Rear Suspension Options for 66 Nova

[JohnnyR]

I've been searching for rear suspension options for a 66 Nova a friend of mine is about to start on. I've had to talk him out of the typical 4-link street rod stuff. Is there anyone making 3-link kits? What are my options besides TCI and Heidts?

The car will be set up with an LS1, Wayne Due front, T-56, etc...

This car will probably not be raced, but will see some track time at local track days and driven almost daily.

Any help would be appreciated.

-j

[dhardison]

Air Ride Technologies AirBar is always an option if your friend is in to bags.

http://www.ridetech.com/productinfo/airbarstang.asp

Dan

[JohnnyR]

Not looking to go the air bag route. Thanks, though.

-j

[novanutcase]

Thanks JohnnyR....Yeah...I guess I'm looking for an out of the box front and rear end. Really looking for something that will smoke a BMW through the corners just to see the look on his face! Wayne Due seems to be the front runner although I've been hearing some good things about Smith Racecraft. Rear end looks like a 12 bolt but what to do about traction? Hmmmmmm.....

[darren@ridetech]

Why don't you want to use air springs?

An air spring can perform just as well as a coil spring. Actually it is much more tunable, especially if you opt for the double adjustable shocks. And if it is the compressor system that turns you away, they can be inflated via a Schrader. But if you are still not interested, the AirBar can be used with coil overs.

[Alan66ss]

I was in your position a little while ago. I did a lot of reading on here and talked to several people before deciding to stay with the leaf springs. Wayne even told me that at this point and for this car - the springs probably were the best. There are several guys on here who think highly of leaf springs. Just do a search.

Alan

[rocketman]

chris alston and total cost involved both offer bolt in 4 link kits.

[JohnnyR]

I agree about the leaf springs. My buddy (novanutcase) however, want's something a little more "trick." I've been a long-time lurker here at pro-touring so I understand that a well tuned leaf set-up is more than adequate for a mostly street-driven car. I'm trying to educate him about pro-touring and just recently showed him this site.

As far as Chassis Works and some of the other 4-links that are available, I don't think they are good for cornering. From what I've read, they are mostly street-rod based stuff designed for the strip.

I would love some kind of 3-link set up like what Lateral Dynamics is offering or even DSE's new 4-link. It's just that there are not a lot of options for early Novas when it comes to pro-touring.

Another option would be a truck-arm set up. Again, there are some compromises with that design as well. The only problem I have with them is that the only people who seem to praise that set-up either work for HTH or have worked for them. Actually, I have met Alan who owns the 38 Chevy that is on their website. He said the suspension is awesome and that he regulary keeps up with Porches in the twisties.

-j

[Matt@RFR]

My fiance owns a '65 Chevy II, which will become a prototype car for a 3-Link kit, among other things, in the next few months.

[novanutcase]

As JohnnyR knows I own a creaker '61 t-bird so the leafs on there are FAR from performance but if your experience(Alan66ss) is that the leafs are best at this point may I ask a few questions:
First: would you suggest buying new leafs dearched to the ride height of my choice?
second: how should I go about "tricking out" the rear leaf setup.
third:Why do you thnk that this is the best setup versus IRS, 3 or 4 link?

[Alan66ss]

As JohnnyR knows I own a creaker '61 t-bird so the leafs on there are FAR from performance but if your experience(Alan66ss) is that the leafs are best at this point may I ask a few questions:
First: would you suggest buying new leafs dearched to the ride height of my choice?
second: how should I go about "tricking out" the rear leaf setup.
third:Why do you thnk that this is the best setup versus IRS, 3 or 4 link?

I will try to answer your questions the best I can.

1. I am going to purchase a custom springs for my car.
2. I made mine somewhat trick by moving the stock frame rails in about 4" and keeping everything stock looking. It was just what I wanted.
3. I don't think it is necesarily the best. They have there compromises too. But from what I have gathered is that there are compromises in which ever you choose. I don't have the fab skills or the suspension knowledge to design a 3 link. So that was rulled out. From what I have read the four link is not great at cornering (binding issues). The Irs would require narrowing and I was not sure how that would truly effect the geometry. I have read positive and negatives on this. If you have time - wait to see the 3-link that Matt is talking about. I will definatly consider it for my next car. You have to make the decision on what you really want and what fits your budget.

