I have to ask

[baz67]

Is it me or has there been many questions about C4 or C5 suff pertaining to what is better for handling. What is up with the Corvette woodies? It is not the parts it is the design. One could put F1 parts an a car and if it is not designed properly it will handle like zbugger in his sisters car on the 101.



In fact, if one would use the same Corvette pick-up points on a first gen chassis it would increase RC height due to the narrower track width. With that comes some not so desirable things like messing with camber curves and added jacking effects. Both reduce efective cornering power. Now if someone modified the pick-up points to their specific chassis to obtain optimum geometry, that is different because the availibility of the parts make that attractive. I am not bashing anyone on their design ideas or products or trying to start a flame war. I am just curious why the fixation on the Vette stuff.
Brian

[zbugger]

.... if it is not designed properly it will handle like zbugger in his sisters car on the 101.

Heh... At least your still alive. Wanna try that again?

[Norm Peterson]

I am just curious why the fixation on the Vette stuff.
Brian

Because it's fairly light, reasonably attractive, is designed for a car of generally similar weight and performance intent, and is mostly available without too much difficulty?

Other than that, I haven't the foggiest notion.

BTW, the devil is always in the details. You wouldn't have to try all that hard to screw up the best tuning for a stick axle arrangement either.

Norm

[baz67]

Ya bugg I will be in your area on the 17th. We could try to get together.

I was incorrect on the roll center rising. It would actually lower slightly. I did not take into account the relative movement of the IC. That may not be good as well because of the increase roll moment. You would then need to increase either spring rate or roll bar stiffness. I guess my point is why add a bunch of expensive parts if the whole car is not taken into account.

This is one of the pitfalls of my job. I get way too many hours to think of crap like this.
Brian

[spanky the wondermuffin]

name dropping-'i have joe cool's c4 stuff'.most projects never get completed,so bad reviews don't filter out.most of the few that ever run again get very light duty use like power tour and trips to the kwik-e-mart.

[MoeBawlz]

The reason i got the Wayne due sub is because reading all this stuff on different subs and other options at the time. for the money i was willing to spend it was the best option i had. and i would have liked to have made my own suspension up. but i dont have the knowledge to design a proper suspension yet.

Along with that my fab skills arent up to par with what a professional like Waynes is.

[Zefhix]

If you get stuck on the side of the road with a broken piece... chances are it's going to be alot easier to pick up a c5 replacement part than a one-off, custom cnc'ed piece with the heim joints on it. That would be my guess.......

[Salt Racer]

I think everything that was said is true.

Typical street rodder types want Corvette stuff b/c, well, it's Corvette stuff. Those guys really don't care if their cars ride like crap and handle like "Allen in his sister's car", as long as they can say "I got Corvette suspension". They might as well use the king pin IFS found on '53-'62 Corvette. It's all about mystique of Corvette for those guys.

'88-'96 IFS and C5 IFS components have good LCA/UCA ratio, tall drop knuckles with moderate KPI. Hub face to KP offset is relatively small, especially on C5. This will help cut down on scrub radius w/o too much trouble. You can make a pretty good suspension using them if you know what you're doing.

Factory IFS geometry is a bit too mild for track use (otherwise C5-R would have used stock geometry). I don't care much for C4 IRS - I don't think you can get negative scrub radius with those things. C5 IRS is good IF used with factory offset rims, but it's rather hard to retro fit. Getting scrub radius right on IRS is far more important than IFS on RWD cars. It cracks me up seeing some street rod builders go so much trouble narrowing IRS a lot just so they can use dished wheels. If you've ever driven a FWD car, you probably know what torque steer is. Guess what causes it - Scrub radius and drive torque. That's why you NEVER see dished wheels on front of FWD cars, other than those low rider homie-mobiles with gold plated spoke rims. Even Eldorado and Toronado from late '60s had deep BS wheels to minimize scrub radius. Most IRS exhibit the same behavior. It gets really scary at the limit when you have large scrub radius. But then again, street rodders never drive their cars at the limit...

Parts availablity is a very good point. C5 knuckles and LCAs are even cold forged, and they're surprisingly reasonable over GM parts counter.

If I were to build a Cobra kit car or something, I would consider using C5 IFS components with appropriate geometry, and 3-link rear.

Note: I make fun of street rodders b/c, based on my observation (and I have observed a LOT of them), 99% of them TRUELY don't care about performance and even compromise safety in order to achieve the look they're after. Back when I was still into street rods, car shows, etc, I thought they're building the cars the way they do due to lack of information. Wrong. I tried to educate them about scrub radius and whatnot whenever I had opportunities - their replies go like "So what? Dished wheels look cooler!" If they are on budget and have to use rebuilt stock suspension, that's one thing but many of them spend big dollars on aftermarket IFS and intentionally make the hub width narrower just so they can use deep dish wheels. Driving a car like that on public highway is irresponsible if you ask me. It's sad, and kinda makes my job pointless.

