Guldstrand mod ??

[68BNUT]

OK 1 question for you guys. If I get a set of aftermarket upper A-arms do I still need to do the G-strand mod???? This is on a 68 camaro.
Thanks

[dennis68]

Yep, aftermarket arms don't do much if anything for improving roll center height or camber gain. Do the mod.

[harshman]

Yah, that’s the question that I want answered. What do those high priced arms do for the geometry of the suspension anyways? It seems that I have yet to get a firm answer backed up by before and after tests. I have fabed many things from scratch and know that the materials used in the arms are worth all of about $25 each at the most. I guess I’m a tad bit skeptical and have yet to hear some tech to back these things up.

[ViperBlue68]

Yah, that’s the question that I want answered. What do those high priced arms do for the geometry of the suspension anyways? It seems that I have yet to get a firm answer backed up by before and after tests. I have fabed many things from scratch and know that the materials used in the arms are worth all of about $25 each at the most. I guess I’m a tad bit skeptical and have yet to hear some tech to back these things up.

I wish the prices reflected that........but then again capitalism is the american way :usa: lol

[baz67]

Justin, I would and I am going to do the Guldstrand mod with my GW arms. Like Dennis says it improves more complex front suspension geometry variants.

Harshman, the tubular UCAs are stronger and have a lot more static caster built in than stock UCAs.

Brian

[Tom Welch]

I too, have issues with the tubular control arms, If the stock arms are in good condition how are the aftermarket offerings THAT much better? I understand more caster but I do not understand how they could be much stronger that the stock arms. I also know that the tubes do look good. Smokey Yunick used modified stock arms didnt he? How about Mark Donahue? I know that they developed and raced long ago but has control arm design really advanced that much? I wonder. They cant be bad but how much better?

[ilovefirstgens]

Heres my understanding, there are different designs of tubular arms, and the usefullnes of the guldstrand mod depends on shich you went with I would contact the manufacturer, or do some poking around the suspension area of camaros.net as I am sure it has been discussed there. alsocheck out this site http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/first_gen_suspension.htm

[68BNUT]

I was under the assumption that the after market arms are stronger and had more adjustability. So Im guessing that doing the g-strand mod and getting after market uppers would make for a potent suspension upgrade. Now if I could just figure out what kind of bushings to go with definetly dont want solids but now im hearing mixed reviews on poly bushings,, thinking of maybe just going back with stock rubber bushings?? Any thoughts on that combo would be apreciated.

[Ralph LoGrasso]

Justin,

What UCA's are you looking into? If you have any interest in Detroit Speed, just use their coilover kit with their arms. It relocates the mounting points similar to the G-mod, but it's optimized to work with their arm design. DSE arms come with Delrin bushings.

[68BNUT]

Ill check in to the dse and the coilovers do the upper coilover mounts need to be welded in?? or is it direct bolt on?? are the delrin bushings solids??? im assuming so since its close to del-a-lum, Ive had a 95 Z28 and a 99 C5 I just wondering if solid bushings will make the ride stiffer than that kind of sport suspension??

[baz67]

Justin, you do want to run a del-a-lum type bushing. Rubber has too much complience in a racing aplication.

Brian

[Ralph LoGrasso]

Justin,

The coilover kit, constitues the old mounts being cut off, and new mounts being welded into place. It is not a bolt in. Delrin bushings are solid, I believe. I'm not sure how harsh the car would ride with them. I would think that a harsh ride would be more dependent on spring rates. Del-a-lum is made of Delrin and aluminum if I remember correctly.

[68BNUT]

yeah I did some research on the dse stuff It looks real good maybe a little good for my wallet, What I would ultimatly like to do is get a decent set of uca's do the g-mod and then do coil-overs and just weld in some kinda reinforcements on the lower arms. do the poly bushings still squeek like the used too?? never had a set just always here the storys.
Thanks for all your guys input, Its time to get some front suspension on the thing im tired of hearin the tire rub when I hit the incline to fast in the drive way and the ball joint poppin when im pullin out!