[trackrat79]

If money is not a big issue. For the best handling for the money look in to a nascar style truck arm suspension conversion from "hot rods to hell". It takes a bit of work it does not bolt in but an entire kit with everything you need I think is under 3'000. If you or any one you know is mechanicaly inclined you could just pirate the rear suspension from a 67-72 gm pickup and do the modification your self and save about 2'000 bucks maybe more. You may say thats crazy but I have a 68 chevy truck that will pull over 1g on a 200 foot skid pad when I am done building it.

[novanutcase]

Thanks Track....Alan..thanks also. As far as a budget, lets just say that there isn't one per se although, obviously, I don't want to just throw money at the problem either. I hear that the guy that designed II Much's front end is also designing a rear end to address this very problem...anyone hear the same?

[JohnnyR]

I believe that would be Lateral Dynamics. I don't know if Parsons is involved but I believe Katz is?? Matt would have more info on that.

-j

[wiedemab]

Matt,

Are you talking a Chevy II specific 3-link. If so, I'll have to follow this one. I'm hoping to build a '65 for my next project (hoping I can afford to!). I'll be very interested to see what you come up with for this platform.

Brandon

[Mean 69]

Are you talking a Chevy II specific 3-link.

Yes, that is exactly what he is talking about. We are through the development of three specific three link kits at this time, and are in the very last stages of validating these designs through a complete install on customer cars. The cars in question are first gen Camaro's, second gen Camaro's, and B-body Mopars. Next platforms that we will be addressing are the E-body Mopar cars, Chev II's, and early Mustangs, all of which we have cars in hand to do specific product development on. We're working on front stuff too, by the way, that will be the performance equivalent of our current rear solutions.

A foreword on these kits, none of them will be bolt in. We have looked long and hard at the compromises associated with the bolt in approach, and there just is not enough room to make the links long enough to afford the performance we are after. Technically, the late model Mustang ('05's) are three link suspensions, but the control arms (upper one being the most challenging to package) are so damn short that the geometry is pure crap (in our not so humble opinion) dynamically, which is where it counts on the race course, or in a spirited street environment. Others will most likely hop on the three link bandwagon for Pro Touring cars, but I can tell you that their approach(es) will not likely be the same as ours, and that's okay. Our approach is to put performance ahead of everything else, including being able to bolt the kit on (which is not to say that the install is overly complex either, it's not).

(The attached photo is an example of our kits, this particular one was installed last week on a customer car in Texas, an outrageous 70 Super Bee show car with some very interesting mods. Ben's car will debut the show circuit at Mopar's on the Strip at the end of March in Las Vegas, and will shoot directly over to the Year One bash soon thereafter at Road Atlanta. After that, it'll do the show circuit at the important shows on the eastern side of the states.)

Thanks,
Mark

[EvolutionMotorsport]

A foreword on these kits, none of them will be bolt in. We have looked long and hard at the compromises associated with the bolt in approach, and there just is not enough room to make the links long enough to afford the performance we are after. Technically, the late model Mustang ('05's) are three link suspensions, but the control arms (upper one being the most challenging to package) are so damn short that the geometry is pure crap (in our not so humble opinion) dynamically, which is where it counts on the race course, or in a spirited street environment. Others will most likely hop on the three link bandwagon for Pro Touring cars, but I can tell you that their approach(es) will not likely be the same as ours, and that's okay. Our approach is to put performance ahead of everything else, including being able to bolt the kit on (which is not to say that the install is overly complex either, it's not).

Thanks,
Mark

What an interesting, timely and subjective post.

Thanks...Mike

[novanutcase]

I cansee that things are starting to heat up int this area. With the little knowledge that I have about suspensions, it doesn't take a detective to figure out that rear suspension techology for pro-tour applications is very behind.

[trackrat79]

Just because they don't just bolt in does not mean that its behind the curve compared to other disaplines. You need to realize that a pro-touring suspension needs to do much more than a drag style setup and do it better. A drag car is only concernd about launch and strait line tracking. A pro touring car needs launch, strait line tracking, braking, cornering. Your asking you're suspension to do a lot more. To get the performance your going to have to be willing to do some work, or decide to compromise on what you want the car to do. I am building a pro-touring truck. Being disabled I have absolutly no budget. What I do have is time ,knowledge ,and the willingness to try to do as much as possible myself.

[Mean 69]

With the little knowledge that I have about suspensions, it doesn't take a detective to figure out that rear suspension techology for pro-tour applications is very behind.

