Another issue with Ridetech Tru Turn 69 Camaro

[Stovebolter]

I realize this has been beat to death but I'm opening my own thread giving my real world experience thus far with the ridetech Tru Turn system. I'm copying and pasting this from another members thread. There have been more than a few people with fitment issues in the wheel house. I have worked around this with inner wheel house mods. We already knew this would be necessary. The issues I am having now are with a huge loss in turning radius and tire/wheel too far back in wheel opening with the UCA's/LCA's that ridetech provided at their built in +3.8 caster angle...and with added shims to give me more + caster.

Now that I have the car on the road....clearly some of issues that glr0212, cwylie, and others are having, I am having as well. The car is now fairly useless in parking lot conditions.

My set up:

69 Camaro
Full height frame bushings
Frame specs good. Checked on frame machine. Son works for body shop.
Full Ridetech suspension....Muscle Bar, TQ Air springs, Tru turn, everything
Tobins rotors/hub from Kore 3
18X9.5 wheels with 5.75" bs up front
275/35/18's
Caster +5 Camber -1.5 Toe in: 1/16"
Delphi 670 box
67 Camaro 5.8" pitman/idler

I worked around the clearance issues on the inner wheel house but clearly either I was shipped the wrong control arms or this system pushes the wheel way back in the wheel opening which in my opinion looks stupid. I was already concerned about the clearance (side to side) issue prior to ordering wheels so I went with a 9.5 and an 5.75" offset that would give me a 1/4" of clearance on both sides of center with the narrower wheel.

I also am running into an issue with hitting the Muscle bar, either direction at full lock. Actually, I don't imagine I am even close to full lock. And, the steering stops are on the wrong side of the LCA for Ridetechs steering arms. After a call into their tech group, I was told that I must use factory Camaro steering arm to utilize the built in steering stops. I would have to fabricate my own stops. Irregardless, if I do add the stops to prevent hitting the Muscle bar, I will loose a huge amount off turning radius with this system. The other issue, the rear of the front tire does rub the inner wheel house on occasions while turning, leaving rubber. Eventually this will wear through.

While this system may be great for the guy that enjoys an occasional auto cross, it is nearly useless as it stands on my car for every day driving unless I maintain a straight line...and I don't live in Kansas. Lol. I have to make at least two stabs at entering any parking spots. I don't imagine the Auto Cross I wanted to compete in at Springfield in May will even be an option now. Those tight parking lot turns wont allow it. For what we spent on this system...well, I'm at a loss of words. Lol.

As my system stands:



You will lose turning radius with this system!

You will have to modify your wheel house for clearance with 275's....but we already know that.

And at almost 8 grand into this system, I have earned the right to complain! I am literally so frustrated at this point, that I about to gut this stuff and start over.

Provided pictures are of the drivers side only

[Stovebolter]

I have no problem notching my frame to get my turning radius....but where does that leave me with the sway bar and the tire rub I'm experiencing at the rear of the tires to the wheel house. I'd have to move the mounting point back and come up with a shorter sway bar arm for the Muscle bar in order to clear the wheel at full lock. What I feel needs to happen is the wheel/tire should be centered in wheel opening...moving wheel/tire up to an inch forward would probably clear the Muscle bar. I really think I have been shipped the wrong control arms. Ordered these through Matt at MCB. Hopefully he still has the original invoice. Not sure how to tell what was actually sent verses what the invoice says was sent. What a conundrum!

On a side note, I am enjoying the car with the newly added LS platform, as long as I'm going in a straight line. Lol.

[Apogee]

Hmm...I thought (or maybe assumed) the Ridetch UCA/LCA's moved the lower ball joint forward to offset the effects of the increased caster...is that not the case? Did the part numbers for the arms match those in the instructions? Is it even possible to install the arms incorrectly left to right? Have you called the guys at ridetech?

[Stovebolter]

Hmm...I thought (or maybe assumed) the Ridetch UCA/LCA's moved the lower ball joint forward to offset the effects of the increased caster...is that not the case? Did the part numbers for the arms match those in the instructions? Is it even possible to install the arms incorrectly left to right? Have you called the guys at ridetech?

Tobin,

That's what I assumed, thought I flipped the sides but they are clearly marked with a D (drivers side) and P (passenger side). Yes, I called and spoke to a tech twice but I can't remember his name. I showed him the same pictures I posted of the driver side only earlier in this post.

David

[Stovebolter]

David Pozzi pointed out to me that there was a possible change in design some time around 2013 to correct the placement of the tire in the wheel opening. Still trying to get that confirmation. My package was delivered around that time frame and I may have been subject to their first run of products. Sucks to not have time to have thrown all of this together and actually drive it day after day to find the issues I am just now finding out. Hopefully ridetech will help me out. Come on Bret!

[Stovebolter]

1 04/05/13 64614*
SUMMARY COPY
67-69 tru turn complete package1 0 0 11169500 939.0000 -- 939.00
* 11169500 HAS BEEN SHIPPED SEPARATELY *
67-69 F body front tubular stongArm
upper pair
1 0 0 11163699 379.0000 -- 379.00
* 11163699 HAS BEEN SHIPPED SEPARATELY *
67-69 F body front tubular stongArm
lower pair
1 0 0 11162899 469.0000 -- 469.00
* 11162899 HAS BEEN SHIPPED SEPARATELY *
67-69 F body front shockwave TQ1 0 0 11163007 1353.5000 -- 1353.50
* 11163007 HAS BEEN SHIPPED SEPARATELY *
67-69 F body front muscle bar1 0 0 11169100 469.0000 -- 469.00
* 11169100 HAS BEEN SHIPPED SEPARATELY *
67-69 F body rear muscle bar1 0 0 11169102 469.0000 -- 469.00
* 11169102 HAS BEEN SHIPPED SEPARATELY *
67-81 Camaro - ridetech 4-Link
ShockWave System - TQ Series
1 0 0 24350701 1279.5000 -- 1279.50
* 24350701 HAS BEEN SHIPPED SEPARATELY *
MERCHANDISE INVOICE TOTAL $ 5358.00
INVOICE TOTAL $ 5358.00
BALANCE FOR THIS ORDER $ 5358.00

[Chev67]

My ridetech set up is fairly centered.

