Torque Arm Gen 1 Camaro

[johnny rockett]

I was wondering why a torque arm cannot be used in a gen 1 camaro with a dana 60 3rd gen camaro center section. Use a single leaf spring for the lateral stability. I dont think there wold be that much bind. I also looked at the Competition engineering rotaing rear end leaf spring mounts but they look pretty cheesy. Maybe there is something better on the market that would let the housing rotate if that is really needed for the torque arm to work. A gen 1 Camaro is pretty stupid so I dont think it cares if it never came with one.

Has anybody any thoughts on this for those wh go to bed thinking about suspensions.

Thanks for your replys

[MonzaRacer]

Why in the world would you want a torque arm suspension?
As for a single leaf with a torque arm you would need a axle floater unit so the axle wouldnt bind.
If you want a decent suspension you can look at the G-bar/AirBar set up.
Useing either give you a 4 link suspesion thet will work well with any alxe. TheAirBar is from Air Ride Technologies and the GBar is same setup with coil overs instead of ShockWaves, Art Morrison makes it I think.
Torque arms are *******ized 3 links and they will take up major amounts of room to package, now if you want to cut the floor up go for it, next best thing is a 3 link (single upper link arm).
As for me the 4 link would be a better setup all around and as for the Dana 60, why do you actually have enough power to break a 12bolt? My buddy has a progass car with a 900 hp engine and cant break one.
Heck my engine machine shop owner ran a 64 Tempest(chevelle chassis) with a built 8.2 10 bolt.
Heck for a stock leaf sprung car you can make it handle great just like the Trans Am cars.
Moser makes a 12 bolt rear too.
Check this out, the only difference is the other set up runs coil overs http://www.ridetech.com/productinfo/airbarstang.asp .

[johnny rockett]

Thanks for your input.........the whoa whoa whoa ...made me laugh....did you get the sleigh stopped?

Anyway to tell you the truth I have looked at the Gbar stuff. There is no intersect point. I dont like the ani squat. I dont know alot about spuspensions that's for sure. But those bolt on four links would not work at a drag strip thats for sure. I dont particulary like all the offerings like cal trac etc that hang off the bottom of the leaf spring either.

There must be another option to letting the housing rotate. I know this question has been asked before. I can tell you that 25 years or so ago that cars had ladder bars on them with non rotatiing housings. Not saying thats the best idea but I thought a single leaf might work but also realize the need for axle rotation.

Is there any ideas on letting the axle rotate in a leaf spring situation. I recently saw a patent applied for this in 1999.not sure what happned to the idea?

[johnny rockett]

To answer that question: The dana 60 is the only rear end that will support 800 to 900 hp with a true trac rear style rear end. Talking to DTS the true trac is not strong enough in the 12 bolt or ford. also you can get the torque arm bolted to that rear end real easy. I have had lots of 12 bolts and several nine ford rear ends. I dont want to run a spool on the street which I have several times in the past. It works but really drags the tires around. I think the dana 60 can give you more strenth options than a 12 bolt and of course the option of a torque arm. Until somebody has tried it I am not entirely convinced it wont work. Even if I have to go to coil overs I will.......I just think the g bar stuff is for the bolt on crowd. Many mustangs and gm cars use a torque arm with much sucess and its very simple and clean. So if I have to cut of the floor alittle so be it. The other 4 link deal out there is DSE and I am not at all impressed with that either. The 4 bar seems to work as well as the DSE piece with a whole lot less work.

[shmoov69]

Well, I got a tq arm under my car now, but have not had a chance to test it much. The weather has been too crappy since I got it going again. It has a 9" with Varishock coilovers and a panhard. I know that the leaf's will work good with handling. Will work good with dragracing. But not both. So that is why we did the Tq arm, hopefully it was a good idea, but don't know yet!
On the rear end, a 60 is awfully heavy, are you sure you want that? My buddy's 10 bolt has lasted (well since '71) and has ran at the track in drag radial class for about 4 years running low to mid 6's in the 1/8 weiging aobut 3,850 lbs. But I do realize that is a freak of nature to do that.
Why no 9"?

[johnny rockett]

I could go to a nine inch but its more fabrication for the torque arm. You can buy the third gen camaro Dana 60 with the torque arm flanges built in. I have a friend that goes 7.80 with a Dana 60. You can get a killer true trac and 35 spline axle in the dana 60 and you cant get the strenght in the other styles. I have had them all through the years and if your not going to change the gears on a regular basis I cant see a reason for a nine inch ford. I have had lots of race cars and they all had 9 inch stuff. But I was always messing with gears. I think the 60 is often overlooked and a bullet proof piece. I am going to have around 1000 hp and dont want to change the gears.....Here is another interesting piece of info........you buy the Dana Chrysler gear sets and they are very quiet compared to the aftermarket gear sets. AS to the weight.........who cares as it makes very little difference when you have alot of power. I have had lots of light weight expensive rear ends and never showed much in the way of perfomance.