I agree, but that's about to change. True performance suspension systems are the last big hurdle for the overall balance that PT cars lack relative to the better contemporary cars. Lots of folks build great power, today's tires are excellent, the options for braking systems are staggering and there are many, many race worthy setups out there. That is also not to say that a well tuned setup that might not be optimal on paper, such as leafs springs, can't also be made to work well: it's just a question of how hard you have to work to tune the system for a particular application, and how flexible it will be to handle a multitude of driving situations for any one given setup. Not an easy equation to crack, and there's a heck of a lot more to it than slapping a bunch a couple control arms and coil overs to a car. A HECK of a lot more.

M

[DonQuehotey]

first off man, truck arm suspensions are gay. I am sick of hearing NASCAR this and NASCAR that! the onlt reason they are still in nascar is beacuse it is an easy suspension to manipulate they cars only turn one direction and the morons that make up the "sanctioning body" of NASCAR arent smart enough to figure out how to regulate any other type of suspension..... doubt me? let me know when an F car shows up with one and I will shut up.... Now dont get me wrong, are they geometrically hateful? absolutely not and they can and do work well but are they anything comperable to a well engineered link system? the answer is no they are not. And Mean69 I think what you are talking about is back halfing the car which has been around for a while and I dont think it is anything new.

[Matt@RFR]

And Mean69 I think what you are talking about is back halfing the car which has been around for a while and I dont think it is anything new.

First of all, back halving requires new frame rails. We're using the stock frame rails.

Second, from this (https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14943) thread:


We didn't invent the three link, nor the Watt's linkage, we merely chose this as a basis for solving an engineering problem that we were faced with, and further adapating it to a very specific set of product requirements.

[novanutcase]

Hmmmmm......seems like from what I am hearing, for pro-tour setups, generally, an IRS or 3 link seems to be the trick. Anyone wanna comment on that?

[Mean 69]

Hmmmmm......seems like from what I am hearing, for pro-tour setups, generally, an IRS or 3 link seems to be the trick. Anyone wanna comment on that?

You will certainly get many different opinions on this question. We obviously have our own opinions, based upon physical facts, and there are others that have theirs too. I have said it a million times, with ANY suspension system, you HAVE to choose the areas that you will compromise on, the two main areas that battle for the early muscle cars are packaging, and performance. If you work within the physical envelope of the existing floor and trunk pan, frame rails, etc, without cutting the car to make room, there is only so much you can do. If you go outside those bounds by making room where necessary to allow the design to address compromises of the previous approach, you can push the available performance envelope (of course, only if you understand what you are doing).

There's a great article in PHR's latest issue (I haven't gotten mine, but I have heard from others that they are now being delivered) that explains the various types of suspension systems. It only scratches the surface of the true technical details, and keep in mind also that there is always bias from contributors (including me), but it is a terrific primer for sorting out all of the various design approaches currently available. Steve did a great job on it in my opinion. Grab a copy, it's worth it.

Mark

[EvolutionMotorsport]

Our approach is to put performance ahead of everything else, including being able to bolt the kit on


If you work within the physical envelope of the existing floor and trunk pan, frame rails, etc, without cutting the car to make room, there is only so much you can do. If you go outside those bounds by making room where necessary to allow the design to address compromises of the previous approach, you can push the available performance envelope (of course, only if you understand what you are doing).

Mark,

I have read a few of your posts (searched for a few as well), and over and over you make the claim that your suspension makes no compromises and is focused toward performance only. You further allude that it will outperform any suspension system that stays within the confines of the stock sheetmetal/frame envelope.

Is this what you are trying to state?

If so, be careful or at least add some tech to support your position. On paper things may look good, how that translates to the end user is sometimes a different story.

Thanks…Mike

[JohnnyR]

Mike,

What are your thoughts on a rear suspension set-up for older muscle cars. Obviously I'm interested in something for a '66 Nova. What do you recomend for a car that will be a daily driver, see some track time, and not require back-halving a car?

-j

[baz67]

Mark,



I have read a few of your posts (searched for a few as well), and over and over you make the claim that your suspension makes no compromises and is focused toward performance only. You further allude that it will outperform any suspension system that stays within the confines of the stock sheetmetal/frame envelope.



Is this what you are trying to state?



If so, be careful or at least add some tech to support your position. On paper things may look good, how that translates to the end user is sometimes a different story.



Thanks…Mike






Mike,

I am trying to understand where you are coming from here. Your first sentance does not support the quote you had of Marks. He clearly states that his design compromise was working within the stock envolope and designing the best geometry within those confines.

