Enter your username:
Do you want to login or register?
  • Forgot your password?

    Login / Register



    Results 1 to 12 of 12
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Sep 2018
      Location
      Knoxville, TN
      Posts
      110
      Country Flag: United States

      Early GM A-Body right height w/ Global West suspension. Surely this isn't right?

      I went with Global West for two reasons - One, I was going with their LCA's for coil overs due to the gusseting and bolt rather than T-Bar, etc. Second, I want to run 17's rather than 18's, and the other ones I looked at required 18's. So now that that is out of the way......

      Had some questions about what I was measuring compared to some older videos they had. I was seeing 4" of shock travel, and their video only showed 2.5". Wheel rate is about twice what shock is, FWIW. And I was needing a taller LCA bump stop, as even my relatively small tires were all into the wheel well at full compression. I had spoken with Doug there initially, but have now been getting someone else for tech questions. And either he was completely misunderstanding me, or I am the idiot that he thought I was (and I think I have a pretty good feel for it, though my race cars are/were both Porsches, therefore strut, rather than double A-Arm).

      Stock ride height to frame was about 7.5". On the Global West system, the drop was accomplished through the spindle. Great, puts me at about 5.5". So when I called, and eventually explained to the guy that I built an adjustable jig that bolted in place of the shock so I could set up stuff, he indicated that the ride height should be set so that the center of the ball joint on the LCA was at the same height as the pivot point. WTF? I would have expected the upper to be the reference, since it will have the most impact on teh camber curve. No, the lower. Okay, so I have now gone and done that. Frame sits about 3" from the ground when it is like that. Tires are tucked 3" into the wheel well. So the 1.75" drop spindle has managed to lower my car by 4.5". Maybe my car was too high to begin with, but seriously.....3" of ground clearance? And a tire shoved 3" into the wheel well is supposed to be autocrossed?

      Anyone else see anything like that? Does anyone have any of these systems, be it Global West, Ride Tech, gStreet, Speedtech.....any of them? Do you have a picture showing the relationship between the ball joint and inner pivot on the frame? I would expect that the reference would be the same......that part of the geometry shouldn't stand to change any between the different options, it is just a simple lever.

      67 GTO - Build underway
      66 Bronco U13 Roadster
      And a couple of 80's Porsches


    2. #2
      Join Date
      Jan 2003
      Location
      Arizona
      Posts
      5,388
      Country Flag: United States
      Hi,
      Yes, your lower control arm pivot points should be "level" at ride height. What are specs of your front tire? What spindle are you using? What coilover? Last but not least, let's see a pic of your car from side and pic of front suspension from front of vehicle.
      Thanks
      Steve
      Last edited by Steve Chryssos; 03-04-2019 at 12:53 PM.
      ________________
      Steve Chryssos

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Sep 2018
      Location
      Knoxville, TN
      Posts
      110
      Country Flag: United States
      Right now I have a 235/60R15 on it.......26.1" rolling diameter, until I can finish mocking up and see if I can fit a 275/40R17 (slightly shorter, 25.7").

      I have a jig in place of a coil over.....it is basically an iron pipe with 1/2" nuts welded in place, and a long threaded stud with jam nuts sandwiching the frame. Looking at the Ride Tech Universal HQ coil overs with a 4.1" stroke, either the 2" stud mount or the 2.75" (car is #'s matching, so I'll sacrifice the upper mount to keep from cutting the frame), or possibly adapting an MCS since my business partner is a dealer with his sister business. But most likely I'll end up with the Ride Tech dampers.

      Spindle is the Global West modular setup. Supposed to be about a 1.75" drop. Sold as a kit wtih the control arms, but I did not buy the (Penske double adjustable) dampers or the chassis upper mount.

      Will try to get some pictures tomorrow after I adjust it back. Had to raise it to get a jack under it.

      FWIW, the steering linkage is also removed until I get the wheels sorted. A pair of 17X9.5's with 275's is supposed to be here in a couple of weeks. Car is in EP right now, largely torn apart. Doing all mockup I can do early on, but that means I won't be able to drive it before I modify the inner fenders and wheel wells.
      67 GTO - Build underway
      66 Bronco U13 Roadster
      And a couple of 80's Porsches

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Sep 2018
      Location
      Knoxville, TN
      Posts
      110
      Country Flag: United States
      Okay, sorry this took an extra day. So here are some shots. Center of ball joint approximately 6.75" above the ground. So I adjusted the ride height for the inner pivot point to be the same. Frame is a little higher, about 3.5" above the ground. Attached are some pictures of the LCA. Also, I dug up a "before" picture. The perspective isn't great, but the top of the tire can clearly be seen, so there was a gap between the tire and the fender. True that the car is missing some stuff, mostly chrome trim, not really enough to make a big difference. After shot from same angle shows quantitatively how much lower the car got. Shot (from other side, taken before I dug up the "before") shows that the tire now sits a full 3" inside of the fender. So the 1.75" drop spindles have lowered the car about 4" overall when set up as advised by the vendor.

      Sorry these things are upside down. Have no idea how that happened or why they got flipped when I uploaded them. For whatever reason, the last ones did not do that.