[Stovebolter]

After much digging. I'm fairly certain I got an early production run of this product.

[Stovebolter]

That does look right. Around what time frame did you order your system?

My ridetech set up is fairly centered.

[bret]

David Pozzi pointed out to me that there was a possible change in design some time around 2013 to correct the placement of the tire in the wheel opening. Still trying to get that confirmation. My package was delivered around that time frame and I may have been subject to their first run of products. Sucks to not have time to have thrown all of this together and actually drive it day after day to find the issues I am just now finding out. Hopefully ridetech will help me out. Come on Bret!

Ii have no problem trading your current lowers in for a set of the newest version lowers with the balljoint position moved slightly forward if thats what it takes. We routinely make revisions like this in the interest of continual improvement. These running changes (with any of our products) are not kept secret by any means, but are rarely significant enough to warrant any "official" media announcement. In reality, we had no need to move the lower balljoint forward until we started running upwards of 7 degrees of caster. When we started running that much caster we also started lightening up on the camber, now running about .5 neg. We run a 275-35/18 tire on a 18x10 wheel with a 5.75 backspace on the 48 Hour Camaro BUT, its on a 67 not a 69.
I'd love to live in such a perfect world that building hotrods would would be painless. But I don't. Thats why I have to have a job. Even on Easter Sunday.
Not sure who (if anyone) you've talked to at our shop about this, but i want you to talk to our head tech guy Rodney Mason (Rodney@ridetech.com) He is the smartest guy in the building.

[HotRod68Camaro]

Bret,

Did the changes make any significant impact on fitting big tires? Can you tell me how to identify if i have the newer or older ones?

[Stovebolter]

Brett has responded stating he had no problem swapping out my lowers and suggested that I speak with a lead tech (Rodney) about the change. I'll give them a call sometime early next week. Thanks Bret.

David

[bret]

Bret,

Did the changes make any significant impact on fitting big tires? Can you tell me how to identify if i have the newer or older ones?

Not really...they are a minor incremental improvement, and only in some cases. I know that is vague, but realize the tire fitment is influenced by many things:

1. Tire size
2. Tire brand (yes, dimensions vary by manufacturer)
3. Tire age (have you already worn some shoulder off of them?)
4. Wheel width
5. Wheel backspace
6. Spindle selection
7. Brake selection
8. Control arm configuration
9. Alignment settings
10. Ride height
11. Height of body bushings
12. Fender alignment and/or previous damage
13. Dimensional tolerance of reproduction fenders
14. Steering box ratio (how far will your box swing the steering linkage
15. Spring rate/swaybar rste/shock settings (determines how much roll your car may have)
16. Ability of customer to tolerate "a little rub here and there"

i could go on.

This is why fitting the absolute largest tire possible on your car is an exponential amount of work...on everyones part.

In answer to your direct question about your arms being the latest revision...cant tell you that sitting on my couch right now but i will develop an answer.

Happy Easter!

[Stovebolter]

Kyle, my issue is not a side to side clearance issue (other than hitting the Muscle bar). My issue was the tires being too far back in the wheel opening, often times touching the rear section of the wheel house. By moving the ball joint forward that will move the entire wheel forward as well, possibly giving me the clearance I will need to clear the Muscle Bar at full lock. Hopefully. Bret is helping me out. I should've been more assertive with my last call in to tech and asked for Bret himself. Wish I could remember who I spoke with. I normally write this stuff down.

[Chev67]

Spring 2012

[Stovebolter]

Spring 2012

You would have the older lowers like me but like Brett mentioned, some of our cars are slightly different for some reason. Doesn't look like it is affecting you from what I can tell. Any issues at full lock hitting the sway bar?

[bwarren]

Bret,

I have no dog in this fight. I AM admiring of your commitment (not just this thread and today)! While I work (and own a business) in a different industry, quite sometime back I heard a phrase that feels like it applies - "no one cares how much you know, until they know how much you care." Easter Sunday! No doubt in my mind YOU GET IT!! No question, ridetech's prominence in the industry has been rising - pretty obvious (and why). Thanx!

Brad

[shmoov69]

I agree, Brett's commitment to "taking care of the customer" has always impressed me. I've had a few issues with my TT, but nothing so bad that I'm going to yank it off. However, I haven't been to the track with it since I installed it all either. I'm afraid that I'll have to do something with the tires hitting the wheelwell before I beat on it why hard again. As it didn't hit with the stock stuff on it..... But it didn't has much suspension travel either! LoL!

[Stovebolter]

The new control arms corrected my issue. My wheels are now centered in the wheel opening and the tires just kiss the sway bar equal amounts....nothing I can't correct with the addition of stops. No where near the wheels now. Thanks ridetech!

[shmoov69]

Wow that things low! Looks good! Congrats on the fix!