Heidts New 4-link kit

[TA219]

I was just reading a few magazines last weekend when I found an article talking about Heidts new 4-link kit made for 1st gens.

http://www.heidts.com/heip29.htm

The kit is a bolt on deal and comes with everything you need except the rear end (and you can order it with one if you want to)

What got me is the price, $995 with coil overs!

Unless I have missed somethiing this is the most affordable way to get a 4-link that is designed for the 1st gen.

Now i know that there are alot of good 3 & 4 link kits out there currently but the cost is just too much for me at this point and time.

My question is... is there something fundamentaly wrong with this kit that I am just not seeing?

Ideally should the top bars be a little longer? (i cant remember the rules that go along with a good 4 link)

The only thing I would probably do is go ahead and weld in the brackets rather then just bolting them in.

Thanks for any input

[silver69camaro]

I'm going to ask you this: Why not put $995 into your leaf setup? You'll be way ahead performance-wise, and it will be far easier. Leafs can be made to work pretty darn well. It sounds to me you want a 4-link just because it's not leafs.

Also keep in mind: most to all bolt in rear suspensions for Camaros will sacrifice some (or alot) of performance in order to get the package to fit. I don't know anything about that kit, nor will I comment, but don't let the price tag draw you in.

[hotrod69camaro]

In your response you arent shying away from the leaf spring configuration. Although I can see the "corner cutting" of the Heidts bolt in system, I would like to know if you would give me your take on the Art Morrison triangulated 4 link system for 1st gen camaros. I would think technoledgy has advanced since the leaf spring. Thanks for your knowledge.

[baz67]

Why do you think that technology has not benifited leafs as well? Suspension is more about correct design then tech. I have said it before and I will say it again. Just because it is a link style suspension does not mean it will be better. Nobody has taken the time to measure the geometry of the Heidts suspension. so it may be ok. It is generaly accepted that when someone makes packaging a priority like it appears Heidts has they must compremise elsewhere. That is usually the geometry. Now for the typical cruiser it does not matter, but for cornering performance it may. Check out post 10 in this thread https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22721 if you think leafs are out of date. I guess technology has advanced past the internal combustion engine too.

[silver69camaro]

In your response you arent shying away from the leaf spring configuration. Although I can see the "corner cutting" of the Heidts bolt in system, I would like to know if you would give me your take on the Art Morrison triangulated 4 link system for 1st gen camaros. I would think technoledgy has advanced since the leaf spring. Thanks for your knowledge.

I agree with Brian on the leafs.

As for our tri 4-bar, it's a darn good setup. Art's '55 posted a .94g average and our new '60 Vette project wouldn't surprise me if it suprassed 1g, both using the triangulated 4-bar. It's also very tunable.

But leafs are cheaper and an easy deal for a Camaro. To me it's a no brainer. Sure, I could sell you on our tri 4-bar, but why go through all the work when you can just bolt up a set of leafs?

[blown69nova]

I would also like to know about the AM triangulated 4-link.
First off, does it fit 68-72 Nova's? I know the "55" handles great, but is the geometry going to be as good on the F-body kit, seeing as the "55" frame was designed with the 4-link and the F-body kit is made to fit after the fact.
Thanks, Steve

[Marcus SC&C]

I have to agree with Matt that I`d lean toward leaving leafs in the car personally but if you must have a bolt in link kit I think Heidts is a viable option. Yes the upper links are very short but the upper links on an A body are just as short or shorter in side plan. I`m not a fan of the poly bushings in all the links. I talked to Gary Heidt at SEMA H&R about the possibility of something like a Johnny joint but most of their market probably doesn`t know the difference. It uses a full width panhard bar rather than a diag. track locator which I like (reduced binding) and the RC looks to be at a good height (about the same as stock). The best feature I saw and it`s hard to see in the pics is that when installed and at ride height the upper links incorperate a fair amount of anti squat so in theory at least it should hook harder than the ones that are configured like a street rod "4 bar" with no antisquat. Mark SC&C

[silver69camaro]

I would also like to know about the AM triangulated 4-link.
First off, does it fit 68-72 Nova's? I know the "55" handles great, but is the geometry going to be as good on the F-body kit, seeing as the "55" frame was designed with the 4-link and the F-body kit is made to fit after the fact.
Thanks, Steve

The geometry is the same, but what I can't guarantee is whether or not the frame is the correct profile to give a place for the brackets to mount to. If there isn't, you'd have to fab up some extensions and such.