[dennis68]

I run 750 lbs springs, solid steel bushings in the upper arms and Teflon bushings in the lower arms. It rides smoother than most cars of it's vintage.

Del-a-lums are simply GW's version of teflon lined bushings that are available from dozens of other sources. I prefer the steel shell/Teflon bushings so the shells can be welded to the arms.

[harshman]

Stronger they are not. However they are lighter. As far as static caster – how much of a gain is there to justify $600? Howe Racing and many others make arms as well but they are $50 each and some are infinitely adjustable. If these arms are that much better, where is the data? Where is the test mule with numbers to back it up? I’m not saying that there isn’t one; I just have yet to see it.

[jannes_z-28]

The guldstrand basically does two things.

1. It raises the rollcenter

2. It increases the caster

The UCA's only does the #2 in some cases, the most of them does it.

Jan

[68BNUT]

So pretty much if I just do the G-strand mod and put some solid mount or teflon bushings in the control arms, Thats goning to get me a better suspension than probably half of the aftermarket UCA's without doing the G-mod???

Dennis68 did you have to cut your springs to get your front that low or did you order 750#springs at your desired height??

Also does anybody know of any coilovers kits that dont involve cutting off the original mounts??

[JohnUlaszek]

If only someone made a taller spindle....................

[MuscleRodz]

So pretty much if I just do the G-strand mod and put some solid mount or teflon bushings in the control arms, Thats goning to get me a better suspension than probably half of the aftermarket UCA's without doing the G-mod???

Dennis68 did you have to cut your springs to get your front that low or did you order 750#springs at your desired height??

Also does anybody know of any coilovers kits that dont involve cutting off the original mounts??

QA1 has a bolt in coil over kit available for first gens. I believe Summit and or Jegs carries them. I would do the Gulstrand mod and the call Marcus over at SC&C and see if his tall modular ball joints will bolt into a stock UCA. That will be the equivilent of a tall spindle and cheaper.

Mike

[TitoJones]

If only someone made a taller spindle....................


You mean like this?

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

Tyler

[harshman]

I have never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer but what are the advantages of coil over compared to stock other than adjustable ride height? As far as I can see, when using the bolt on kit from QA1, the geometry hasn’t changed at all. To me the stock set up in essence is the same as a coil over. It is when you change the geometry that the coil over has some advantage. Am I correct or do I need to buy another book?

I am however diggin’ the idea of a tall modular ball joint and that has some advantages.

[68BNUT]

well the qa1's would be just for the adjustablility of ride height and I guess some wow factor for the road as I drove over (thats all the would see the bottom of my car) Ok guys thanks for all the input I definetly have a plan now,,, of course now im gonna have to take a peak at the taller spindles!!

[Ralph LoGrasso]

I have never claimed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer but what are the advantages of coil over compared to stock other than adjustable ride height? As far as I can see, when using the bolt on kit from QA1, the geometry hasn’t changed at all. To me the stock set up in essence is the same as a coil over. It is when you change the geometry that the coil over has some advantage. Am I correct or do I need to buy another book?

I am however diggin’ the idea of a tall modular ball joint and that has some advantages.


I'm pretty sure that I once read that the purpose of coilovers is to adjust corner weight, and not ride height, even though that's what most people use them for. I'm wondering the same thing about the QA1 conversion, I can't really see any benefit to it. Something like the DSE conversion which addresses some of the other suspension issues is a different story.