He has supported his position many times here. He has added as much tech about his design as he saw fit. You would not give your design specs out freely. Why would you expect Mark to?

I would assume you saw his three link at SEMA. You can see it is a well thought out design. It has been improved upon since then. A little marketplace competition go along way in providing the best product for the consumer. If you feel threatend by Marks design then design something you feel is better and market it. Until then your attacking of Mark seems immature.

Just give your side of the story and let the consumer figure out what they want.

[EvolutionMotorsport]

What are your thoughts on a rear suspension set-up for older muscle cars. Obviously I'm interested in something for a '66 Nova. What do you recomend for a car that will be a daily driver, see some track time, and not require back-halving a car?



J-



We currently have a frame mounted Watts/TriLink system for the late model Mustangs. The system is a bolt in system that only requires a few drilled holes and hand tools. We are in the process of porting that design to the older Ford – GM – Mopar (in that order) vehicles. It should move over nicely, since the late model Mustangs are little more constrained for space. So, our area will be the Watts/TriLink System that can be bolted in without losing your floor or trunk…..






Mike,



I am trying to understand where you are coming from here. Your first sentance does not support the quote you had of Marks. He clearly states that his design compromise was working within the stock envolope and designing the best geometry within those confines.



Huh? He is not working within the stock envelope, unless I am mistaken.






I would assume you saw his three link at SEMA. You can see it is a well thought out design. It has been improved upon since then. A little marketplace competition go along way in providing the best product for the consumer.



Nope. Didn't go to SEMA this year. Not really concerned about the design. We have our own.




You would not give your design specs out freely.



What design specs did I ask for? What specs do you want? We ran the gauntlet at Corner Carvers years ago and freely disseminated information. I do not know what design specs you are thinking of, but most of them are not super secret information. Do want the gauge of metal, link lengths, tubing sizes, material properties…None of this information will compromise a design….




If you feel threatend by Marks design then design something you feel is better and market it. Until then your attacking of Mark seems immature.



Not threatened at all. We won a SEMA award for our frame mounted Watts link 3 1/2 years ago, and developed the TriLink for the Mustangs last year. Industry firsts from a commercially available standpoint, if I am not mistaken. Porting our design to other platforms is natural progression. 12 years of vehicle dynamics development helps too…



As far as attacking. Your sensitivity may be a bit heightened. I cautioned about making subjective statements. This is what he posted earlier:




A foreword on these kits, none of them will be bolt in. We have looked long and hard at the compromises associated with the bolt in approach, and there just is not enough room to make the links long enough to afford the performance we are after. Technically, the late model Mustang ('05's) are three link suspensions, but the control arms (upper one being the most challenging to package) are so damn short that the geometry is pure crap (in our not so humble opinion) dynamically, which is where it counts on the race course, or in a spirited street environment. Others will most likely hop on the three link bandwagon for Pro Touring cars, but I can tell you that their approach(es) will not likely be the same as ours, and that's okay. Our approach is to put performance ahead of everything else, including being able to bolt the kit on (which is not to say that the install is overly complex either, it's not).



I am thinking this was somehow directed toward us. Basically it says, if you stick within the confines of the vehicle structure you will end up with a pure crap suspension and suffer performance gains. To get maximum performance (better than the crappy new Mustang), you need to invest in a system that did not have the limitation of the stock vehicle structure.



All I am saying is what will suffer? Why is the new Mustang pure crap? Did a book say that, or did someone test it. Products should be measured on their technical merit, not marketing buzz words.



As for jumping on the bandwagon, I do not think that is the case either.




Just give your side of the story and let the consumer figure out what they want.



Our side of the story. In the nutshell, we are developing a full tunable rear suspension system that will utilize a Frame Mounted Watts Link and a Three Link, without compromising the factory structure of the vehicle.



Thanks…Mike

[Tony@AirRideTech]

.@all that jack away on the rear

[Tony@AirRideTech]

Mike
one question for ya man. I know the benifits of a watts link are too eliminate any and all lateral movement of the rear within the chassis but is it really that much more benificial over a properly set up pan hard bar? I have played with some watts link designs and I am just curious on your take on it.

[Tony@AirRideTech]

what happend to my post up above? I went to edit and add some stuff and it is MIA.

[EvolutionMotorsport]

what happend to my post up above? I went to edit and add some stuff and it is MIA.

Hey what did happen to your post....That was a nice post to boot...

As for your Watts/Panhard question.

