1st gen rear suspension question!

[CraigMorrison]

We are looking at doing something new for the rear suspension on a 1st Gen Camaro and we need your input! In terms of suspension, how much are you willing to compromise the geometry so it will fit under the stock floor pan? We are talking about doing two options: a triangulated 4-bar and a 3-link. The Tri 4 will fit under the stock sheet metal with only very minimal floor cutting. But what about the 3-link? If we have the tri 4-bar option, would you guys want the 3-link to be a no-compromise piece where more floor mods are required? Or is keeping the stock floor more important than maximizing the suspension’s performance? We are working on some designs now, but it looks like the stock seat will need some mods or you might have to run custom rear seat or no back seat at all. Thanks for your input on this! The more we hear back from you guys, the better this is going to be for the 1st Gen community.

[MrQuick]

One thing I hear from the consumers is the need for a bolt in rear unit that the average joe can install in his driveway. Right now airride is the most popular option.

[dhutton]

For me the two key decision drivers (aside from performance) were ease of installation and cost. Performance being equal I would pay a little more for an easier install. Minor floor cutting would be OK for me if it saved money or improved performance. I purchased a G-Bar over the Quadralink because I didn't feel that I could handle the install of the quadralink. In this case I gave up a little performance (hopefully that was all) for an easier install and lower cost.

This was my first project of this kind. On my next project I would consider something like the Quadralink.

Don

[class67]

Personnaly, I would opt for the least amount of fab work / cutting on the car, as an average joe.

[whytry]

I agree with Vince, that's one of the reasons I am looking at the Airbar setup for my 68 as well.... I don't have access to some of the tools needed for fab work anymore since I moved, some of my buddies in San Jose aren't willing to let me borrow their plasma cutter and welder needed for the fab work...

[Cruiser]

I agree with the others. Even though my 67 Camaro is a plain jane 67. I would like to have the option of returing her to stock or orginal some day if I wanted to. I will never sell this one!! So any mods that I make it important to me that they can be reversed. The bolt on aspect with little to no fab work and not costing an arm and a leg would be great.

You speak of minor floor mods. This is where I stand. The DSE mini tub kit from what I know is the maximum I am willing to cut up and I would have to pay to have it done. I have recieved labor quotes in my area to have it done at $600.00-$700.00 plus the kit. Then seat mods have to be done. I would prefure to keep my orginal back seat, moding it is not an issue as I bought one to get mods done to when the tub kit gets done. I have so many other things to do that mini tubs are not in my budget right now.

Now if I could install your 4 link on my own and get most of the same benifit and only give up wider wheels now that's something to think about. The gains would be worth it and less mods!! Might end up being a little more than mini tubs but that would be OK.

Joe

[68Formula]

My floors are rust free original. I can't bear the thought of cutting them. So no mini-tubs or anything else that involves deviginizing the metal. The most I am willing to do is weld on extra.

[Damn True]

IMO a good leaf setup is more than enough for the majority.
If you want more than that you are looking at serious track duty.
If you are looking at serious track duty you need a cage.
If you have a cage you don't need a back seat as it's bloody unsafe to have anyone back there with a cage.
If you don't have a back seat what difference does it make if you have to cut up the pans?

Again, my opinion, but if you are going so far as to install something more advanced you might as well get the good geometry as well or stick with a leaf setup.

[Jimmy Sean]

For me I need the back seat to fit my kids. I would like to see some company develope a torque arm setup for a first gen. That is my wish for the new year.

[DJW32]

IMO a good leaf setup is more than enough for the majority.
If you want more than that you are looking at serious track duty.
If you are looking at serious track duty you need a cage.
If you have a cage you don't need a back seat as it's bloody unsafe to have anyone back there with a cage.
If you don't have a back seat what difference does it make if you have to cut up the pans?

Again, my opinion, but if you are going so far as to install something more advanced you might as well get the good geometry as well or stick with a leaf setup.


+1.

[dhutton]

IMO a good leaf setup is more than enough for the majority.
If you want more than that you are looking at serious track duty.
If you are looking at serious track duty you need a cage.
If you have a cage you don't need a back seat as it's bloody unsafe to have anyone back there with a cage.
If you don't have a back seat what difference does it make if you have to cut up the pans?

Again, my opinion, but if you are going so far as to install something more advanced you might as well get the good geometry as well or stick with a leaf setup.

The trouble is where to get that "good leaf setup". When I started researching this all I could find was an abundance of guys stating the ride was too rough, too high, too low etc etc. There were some who said they could design the ultimate leaf springs but these aren't readily for sale to the general public as near as I could tell. I went with the G-Bar on the assumption that it would enable me to more easily dial in the ride and ride height. Time will tell if that assumption was correct since it will be a while before my project is complete.

Don

[trapin]

Craig...two words..."bolt in".

That's all you need to know.

