1st gen Camaro chassis

[SDS MACHINING]

Does anyone care to discuss the 1st gen Camaro chassis from http://www.muscleupperformance.com/ (http://www.muscleupperformance.com/)
(ie) clearance, turning radius, ride height etc....
Caveat emptor my fellow PT friends... Caveat emptor

[dhutton]

This has come up a few times now. Guys buy these bolt on full frames, stick them under their car and then have an oh crap moment when they discover the ride height is higher than they were looking for.

I think the bottom line is that they don't give the ride height that most members of this forum are looking for.

Just my observation and two cents worth.

[SDS MACHINING]

This has come up a few times now. Guys buy these bolt on full frames, stick them under their car and then have an oh crap moment when they discover the ride height is higher than they were looking for.

I think the bottom line is that they don't give the ride height that most members of this forum are looking for.

Just my observation and two cents worth.

the ride height is only the beginning, but it defiently is a topic, I dont beleive any forum would have members looking for this ride height, who wants a 4 x 4 camaro?

[winfield69]

Now that I have gone through most of the pain of putting a full frame under a 1st gen Camaro, I think it is possible to get a ride height a couple inches lower than stock without significantly butchering the body of a car. Some guys may want something lower, but that would probably require some more siginificant modifications with an aftermarket subframe as well. I don't want to go lower than stock. My other (all-original) 67 still scrapes sometimes.

The frame actually protrudes from the bottom of the car less than an original subframe and (for the most part) tucks in nicely under the car. The frame itself does not limit the height of the car any more than the original subframe or the rear unibody bracing memebers do. It was the rear suspension geometry that limited the ride height in back on may car.

SDS machining is doing the necessary mods to the rear suspension geometry that would allow him to go below stock. He wants his car really low so he is combining the suspension mods with raising the floorpan.

[winfield69]

Back to SDS's original post. The MuscleUp chassis is marketed by Schwartz. It is not clear how much involvement Jeff had in its design.

[JEFFTATE]

Back to SDS's original post. The MuscleUp chassis is marketed by Schwartz. It is not clear how much involvement Jeff had in its design.

Hmmm , I didn't know that .

[MuscleRodz]

You could do the Morrison Max G chassis, but I hope you have deep pockets. Only way i would do a full frame on a unibody car

[winfield69]

Hmmm , I didn't know that .

And neither did I when I bought one.

[JEFFTATE]

I think it is possible to get a ride height a couple inches lower than stock. Some guys may want something lower, but that would probably require some more siginificant modifications with an aftermarket subframe as well.

It was the rear suspension geometry that limited the ride height in back on may car.

SDS machining is doing the necessary mods to the rear suspension geometry that would allow him to go below stock. He wants his car really low so he is combining the suspension mods with raising the floorpan.

Are you saying that you can't get a low ride height with the full frame chassis from MuscleUp or Schwartz ???

[winfield69]

Are you saying that you can't get a low ride height with the full frame chassis from MuscleUp or Schwartz ???

My Camaro with the Schwartz chassis sits about 1/4" higher in back than my stock '67. Tires on the Schwartz chassis car are about 1/2" smaller on the radius than original redlines on my stock '67 . In other words, the centerline of the rear axle is about 3/4" further from the wheel well on the Schwartz chassis than on the original car. The only change to the stock '67 is the single leaves were replaced with multi-leaf springs that may lower the car slightly.

I only achieved that ride height after some changes to the bracing around the rear diff that limited upward travel. You can see some of those changes at the following link.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/americanracecomponents/sets/72157605474471659/

The ride height shown in these photos is about 1" higher than my current height.

The current limiting factor in rear ride height seems to be the upper trailing arms. They are at a pretty steep angle because the attachment point on the rear axle is high (also seen in the photos).

I could get lower in front, but the brackets that support the steering rack hang low and hit bumps. A stock ride height in front seems to be about as low as I want to go without modifying the rack brackets.

[SDS MACHINING]

Are you saying that you can't get a low ride height with the full frame chassis from MuscleUp or Schwartz ???

Just getting back in the loop on this thread, and Yes im telling you that you can not acheive a low ride height with a chassis from Muscleup, who Schwartz is a retailer for and has no knowledge of the geometry according to him,

In able to get a low ride height there is some MAJOR Modifications that have to be made, such as removing every cross member from the front to the rear, including the transmission member, relocating every 4 link attachment point,as well as cutting off the upper link towers on the rearend and moving them so your pumpkin doesnt crash into the links, as well as sectioning the chassis from the firewall forward and raising it up 2 1/2 inches to allow for the steering rack. by the time you do all this, it is no longer a "Bolt in" chassis as it is intended but for the people that want a "stock ride height" this chassis might fit there needs. As long as they still plan on doing some slight modifications to the body mount positions, as well as adding alot of gussets on stress points.
However on behalf of Muscleup, they have informed me that dating back about 18 months ago they have made some changes and have redesigned there 1st Gen Camaro chassis, I have not seen one of these but would like to be in contact with someone who has purchased one in the last 6 months to see what and if they have had any problems simular to the above mentioned.