[johnny rockett]

How long is your torque arm...DId you build it yourself or buy one already fabbed? How did you select a length? These are all the things I am investigating now. I am curious as to your front mounting location? Also is it on a pivot.....seperate from the trans etc? Thanks

[Stu Seitz]

Well, I got a tq arm under my car now, but have not had a chance to test it much. The weather has been too crappy since I got it going again. It has a 9" with Varishock coilovers and a panhard. I know that the leaf's will work good with handling. Will work good with dragracing. But not both. So that is why we did the Tq arm, hopefully it was a good idea, but don't know yet!
On the rear end, a 60 is awfully heavy, are you sure you want that? My buddy's 10 bolt has lasted (well since '71) and has ran at the track in drag radial class for about 4 years running low to mid 6's in the 1/8 weiging aobut 3,850 lbs. But I do realize that is a freak of nature to do that.
Why no 9"?


Do you have any pics of your trq arm?

[shmoov69]

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35849
Just a few pics

[johnny rockett]

The mount under the rear end I guess was nessecary because of the 9 inch? I am going to run mine off of a dana 60 3rd gen camaro. That way it will be up in the tunnel........no coil overs yet. I have to give you credit for trying something different even if if does not work in the end!

[shmoov69]

The reason for the style of mount was that we had to try to stuff the arm up into the factory tunnel without cutting. So, that is the best we could come up with. Hope it works! I had to go with a single 4" exhaust and I think it killed some power over the dual 3" for some reason or another. ??

[Norm Peterson]

As far as the anti's go, the only point on the torque arm that matters is the chassis side pickup point. That, and the axle centerline are the points that determine the torque arm's part of the construction. What the stuff in between actually looks like doesn't really matter as long as it's rigid enough that the kinematics assumptions remain valid and strong enough to withstand the loads.


Norm

[ITLBTU]

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35849
Just a few pics

Can you re-post the pics please?

:postpics:

[shmoov69]

I reposted them in the above thread.
Tell me what you guys thinky!

[ITLBTU]

Thanks! That's the direction I hope to go this winter on my Camaro.

[StoneAge]

Personally I like the performance of the torque arm suspension. I haven't seen a leaf spring version yet, but it seem very doable. I don't think you need to let the axle rotate on the springs. With a torque arm that runs from the axle to the trans mount, would have little angle change. One way to help eliminate any change in angle would be to use a short shackle for the front arm mount. This would let the torque arm move freely, and the length of the shackles could be tailored to help the torque arm match the back & up motion of the leaf springs.

[Norm Peterson]

Wouldn't work. Torque arms are intentionally not pin-connected to the chassis to allow "plunge" as the suspension rises and falls. The axle then relies on the LCAs, or the front spring eye in this case, to prevent uncontrolled axle end fore/aft motion. Two shackles per spring cannot provide this location, which means that neither pure fore/aft axle motion nor axle steer is controlled.

A pin connected traction arm a la GNX/Kirban theoretically solves the pure fore/aft motion issue but does nothing for the axle steer. This piece, with a carefully chosen chassis attachment point and sufficiently compliant bushings might work with normal front eye leaves over a small range of suspension movement, but would be a compromise between axle end location and axle housing rotational control at the very best.

I don't see how you can get away from a hinge sort of attachment of the axle tubes to the leaves if you add any sort of separate structure to resist axle torque, as there will be conflict between the two definitions of side view instant center. John Callies did the hinge sort of thing when he combined leaf springs with 4-link axle end location and a Watts link. Hot Rod Magazine, October 1974 (FWIW, I'm not crazy about the WL details).


Norm

[StoneAge]

Just to make sure Norm, but I wasn't talking about putting another shackle on the leaf springs. In fact I wouldn't change a thing on the rear suspension. The shackle would be for the front torque arm mount. A shackle is just one of three ways that I've seen used for the front torque arm mount. It just seem like it would work best with a leaf spring suspension.

[Norm Peterson]

Got it. At 7:18 AM I was probably mildly distracted by rapidly cooling coffee and quit reading after seeing the word "shackle". Sorry.


Norm

[BillyShope]

As I just commented in another forum, the torque arm doesn't meet KISS requirements. A 3link...preferably asymmetrical...is a simpler solution to the same problems.

I do, however, offer a spreadsheet for determining the IC location and percent anti-squat, for the torque arm, on Page 14 of my site.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope

[Bow Tie 67]

As I just commented in another forum, the torque arm doesn't meet KISS requirements. A 3link...preferably asymmetrical...is a simpler solution to the same problems.

I do, however, offer a spreadsheet for determining the IC location and percent anti-squat, for the torque arm, on Page 14 of my site.

http://home.earthlink.net/~whshope (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ewhshope)

Nice link, a ton of info.