[Marcus SC&C]

Mike/Harshman,the tall modular ball joints will bolt right into the stock arms. *BUT* (seems like there`s always a but,ya know?) depending on the desired alignment specs and ride height they will most probably not work properly (especially if the G mod is done as well!). There`s also a ball joint binding issue that may be caused by the stock UCA`s angled BJ mounting flange. That`s why we offer the tall BJs with adj. tubular UCAs with flat BJ plates. It`s a cause and effect thing. The idea is to make all of the components work properly together rather than just jamming a new part in here or there. :) I did use the tall UBJs and a mild version of the G mod on a customer`s `70 Nova once but it was limited to 0 camber and modest + caster at stock ride height,this with GW offset cross shafts and all the shims we could fit and still get the nuts on. If it had been any lower it would have been into + camber and giving away more of what had been gained with the improved geometry. The G mod is a wonderfully simple way to make notable improvements. It`s just a shame it won`t work on most other cars due to frame clearance issues and such. Marcus

[harshman]

So Marcus, what would you suggest for a first gen with the Guldstrand mod? A-arms, ball joints? What else would be beneficial? I’m getting ready to do the g-mod and install new springs and I am wondering what benefit the racing type arms (www.howeracing.com) will offer me?

[Tom Welch]

I've had my hands on some circle track arms and I'm sceptical about street use. I believe that they are well made, that the arms are strong, that they have looks, but unless they are adjustable I see no advantage. I believe that too much of a good thing is a little dangerous at times. I'm not talking about wrecking the car but wrecking the wallet for no real performance benefit, now looks on the other hand will be improved quite a bit. I purchased springs and poly bushings from Guldstrand. The price was right, the advise good. I came away from that conversation with a renewed appreciation for stock parts that are slightly modified. And a slimmer but not emaciated wallet.

[Marcus SC&C]

Harshman,that`s basically it. The Stg.1 kit with the G mod gives you darn good front suspension geometry. The adj. arms we use make it possible to run *optimum* alignment specs in spite of the G mod,tall UBJs,lower than stock ride height etc. A proper performance alignment is just as important (maybe even more so in some ways)as all the shiny parts. The Stg.2 kit adds tall tie rod ends to eliminate the factory bumpsteer (BTW they work without the kit too). I think Tom`s basically right. I can`t see a terribly good reason to use tubular upper arms that offer no added adjustability on a car with no geometry changes (unless it`s just to look cool,which is fine too). Since you`re already doing springs and the G mod,a good set of shocks would be next on my list. Bilsteins,Konis or adj. QA1s (my choice) would fit the bill. Add a 1" front bar and you`re pretty much done. :) Marcus

[68BNUT]

Awesome advice guys, Thanks for it all, Ive been working a bunch of OT at work so its time to get the jack stands down after next check!!
Marcus whats your companys website??

[baz67]

...If these arms are that much better, where is the data? Where is the test mule with numbers to back it up? I’m not saying that there isn’t one; I just have yet to see it.
I am doing exactly that as we speak. I am about done. I am just redoing some of the measurements to varify the data. Some of it is interesting indeed.

One thing to keep in mind with the QA1 conversion is that you should beef up the LCA. By using that conversion you put all of the weight and stresses of the front end on the two bolts holding shock to the LCA.

Brian

[68BNUT]

One thing to keep in mind with the QA1 conversion is that you should beef up the LCA. By using that conversion you put all of the weight and stresses of the front end on the two bolts holding shock to the LCA.

Brian
yeah im aware of that having to be done but thats some good info that im sure alot of people dont consider when doing that upgrade

[harshman]

Thanks guys. One more thing: by swapping upper and lower arms to tubular arms, I’m thinking the weight savings would be around 50 lbs overall off the front. The stock arms are pretty heavy and if I’m right, that would be worth the extra cash (I’m taklin’ Howe arms ~ $50 each not GW and the like for $600). Looks don’t do it for me as my car is so low that you couldn’t see the damn things anyway.

[JohnUlaszek]

"I’m thinking the weight savings would be around 50 lbs overall off the front."

A quality set of aftermarket arms i.e GW, Hotckhis, DSE are marginally lighter than stock first gen parts if at all. There are much better places to put your dollars if you are looking to remove weight.

