Drop spindles vs. drop coils (from old site)
68driver
Registered User
Posts: 4
(5/28/04 1:07 pm)
Reply Drop Spindles vs. Shorter Coils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm kinda new at this, so any suggestions would be helpful. I plan to drop the front of my 68 Camaro about 2 inches. What are the major pros & cons between drop spindles and shorter coil springs. (cornering, ride quality, cost...) I'm not planning to make this a track car, but I would like something that performs well on the backroads. Which option would you recommend for this application.
davidpozzi
Moderator
Posts: 1134
(5/28/04 1:26 pm)
Reply
Re: Drop Spindles vs. Shorter Coils
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The drop spindle kits use second gen parts, on a cast iron spindle similar to a second gen spindle with caliper mount cast in. The steering arm is two inches lower than a stock Camaro and the caliper mounts two inches higher in relation to the upper A frame, which can cause caliper to A frame clearance problems.
Several problems develop when you use drop spindles.
You can't fit wide tires, the tie rod end winds up two inches lower in relation to the wheel, so forget wide front rims.
Geometry stays stock which is not good on a Camaro.
You may have clearance problems with the upper ball joint to caliper.
You can't use any aftermarket disc upgrades, they won't fit.
Steering arms are cast in, so you can't bend them to fix bumpsteer. You would have to use a rod end and spacers on a stud.
Just installing shorter coils puts the stock spindles on a better part of the camber curve, which is an improvement all by itself. The lower A arm will not be level, which is not ideal but it isn't that bad.
David
67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/
Edited by: davidpozzi at: 5/29/04 2:35 pm
68driver
Registered User
Posts: 5
(5/28/04 5:59 pm)
Reply Re:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,
Thanks for the info. I was leaning toward a set of Hotchkis coils, but thought I should get some advice first.
Just one follow-up. You mention that aftermarket disc upgrades won't work with the drop spindles, but I've seen some package deals that include drop spindles in the disc conversion kit. Sounds like these might be trouble.
MarcusUSA1
Registered User
Posts: 119
(5/28/04 7:02 pm)
Reply Re: Re:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David,2nd gen spindles are considerably taller than 1st gen spindles. Did you mean to say they were 2nd gen like in general configuration only? If they are 2nd gen spindles they would alter and improve the suspension geometry a great deal. Marcus
davidpozzi
Moderator
Posts: 1135
(5/28/04 7:12 pm)
Reply
Re: Re:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Camaro lowering spindles for a First Gen Camaro are patterned after second gen spindles. There may be some larger brake drop spindles availabe these days but they are special to those spindles and your choices will be limited in the way of brake options.
You might be able to send them to Baer and have them converted to whatever you want.
I've recieved several E-Mails reciently from people who have the drop spindles and are sorry they bought them. Most problems are with the whels hitting the tie rod ends.
Here is a link to another discussion on drop spindles: www.camaros.net/forum/ult...7;t=006676
David
67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/
gmachinz
Unregistered User
(5/28/04 8:16 pm)
Reply Hey, David....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not trying to highjack the thread but you mentioned lower A-arms being level would be ideal. Well, my Monte has lower arms which are perfectly horizontal in relation to the ground-this was a result of a taller spindle and shorter coil springs up front. I assume you lean towards having the upper ball joint remain relatively high combined with a negative camber for a better contact patch when cornering, right? My camber is right at -1.5". -G
davidpozzi
Moderator
Posts: 1137
(5/29/04 2:33 pm)
Reply
Re: geometry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By level, let me clarify that I mean the lower balljoint should be level with the lower A arm bolts on the frame. some A arms are curved and "level" might not be easily discernible.
As the upper arm gains more downward angle towards the center of the car, the top balljoint is pulled in during bump and you gain more neg camber. Generally this is all good stuff if it doesn't go to extremes where the roll-center is too high, causing other problems.
Just lowering a Camaro puts the upper arm on a better part of the camber curve where it is going more and more negative. The only downside is, the lower A arm is starting to go out of level, probably creating a little more tire side scrub.
I've used 1.5 to 2 deg neg camber for autocross, I would try that for open track use too. That setting might be too severe for a lot of street driving.
David
67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/
67Sally
Registered User
Posts: 484
(5/30/04 11:38 am)
Reply
Re: geometry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not a camaro guy (yet) so forgive my ignorance. Can't you achieve a lowered front end by changing out the businings between the boty and frame?
William
Project PonySnake - 67 Mustang Fastback
davidpozzi
Moderator
Posts: 1140
(5/30/04 1:04 pm)
Reply
Re: geometry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but watch out for other problems like:
Steering binding at rag joint.
Trans crossmember hard to remove.
Bellhousing flange interference with throttle arm at firewall or hard to remove engine with bellhousing attached. (only on older style lakewood with full width top flange)
If you have a six speed trans, watch clearance of trans to tunnel.
Fan get's closer to fan shroud.
Watch distributor to firewall clearance if you have an HEI distributor.
Driveshaft alignment may change.
Clutch cross-shaft alignment may change but shouldn't be a problem.
Tire to fender clearance will change, (closer)
Exhaust pipes will be closer to floor pan.
