Best rear suspension. Speak up.

[ss dave]

Ok, lets hash this out. 69 Camaro, now with Global West Catagory 5 leafs, very stiff, firm, can't easily push down the fender. Love the ride, handles very well and hooked well with old powerplant. But want to tub it, more hp, need the rubber for traction. Put in a new Ricks standard size tank which I want to keep, therefore I will need a new rear suspension. Want to keep the stiffness and still hook. So which is better, pros/con DSE Quad or G bar or some other? Ideas? Thanks

[Lowend]

The only system out there I would consider to be significantly better than the Cat V setup would be the Lateral Dynamics 3-link
http://www.lateral-dynamics.com/

[chicane67]

Mark's three link comes to mind...

...and nothing else compares in my opinion.

[jason@gmachine]

...and nothing else compares in my opinion.
yet.

Jason

[Smock67]

yet.

Jason

So what are you hinting at hmmmmmmmm?:hmm:

[ProdigyCustoms]

I would have to agree, in a full on project that is going to see heavy track usage or competition, I would use a 3 link or independant. And Mark's 3 link is the best built for application available for our beloved Camaros. And none of the independant are very easy to install. For ease of installation, and a damn good system for a serious street car that may see track time, but needs a nice ride and a in the garage install, The G Bar / Air Bar is hard to beat.

[ss dave]

Thanks, as always I respect your opinions. I know Tyler's background and his experience. Frank, I'll talk to you on Tues. to see how that mock up with the G bar and Moser is coming along. Jason, got something coming on down the road...yet? I'm going to research LG's set-up a little more thoroughly, I've shyed away from it because of what I've read about the installation and the required mods. Since this is a street car, I'm leaning towards the G bar. But I just love the way my GW leafs feel. I'm 200# and can hardly depress the fender when I put most my weight on it. There is no cornering dips or sways. if the G bar can do that, I'm all over it. Thanks

[chicane67]

yet.

That is pretty damn bold. I'll be blatently honest with you Jason... it is going to be a very long time before my opinion changes.

It took Marks set-up to make me even look and consider the use of anything other than my custom leaf springs... and that says a-lot. Especially considering that leafs work so damn good... if you know what you are doing with them.

[ss dave]

I looked at LG web site and all I go to say is Dam! thats somethin! Unfortunately I would like to keep my rear seat and not do that much mods, but that 3 link is really nice. I was mistaken on my initial thread I only have the L-2 GW spring set, not the Cat 5, sorry, sorry. I am really leaning now towards a G-bar. Looked it over again and I think it will satisfiy my needs.

[chicane67]

You can still have your back seat(s) and your cake... and eat them both.

You could use late model F-body buckets and the centerlink well would become the arm rest for the rear passengers.

Ya know Dave... it sucks to be you right now. There are alot of good things to consider and the decision isnt going to be easy.

[ss dave]

Thanks Tyler, I agree it's all good. I didn't know ATS had leafs, looked on your site and couldn't find em. That's a great idea, have you done that ? If you have I would appreciate a look see. Thanks

[chicane67]

Tyler = TitoJones
Tom = Chicane
Shane = Wickedmotorhead

The leafs are my bag... not necessarily Tylers. When a client needs leafs... that is when I step in.

No pictures of the seats... although, I have seen some somewhere around this forum (its been done before) and on another couple of boards. Ill see if I can find them again...

[ss dave]

Sorry, sorry, sorry. My mistake, that's what I get for assumming, I make a ass um me. Yea if you can get pics that would be great. I'm trying to keep an original look as much as possible- I covered the front Procar seats in comfortweave in the same pattern as the originals. Again, sorry Tom.

[chicane67]

Hey man... dont sweat it. It's all good...

Yeah... Ill try and find those pictures. From what I remember, it actually looked factory with the seat partition closed out in fabric covered sheet aluminum. The pictures didnt have a three link well between the seats, but, there was just enough space to make it look like it was susposed to be there.

[jason@gmachine]

That is pretty damn bold. I'll be blatently honest with you Jason... it is going to be a very long time before my opinion changes.