[Joe_Rocket]

I didn't see it mentioned in this discussion, but I'm sure I read in the past on this site:

Keep in mind that most seek higher spring rates for handling. Coilovers or not, stock lower arms have been known to break around the ball joint area. So, even though the aftermarket lower A arms may not change geometry or handling characteristics in themselves you've got to consider the strength compared to a stock 35 year old A arm.

[68BNUT]

Yeah I was wondering if anybody else had heard of or is running Howe arms??

[ProTouring442]

While my experience isn't with F-bodies, I am running Global West upper and lower control arms on my 72 442.

The uppers for this application do change geometry, and allow the use of a taller spindle, so there isn't much I can offer on this.

As for the lowers, I can tell you that they don't feel lighter to me! Stronger, on the other hand? We've been joking that if I ever wreck the car, I could fold up the frame, but the lower arms should still be OK! I can also say that they seem to be built to much tighter specs as they slipped right into the frame where as the stock ones needed to be persuaded a bit.

As for the cost... well, cost here should be in all caps! But I have to wonder how much of this is due to things like product liability insurance. Let's face it, these guys sell street hardware and sooner or later they will get sued even if the failure has nothing to do with their product. Remember boys and girls, some 50% of the price of a ladder is product liability insurance!

Anyway, just my .02!

[Tom Welch]

I am of the opinion that some real world testing and not "adverteasing" or "advertested" suspension components is in order. So how's about it? Anybody want to stack up theirs against the others? I suggest that Dave Pozzi or someone with equivalent experience with first gen suspensions and mods for them head this up. PLEASE. We are in suspense.

[68BNUT]

So has anybody used the UCA's from howe racing??? wondering how good they are?

[trapin]

I was just passing by and had some spare change in my pocket. Thought I'd commit $.02 to the pot, if you don't mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First off....some clarification is in order. The Guldstrand Modification improves 'negative camber gain' not 'caster'. 2 different things.

I went over this whole Guldstrand Mod, Camber, Caster, coilovers, UCA, DSE Arm, discussion with Kyle Tucker over a year ago. This is what the man told me. As far as the Guldstrand Modification is concerned....it is not needed with his control arms. Also...if you do the Guldstrand Modification with the stock arms on a street car, the only difference you will notice will be in your tire wear. It is mostly a modification done for competitive reasons. It is not noticed driving up to the corner for more diapers and baby formula. Jeff Trush has the DS&E arms on his car without the Guldstrand Modification and without a coilover setup and he tells me his car handles like it is on rails. So that is the direction I am going to take.

- Forget the Guldstrand Mod (not needed).
- Upper Control Arms from Global West
- Leave the stock lower arms with Hotchks Springs and Koni Shocks
- 2 parts tequila
- 3 parts tequila mix
- no salt...on the rocks.

This Public Service Message brought to you by.....

[TitoJones]

I'm going to have the respectfully disagree with Kyle on that one.

Having had a 68 Camaro with bone stock suspension, I did the following mods:
1- Added a complete set of PST poly bushings, and Baer 12" disc brakes, and 17" wheels (better than stock, by a bit.)
2- replaced all the PST junk with GW del-a-lum bushings and new mullings 605 box with new moog steering parts. (Wow, the car is fun to drive again)
3- Guldstrand mod. (Holy crap I have a race car!)
Each of these processes were done at different times over a 3 year period, and I must say, I felt the G mod more so than any other upgrade I did on that car. No abnormal or bad tire wear after 2 years on the street with it.
There is a reason Kyle uses his own geomerty to relocate his A arm in his coil over kit, and it isn't because the G mod is worthless. It is designed around his A arm shaft, and puts it in the optimal range it was designed for.
You can get excellent results with a GW A arm and the G mod, and almost silmilar results with the DSE arm/Coil over kit.

People on the bench still about this:
Do the damn mod. it takes less than 1 hour, and you WILL notice the difference. That is like saying that 17" road race slicks don't handle as well as my Bias Ply 14" red ovals that came on my car new in 68.

