Need advise on building a race ready front suspension for my 67 camaro

[Steve25]

I have approximately $3,000 to spend on the front suspension of my 67 camaro. This price does not need to include the brake setup. For this money, what is the best way to go. I have a welder and can fabricate if this would play a part in the advise that you would give me. The suspension needs to be able to race at tracks every weekend and still take the rigors of every day driving. So something that is great to race without having to replace parts every single day just to get down the street. Thanks in advance for any advise that you may give me! I was considering the DSE speed kit or the Wayne Due C4 subframe because I can get the corvette parts dirt cheap and can go to any auto parts store to get new ball joints and bearings, etc. Maybe someone knows of an idea that is just way better than the options that are written here. Please help me with the decision. Should I wait until any new technology comes out that might be way better? If anyone would like to send me advise in private so that they don't hurt any manufacture's feelings, just e-mail me at [email protected]

[MrQuick]

oh sure wheres Dennis now? he he, just remember K.I.S.S. its real easy to get OUT of hand... there are alot of competetive cars with stock reinforced suspensions out there. good luck

[dennis68]

dum de dum Here he is to save the day!!!

Steve, I would tend to stay away from the C4/C5 sub-frames. From what I have seen they are not abut building the best handling sub, but about building the "coolest" looking sub.

You claim to have some fab "skilz" (had to through down some ghetto), how about welding up some coilover mounts and relocating the UCA aka "the G mod".

If you really want to get crazy spend 200 bucks on a suspension design program and build your own. Most of the circle track vendors have a ton of control arms with varying lengths and configurations to choose from.

A sub frame full of bolt ons is NOT going to provide the best handling 1st gen on the track. Remenber that companies like DSE,Hotchkis, Speedtech and so on are catering to the fairgrounds cars. Sure the parts may have some performance handling characteristics but they were not designed with the sole intent of building a track car, they simply took what already exisited and made it "pretty".

Redesigned spindles and relocated control arm mounts will go much farther toward your goals than bolting on somebody elses bling-bling (no offense to the guys running the bling parts).

[rohrt]

I have the same question as Steve. I want very functional front suspension that can be both raced and driven around with a modest budget. Dennis you hit it on the head talking about a part may be more but not very funtional. There are tons of parts and bolt ons out there what works and what dosn't. Is there even a way to compare?

[Steve25]

Dennis, do you think that it would pay off big to design my own suspension? I would purchase a design program, and I think it would be fun to build my own suspension. I would only do this though if you think it would vastly improve the suspension over the mods that you said I could do to the stock subframe. If I did just improve the stock subframe, what redesigned spindles would you use and would I have to modify any- thing so it doesn't cause bump-steer effects.

[dennis68]

I would just reuse what you already have, why spend the money and time to rebuild what already exsists? Just make it right.

Anything you could do building a new subframe you could also do to the OE subframe...of course a nice tube frame would be lighter, less intrusive, easier to package, and don't forget the ultra cool factor.

You'll have to come up with your own spindle specs and have them built, I thought Tyler was going to do some SED spindles, I'm not sure how the geometry looks on them. Any help Tyler???

[Steve25]

Dennis, you've been very helpful. Thank you for your advise. I have one more question. Is there a tire size combination that would work good to start with for my 67 camaro. I know most people just go with the biggest tire possible, but I just want to use what would work best on the track. Is there any reason to modify so that I can fit a bigger tire under the front of the car or is this just a waste of time? I was already planning to put mini-tubs in the back of my car just so it could get some traction for quarter mile purposes. I wanted to show that a car could be great at both types of tracks, but my car is mainly being built just for the type of races that you see in the One Lap of America.

[Mean 69]

As Dennis, myself, and so many others will tell you that have looked deep at building a custom suspension system (you stay out of this, Katz, you're a pro!!!), you will quickly realize that what it really comes down to in the end is where you are willing to make compromises, and being able to truthfully understand what it really is that you want to the suspensions to excel at.