[Cruiser]

IMO a good leaf setup is more than enough for the majority.
If you want more than that you are looking at serious track duty.
If you are looking at serious track duty you need a cage.
If you have a cage you don't need a back seat as it's bloody unsafe to have anyone back there with a cage.
If you don't have a back seat what difference does it make if you have to cut up the pans?

Again, my opinion, but if you are going so far as to install something more advanced you might as well get the good geometry as well or stick with a leaf setup.

I would agree with everything you said but..........

Some of us would like to get function and the great looks of wider rear tire. This does not mean I/we are wanting full on performance track cars. I really like the looks of the 315's in the rear. Now if I could get say a smaller rear tire in the back with out mini tubs and score some benifit of better handling and larger tire then that's a major plus for me.

Not all of us have track cars, some of us have wanna be track cars that will perform better than stock or even some basic moded stock cars and look cool. That' my goal at least. I could very well be in the minority here though?? I am never going to portray my 67 as Pro-touring, I have said pro-touring style before but most always just tell people I am building a 67 Camaro with modern updates to older parts. If a rear suspension can be part of that within what I stated above it would be great thing for my 67 Camaro project.

Joe

[streetk14]

Craig,
I think you have the right idea of offering 2 levels of rear suspension kits. The more aggressive 3 link kit would appeal to the track guy or the guy who is building a "race style" car and doesn't mind changing or removing the back seat. This would be competing with the 3 link kit that is currently being offered by Lateral Dynamics.

The 4 link idea sounds similar to the DSE Quadralink, which seems to be a well engineered and popular product.

As for me, I actually just installed one of your GT Sport front subframes in my '67 Camaro (replacing my Wayne Due C5 subframe). My car has a truckarm rear suspension from Hotrods To Hell, and did require minor modifications to the floor in the rear seat area. Thses modifications aren't noticable and to me aren't a big deal. But for this car, I wouldn't want to remove the back seat to install a rear suspension kit. The 4 link kit would be what I would consider between the 2 kits for this car.

I am really happy that companies such as AME and DSE are making well-engineered products for these cars. Keep up the good work.

Andy

[streetk14]

[quote=Damn True]IMO a good leaf setup is more than enough for the majority.



I agree that a well designed leaf spring can perform well. The one thing that I think makes people (at least me) avoid leafs and go with a more modern aproach is this: ride quality. This is something I really value in my cars, and it really is nice to have a car that handles well and doesn't beat you up.

I can tell you there is a HUGE difference in ride quality between my Hotchkis leaf equipped '68 Camaro and my HTH truckarmed '67. The truckarm car also can handle much more throttle during cornering without snapping the rearend loose. It also has zero wheel-hop, even with 600 hp. I could not get rid of wheel hop in my leaf spring car without using Caltracs. I'm sure I could have gone with a stiffer leaf spring, but then the ride quality would have been even worse.

This is of course just my opinion and what I've experienced personally with my cars.

Andy

[MrQuick]

IMO a good leaf setup is more than enough for the majority.



I agree that a well designed leaf spring can perform well. The one thing that I think makes people (at least me) avoid leafs and go with a more modern aproach is this: ride quality. This is something I really value in my cars, and it really is nice to have a car that handles well and doesn't beat you up.

I can tell you there is a HUGE difference in ride quality between my Hotchkis leaf equipped '68 Camaro and my HTH truckarmed '67. The truckarm car also can handle much more throttle during cornering without snapping the rearend loose. It also has zero wheel-hop, even with 600 hp. I could not get rid of wheel hop in my leaf spring car without using Caltracs. I'm sure I could have gone with a stiffer leaf spring, but then the ride quality would have been even worse.

This is of course just my opinion and what I've experienced personally with my cars.

Andy I agree with both statements. But people want the best of everything.
Just wanted to add another plus for link suspension is height adjustability. Another popular request.

[Damn True]

[quote=Damn True]IMO a good leaf setup is more than enough for the majority.



I agree that a well designed leaf spring can perform well. The one thing that I think makes people (at least me) avoid leafs and go with a more modern aproach is this: ride quality. This is something I really value in my cars, and it really is nice to have a car that handles well and doesn't beat you up.

I can tell you there is a HUGE difference in ride quality between my Hotchkis leaf equipped '68 Camaro and my HTH truckarmed '67. The truckarm car also can handle much more throttle during cornering without snapping the rearend loose. It also has zero wheel-hop, even with 600 hp. I could not get rid of wheel hop in my leaf spring car without using Caltracs. I'm sure I could have gone with a stiffer leaf spring, but then the ride quality would have been even worse.

This is of course just my opinion and what I've experienced personally with my cars.

Andy

A solid, tech supported reply Andy. What a concept eh?

I see your point, and for your application agree, but still assert that a leaf setup is more than enough for most. It just takes more time to get "right".

[streetk14]

I agree with both statements. But people want the best of everything.
Just wanted to add another plus for link suspension is height adjustability. Another popular request.


Something I totally forgot about, Vince. All I have to do is stick a 1/2" drive ratchet in the trunk floor and turn it a few times to lower or raise the rear of my car. That's something that you cannot do with a set of leafs.