Tyler

[79T/Aman]

I'm with denny on this, when are people going to get it that solid bushings and or heavy front springs don't make your ride harsh i have 780# springs steel upper bushings, derlin lowers in my trans am and it rides better than a new ws6

[Steve1968LS2]

Yah, that’s the question that I want answered. What do those high priced arms do for the geometry of the suspension anyways? It seems that I have yet to get a firm answer backed up by before and after tests. I have fabed many things from scratch and know that the materials used in the arms are worth all of about $25 each at the most. I guess I’m a tad bit skeptical and have yet to hear some tech to back these things up.

Wouldn't that be a great challenge.. a stock subframe with Guldstrand mod vs a stock subframe with upper lower arms vs an aftermarket subframe with aftermarket arms..

Oh wait.. we had that thread already ;)

Well they sure look purty.. and they are sometimes lighter..

[68BNUT]

well hopefully by the end of march ill be able to be the one with stock sub frame G-mod and GW uppers and delalums all around.

[Marcus SC&C]

Trapin,I have to agree with Tyler. The G mod certainly does alter the caster because the cross shaft holes are shifted rearward,increasing + caster. Lowering the holes changes the camber curves for the better (as you said) but it also raises the RC height which reduces body roll. You may have misunderstood Kyle because his own UCA kits include a jig to redrill the cross shaft mounting holes ala G mod,the numbers are just a little bit different.

68BNUT, I haven`t used the Howe UCAs but they should work just as good as any of the other circle track UCAs. I`ve always been pleased with the quailty of Howe parts,that`s why I`m a dealer. :) That said I prefer PolePosition arms for most applications for their adjustability and modular design.

On tubular vs. stamped arms,tubular arms are often (usually,especially LCAs) heavier than stock arms. The primary goal of many tubular arms is simply to look cool. They add little or nothing at all to performance by themselves. They *may* be part of a larger picture though (ie.shorter to allow a taller spindle,adjustable for well..adjustability etc.) which is all good of course. They may be slightly more rigid or stronger than stock arms but then I can`t remember the last time I broke a control arm... The stock GM LCAs with press in LBJs do sometimes crack around the LBJ area but they can be reinforced pretty easily. Don`t get me wrong, I like tubular arms myself for certain applications and I`ve fabricated more than a few sets myself (upper and lower) for various reasons (use with coilovers,to widen the track width,to convert from king pins to BJs etc.). It`s just that they`re often credited with feats beyond their capabilities. Short answer:do the G mod,you`ve got nothing to loose. Marcus SC&C

[harshman]

Wouldn't that be a great challenge.. a stock subframe with Guldstrand mod vs a stock subframe with upper lower arms vs an aftermarket subframe with aftermarket arms..

Oh wait.. we had that thread already ;)

Well they sure look purty.. and they are sometimes lighter..
We are beggin’ for it, now dos PHR have the balls to test it? Proving their advertisers wrong is a big thing indeed. It would be a very simple thing to do. Perform the skidpad and slalom test to a stockish car. Next install upper and lower control arms and do the same test. Next remove the aftermarket and install the stamped arms with the g-mod and test. I don’t think it is that hard to do, I just don’t know if any magazine is up for the challenge. I'll even let you use my car to test 'em.

[TitoJones]

Andy, We at ATS have done this test already. Chicane started it, and Baz67 finished it. We are debating on whether or not to release it to a mag, or keep it for ourselves.

Tyler

[68protouring454]

any results tyler?? come on don't just tickle it
jake

[TitoJones]

I'll only say this about the test:

We tested-
Stock F body control arms
Global West upper Control arms
Detroit Speed and Engineering upper control arms
Speedtech upper control arms

Using:
Stock geometry
Guldstrand mod
DSE coil over mod

In the works:
All of the above with the re-designed ATS spindle/geometry

That is all I will say, but (and this one is for Harshman) They all have a bunch more going for them than just the 'bling' factor. They really do improve handling.