Virtually every engineering project that I have seen fail has done so at the earliest stage of the project: not spending enough time articluating what the DESIGN REQUIREMENTS truly are. What I find absurd, frankly, with most of the availaible subframes, etc, is that they seem to have taken the overall design of the front stuff in reverse! In my opinion, the actual frame is the LAST thing that you design, in fact, it is just there to hold the suspension components in place, rigidly, where you want them to be. The only other two aspect that the frame should come into play, and they are really important, is to minimize the torsional flexing of the overall car (within some reasonable design envelope), and to be as light as possible, especially for road race cars, while maintaining sufficient strength.

You are going to get a lot of opinions on this question, which is not a bad thing at all, but keep in mind that everyone has their own perspective. In my opinion, a "good" suspension is one that has a good definition of where the roll center is (low), and further that it doesn't move around much in bump/roll. The only practical way to sort this out (unless you have a lot of time on your hands and are really good at geometrical calculations) is to model with a computer program (Performance Trends Suspension Analyzer is the only one I have used, but there are others out there that I am certain are just as good). On a road course, high speed stability is critically important, and as such, scrub (both in terms of scrub radius, and side scrub responses) are the next most important. Camber gain, which one would think is the most important aspect of front suspension if he reads too much about the early muscle cars, is also important, but if you are going through the trouble to make the first two aspects "good," this one can usually fall out pretty easily. If you can't get it to work out really well, then limit the car from rolling! Steering is also important, but I feel is secondary to the bump response geometry.

This could go on and on, but in the end, you should ask yourself what it is you really want the car to do, and how far you are willing to go to make it do "that." The earlier recommendations will make HUGE positive changes in the car, so one great approach is to do thiese first so you can drive the car, and then study what you like, and don't like. Two things will happen, either you'll love the car and it will be all that you need, or you won't, and you'll end up doing it over/better.

Sorry if all of this sounds evasive, but it is impossible to be specific on a topic that has so many interactions, there is no one right answer.

Mark

[Salt Racer]

...don't forget the ultra cool factor....

WTF? What's happening to you? :scared:

:icon_razz


OK, I'm staying out of this as per Mark's request. Just wanted to give Denny a hard time.

[Steve25]

Mark, this advise makes me feel really good about where I want to go. If I just test the stock subframe with the mods listed, I can get my car on the street faster, and if I am not satisfied at least I would have something to gage from so that I would know if my future mods are as good or better than the newly designed suspension that I may create.

[redss86]

I have the same question about front suspensions. I can fab anything, but I don't really know what all the different measurements, angles, degrees do. I know what each one is but I don't know how they effect the handling, ride, etc... Would a suspension program be a good investment for me? Any suggestions would help. I am building an 86 Monte Carlo SS, and am planning on the same uses as steve25. Meaning: Race on the weekend but still drive during the week. Thanks again for you help.

[Salt Racer]

Before you guys invest in suspension software, spend a hundred bucks or so on books recommended in this thread.

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208

World's best CNC machine isn't worth much unless you know how to use it. Same applies here.

[Steve25]

Salt Racer, it sounds like you're a pro in your fabrication skills. I was just wondering if you have ever built a racing front suspension, tube frame, etc. for a 67-69 camaro. If so, maybe I should ask you how much you charge for your services. I would love to build by own front clip, but I am afraid that I don't have all the proper equipment to make a new front clip that would be perfectly straight and true which would be very important I would think. Do I need a TIG welder to fabricate this kind of stuff or is my MIG just fine? Also why don't people make a subframe that is for racing instead of looks? Wouldn't more people be interested in a frame with perfect geometry for racing rather than just looks?

[dennis68]

LOL, had to throw some ghetto bling-bling dog.

Good point Katz, learning how everything works and what all the terms mean is crucial to understanding the design software.

Given the option I would TIG everything, it is stronger won't require any clean-up afterwords.

Looks are for p**ies, function over form in every case, these aren't Boyd roadsters.