BTW, I got the car mostly finished and drove it around the block with open headers. I think my neighbors all hate me, but the car drove nicely considering I still have to dial in the alignment at work. It's going to my exhaust guy on Wednesday, so I should get some seat time next weekend.

Thanks again for helping me with those cuts, it couldn't have turned out better.

Andy

[nancejd]

For me it would either have to be bolt in, or I wouldn't car how much I had to modify the floor. Once I have to cut and fab, who really cares how much?

[MrQuick]

Something I totally forgot about, Vince. All I have to do is stick a 1/2" drive ratchet in the trunk floor and turn it a few times to lower or raise the rear of my car. That's something that you cannot do with a set of leafs.

BTW, I got the car mostly finished and drove it around the block with open headers. I think my neighbors all hate me, but the car drove nicely considering I still have to dial in the alignment at work. It's going to my exhaust guy on Wednesday, so I should get some seat time next weekend.

Thanks again for helping me with those cuts, it couldn't have turned out better.

Andy
ahhh who needs friendly neighbors anyway's? LOL

no problem, just let me know if you need anything eles and i'll just swing by. :Alchy: Any excuss to get down to SB.

Don't forget to lube them screws.

I agree James, but any kit that is made to bolt in could be welded in and braced if installer chose to. Traditional 3-link no matter how you look at it is going to require some floor surgery.

Torque arm would qualify as a pure bolt on.

[Mr. B]

I'm going to do mini-tubs on my car. I like the look. I want a mostly bolt in application for a rear suspension. Losing the rear seat is not an option for me. I also want coil overs. Most people like the adjustability and the improved ride over leafs. I was deciding between DSE and G-Bar. I plan on going with G-Bar because of less cutting, and I like the triangulated 4 link better. I also really like the fact that I can get a new rear from Frank that has the tabs already welded in the correct location.

I hope to track the car a few times, but even if I don't I would still pick a rear suspension based on the above. It's like most things people buy, we want the "baddest" on the market whether we use it to the fullest or not.

On another note, I'm going with the your complete front subframe. Having a matched front and rear setup sure would have been nice.

[67ragtp]

I too have a 67 with all the DSE goodies(leafs/mini tubbed) and should have waited for the quad link, wasn't out at the time. I also agree with Andy, the fact that the ride height is not adjustable with my leafs really urks me. Two set ups is probably the ideal situation if the 4link is mostly bolt in with slight mods, I dont think thats a big problem. It would be very nice to be able to retain the rear seat, even if the seat frame requires some small mods to fit the covers. The exhaust system fit is always a big question mark with these mods, its fairly important to me since I cant stand dumps, got to have room to bend some pipes and exit the back. When I first saw the g-bar/air bar the upper bar that ties into the frame seemed/and looked a little weak to me, especially bolting it to the thin sheet metal rear rails, still not crazy about the design, although it is a true bolt in deal which lures many that dont have welding skills. Frank(prodigy) problably has the nicest implementation of that set up with the reliefs in the floor for the exhaust, I just cant see most going to that level of fabrication. To awnser your question to me minimal floor cutting for a really well engineerd 4 link is not a problem. As far as a 3 link as a no comprimise set up, well as you know we all want to push the envelope to get the best stuff on the street, so if there's a way to get the supporting staff in there(I mean the rear seat/exhaust etc.) I might go in that direction on the next build.

Looking forward to seeing what ever you design, Im sure its going to be awesome. Ive been salivating over the front clip since it was released.

Rich
(check out the cover of Super Chevy, Im a little excited!!) :jump:

[Dave95Z28]

I would defintely make sure that whichever design goes into production that it will allow the use of a mimimum of a 315 or 335 tire with mini-tubs.

Dave

[CraigMorrison]

Hey guys, thanks for all the input! And thanks to those of you who are using our subframe- please send us pics!!!!! If there are any more opinions to share, please let me know and as soon as we are ready to let the cat out of the bag, we will be posting pics.

Merry Christmas!
Craig

[streetk14]

Hey guys, thanks for all the input! And thanks to those of you who are using our subframe- please send us pics!!!!! If there are any more opinions to share, please let me know and as soon as we are ready to let the cat out of the bag, we will be posting pics.

Merry Christmas!
Craig


As soon as it gets the exhaust taken care of I will put it up in the air and shoot some nice chassis pics. I did the install in my garage on jackstands, so no good pictures yet.

I do have to mention that I have mixed feelings on the exhaust tunnels built into the subframe/trans crossmember set-up. It's a nice idea, but is some what limiting as far as how you can run the exhaust. I would have prefered just a low-profile trans crossmember for exhaust clearance with slotted mounts on the frame rails for adjustability. If I did the install over again, I probably would cut the entire exhaust tunnel thing off and have a new crossmember for the trans built.

Other than that, very nice product and I can't wait to get it back on the road. Should be a noticable improvement over my old Wayne Due subframe.

Andy