Tyler

[68protouring454]

up a little late uh??
jake

[Rick Dorion]

Tyler, at one time you said you'd be sharing the results. Is this still true? Maybe as part of the release of your spindle?

[baz67]

Since I am the one that has spent more than a few of my living days doing this I can add some. It is real close to being finished. I also decided to do caster curves with the camber curves that has added some time. The roll center will be figured with all arms in all locations at a standard camber/caster alignment. I just need to do a few more measurements and then redo a few to verify numbers. As Tyler says, the debate is still on on if and when and how to release the data. My notes alone are five pages, with some more to do, so it will be alot of information. There are many reasons why it has taken so long. We want to get it right because it may influence some in there buying choices.

Brian

[68protouring454]

sounds awesome.
i hope it does influence peoples choices, there is alot of buying going on just cause of the name and or what others are doing, and no one has evr compared products becuase of the fear of degrading a product, i for one can't wait for some real info, as for dse/gw/speedtech selling arms, they are always going to sell arms to guys who want tube arms, but guys who want the most performance will change what they are buying to gain the best performance,
git-er-done
jake

[harshman]

you guys friggin' rock!!!

now i want that information!!! :smoke:

[Rick Dorion]

I understand the quandry about how to release the information. However, I would think you will want to substantiate any benefits to the new spindle and template.

[baz67]

Rick, this is all being looked at. The spindle will help in many more ways than just geometry. I will let TeeToe expand on that when he is ready to.

Mr. Harshman, I guess you should have gone bowling and not watch the kids the other weekend. There was some conversation about that that evening.

Brian

[JohnUlaszek]

I would be curious if the curves are the same left to right on a stock setup.
How much do the tolerances in the subframe effect the symmetry of the geometry and curves, and does it matter?
Katz, Pozzi?

[Rick Dorion]

Thanks, Brian. I'm looking forward to the spindle availability (and other products!).

[Tom Welch]

Excellent, an unbiased test to show how good/bad/no change these particular parts perform will benefit us in many ways. May the best product/modification win.

[trapin]

I know for a fact that I did not misunderstand what Kyle told me because I remember being surprised by his reaction to my inquiry of the Guldstrand Mod. I don't know why he told me what he did. Perhaps he wanted me to purchase the coil-over kit...who knows? As far as the geometry improvements...I'll take your word for it baz and Tito since you have the experience with the arms and I do not. I'm only going by what I've read about it.

Next time I speak to Kyle I am going to ask him about this again. But I know for a fact he told me not to bother with the Guldstrand Mod if I was purchasing his arms. In fact, Trush told me that's why he didn't do it.

But then again Trush and I don't spin our cars around road courses like you guys do. I'll be very interested to hear those experiment results (if they are ever published). I am going to revisit my sub-frame next year to refinish it and while it is apart I might just relocate the mounting points by cutting off the tabs and repositioning them rather than just drilling new holes. I guess it couldn't hurt.

Thanks for the info guys.

[David Pozzi]

I have to add that testing the arms is not as simple as just measuring camber curves, or even driving the car.
Is the highest roll center the "best"?
Is the greatest camber change the "best"?
Is the highest neg camber with wheels turned "best"?

Once the arms are on the car, the car should be not only tested but evaluated for oversteer/understeer and adjustments made to rebalance the car. I"d expect that a set of arms that works better would cause the car to oversteer since the front is now working better. But it might be worse for braking!
Just throwing out some thoughts.

[baz67]

David is correct. It is hard to peg "best" on anything to do with cars. What we are doing is finding out what looks best on paper. The real world is a different thing all together. Trying to do a real world fair comparison of each and every combo on one car with identical conditions would be damn near impossible. That leaves us with trusting what others say.