[Steve25]

You guys on this website are dam cool. Where I am located in Topeka, Kansas; no one cares about how a car handles. They just want to make every truck, suburban, etc into a low rider.
I have always been interested in a TIG Welder. The plus side is that a welder is fully deductable in my business. Would you recommend any name brand or any amperage rating for the type of fabrication that I will do. I think a TIG welder could be a wise investment for the future.

[Mean 69]

Also why don't people make a subframe that is for racing instead of looks? Wouldn't more people be interested in a frame with perfect geometry for racing rather than just looks?

Well now, that is a very good question! Hmmmm.
M

[Salt Racer]

Steve25,
No, I'm not a pro fabricator. My welds are strong enough to hold a 2-ton car together but not so pretty, and I totally suck at sheetmetal work. I feed myself designing suspension. I'm not an independent engineer so I can't do any outside work for money. Sorry.

TIG is nice, but MIG works just as well on mild steel. I use TIG on stuff like exhaust pipes, 4130 suspension links, etc, but I usually use MIG on frame itself.


Well now, that is a very good question! Hmmmm.


My crystal ball sayz, you shall see a very good subframe coming to the market within a year or so.

[dennis68]

crystal ball my azz...you guys and your top secret crap.

The friken aftermarket has more secrets than the damn CIA :jump:

[Steve25]

Hopefully there will be more people in the aftermarket coming out with mini-tub kits also. On DSE's web site, just the inner tubs alone are $400. This seems to me like they have the market cornered. I saw that Speed Tech has the same offset leaf spring brackets for $100 less than DSE. Hopefully they will come out with the deep inner fenders also so that everyone can save the money we work so hard for. I am not bashing DSE, in fact they sound like a good company. I wonder if they don't get a good deal on the parts they are selling. Sorry for changing the subject.

[B Schein]

I doubt that any one else will come out with deep tubs DSE holds the rights to the tolling and they spent a pretty coin to developed. If you don’t want to spend the $400 on the tubs them just widen the stock ones yourself that what I did before we had the DSE tubs available. I but I guaranty if you take into account the price of your time it will be cheeped to buy them. I work full time as a Machinist and Fabricator and the amount of work you are talking about taking on isn’t going to be a two-weekend project. And unless you have full-unlimited access to a well equipped machine shop it would be rather difficult to do.

I know you are new here, But there have been some heated disagreements in the past about DSE and there parts that speed tech has copied so lets try not to start that argument again.

Brian

[1976SR71]

A subframe that would use all the readily available and cost effective nascar/circle track parts would be the shizzznit!

[MSchu]

Someone needs to step up to the plate and produce race-ready parts already. I'm building my '68 Camaro to eventually compete in American Iron but it's hard to pick parts when absolutely nothing has been proven let alone tested. Less bling and more hard-core parts would be huge for the pro-touring market. Or just test the parts from DSE, Global West, Wayne Due, and the others. Hint Hint Steve and PHR. :help:

[Steve25]

Thanks for the information. DSE is a very well respected company and I am going to purchase the wheel tub kit from them this next week so I meant no disrespect to them in any way. In fact, they have been more than helpful with parts selection when I call them up on the phone.

[Steve25]

PHR could use my car any day to show off something that they want, especially a killer racing front suspension. Maybe Mark Stielow could do it. Maybe I could take out a loan and finish my car so that PHR can test out 10 different front clips. Maybe I could do my own buildup in PHR, but I am too unproven and would probably be way too risky for such a high profile magazine. I do think it is a good idea to test these aftermarket pieces so that customers actually know what works.

[Mean 69]

DSE's products, in short, ROCK. I used the mini-tub's on my 69 three link project, and they fit very, very well. Saved a ton of work, and frankly for a typical hobbyist in an average garage, you'd probably give up trying a mini-tub job without them (not suggesting by any means that they are easy to install). I met Kyle a ways back, and had a few moments to talk to him, and I can tell you, their premise is to create happy customers. The first rule of a sustainable business model, IMO. Kudos.

DSE has done an extremely terrific job at addressing a target market. A very focused market. Not too many people want to spend $60k on a perfect car and then take it out and abuse the poopy out of it. At least of course, if the majority of the money went towards aesthetics.