[BRIAN]

I would have to say Hot Rods, Pro Touring or whatever guys are using them for the WOW factor and very little other reason. Read the posts on this very board that is supposedly made up of cars designed to be driven, all you see are post that pertain to Corvette based suspension are those asking how big of a tire can I fit with a certain subframe. Same reason for the big brakes, etc. Come on everybody likes the looks of them you are kidding youself if not. Hey and as for the Street Rod guys they have trickled down a lot of technology as that is where the big money is. There is danger in backyard technology everywhere but I guess that goes with the territory. You also have to understand some guys simply like the feel of an old car and do not want to change it. Sometimes I like driving a loud, shaking, monster of a car. Dangerous??? How about 1000hp in a stock floored Pro Touring Car??? I am honest enough to say a lot of the parts I use are for the WOW factor. After all these are Hot Rod based cars that are built to gather attention and have FUN.

[Salt Racer]

I would have to say Hot Rods, Pro Touring or whatever guys are using them for the WOW factor and very little other reason. Read the posts on this very board that is supposedly made up of cars designed to be driven, all you see are post that pertain to Corvette based suspension are those asking how big of a tire can I fit with a certain subframe. Same reason for the big brakes, etc...

I tend to agree. I'd rather see more emphasis on performance, but that's just me.

...Come on everybody likes the looks of them you are kidding youself if not...

Hmmm, it depends on what you're talking about. I like the look of race car suspension with heim ends and nice TIG-welded long suspension links, more than Corvette suspension. I like tasteful 17s and 18s on a muscle cars, but I'd rather see 15s than 20s. I like slotted rotors, but I'd pick plain rotors over drilled rotors.

...There is danger in backyard technology everywhere but I guess that goes with the territory. You also have to understand some guys simply like the feel of an old car and do not want to change it....

I agree, but my point was why would you spend $4K on aftermarket suspension and not build it right? Those who like the feel of old cars (not me) would probably stick with stock suspension.

...Dangerous??? How about 1000hp in a stock floored Pro Touring Car???

I wouldn't build a 1000hp street car on a basically stock platform without significant re-engineering on chassis/suspension and tons of safety features, like I said in another thread. Personally I feel 600hp is the borderline of practicality in a 3500-lb street car. I'm totally with you here.

...I am honest enough to say a lot of the parts I use are for the WOW factor. After all these are Hot Rod based cars that are built to gather attention and have FUN.

Most of my parts purchasing decisions are based on my performance requirements and the size of my wallet. Aside from the car itself, about the only thing that I picked up based on image/aesthetics is a pair of Flowmasters, but I'm actually looking for lighter mufflers now. I'd give up cool sound if I can save 10 lbs. I do like the look of 18s on my car, but if someone made magic wide white wall 195/85R15s that have better turn-in response and more grip, I'd swap those on in a heartbeat assuming I can afford them.

I'm being honest to myself just like you are. I admit I have some quackiness, but perhaps I'm a little too practical to be a real hot rodder. I personally don't like much attention (I didn't paint my car yellow) and honestly, I really don't care what other people think of aesthetics of my car. I'd rather impress people with its performance. Like I said somewhere else, I get more satisfaction from driving on road course as fast as I can, than getting a lot of ooh-ahh's at car shows. I'm having fun just like you're, but in a little different way.

Having fun is good, but you should also need to be responsible at the same time. That's my point.

[dennis68]

Well not everyone here gives a flying whoop about looks. Allen will back me up, I don't care how it looks......

1: does it work?
2: can I afford it and if not can I make it or modify something else to do the same thing?
3: will it make the car corner flatter, safer, stop faster, or help with off corner acceleration?

Those are the only questions I ask myself when deciding what to buy/make/steal or whatever. (I should also add to the list of questions- 4:can I hide it from my wife)


I agree using off the shelf makes life much easier should something break, but I live close to work so worst case I can always pedal my ass there.

[zbugger]

Well not everyone here gives a flying whoop about looks. Allen will back me up, I don't care how it looks......

Yeah, even crap looks good to you....

In all seriousness, I think performance should take precedence over looks. Some people are impressed by the "Corvette suspension" thing. Like it automatically makes the car handle well. Not always true. You have to make sure you have the 'Vette specs as well to make it work even close. There's even some mods you may have to make so that you can tune it better to your car. I'm gonna stick with what I know. Nothing.

[nancejd]

I think this discussion is at the core of what pro-touring is. If it was pure performance, and aesthetics didn't matter, it would be a race car. If it is all aesthetics, and no performance, it's a trailer queen. Pro-touring is that great big gray area in the middle, searching for the perfect balance of it all How boring would it be if we all wanted to build the same thing?

[dennis68]

Don't get me wrong, I like a good looking ride as much as the next guy. I can't remember the last time I said "whoa, those are great looking spindles". Body and paint is for "pretty", underpinnings are for work-who cares what it came from or how it looks, does it work is the question.