It took Marks set-up to make me even look and consider the use of anything other than my custom leaf springs... and that says a-lot. Especially considering that leafs work so damn good... if you know what you are doing with them.


bold is my middle name. :)

so what happens if we do change your mind? LOL.

the LD 3 link is a great kit, hands down a top notch unit that will work great for a serious driver. I do give him credit because credit is due. I agree with you about the leafs, i want to come out with a leaf package as well after a few other products are released. I think that with custom leafs, upgraded shocks, trac bars, and panhard bar the rear will hold up great. The key to the leaf setup is in the shock valving and the use of the panhard bar.

Jason

[chicane67]

Well... actually, the key to a leaf suspension... is the leafs.

A PHB is an unnecessary item on a leaf suspension... not to mention that it is geometrically unsound and has too many bind issues for the length that you have to work with. The real key to a leaf spring suspension is the leaf and the bushings... and then complimenting them with a good double digressive DA damper. You can control the IC and the forward bite with the front half of the spring and the rear squat and braking with the rear half.

I hear you on bringing a leaf suspension to the game and it being a real player. I should know... I have been building custom FIA leaf springs for road race chassis' for 15+ years and personally dont run anything but leafs on my own.

But... if I wanted to play harder and have the adjustability within minutes... a link suspension is the hands down winner and Marks design has taken the approach to a whole different level.

[jason@gmachine]

Well... actually, the key to a leaf suspension... is the leafs.

A PHB is an unnecessary item on a leaf suspension... not to mention that it is geometrically unsound and has too many bind issues for the length that you have to work with. The real key to a leaf spring suspension is the leaf and the bushings... and then complimenting them with a good double digressive DA damper. You can control the IC and the forward bite with the front half of the spring and the rear squat and braking with the rear half.

I hear you on bringing a leaf suspension to the game and it being a real player. I should know... I have been building custom FIA leaf springs for road race chassis' for 15+ years and personally dont run anything but leafs on my own.

But... if I wanted to play harder and have the adjustability within minutes... a link suspension is the hands down winner and Marks design has taken the approach to a whole different level.


sorry, my vague answer was just that, vague.

when i said "custom leafs" i was refeering to this
"The real key to a leaf spring suspension is the leaf and the bushings... and then complimenting them with a good double digressive DA damper. You can control the IC and the forward bite with the front half of the spring and the rear squat and braking with the rear half."

the shocks, i assumed that we passed the leafs so the next thing i wanted to work with was the valving in the shocks to compliment the leafs. We have a new Penske rep that has been working with us a setup. Our 3 link will have penske and so will the other kits we will offer, no more bilstein.

now for the length- yes that becomes an issue, we have thrown around a few ideas on this matter and when we are ready, we will develop this further. I like the simplicity of a leaf setup and i think our next project car will be a leaf setup, with a mild setup up front. So, basically a great car w/o the use of c/o in front or rear.

reality, not everyone wants to spend the money for a link setup, expecially if you can get a great leaf setup that will allow for some fun and not break the bank.

Jason

[SN65]

Ok, lets hash this out. 69 Camaro, now with Global West Catagory 5 leafs, very stiff, firm, can't easily push down the fender. Love the ride, handles very well and hooked well with old powerplant. But want to tub it, more hp, need the rubber for traction. Put in a new Ricks standard size tank which I want to keep, therefore I will need a new rear suspension. Want to keep the stiffness and still hook. So which is better, pros/con DSE Quad or G bar or some other? Ideas? Thanks
Hi Dave,

Can't say that I know much about the early Camaro but I will throw my two cents in.

I will start with some basic questions....

No one else seemed to ask, so I guess I will. What is the intended use of the car? That will have a huge impact on your final decision.

In your statement you said you wanted it to "hook". Is this something you will be running at the drag strip? Or, is this something you will be running on a road course or autocross? The best setup for one will not be the best for the other.