There is a growing (?) population of folks that want to build early muscle cars for the open track, and I applaud them, along with being one of them. Where to "compete" with such a car is still evasive, for instance, NASA (American Iron sanctioning body) will not allow an early f body car with an aftermarket front subframe, in AI/X, because it violates the rules. (Note: The rules are mostly comprised of late model Mustang mods due to the enormous number of said cars running in the series. They need to grow up, in my not so humble and quiet opinion. Okay, let me a bit more direct, NASA needs to loosen up a bit and let folks build cool cars that they will allow to run competitively.) Yes, you can run Super Unlimited, or you can try to run GT classes in SCCA (hold on to your rear, these guys are serious), else you can run open track events in a (hopefully?) non-contact arena. Once you cut into an early car, you have two choices on the track. Run with the big boys in a high level series, or run in a non-competitive series (time trial series not included). Honestly, it is really frustrating, these cars can be so darned cool, but there aren't a whole bunch of places that will let you race with other pedigree without turning a nose. Shame. Don't let it discourage you though, build the car YOU want, then figure out where to run it (advice given to me from fellow PT patron PAI Racing, aka Sean).
Mark

[Steve25]

If a front suspension is set up right, how much better is a tire with a wider tread width? If you were to compare a car with the same height of tire but a difference between a tread section of 10.5 inches versus 8.5 inches, would the wider tire handle better with maybe a little rougher steering that may or may not be offset by power steering? I know nothing, but I know that there are a number of people on this forum that have the answer. I am sorry for so many questions, but I just want to learn very badly.

[Steve Chryssos]

Wow! I just read this thread in its entirety for the first time and I'm a little shocked. The general sentiment seems to be that existing aftermarket parts are not effective and the only solution is to build from scratch. To suggest that one should scratch build is dangerous. It takes a certain kind of guy to start with a clean sheet of paper. Anyone else will end up with an unfinished project or worse a pile of dangerous junk. Read thru Steve25's posts and you may find that discouraging him from the use of aftermarket parts is a mistake.

Let's start over:
Steve25 has $3000 (plus brakes), fabrication skills, and access to C4/C5 parts dirt cheap. He's interested in a DUAL PURPOSE application.

So Steve, you can--as suggested--buy suspension books and then apply your newfound knowledge to a suspension analysis program. Start by plotting your stock suspension to understand the stock design's limitations.
Next, aftermarket parts such as the DSE speed kit or an aftermarket clip will VASTLY IMPROVE the handling of your Camaro. Pretty or not, these parts do help.
From there, if you have skills, you can modify the aftermarket parts for even better handling. I have a modified C4 clip. I bought it cause it was kool, BUT had it modified because I wanted more. I would never dream of starting with a bare concrete floor and working my way up. Does this C4 clip look like bling to you?

https://static1.pt-content.com/images/noimg.gif

As Mark has already stated--be honest with yourself. If you are not gonna run this thing at "ten-tenths" all the time, then you don't necessarily need a "ten-tenths" solution. Out of the box aftermarket parts may work great for you. If they don't, you can modify them. If that's not good enough you can start with real racing parts like AFCO A-Arms and Coleman spindles (just examples, folks). And as a last resort start with a clean sheet of paper and a bare concrete floor and start from scratch.

If you have $3000 and skills, my recommendation is to learn about suspension geometry and then call the clip manufacturers. Tell them that you do not need a bolt-in solution. Tell them you are willing to modify the firewall and other parts of the car if necessary in order to optimize geometry.

[dennis68]

I thin kthe point Steve was that most of the aftermarket peices available that are supposed to make your car the "turn hard-go fast" superhero fall way short of that.

Adding kool tubular a-arms for 1K/set is not going to fix the ailments of the 1st gen geometry and make it a handling beast. To fix the geometry issues the control arm pivot points and/or spindle height has to be changed.

