1st gen Camaro chassis

[SDS MACHINING]

Does anyone care to discuss the 1st gen Camaro chassis from 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/america...7605474471659/

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/america...7605474471659/

[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/delcocu...7618893228411/
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??