Also, you say you are going to up the HP. How much? If you are going to pass the 700 Foot pound of tourqe range (and the car does hook up), you are going to have to be very carefull about the rear setup. You will note that the LD center link attaches to the rear end with two tabs at the top of diff cover. How strong are these tabs? How strong is the diff at the mounting point? How much torque they will handle? LD should list it somewhere but I did not see it at their site. What about dynamic verses static loads? Are you using a auto or a stick? What happens if you rev your new powerplant up to about 4,500 RPM and drop the clutch? Will the rear end housing take the impact?

Again, don't know much about early Camaros. Just some questions I would be asking myself if I were building a Camaro project car.

[ss dave]

Bob, thanks for asking. It is a auto, convertible street car with a new powerplant. The last engine was a 383 with 335rwhp and 368tq. Hooked good and I loved the way it felt on corners, like rails! 245's Nittos up front and 275's back. The newer, lighter SBC engine is just shy of 500rwhp and tq- different animal. It won't see any road race courses, but I don't want to give up that G force sensation when cornering. Definitely want to launch well from the line. The best of both worlds-is that asking too much? LOL Currently, I'm just blowin rubber to the limiter if pushed hard off the line, and I haven't had the stones to push it hard thru the ss's. I believe more rear footprint would benefit both goals, therefore the tubbing. I'm open for suggestions. Thanks

[parsonsj]

Dave,

More rear footprint will probably not help your handling very much ... and will probably make it worse. More rear footprint increase your rear suspension's traction while making lateral maneuvers, but you are front suspension limited.

IOW, your car will probably push worse with bigger rear tires.

jp

[ss dave]

Thanks John, I understand that larger rears make cornering more difficult but I believe it will help off the line- staightline acceleration. I'm trying to find a balance, a compromise. I'm limited in size on the fronts-I believe 245 is close to the limit without mods, maybe just a little larger. The front suspension is GW tubular top/bottom. In your opinion what would be optimum set-up? I even thought of stickier rears with Cal-tracs. Currently, I'm leaning towards a G bar and 335 rears.

[parsonsj]

Optimum? On what? Tire size?

If your front limit is 245, then optimize around that. Your 275 back is probably about right. Any more rear tire than that goes away from optimum.

If you want more ... then you need to find more front tire somehow. Until you do, you're not going to find much messing around in the back.

jp

[ss dave]

Thanks, what I meant was what would be the optimum set up with my tire limits. I was looking to improve rear traction with a larger rubber footprint in the rears without compromising handling. Off the line I would like better grip- straightline punch. But it sounds like from what your saying that may be difficult to do that and still enjoy great cornering capabilities unless I change the rear size AND the front size. I know The Mule which "handles well" lol, has 275 front and 335 rear, that is probably "optimum" but not practical for my situation, I don't think I can squeeze 275's in my front. So maybe 315"'s rear? I'll research it but would appreciate input. Thanks.

[dipren443]

Just throwing my 2 cents in. You mentioned earlier that you won't be doing any track days, but just looking for an overall good performer. Well, it seems to me that you may be overcomplicating things for what you are trying to accomplish.

For ease of installation and being able to maintain the back seat, while still providing more capability than the average Joe can utilize, both the G-bar and DSE's quadra link should be at the top of your list.

I think you will have more than you need with either of those two. Throw in DSE's mini tub and you will be able to install more than enough tire without causing an imbalance in your handling situation.

[FastFirstGen]

Not to jack your thread but is the DSE Quadra better than the 3-link? unitl i looked at the date of the thread i did not understand why DSE's rear was not mentioned

[SN65]

Here is my recommendation.

If this were a Mustang....

Keep your current rear suspension. I don't know what you have as part of your current suspension package but, adding some spring loaded under ride traction bars and a pan hard bar should help if you don't already have them in place. Fit the largest tires you can in the factory rear wheel housings, but go for the best you can find. I have a preference for the Toyo RA-1. Sticky is good.

I am running 18x8.5 front rims and 18x9.5 rears on our Mustang. Go with larger overall diameter rear rubber only for the sake of stance.