[JEFFTATE]

Oh , Thanks ..
I had no idea...

I still want to see, inspect , and drive a car with the Schwartz Chassis in it...
I do......

[winfield69]

Oh , Thanks ..
I had no idea...

I still want to see, inspect , and drive a car with the Schwartz Chassis in it...
I do......

If you are ever in Houston, let me know.

Spending most of this year out of the country has really slowed my progress. I may actually get it back together this weekend. I'll post pics if I get a chance.

[winfield69]

Here is ride height version 1.0. This is slightly higher than my stock 67 seen in the garage.

[David Sloan]

Here is ride height version 1.0. This is slightly higher than my stock 67 seen in the garage.

O my God!! Can you say 4x4! Sorry!
The car is gorgeous, just needs to come down a little.

[BrianP]

Shouldn't the sway bar ends be above the rack? Can you post a picture of the rear crossmember? SDS's website pictures make it look like the rear crossmember will be scraping asphalt.

[American Race Components]

I did some of the rework on Scott's car and we ended up removing the dropped crossmember and replacing it with straight tube....


http://www.flickr.com/photos/americanracecomponents/2489612429/in/set-72157605474471659/

[SDS MACHINING]

Shouldn't the sway bar ends be above the rack? Can you post a picture of the rear crossmember? SDS's website pictures make it look like the rear crossmember will be scraping asphalt.

your correct the rear cross member would be hitting everything, we have replaced with a straight crossmember and reloacted the lower links,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delcocustomsandcollision/3577004984/in/set-72157618893228411/
I beleive there is photos of these changes in this folder, you should see a 2 x 3 straight cross memeber with the lower links in there true ride height horizontal position.

[79T/Aman]

I don't know if others are noticing what I have but this thread got started as a "looking for info" question than all of a suden it turns into a self promoting "we can fix the problem on this chassis."
I would suggest that your findings be brought up to the manufacturer of the frame or if you want credit for a better frame start from scratch

[American Race Components]

I don't know if others are noticing what I have but this thread got started as a "looking for info" question than all of a suden it turns into a self promoting "we can fix the problem on this chassis."



Are you talking about me??

[sik68]

I don't know if others are noticing what I have but this thread got started as a "looking for info" question than all of a suden it turns into a self promoting "we can fix the problem on this chassis."
I would suggest that your findings be brought up to the manufacturer of the frame or if you want credit for a better frame start from scratch

I didn't read his post as self-promotion at all...but I'm not a sponser so I guess I don't read into it as much.

[79T/Aman]

well I guess it is not clear to some but what I see is sds asking to "discuss" a product and his next post is the start of how bad the product is and apparently knows everything about it and how Schwartz is apparently deceiving customers, that is what I see.
But again did ANYONE talk to the manufacturer to correct issues.

[American Race Components]

well I guess it is not clear to some but what I see is sds asking to "discuss" a product and his next post is the start of how bad the product is and apparently knows everything about it and how Schwartz is apparently deceiving customers, that is what I see.
But again did ANYONE talk to the manufacturer to correct issues.

Who said anything about Schwartz deceiving customers??

[79T/Aman]

well you need to REALY read and UNDERSTAND what has been posted in ALL posts.
So who's going to answer the question I'm asking for the third time, has ANYONE contacted the manufacturer to solve the issues? instead of this around about thread about all the problems

[JRouche]

It doesnt look that bad to me. no not the ride height, that is too high. Im talking about the rear suspension. There is room on the lower bar mounts to stuff the rear end up there a lil, the pic I saw showed two additional mounting holes below the current situation. Im talking about winfield69's car. And the upper mounts are really high, dont know why, clearance issues maybe. If they were drilled for adjustment by the builder you could gain some lowering room, if there was not a clearance issue. But it looks like they didnt provide for adjustment on the uppers, only the lowers. Hmmm, odd.. You cant change the lowers without consideration of the uppers. Dont know what the uppers would look like if the lowers were at their lowest mounting point?? From the sound of it the uppers are already pointed up to the front alot, not so good.