[touring67]

The gray area covers looking good and performing just as well. And hey, if it can perform with the best of them and look awesome then I'll be really impressed. It all comes down to intended usage of the car IMO. If its gonna be a track car then by all means spend the money and effort on making the car track worthy. And if it is made just to look good but have performance as a second then fine, buy the billet and chrome. But I would prefer something that worked than something that was pretty. I.R.S may look fancy in a First-Gen, but without proper tuning it just won't work on the track. I agree with Denny, who cares who it came from...does it work?

[Fuelie Fan]

I can't remember the last time I said "whoa, those are great looking spindles".

I said that last week at the desert looking at a sandrail! Then I made fun of them becuase, being billet, they were also wasteful and bulky despite being polished to perfection. Performance versus looks in a nutshell.

[Cdog]

If performance was all of our true goal in building a Touring car's then we'd all have pinto's and datsun 210's with full race car chassis.

There is something to be said about the nostalga of a muscle car mixed with the tech. of race car suspension.

I'd bet you can build a datsun 210 with a turbo'd 4 banger that would kill just about any of these cars on this board for what most of us have in to a shell of a car and body work.

First you bought your cars because they look cool. Then you bought all the cool looking stuff to make it fast. Let's keep it real!

[Cdog]

If performance was all of our true goal in building a Touring car's then we'd all have pinto's and datsun 210's with full race car chassis.

There is something to be said about the nostalga of a muscle car mixed with the tech. of race car suspension.

I'd bet you can build a datsun 210 with a turbo'd 4 banger that would kill just about any of these cars on this board for what most of us have in to a shell of a car and body work.

First you bought your cars because they look cool. Then you bought all the cool looking stuff to make it fast. Let's keep it real!

Secondly I'd like to add that I am waiting to hear about actual performance of these subframes before I through down 5-7'g for one. So far I have considered Wayne D's C4 & C5 and the 21's century C5. From my understanding the 21's Century does not need any fire wall cutting. If so that's great news for all of us. Bottom line is that all of these subframes including the Art Morrison looks more impressive and gives a couple of more bragging rights that a stock frame does. But if a stock frame with DSE mods out performs these C4 & C5 frames I'll have some extra cash for turbo's. Remember a bitchen car is both Form and Function.

[Salt Racer]

Cdog,
Point well taken. I admitted that I bought a '65 Riv b/c of its aesthetic value and I thought unassuming fullsize car was perfect to showcase my suspension designs. Otherwise, I'd be driving a '93 RX-7 R1 (light, fast, and Wankel fascinates me). I still want one of those.

But you have to understand that you have to give up some traditional aesthetic values that hot rodders are accustomed to, both for good performance and safety. Just because everyone has been using shallow BS'ed wheels up front and IRS on hot rods for the past 50 years, it doesn't mean it's right. Why do you think ALL late model vehicles have flat-faced rims with deep BS?

Why do we modify suspension? B/c we want to make our cars handle better. If you can do it with cool sheetmetal surrounding the improved chassis, that's even better. Now would you slap on a set of shorter control arms just so you can run deep dish wheels at the expense of performance AND safety? I'm sure you won't.

The reason why I made comments on street rodders is that 99% of them flat-out don't care. Period. And believe me, I deal with lots of them on daily basis. It's not the lack of education - sales guys here try to share the info, but most of them just choose not to listen b/c end products will not suit their taste aesthetically. Giving up performance for aesthetics is one thing, but safety really shouldn't be compromised if they intend to drive their cars on public highway. Sure, there is always some dangers and risks involved driving an automobile, but minimizing risks is your responsibility especially if you know how. What they're doing is like blowing cigarette smoke on your face just because they can, knowing it may cause second-hand smoking effect. I'm sure people on this board know better.

Allen summed it up nicely.

...In all seriousness, I think performance should take precedence over looks. Some people are impressed by the "Corvette suspension" thing. Like it automatically makes the car handle well. Not always true. You have to make sure you have the 'Vette specs as well to make it work even close. There's even some mods you may have to make so that you can tune it better to your car...

[baz67]

I started this thread because of the increasing amount of "what c stuff is better" type questions. It is not my intention to degrade anything about the vette and I do not feel it was taken that way. In fact this thread is discussing just the ideas I intended.

It may be that some of the newer members think it must be better because it is from a Corvette. That is not true. Good gains can be made for free with the Gulstrand mod. Also it could be that some people lean more towards hot rodding, but want the pro-touring look. That is not bad as long it is what they want and understand what they are getting.

Nancejd may have the right idea. "I think this discussion is at the core of what pro-touring is. If it was pure performance, and aesthetics didn't matter, it would be a race car. If it is all aesthetics, and no performance, it's a trailer queen. Pro-touring is that great big gray area in the middle, searching for the perfect balance of it all How boring would it be if we all wanted to build the same thing?" I dissagree with the no perfomance with a trailer queen somewhat. It may be that they are not willing to chip thier multibillion dollar paint.