,overall we weren`t impressed. What may not be apparent with a sample of one,can be obvious when you have several cars to drive back to back in different configurations. That`s one of the things that started our search for better suspensions without compromises. We`re very pragmatic so trick looking parts that don`t improve the geometry and performance in a marked way don`t apply.
Here`s a MAJOR point to remember. In order to alter/improve the suspension geometry you *need* to move pickup (pivot) points. The geometry couldn`t care less what shape the arms are or what color or what they`re made of. If they bolt to the stock location and put the ball joints in the same locations,they`ll do *nothing*. Most aftermarket arms move the upper ball joint rearward slightly for a bit more + static caster (which is good) but that`s all they do. To alter camber curves,move the RC etc. you need to change *vertical* pickup points. That means lowering the cross shafts (G Mod) or raising the upper ball joint pivot points in this case. You can do that with a taller spindle (B swap, AFX tall spindle,custom race spindles) or with tall modular ball joints (Our Stg.2 has the same effective overall height but with the stock spindles). Vertical points also have a huge effect on bumpsteer. An 1/8" can make a difference here. For some reason the factory didn`t bother to get this right either. The A body arm is too low. We raise the spindle (and steering arm) with the tall lower ball joint,combine that with a bit more + caster to put it in the best location you can get without changing the center link etc. About an 85% improvement. This with the stock lower arms. The B spindle steering arms are much lower yet (about 5/8"!),which roughly doubles the stock bumpsteer. BandAid it with stiff sping/shock rates and big bars and they may bind the car up enough that you won`t notice it much...until you drive a similar car with almost no bumpsteer at all. ;) Our tall lower ball joints will reduce the bumpsteer roughly back to stock but the camber curves get fairly steep,the RC a little high and the FVSA a little on the short side. Not "bad" but less than ideal. Probably still a worthwhile tradeoff for a street car.
The AFX spindle will require a new custom steering arm. The lowered steering arm mounting holes that help the bumpsteer on Camaros,hurt it to the same degree on A bodys (although it wouldn`t be quite as bad as the B swap). We`re working with Shane at ATS on this now. With the new steering arms they should be every bit as good as our Stage 2,geometry wise and a great combination with our adj. tubular upper arms that allow a wide range of alignment options. Marcus SC&C

[DarylH]

I would like to have the steering effort increased a bit, but I think that can be accomplished with adjustments to the pump and box.
I'm glad you mentioned this. I've had the same goal, but am not sure how to go about accomplishing it.



Daryl, using the Coleman spindles and GN hubs with Wilwood brakes will be a HUGE weight savings over what I currently run (cast spindles with PBR calipers, cast hubs and 13" rotors). The spindles are fabricated steel uprights, very light (not like Al but way lighter than cast), the hubs are Al with fairly thin hats, and the WW calipers are forged Al. I would guess at an overall weight savings of about 10lbs per side (I'll get exact numbers when I gather all the pieces).

I like everything that you've just described. Are the spindles custom from Coleman or are they a "shelf" item?
After giving it consideration, the concern for replacement parts...given the amount of driving that my Chevelle now sees, is probably not as important to me as getting the most optimal suspension configuration for the $$$.

Marcus, I've been looking at your setups for a while and really like what you've accomplished. I currently have the Pole Position upper arms and stock lowers, which I'd like to keep. I know that I'll be replacing the spindles...again, and along with that going to a lighter weight braking setup.

Thanks for making this thread so informative and please keep it coming!!

[sinned]

Everything is off-the-shelf. You can custom order spindles with unique KPI if you like but it isn't nesessary.