Try to attain a 50 50 weight distribution and also lower the cars center of gravity any way you can. Relocate anything that you can from the front to the rear. keep everything as low as possible in the trunk and in the passenger compartment. We went so far as to locate two 6 volt batteries under where the rear seats used to be (instead of one 12 volt in the trunk). Of course that eliminates the rear seates, but all i need are two (one for me and my wife), you may need more.

Take things slow. If you change to many things at once and you do not like the results, you will not know what changes are good and what are bad.

In closing. Look closely at the chassis itself. Making a few chassis mods to stiffen up the platform will help in both handling and ride quality. Yes, this even includes adding sub frame connectors. The more stable the chassis the better the suspension will do what it is supposed to do.

[Mean 69]

I wish I had more time to service the questions like this one on our products (I'm the Lateral Dynamics guy, by the way), but life has gotten even more complicated and free time, while scant to begin with, is near non-existant now.

I will agree with one up front question: Intended usage should be the first thing that gets asked. Beyond that, required "ease" of installation, budget, adjustability/tunability, and obviously the complimentary aspects of the car (front setup, engine, tires, brakes) are all important to the end decision, or at least "should" be. Very often this is not the case, many folks buy on impulse, legend, mis-information, seemingly "good deals," etc. The primary question and the following ones often don't get asked, or worse, the customer might want to have it "all" and not realize that everything is a compromise.

When we created the LD 3-Link setup, we had a very good vision of what we wanted, and specifically identified things that we would not compromise. After that list was established, we iterated the overall design requirement list with things that we would need to back off, etc, in order to satisfy the non-negotiable list and still have something that formed the basis as a product. What we came up with is what you see, and short of some early changes to a few small aspects of the design, it stands as what it was originally (btw, the small changes were a bit more clearance to make more room for tailpipes, and a change to the lower shock brackets).

It would be arrogant to say that no one else's system compares to ours, and honestly, it would be misleading also. What I can say, is that given the set of design and performance requirements that WE chose to design to, there is nothing else commercially available that compares. In general, the customers who are discerning enough, or better stated, know enough about what the specifics of what they want in terms of performance find us, rather than us seeking them out by answering every thread that asks a question about a setup with "ours works great, and we can get you a really good deal on it too!" We tried to answer a lot of the questions that would be asked through a frequently asked section on our website, I'd say that it is more complete and specific than virtually any other supplier's that I have seen, and it is objective.

A few quick answers to some of the questions. One, virtually no one could/should state "how much torque or power" a system can take if they don't have control over the rest of the application. That's the reason that we don't, and of course, in the world today, any company needs to be cautious about what they say for liability reasons, this is a fact of life these days, I can't control it. However, a more important question to ask would be regarding the tires, as it doesn't matter how much power you make, it's all about the friction of coefficient that "creates" the reactionary forces that are fed back TO the chassis VIA the suspension links, etc. Every time I read one of my own responses to this question it sounds evasive, but it's not the case. More specifically, regarding the question of the strength of the upper link mount, a very easy engineering analysis through the use of a free body diagram shows that the upper link isn't the part that sees the most strain under hard forward acceleration, even though there's only "one of them" (i.e relative to a four link, which we are often compared to). I had seen a thread on a totally different forum from the person asking this question, it was a nice CAD model of a Torque Arm approach, which is NOT the same as a 3-Link, the physics and mechanics of the two systems are completely different, so while significant bending forces need to be solved with a T/A approach, that's not relevant to a 3-Link where the torque reactions are fed back into the car via mainly compressive and tension forces, longitudinally oriented links like that a lot better than bending.