Your car handles and works well because you MODIFIED the bolt in subfarme to do so. I have not seen a single bolt in frame that has been set-up to turn well yet, if it's out there let's see it. Rumor has it DSE has something coming out, we'll see if it lives up to the hype.

BTW, any special reason you are running so much scrub??? Looks like the tires could clear the cage tubing if you sucked the tire in more with shorter hubs.

[Steve Chryssos]

Yeah, there's a ton of meat that could be removed from the wheel mounting pads and I could always do a backspace change since my wheels are modular. I could use a little wheelwell clearance at full bump--just enough to keep me from lifting out of fear. Maybe in the spring. Problem is a leftover from the original wacked-out knuckles (they were like 3 feet long).

The out-of-the-box parts are compromised because of their bolt-in nature. Steve25 could call up Wayne or Ed and specify engine set-back (for rack clearance), indicate that he will be fabbing his own headers (setback/custom frame rail width) or state that he can chop his inner wheelhouses, etc. If you get away from no-brainer bolt-in clips, the C4, C5 clips can work awesome.

I just don't want to scare people away from the bolt-on parts if they suit the true performance application.

Let's race cars NOT suspension analyzers.

[baz67]

I tend to agree with Steevo here. Yes, you can make a lighter frame. Yes, that frame is cooler looking. Yes, one could really screw things up. Yes, one could blow a 3K budget is a hurry.

The two hardest things to fix on a first gen chassis are the spindle height and that it is rear steer. ATS will fix the spindle height soon when they release the SED spindle. It will have the added benifet of using a C4 bearing cartridge. The rear steer is a more complicated issue that would require much more time to fully explane than I have right now. Keep in mind that there has been many a first gen that killed at the track with rear steer.


Adding kool tubular a-arms for 1K/set is not going to fix the ailments of the 1st gen geometry and make it a handling beast. To fix the geometry issues the control arm pivot points and/or spindle height has to be changed.

Your car handles and works well because you MODIFIED the bolt in subfarme to do so. I have not seen a single bolt in frame that has been set-up to turn well yet, if it's out there let's see it. I could not agree more. It is not the parts. It is the design.

In short, I would stick with the stock frame and modify the pick-ups and use a taller spindle. Having access to cheap Vette parts is a bonus. Buy some books and read up before you spend 200 on software. If you do not understand what that software is asking for and what information it gives you, it will be wasted money.

Steve25, to address your tire question. Given the same car set up the same, wider tires will always provide more cornering power.

Brian

[Salt Racer]

...for instance, NASA (American Iron sanctioning body) will not allow an early f body car with an aftermarket front subframe, in AI/X, because it violates the rules...

I didn't know that. That sucks!



If you were to compare a car with the same height of tire but a difference between a tread section of 10.5 inches versus 8.5 inches, would the wider tire handle better with maybe a little rougher steering that may or may not be offset by power steering?

Wider tires will stick better for sure, if the rest of the car is tuned to balance it out. Handling is subjective. 11" front rims may work great on track, but you'll probably get tired fighting steering for daily driving even if you have small scrub radius.

If you have a mountain bike, take the front tire off, grab it by each end of axle, spin the tire and try to tilt it. Even a light weight tire/wheel spinning at slow speed causes fair amount gyroscopic force. Your car has two 50+lbs tire/wheel assemblies, both spinning at higher speed. Plus wider tires want to follow road ruts more than narrow tires.


...I know nothing, but I know that there are a number of people on this forum that have the answer. I am sorry for so many questions, but I just want to learn very badly...

My honest advise - Spend your $3K on good tires, brakes, shocks, and books. Get your car running first, with few bolt on parts. Take it out to the track, and drive it at its real limit (I'll say again, any sane mature adult will NEVER find a car's real limit on street). This combined with knowledge you gain from books and whatnot, will teach you what the real limitation of your car is. By then, you should have a pretty good idea of what needs to be done to go up to the next level.

You don't necessarily have to have aftermarket subframe, though some have advantages. Stock suspension can be made to work good enough to satisfy 95% of people, if you know exactly what needs to be done.

