anti-dive?

[ITLBTU]

I've been trying to figure out who has the best all around front suspension kit for my '69 Camaro. Whenever I read any kind of braking specs they never seem to be that good. Does anyone engineer "anti-dive" into the suspension? Some of these older cars with suspension kits have 1" larger rotors than my stock '00 SS Camaro, but my '00 SS has a better stopping distance by up to 30'. Any comments?

[parsonsj]

Does anyone engineer "anti-dive" into the suspension?Who do you mean by "anyone"? I don't know of any OEM suspension over the past 40 years that wasn't engineered with anti-dive. If you mean aftermarket suppliers, every one I've seen or reviewed photos of had anti-dive.

As far as the stopping distance differences, I'm not sure where your data came from. Care to elaborate?

jp

[Norm Peterson]

. . . Some of these older cars with suspension kits have 1" larger rotors than my stock '00 SS Camaro, but my '00 SS has a better stopping distance by up to 30'. Any comments?Anti-dive isn't to blame here. Far more likely is that the performance potential of the new brakes as indicated by the dimensions is not being realized because the braking systems have not been fully re-developed to work with the new pieces. IOW, it's another case of impressive parts by themselves not being any guarantee of performance improvement.

It's entirely possible to see stopping distances increase with the installation of any of the big-brake kits. Increased fade resistance and the capability of greater brake torque for a given line pressure do not directly correlate to shorter stopping distances. Longer is actually the more likely case if the BBK mod has thrown the front:rear brake balance all out of whack. Never mind that the older cars would not have an ABS system that can cover up for some amount of system unbalance.


Norm

[ITLBTU]

I realize that a certain amount of anti-dive is engineered into cars. I would also assume that there must be an ideal amount for a certain car, that is also dependent on driver preferences and skill. I would think that a good driver in ideal conditions can outstop in a car with abs disabled than enabled. I just remembered reading an article in CHP where they put an aftermarket front clip on a 1st gen Camaro, and while the handling was greatly improved the braking was not that impressive. I think the 60mph-0 was around 150+ ft, where a stock LM SS Camaro can stop in 120+ft.

[Mean 69]

Most of the earlier cars that we've looked at, in stock form, have relatively high levels of anti-dive. The main reason this was done, I'd have to assume (not having talked to the original designers) was to overcome serious nose diving under braking, because virtually ALL of the early muscle cars were under-sprung relative to today's standards. The worst I have seen to date are the early Mopars, they have a ton built in statically. Anyway, for the stuff we are developing, we are not using nearly as much anti-dive as the factory originally did.

I'd have to agree with Norm though, your braking issues are most likely due to the brake bias/setup, rather than the suspension. Don't underestimate the value of the tires on braking performance, and another HUGE variable is the type of pad you run. Most of the higher performance dual purpose pads need quite a bit of heat in them in order to really start grabbing. I run Porterfield's on my street Camaro with manual brakes, and it's not the most fun when the brakes are cold (as in virtually all of the time on the street), on the track they are fine. Yet another "problem" is that most often, the front to rear bias is adjusted through a manual proportioning valve. These little buggers merely reduce the available pressure to the rear brakes, they don't redistribute the pedal energy to the fronts like a balance bar does, so you are just throwing away pedal force.

I can feel your pain though, it is really frustrating trying to sort the brakes out in many cases, I have been there, and done that.

Mark