As for why DSE, GW says the same, says there is no need to do the Guldstrand mod with there arms I do not know.

[mdprovee]

I am no way any type of expert, in fact I don't know S**t. I purchased the DSE uppers and lowers, no coilover, and talked with Kyle too about two weeks ago. He said with his arms, he does not recommend the Guldstrand mod. It would not be needed. Just my 2 cents.

Mike

[David Pozzi]

baz67,
I'm guessing as to what the design thinking is these days, here's what I think is going on.

Most street suspension geometry (Corvette/Viper seems to be focused on high amounts of caster which adds neg camber when the wheel is turned, but leaves less static neg camber. Less static neg camber setting will improve braking, make straight line stability better because there is less camber thrust to deal with, less toe out would be needed to counter the camber thrust. Millikan and Millikan discuss camber thrust and the required toe out required to counter it.

Lower amounts of camber gain and lower roll centers seem to be used, probably all for stability reasons in a straight line. Keeping body roll very low would help prevent some of the camber loss, lower profile tires MAY not need as much neg camber, but I don't know that as a fact.
Just throwing out some (more) speculation for discussion...

I remember reading the C5 Lemans corvettes used stock suspension A arms and spindles, but more camber gain than stock, stock vettes have pretty low neg camber gain but a low CG and I think they don't want the RCH too high on them, maybe for tire wear reasons, maybe stability/driver feel reasons when driving straight line.

[Salt Racer]

...Corvette/Viper seems to be focused on high amounts of caster which adds neg camber when the wheel is turned, but leaves less static neg camber....Lower amounts of camber gain and lower roll centers seem to be used, probably all for stability reasons in a straight line....

That definetely is the current trend.

[baz67]

David I see where you are coming from. When I get all the pivot points measured and can figure where the RC is its migration I will ponder on it more.

Brian

[baz67]

Not to add anymore confusion to this, but the DSE location used for thier coilover conversion is not that far off of the Guldstand location. Makes one think if you do not need to do the Guldstand mod with either GW or DSE arm why then are the mounting location moved for the coilover kit? I am not questioning DSEs comments at all. It is just one of those things.

Brian

[MrQuick]

That does raise some suspicions B, well I say go ahead and drill it out for the mod, hell if it don't work just put it back to stock position right? I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and screw up that nice power coating. :doh:

[David Pozzi]

I can speculate that the normal street guy may do less hard cornering and more straight line driving, perhaps tire wear would be a little higher with the Gmod or DSE mod, they (DSE or GW) may reserve this mod for a more agressive/serious builder and not recomend it for the "average" builder. GW seems to recomend the same thing with his upper arms, - "do the Gmod if you autocross or track your car, otherwise the arms are good enough alone".
That's their words above, not mine. I haven't heard of any complaints from Gmodder's on the net and I've heard from plenty of them.
The Gmod has more camber gain than any stock late model Camaro or Vette.
More guessing! ;)

[68BNUT]

So any comparisons with and with out the guldstrand mod using the global west upper a-arms???? or does global west recomend NOT doing the mod??

[67lt4]

I set my car up with 550 lb springs, 1 1/8" sway bar, poly bushings and the G strand mod, AGR quick ratio box and short steering arms, KYB shocks. It reduced the body roll but you had to make the car steer into the corner. Fun to drive and less push through the corner. The ride was harsh and the poly squeeked after about two weeks. Not fun to drive. I then added the GW UCAs with Delrun bushings and and set of Koni shocks. This made a huge differance. The car wanted to turn into the corner. Ride was plush. The same sprrings but the wheels went up and down. WOW. The poly will stop deflection but also bind a arm movement. Try to move the a arm with stock ar poly bushings. It will move but takes a lot of force. Then try Delrun bushings. One finger movement. Let the springs and shocks do the work. I also added a set of sub frame connectors to stiffen the chassis. I would recomend Delrun or similar bushings and UCA the increase camber. Koni shocks. You can't believe the differance this will make. G strand mod if you go with GW.