It's OK to have many questions. Don't be afraid to ask.

Steevo,
Aren't you running '84-'87 LCAs? Then you can swap in later LCAs (15" vs. 13") and longer UCAs with slightly taller UBJ (b/c FVSA will be longer). Tie rods need to be extended also. As long as IC location is maintained with proper UBJ height, effect on bumpsteer is minimum. Increase rim offset by 2", and you'll cut down scrub radius by that much.

[Steve25]

It seems to me that everyone seems to be in agreement that the biggest problem with the first gen. suspension is the spindle height and the rear steer. The spindle looks easy enough to fix by buying the SED spindle if it is the proper geometry, and I looked at my subframes that are in my shop and I think that maybe there is a solution to the rear steer. Would it cause a problem to relocate the sway bar to where the rear steer was and then mount a rack and pinion in the same area as the sway bar use to be (with a lot of modification of course)? I understand that it would not be easy to do this but it looks very possible. Since the Stielow SED is based off of the corvette hub/bearing assembly I could simply cut off the old steering arm and fabricate a bolt on arm like Wayne Due does on his C4 frame to eliminate bump steer. I am starting to see the stock subframe as a good starting point because it gives me a layout of where everything needs to be. Stielow says that one bad thing about the Wayne Due frame is that it is light, but not as rigid as the stock subframe.

Another idea that I have pertains to the one other downfall that the first gen. has is that you are limited on the width of the front tire for racing. Why couldn't you build fixtures to keep the frame exactly where it needs to be and then modify the frame at the exact sections where your clearance is limited. Your fixtures should keep everything in place while you cut these sections out and fab the new pieces in.

I would go out and buy the computer design program, but it seems to me that if I read the books and understand the principles that the program is not needed for someone like me who doesn't use it for many cars. I am good at geometry and I took every advanced type of calc., geometry, and physics in college so the math is easy. Plus I would be less prone to make a mistake if I did the math on paper so I could see for myself how I arrived at locations, arcs, and angles.

One last thought is that even though I hear a lot about sway bar diameter, it should really matter how much leverage the sway bar has from its attachment point to its fulcrum. Wouldn't it be cheap and easy to have adjustable sway bar ends and be able to move where the sway attaches to the main frame. There are no clearance issues since the sway bar is now where the rear steer use to be.

Please give some input because ideas can seem easy and great even when the logic isn't quite straight. These things also seem too easy which makes me think that I'm screwing up somewhere. So please scrutinize.

I noticed that it looks like Stielow's relocation of the upper a-arm for the Thrasher looks different than the Guildstrand theory. Any thoughts?

**Edit** forget this last paragraph, it is easy to see that his relocation is made for a different purpose. I typed before I thought about it.

[Steve Chryssos]

Steevo,
Aren't you running '84-'87 LCAs? Then you can swap in later LCAs (15" vs. 13") and longer UCAs with slightly taller UBJ (b/c FVSA will be longer). Tie rods need to be extended also. As long as IC location is maintained with proper UBJ height, effect on bumpsteer is minimum. Increase rim offset by 2", and you'll cut down scrub radius by that much.

No way. Last wave of mods had two carved in stone rules:
-No frame rail mods
-No LCA mods

It still holds true. I will relocate the coil-over mounts (check out my excessive pre-load) or install 11" springs and tweak the wheels. That's it! Other than that, I ain't touching it.

[Steve25]

I messed up when trying to explain the fab work for tire clearance. I meant to say that you would weld the new piece in first with the fixtures mounted, and then cut out the clearance needed. If I did it the other way around I would most definitely tweek the frame.

[baz67]

One problem with cutouts on the factory frame is the bolts that hold the steering box may be in the way. Changing the steering could help that. CarlC has gotten 275 wide tires on his 68. You could get 255 relatively easily.

The sway bar fix can be done. Go to www.pro-touing.com/water to see what was done for the Mule. I know it is not a stock frame, but it gives you an idea of what can be done. Otherwise it seems you have the right ideas. I can not wait to see what you do.

Brian