      Here are the setup shots
      Name:  20190305_111731.jpg
Views: 479
Size:  177.7 KBName:  20190305_111357.jpg
Views: 447
Size:  113.0 KBName:  20190305_111336.jpg
Views: 484
Size:  124.6 KBName:  20190305_111437.jpg
Views: 487
Size:  164.8 KB

      Here is the best before and after I could find
      Name:  OEM ride height.jpg
Views: 488
Size:  197.6 KBName:  20190305_182821.jpg
Views: 485
Size:  193.0 KB
      67 GTO - Build underway
      66 Bronco U13 Roadster
      And a couple of 80's Porsches

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Location
      Mountain Springs, Texas
      Posts
      4,489
      Country Flag: United States
      I would raise it about a half inch. Shouldn’t mess with the geometry too much. Before shot is too high imho.

      I ran my 64 GTO quite low and never bottomed out on the frame.

      Don
      1969 Camaro - LSA 6L90E AME sub/IRS
      1957 Buick Estate Wagon
      1959 El Camino - Ironworks frame
      1956 Cameo - full C5 suspension/drivetrain
      1959 Apache Fleetside

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Sep 2018
      Location
      Knoxville, TN
      Posts
      110
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by dhutton View Post
      I would raise it about a half inch. Shouldn’t mess with the geometry too much. Before shot is too high imho.

      I ran my 64 GTO quite low and never bottomed out on the frame.

      Don
      Thanks, Don! I can raise it quite a bit without having hte upper control arm ball joint get below the pivot, meaning it'll always be going negative camber. I don't think it'll hurt, but it is all going to impact the coil over package I use, as well as how much if the inner fender liner I'll have to modify. That said, my understanding is that the 64-65 GTO's have a lot more room for tires than do the 66-67. Hope to address that by adding an arch to the inner fender. But one of hte big concerns is being sure I get the right shock setup, which includes ensuring that I've got sufficient bump stop to keep it from bottoming out.
      67 GTO - Build underway
      66 Bronco U13 Roadster
      And a couple of 80's Porsches

    7. #7
      Join Date
      Jan 2003
      Location
      Arizona
      Posts
      5,388
      Country Flag: United States
      Hi King,
      Sorry for the delayed response. I had a week of Mondays... Your lower A-arms are fairly level and your tires are a nominal diameter @25.5"-26". As I'm sure you know, your tires are under-inflated -- so that will affect your crossmember to ground clearance number. I agree though.... Your car is pretty darn low. Given that everything else is about right, I can only guess that your drop spindle is the variable.

      Car guy to car guy... I would leave it alone at this point. Don;t sweat it too much until your wheel and tire package are in hand and mocked up on the car. In the meantime, you can do the following:
      1) Over-inflate the heck out of those tires to simulate a lower profile tire. Re-measure crossmember clearance.
      2) Measure distance from ground to wheel centerline -- just so you have it.
      3) Remove wheel and accurately measure spindle pin to ball joint centerline distances.
      4) Gather up that data along with the length of your current coilover strut rod.
      Give Rodney at our shop a call with the above dimensions and have a conversation about spindle pin height. You can also email him directly: RodneyATRideTech.com
      Thanks
      Steve
      ________________
      Steve Chryssos

    8. #8
      Join Date
      Sep 2018
      Location
      Knoxville, TN
      Posts
      110
      Country Flag: United States
      Actually, tires were at 45PSI! I've raised it 3/8" inches at the shock since those pictures, and I've put on the new wheels/tires. Arms still point up at an angle of 10 degrees (according to one of those cheap angle finders, so large gauge r&r I'm sure). Here's the current look. I will probably give y'all a call, but I"m about to head out of town for a big event for my kids (competitive swimmers), and then to spring break. So it may be a week. I need to put the suspension in full compression to the bump stop, as I am wondering if the frame may bottom out. Eye-balling it, it will be close. At any rate, if I can get a longer bump stop or somethiing, then I'll likely go with your universals with teh 2.75" stud end. Wihtout it, I may be looking at the 2" one.

      But yes, I am going to dig out my old (OEM) spindles, and measure the two against each other. I suppose it is possible the wrong one was sent to me.

      Really appreciate the feedback. Man I don't know why my picture is rotated. At least this time it is only 90 degrees.
      Name:  20190311_133230.jpg
Views: 379
Size:  670.7 KB
      67 GTO - Build underway
      66 Bronco U13 Roadster
      And a couple of 80's Porsches

    9. #9
      Join Date
      Feb 2005
      Location
      Waterloo, Ia
      Posts
      1,409
      My 67 sits pretty low. 3" absolutely isn't enough to the engine cradle. If you're gonna run a Pontiac engine you'll tear the headers to shreds as they all hang low...ask me how I know. If you're going to run headers get the Doug Dports over the super comps. They're a far better fit and much higher. if youre interested I have pictures comparing the two. Anyhow I think I have a bit over 4" of cradle clearance now with no issues and i drive a lot. It will be a few weeks until I can measure though.