David
67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/
Edited by: davidpozzi at: 5/30/04 1:05 pm
Hellbilly23
Registered User
Posts: 108
(5/31/04 8:49 pm)
Reply so...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So if I've got 2 inch drop spindles I can't use a 17X8 w/ 4 7/8inch backspacing tire on a 69 Camaro?
davidpozzi
Moderator
Posts: 1142
(5/31/04 11:14 pm)
Reply
Re: so...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have a good track on what hits and what doesn't.
With your wheel installed on your camaro, Measure down two inches and that's where your drop spindle tie rods will be. There are three lengths of stock Camaro outer steering arms, I don't know which the aftermarket spindles are patterned after, so that will make a difference too. The longer the arms, the sooner they hit.
I did read on the Team Camaro forum that with a 17" wheel, a 4.25" back space is the limit.
David
67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/
Edited by: davidpozzi at: 5/31/04 11:26 pm
Hellbilly23
Registered User
Posts: 109
(6/1/04 7:29 am)
Reply AHH!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I spoke with a flunky at Superior and they said the spindles should clear...I also spoke with Kelly at Baer brakes and he said they'd clear but if they didn't to send them back and they'd give me a set without drop spindles for no extra charge (except shipping).
I don't trust Superior because the guy seemed pretty dumb but I'm waiting to hear from the man (Kyle) on this. Hopefully he's got some good news because I've already ordered my front wheels...hopefully I'll be able to stop order on them until I can figure this stuff out.
This site totally rocks...I'd be lost without it and thousands of dollars would have been wasted. Thank you David for your help!!! I'll send you a picture when she's finished.
Seems like I can't order anything without asking everyone on this site if it'll work first.
69protour
Registered User
Posts: 57
(6/1/04 10:19 am)
Reply re
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm using GW uppers and lowers and also went with the 2" drop spindles from Superior that fit the 12" Wilwoods. When I talked to Doug at GW he said they would fit fine with 17x7's with 4" BS. I don't know about the extra 7/8th of an inch. I f I remember right he said no more than 4 5/8" BS. I've got it fitted up and everything seems to fit nice. Doug suggested going with the drop spindles instead of cutting coils, he said it was better for the suspension geometry. Hopefully this will ease some nail biting!
Trond
MarcusUSA1
Registered User
Posts: 120
(6/1/04 8:10 pm)
Reply Re: re
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since they were making drop spindles from scratch anyway it`s a shame Belltech didn`t make them taller ala `69 Camaro TA racecars to improve the camber curves and RC height. Marcus
davidpozzi
Moderator
Posts: 1146
(6/1/04 10:58 pm)
Reply
Re: Photo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a photo I just uploaded to my web page.
I don't know the wheel offset but it's a 17" wheel.
If you have less offset than this I guess the drop spindles would work.
Stock spindles would have the tie rod end two inches higher and clear the rim.
I forgot to mention, this is a SSB spindle and maybe others are different, but I wouldn't be suprised to learn that Superior made them all.
David
67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/
Hellbilly23
Registered User
Posts: 110
(6/2/04 5:02 am)
Reply dodged a bullet on this one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again david...I changed my order for the front tire. I've got 17X7 w/ 4 inch backspacing. Budnik said they'd never had a problem with that backspacing and drop spindles on a camaro. I'd of been PISSED if I would have gotten those things on and it hit on the tire rod. Thank goodness for good car people!!!
I probably wouldn't have gone with a drop spindle had I
known about this problem. The companies that makes them should make it clear that if you don't have the correct backspacing it's not going to work.
Ripper
Registered User
Posts: 295
(6/4/04 2:22 pm)
Reply
Re: dodged a bullet on this one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David, might be a little off topic... but have you measured up your wifes camaro front end yet?
about the level-lower-arms-talking, my opinion is that the ball joint in the LCA should be positioned lower than the bushings in the frame, measureed from the ground, because of the LCA helps camber angle during travel up to the horisontal position.
If the points are horisontal, the LCA will pull the lower spindle mount inwards, deteriorating the camber curve
my 2 cents..
Did anyone get that, or will I have to work more on my bad english?
EDIT: some grammar... I think
Edited by: Ripper at: 6/4/04 2:42 pm
davidpozzi
Moderator
Posts: 1176
(6/13/04 5:44 pm)
Reply
Re: dodged a bullet on this one
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ripper,
I took some measurements off the 73. I'm waiting until I have it aligned to do some more.
David
67 RS Camaro, 69 Camaro vint racer, 65 Lola T-70 Can-Am vint racer.
ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/
Norm Peterson
Registered User
Posts: 150
(6/14/04 7:43 am)
Reply Lower arm inclination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ripper, I follow what you're saying, and while it's true that you will be operating over a more aggressive range of camber gain by inclining the lower link in that manner, there are downsides/trade-offs.
You're raising the front roll center height, so although you see a smaller roll angle, more of the lateral weight transfer becomes less subject to your tuning efforts (springs & sta-bars). You get larger jacking forces, and are affecting both the steady-state handling balance and the "feel" of transients. And you're shortening the length of the front view swingarm, which at least means larger camber changes under heavy braking.
You also get greater amounts of lateral tire scrub, which goes against long tire life. Think in terms of the motion as seen in front view of a line drawn through the ball joints as the suspension moves. Suspensions are constantly in motion as you drive.
Norm