You CAN run a back seat, just not "the" original rear seat without modifying (which, on the mention of minitubs, you'll need to address anyway). You WILL be able to use your stock style gas tank, AND be able to run tailpipes OVER the rear axle assembly. It IS complex to install and requires cutting and welding, but this is not unique to ours, several other do also, obviously mini-tubbing is in the same boat. If you can mini-tub, have a suitable welder, then you can install our kit in your garage, SEVERAL of our customers have, and most come back and state that it wasn't as hard as they thought it would be. Tire size and selection is a very personal choice, and unless you are routinely driving at the limit of adhesion and don't go too crazy with the front to rear section width imbalance, running big ole rear meats with less than "optimal" fronts isn't as big an issue as you might think. On that note, a front engine sedan can virtually NEVER get enough front tire without significant changes to the body and a reduction in steering radius, don't let that stop you from building the car the way you want. If it's a racer, on the friction limit most of the time, then that's another story, form goes out the window and function dominates, or you won't be competitive.

I am sure I missed a lot, but I have to run for now. If you have specific questions, I can do my best to answer and contrast to other approaches. All that said, the best way to go really fast on the race track is to invest your money on driving and tires, and address the immediate issues that jump out in terms of handling. After you settle in and your lap times are stable, THEN change things, one at a time. But, if it is the overall hobby that you are looking for rather than just fast lap times, then do your best on educating yourself, and make the best decision for YOU. Beyond it all, have a fun time with it.

Mark

[ss dave]

Thanks Mark, I like the idea of "big ole rear meats". Not only do I think it will help off the line traction, it just looks good. Great answers and suggestions from all, alot to consider. I've looked into Toyo RA-1 as Bob mentioned and also MT's. Thats the response I wanted from this thread, better than I expected, Prodigy, ATS, Lateral Dynamics, that's great! This will benefit others I'm sure. Thanks

[parsonsj]

Mark,

Love your stuff. You gonna be at SEMA?


I like the idea of "big ole rear meats". Not only do I think it will help off the line traction, it just looks good. OK, so now we know where you're coming from. :) That's OK. Stuff 'em in there, and enjoy your car. Be sure to post some pics as you go, especially if you use one of LD's 3 links.

jp

[Mean 69]

Thanks John, I appreciate the compliment. I completely forgot, by the way, to acknowledge the prop's I got from the folks that even put us in the mix, even being mentioned in a thread titled "The Best" is a lot more than I could have imagined years ago when this was all still a concept. Whether we are or not, I'm not terribly concerned about that as I have my own opinion, but to hear others suggest it is very, very gratifying. Further, to hear other potential suppliers using our stuff as a barometer, or a target to compete against, well, that's darned cool too. Bring it!

It's 50% that I will be at SEMA this year, if at all possible I will. For certain though, there will be a couple of our customer cars there, one at the Wilwood booth, and another that's still a bit "secret" per the builders request, but it will be WAY over the top, AirRide 'waves and all.

Dave, I'd highly recommend R compound tires whichever direction you go. In fact, these are probably the most important aspects of the overall car, honest. I have seen cars with suspension and tuning so bad that they would be best used for drifting events (i.e., serious oversteer, probably completely diabolical in the wet) pull darned near a full"g" on the skidpad using them (Toyo R888's in this particular case). They don't last as long, but who cares!? Toyo, Kumho, and Nitto all offering great examples.

Mark

[chicane67]

Come on Mark... Im married and have a kid now... so how much trouble do you think I can get into anymore ?? You know ya gotta come out for SEMA. At least Wednesday and Thursday night (there is a reason for those specifc two nights, so e-mail me and Ill fill you in).

Do you know if the boys from BOS coming out his year ??

As for the big ole meats... its not that much of a problem unless you run a locker or a very, very tight limited slip.

[ss dave]

Hey guys I'd like to go to Sema! But from what I can gather you have to be in the loop. The rear is a 3.73 POSI., does that qualify for a tight limited slip? What kind of problems? Even with that rear I thought it handled great!

I started with a cammed/ bored 307(dog) and eventually got to a welded subframe connected, tubular armed, L-2 leafed, 383 so the difference to me was awesome! Stiff and confident in the corners.

I haven't experienced too many pro-touring rides so I don't have much to compare, but it sure felt great cornering thru the neighborhood park. Just maintaining that level of performance would be fine for me. However with more rwhp I would like a little more traction, and besides something like Cal-tracs (which have "some" handling drawbacks) I thought larger tires would help.