Watts Link System travels through true vertical motion through full vehicle suspension displacement. A Panhard bar suspension travels on an arc defined by the length of the bar.
Rear roll center height is constant while cornering. Panhard bar rear roll center height will rise in one vehicle turning direction and fall in the opposite turning direction.
They are the main differences...

Mike

[Travis B]

.@all that jack away on the rear


It was a good post.....maybe you got edited :dunno:

[Tony@AirRideTech]

nope damnit....... I am sure that was my clumsy freakin fingers while I was trying to add to it :banghead:

Mike, I understand that and I do get it, I am only trying to determine if the variable is that dynamic when comparing to a descent length panhard bar and a street suspension that averages 3-3.5" of compression stroke. I am not doubting you or calling you out by any means, I only wanted to hear your theory and yes I do see what you are getting at....

[Mean 69]

Rear roll center height is constant while cornering.

Sure about that?

I apologize if folks feel my posts were inappropriate, we worked very hard on our designs, and feel very strongly that they are solid from a design, execution, and performance standpoint. This seems to be turning into a wee-wee contest, and that is usually not good for anyone. Once EVM, or any of the other companies (yes, Mike, you are not alone, there are others out there too) looking to solve a handling problem with a three link, and not moving forward into the trunk/interior area, well, we can compare products at that point. I'm sorry, but there just is extremely little room above the axle assembly, and directly in front of it, the upper link would have to be really, really short, and in that case, there is a very limited amount of things you can do to the geometry. Freeing up that real estate, slightly, offers a significant opportunity to really nail the geometry. We wish it weren't so, it'd make life a lot easier, but this is main limiting factor.

Tony, there are two approaches to a Watt's linkage, in general. As Mike pointed out above, the roll center being fixed as a function of suspension travel is one of them, but only in the specific case where the bellcrank (the central pivot point, which specifically defines the roll center) is fixed to the axle, NOT the frame. In this case, the roll center height is fixed, but what is more important to a handling situation is not the roll center, but the roll MOMENT. The roll moment is the distance between the roll center (again, defined by the Bellcrank), and the COG of the sprung mass, basically at the rear end of the car (not specifically, but close enough for argument's purpose). In the case where the Bellcrank is mounted to the axle, and the Roll Center Height is fixed (so long as the axle is in contact with the road, that is), then the roll moment will change because the sprung mass COG will change as a function of suspension droop/bump.

In the case of a frame mounted Watt's, like our setup, the EVM Mustang setup and undoubtedly their derivitives for other cars, FAYS2, and many others, the roll center height CHANGES as a function of COG motion (i.e. bump and droop), in fact it changes the exact same amount as the amount of suspension travel. But, the important aspect is that the roll MOMENT is NOT changing, which is a good thing. This subtle difference is important because the amount of roll a car will experience for a given lateral load depends upon the roll moment, NOT the roll center height (though the moment is calculated from the roll center height), so if it is fixed relative to suspension travel, then the stabilizer bars, springs, etc will see a stable force in roll, independent of suspension droop and bump.

By comparison, the PHB roll center height (and therefore the roll moment) migrate at distance of 1/2 the suspension travel (and in the same direction), if the bar is mounted centrally to the car, and it is suitably long.

In practice, all can work terrific, and the choice of one over others is dependent upon the intent of the vehicle, suspension travel, COG height, packaging constraints, etc. We chose the approach we took because it offered an incremental improvement over the other approaches, it was easy to package, and offered a slight reduction in sprung weight. And again, we didn't invent it, we didn't steal it, this design has been used for decades on cars and many other mechanical applications, it is a convenient solution to an engineering problem.


Huh? He is not working within the stock envelope, unless I am mistaken.

Mike, please re-read Brian's comment, the design COMPROMISE that we made was NOT working within the stock floorpan envelope. We compromised the floor, slightly, in order to fit the performance in (just like DSE has with their Quad Link and their terrific SFC's, HTH in certain applications, everyone that has mini-tubbed a car, and on and on).

Mark-out

[Steve1968LS2]

It was a good post.....maybe you got edited :dunno:

If a moderator edits a post it will say who it was and when it was done at the bottom of the post.. we are innocent :)

[vanzuuk1]

Don, you say the truckarm design is "gay".

I am new to suspension design and theory, how can I tell if my rear suspension is "gay"? Will I sense it? Will it just appear too neat, or rust to a pinkish color? Will it shy away from the track and prefer shows?

[Damn True]

If a moderator edits a post it will say who it was and when it was done at the bottom of the post.. we are innocent :)


Unless a mod completely deletes a post.