And as far as the self promoting deal. I dont see it. What??? Just regular car guys giving input. Most car guys are troubleshooters by nature. Why?? Well, cause cars have problems, all our cars. So we just like to help a guy out with possible ideas. Thats what its ALL about here. And with that, trailer it over here, we can fix it up any way you want. Simple stuff. :) JR

[American Race Components]

well you need to REALY read and UNDERSTAND what has been posted in ALL posts.
So who's going to answer the question I'm asking for the third time, has ANYONE contacted the manufacturer to solve the issues? instead of this around about thread about all the problems

1. http://www.yourdictionary.com/discuss
dis·cuss (di skus′)

transitive verb
Obsolete to disperse; dispel
to talk or write about; take up in conversation or in a discourse; consider and argue the pros and cons of
I think that is what we have been doing in this thread. no bashing, no name calling, I guess you really need to understand the deinition of "discuss"....


2. I do believe Scott contacted the manufacturer, and was pretty much told it is what it is ( Scott can fill in the blanks if he wishes ) Scott was too far into the project from a dollar standpoint to replace it with someone else's chassis. Which is what I suggested we even briefly discussed putting a IRS in the car.

3. Self promoting ????? All I did was link to a pic. that showed what we ended up doing to resolve the issue of the low crossmember..

[American Race Components]

Sorry SDS I didnt mean to hijack the thread. ......

[SDS MACHINING]

Sorry SDS I didnt mean to hijack the thread. ......

everyone is welcome to express there opinion, i will continue to voice my opinion and thoughts as i progress, since I started this thread I have uncovered more details regarding this subject, FYI Muscleup has contacted me and I am pleased with there response.

[winfield69]

O my God!! Can you say 4x4! Sorry!
The car is gorgeous, just needs to come down a little.

My 4x4 Suburban is almost 8', so the Camaro does not really look that tall!

That photo is from a year ago. That was a preliminary ride height when I first got it all back together. I did some adjustments to lower it about 2". I am doing some other work on the front end and will post pics when it is back together.

I realized that the rear wheel wells had been radiused a little by the previous owner when it was a pro street car. That gives the illusion of it being a little taller in back than it really is. I'm not ready to spend the money on the body work to repair the wheel wells and then paint the car again, so I will just have to live with it.

[winfield69]

well you need to REALY read and UNDERSTAND what has been posted in ALL posts.
So who's going to answer the question I'm asking for the third time, has ANYONE contacted the manufacturer to solve the issues? instead of this around about thread about all the problems

I purchased my chassis from Schwartz, not knowing he was only marketing someone else's chassis. I did contact Schwartz about the chassis issues numerous times. I got a little advice at the beginning. A couple months ago I really pushed about some of the more serious issues, and I was told that the chassis was designed and manufactured by MuscleUp and to contact them if I had issues. That was the first time Jeff ever indicated that the chassis design and fab came from outside.

I have contacted MuscleUp about a couple issues since then and have been pleased with their response.

[79T/Aman]

Thank you Winfield69, this is the helpful type of info needed from the start and have no issues with you or your post only with SDS that started a thread to "discuss" but in reality wanted to point out all the bad points about the frame and how Schwartz doesn't know anything about the frame, this may be the case but the original post was to talk about MuscleUp.

And one thing to SDS please don't give this board a gramar lesson, I'll point out to your last post "there opinion" ???!!! you mean "their opinion" an thank you for making my point about this thread you started as a "dicussion" but as YOU stated in your last post "MY OPINION AND THOUGHTS" issues are NEVER resolved with opinions, only facts and how to solve the issues.

[SDS MACHINING]

Thank you Winfield69, this is the helpful type of info needed from the start and have no issues with you or your post only with SDS that started a thread to "discuss" but in reality wanted to point out all the bad points about the frame and how Schwartz doesn't know anything about the frame, this may be the case but the original post was to talk about MuscleUp.

And one thing to SDS please don't give this board a gramar lesson, I'll point out to your last post "there opinion" ???!!! you mean "their opinion" an thank you for making my point about this thread you started as a "dicussion" but as YOU stated in your last post "MY OPINION AND THOUGHTS" issues are NEVER resolved with opinions, only facts and how to solve the issues.

You obviously have a bone to pick with this subject since you have resorted to petty fault finding and minor spelling errors. No one here has stated anything to get so worked up about. As I see it we are all just trying to work out our problems and solve them, and occasionally vent our frustrations with some issues. Have a nice day.

[winfield69]

Since I was accused of having a Camaro that looked like a 4x4 a couple weeks ago, I did some more work on the ride height over the last week. It is not a very good picture from the side, but it is the best I could do in my workshop on a Sunday night. I also included a shot of the clearance underneath with a can for reference.

I've already scraped bottom on a steep drive and a nasty bump, so I need to be careful. I might still raise the front to give me another 1/2" clearance.