[NovaPwr]

OK guys, you got me more confused now than when I joined this site to get better educated on my suspension options. LOL...seriously, I have a set of the QA1 coilovers I am going to use and had been checking out GW's upper and lower arms and Speedtechs also. You guys brought DSE's products to my attention as well. I have read and reread all the threads on using the G-mod and not using the G-mod .......I am a little confused at this point. Lets say I drive the car normally. No autocrossing or roadracing, but I still want the car to have an improved suspension. The QA1's with the Delrin bushed control arms (upper and lower) and the 1 1/8" sway bar should make a world of difference just for everyday driving then I am assuming? Seems everyone has their own opinion on this from what I have read. Thought I read where someone did some testing and was going to post the results but I lost it. I have enjoyed reading all this info the past couple weeks. Thanks guys.
Dave

[68BNUT]

Ok well I called global west today and they do not recomend doing the G-mod with there arms, They said if its already been done no biggie but you dont really gain anything with there arms doing the G-mod, GREAT NOW IM REALLY CORNFUSED!!

[baz67]

Justin, the GW arms with the Guldstand mod is part of what I am doing. If you have some time I should be able to give better answers in a few months. Unfortunetly work gets in the way on me devoting the time I want to give this.

Brian

[68BNUT]

I hear that about work now that ive just been trying to get things apart im like oh man I better get this and I better get that startin to nickel and dime me now

[David Pozzi]

Chicane67, has posted here, that GW's owner, -Doug, recomends just the arms for street use, if you autocross or open track the car he recomends dong the Guldstrand mod too.
I haven't heard from ONE person that they were sorry they did the Guldstrand mod.
The extra positive caster (5 deg +) that the arms allow help keep the tire flat when the wheels are turned, it's like neg camber that only kicks in when you turn the wheels, then goes away when you drive straight or brake. The Guldstrand mod is still needed for maximum cornering traction, but the arms help a lot.

[68BNUT]

Thanks for that Dave, on your website with the g-mod is there any thing I can take to the allignment shop after I do the g-mod with the stock uca or the gw uca's? so they no what optimum settings would be??

[baz67]

Justin, David has two alignment settings while using the Guldstrand mod on his site. I got these from there.

Guldstrand recommends the following specs for a "touring car":

* Caster: 3 - 4 degrees positive (+) PS = more, manual steer less.
* Camber: 1/4 to 1/2 degrees negative (-)
* With upper a-arm relocation Camber: 0 degrees
* Toe-in: 0 - 1/8 inch

Guldstrand recomends for racing:

(assumes "Guldstrand mod" is done)

* Caster 3 to 4 1/8 deg pos
* Camber 1.5 to 2 deg neg
* Toe in 1/8" out to 1/8" in (I would try 1/8" out first) more neg camber = more toe out.

Brian

[68BNUT]

cool apreciate that I guess when I was looking through his site I had been staring at the screen for too long

[uraceulose]

Did they ever post the results to the tests with the different A-arms and with/ without the mod etc...??

Thanks,

Donnie

[Not puke green 71]

Where can i find out more about a Gulstrand mod.
I remember reading about it once, but i cant find it now. Has this been done to a 3rd gen Nova before. I think it would have the same benifits as in a Camero, since they share so many simalaities. Thanks Eric

[68Formula]

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0607phr_car_handling_tech/index.html

[Jarcaines]

So, if I was planning on using the ATS spindle with SC&C UCA, would the G-mod still be recommended?

[TitoJones]

So, if I was planning on using the ATS spindle with SC&C UCA, would the G-mod still be recommended?

if you use the Tall AFX spindle, no, if you use the stock AFX spindle yes.

Tyler

[Jarcaines]

if you use the Tall AFX spindle, no, if you use the stock AFX spindle yes.

Tyler

Exactly what I wanted to know, thanks Tyler. Can't wait to order some!