You know what I'm talkin 'bout mister:poke:

[EvolutionMotorsport]

nope damnit....... I am sure that was my clumsy freakin fingers while I was trying to add to it :banghead:

Mike, I understand that and I do get it, I am only trying to determine if the variable is that dynamic when comparing to a descent length panhard bar and a street suspension that averages 3-3.5" of compression stroke. I am not doubting you or calling you out by any means, I only wanted to hear your theory and yes I do see what you are getting at....

Tony,


Bottom line with our watts vs the panhard…On standard street duty the average driver may not notice a great difference. Then again the average driver probably isn’t making this upgrade. With the rear roll couple remaining constant through suspension travel and the fact that the rear roll center does not rise and fall due to the direction of cornering the car will be much easier to tune, which will result in a more consistent and dynamic response in transient and steady state maneuvers.

The big plus here is the minimized tuning you would need for the “curvies”…With a PHB you are tuning for two directions and ultimately making compromises. In an auto-X or road course environment, you will notice the difference.

Everyone,


From a general product development standpoint, we would like to let everyone know that we are coming from a vehicle dynamics background in the automotive industry. We have all that heavy duty math and engineering, but it’s experience that drives our designs. We have spent countless hours at the proving grounds tuning more suspensions than most people see in their lifetime. This affords us the time and ability to make good suspensions better and bad suspensions work. A lot of people fall into the theory trap. Equations and theory are nice places to start, but ultimately theory trails off and real world functionality takes over.

We just want people to start letting common sense enter into their decisions at some point. We once talked to a guy that kept harping on the fact that our system was 1 pound heavier (sprung weight) than another system. He had great concerns over the added weight. We asked if he could tell the difference in handling characteristics of his car with a can of Coke in the trunk. He couldn’t.

We have no desire to start a “wee wee” contest. All we wanted to do is keep the subjective statements to a minimum. When our product hits the market we will post it and support the design. Until then we can only fall back on our current designs.

I think Tony said it best. I will paraphrase….In 95% of the cases, the suspension will not be the limiting factor. Most likely it will be the driver. People will ultimately go with their gut. The nature of the beast is there are those that are not satisfied unless they are cutting and welding and there are those that have no desire to do so. That does not mean one suspension design is better than the next. It just means some people like to cut, some people choose not too.

We will worry about comparing designs when there are designs to compare.

Thanks…Mike

[protour_chevelle]

Nevermind, works in Windows Explorer, Not Slimbrowser.

-Matt

[6'9"Witha69]

Don, you say the truckarm design is "gay".

I am new to suspension design and theory, how can I tell if my rear suspension is "gay"? Will I sense it? Will it just appear too neat, or rust to a pinkish color? Will it shy away from the track and prefer shows?
It means you will not have traction as it will want to dance around . . .
"Gaydar" helps determine this.


This sounds like someone who hates NASCAR and subsequently everything about it w/o a real foundation for not liking the design. Is it an old design, Yes. Are there better, Yes. Is it a good suspension design for some people, Yes!

[DonQuehotey]

I wouldnt say that I "hate" nascar but I do think it is fairly boring. A 63-72 Chevrolet rear suspension is definitely better than some other options but to turn around and say its the bomb because it is used in NASCAR... has about the same validity as saying go with a carb instead of EFI ,cause they do it in NASCAR means its better! AGAIN... under a truck for which it was designed for is a descent route to go and there really is no reason to change it out unless you are going to get serious. But if you are planning on building something serious and you are debating a truck arm suspension versus a tunable four link.... you need to have your melon checked.

[baz67]

Don,

It seems like you have some knowledge of suspension. I am sure you will be able to help some of us here. However, if you do a search on the truck arm you will notice that it has been debated at length. The conclusion was that a properly designed link style suspension will outperform a TA. Since you are anti-truck arm, what tech, not opinion, do you have to support your statement. I am sure it would be helpful to all.

[trackrat79]

If truck arms are infearior why is it the only negative thing that popular hot rodding could come up with in the current issue is the weight. My friend just showed me the issue with the orange cuda in it, they gave pros and cons for every suspension style out there and the only con they could come up with is the un sprung weight of a TA style setup. Since I am willing to try just about anything I am gona try to fix that issue for my truck. Yes I agree neccar has become politicaly corect and boring but a suspension setup that can put 900 hp in a 3600 pound car to the ground and still turn pretty damb well is good enough for me.