      Name:  FB_IMG_1545405026283.jpg
Views: 375
Size:  65.8 KBName:  FB_IMG_1551821923133.jpg
Views: 383
Size:  83.9 KBName:  FB_IMG_1545405060217.jpg
Views: 380
Size:  59.9 KB
      -Nick
      -1967 GTO I drive and race
      -Build threads:
      -http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615847&page=23
      -https://www.pro-touring.com/showthre...project-thread


    10. #10
      Join Date
      Sep 2018
      Location
      Knoxville, TN
      Posts
      110
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Nicks67GTO View Post
      My 67 sits pretty low. 3" absolutely isn't enough to the engine cradle. If you're gonna run a Pontiac engine you'll tear the headers to shreds as they all hang low...ask me how I know. If you're going to run headers get the Doug Dports over the super comps.
      Was planning on Doug's, but I'm going to run a round port. Leaning towards teh Kaufman high port. But I need to talk to a few places, as I'm really bummed that they have all made teh exhaust valve smaller. Peak numbers aren't nearly as important on exhaust, it is very low lift flow (which is why you see a lot of 30 degree seats, rather than 45, where durability isn't as big a concern). It may, however, be related to the plug relocation, so I may be stuck with the smaller valve.

      I want to think you run 245's up front. Doing my best to get 275's in. Will have to roll the fender for the middle mount, but I think just that one spot. I'll likely have to work the inner fender in a few places. Unfortunately, I ordered a pair of those wheels pictured to check for fitment. Just a week and a half ago. Went to order the matching pair......discontinued. Not sure what I'll do, I may be able to run less BS in the rear when I switch to an early width axle (current one is a later one, 61.5" wide drum to drum, whereas the early ones are supposedly 60"). Are your rears 275's with 5.25" BS wheels? Going off of memory from reading your build page.
      67 GTO - Build underway
      66 Bronco U13 Roadster
      And a couple of 80's Porsches

    11. #11
      Join Date
      Feb 2005
      Location
      Waterloo, Ia
      Posts
      1,409
      Quote Originally Posted by 67King View Post
      Was planning on Doug's, but I'm going to run a round port. Leaning towards teh Kaufman high port. But I need to talk to a few places, as I'm really bummed that they have all made teh exhaust valve smaller. Peak numbers aren't nearly as important on exhaust, it is very low lift flow (which is why you see a lot of 30 degree seats, rather than 45, where durability isn't as big a concern). It may, however, be related to the plug relocation, so I may be stuck with the smaller valve.

      I want to think you run 245's up front. Doing my best to get 275's in. Will have to roll the fender for the middle mount, but I think just that one spot. I'll likely have to work the inner fender in a few places. Unfortunately, I ordered a pair of those wheels pictured to check for fitment. Just a week and a half ago. Went to order the matching pair......discontinued. Not sure what I'll do, I may be able to run less BS in the rear when I switch to an early width axle (current one is a later one, 61.5" wide drum to drum, whereas the early ones are supposedly 60"). Are your rears 275's with 5.25" BS wheels? Going off of memory from reading your build page.
      The smaller exhaust valves are not a big deal on the aftermarket heads. My 433 has 312cfm Dport E heads and they'll easily support 600hp. High ports are a 700hp head out if the box I believe, they'll also limit hood clearance and block the front water crossover bypass. If you dont have headers already, yeah the round ports are a better option though. I'm in 245s up front. Eventually I might be fitting 275s if it's not going to be a problem. In the rear, 275s on a 18x9 5.75" bs and a 1/4" spacer so 5.5 would have been the rightnumber. That said you have to measure yourself. My numbers might not be right for you.
      -Nick
      -1967 GTO I drive and race
      -Build threads:
      -http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=615847&page=23
      -https://www.pro-touring.com/showthre...project-thread


    12. #12
      Join Date
      Sep 2018
      Location
      Knoxville, TN
      Posts
      110
      Country Flag: United States
      Thanks for the input, everyone.

      Nick - I used to do engine development for one of the OEM's. I have a different approach. I'd rather get the same power with a milder cam and have a decent idle and all of that, but that's a whole 'nother discussion!

      Okay, so the spindles are indeed a larger drop than GW advertises on their site. They advertise that they are 1" drop. However, in conjunction with their lower control arms, they are 2" drop. There is a 5" difference between the center of the spindle and the center of the LCA's ball joint (measured 5" on one side, 5-1/16" on the other, but the center of the ball joint won't be as precise). I re-assembled the factory spindle and LCA, and it was 3 inches. So....yeah.

      On the rear and backspace. I had completely forgotten about soemthing until you mentioned your numbers, Nick. My car was a very late car, 05E (5th week of May). Some of the later 67's had 68+ axles. I had completely forgotten about that. I have a later axle under the car, now. It is 61.5" with the drums in place. The original axle is a little over 61" withOUT the drums. They are suppsoed to be 60" with the drums. So I actually will be fine with the 5.5" backspacing it looks like, once I get a new sufficiently sized axle. Just won't be able to rotate the tires as I had hoped.
      67 GTO - Build underway
      66 Bronco U13 Roadster
      And a couple of 80's Porsches





    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com