oddball front susp idea

[gen3bu]

can anyone tell me where the bumpsteer would end up if i installed fourth gen camaro(ls1) front suspension on a g-body.

i know that i would have to narrow the inner tie rods to fit the rack and pinion, make supports for the uca/strut. i would also move the lca mounts to the same width as the inner tie rod pivots.

i would like to get the front suspension set up so that i can run stock 4th gen or c5 wheels with out spacers/adapters on the front and this suspension will clear a 17 x 9.5 wheel easily.



do you guys see any major down falls to this idea. i am aslo considering the use of the 4th gen abs system (w/ tcs?)

surgery will soon begin on the three link rear, any suggestions on an IC location?



thanks
kevin

[Stu Seitz]

If your going to cut that much why don't you just but c5/c6 parts in?

[sinned]

Positively no way in the world to determine that without actually doing it and taking a measurement. The amount of “minor” fabrication work you are talking about is akin to cutting the front frame off and starting from scratch. If you have a fair amount of experience (which I don’t believe to be true based on the question in itself), this would be a doable project. As it is I would look into seeking professional help if you are serious.

[gen3bu]

If your going to cut that much why don't you just but c5/c6 parts in?

price out all of the involved parts. i am split on this idea and the g5 from sc&c, but the g5 does not push the hub out far enough to reduce the scrub radius.

[gen3bu]

If you have a fair amount of experience (which I don’t believe to be true based on the question in itself), this would be a doable project. As it is I would look into seeking professional help if you are serious.

what type of experience?
-fab
-susp design
-welding

of coarse it is doable with enough determination.

what kind of professional help?
-fab
-design
-mental

i am asking the guys that do this kind of stuff for a living if it feasible. we are thinking out side of the box.

who had the idea to put c5 susp on a g-body? i am looking for answers from marcus, katz, pozzi, etc,etc.

thanks

[gen3bu]

it seems to me that it is a decent suspension design. look at how much cash is spent on alll the 1st gen on this site to improve their handling and in the end they handle as well as a stock 4th gen as per nineball, referrring to his red 69. why not scale the 4th gen down to fit and then upgrade from there. it all sounds logical to me but it is late.

[sinned]

what type of experience?Yes, all of them
-fab
-susp design
-welding

of coarse it is doable with enough determination.

what kind of professional help?Again, all of them
-fab
-design
-mental

i am asking the guys that do this kind of stuff for a living if it feasible. we are thinking out side of the box.

who had the idea to put c5 susp on a g-body? i am looking for answers from marcus, katz, pozzi, etc,etc.

thanks

Sure it's feasable, but why? Just to be different? Are you looking to gain some kind of performance advantage? Does the fact that it was installed on a 4th gen "F" body mean it must perform well? I just wonder why you want to go through all this trouble and what kind of gains you hope to expect.

BTW, Katz won't be joining us here in pro-bling much anymore, Mark may check in.

[gen3bu]

what happened to katz?

i want 275 to 295 rubber on the front with a more aggressive camber curve.

my goals for the car are 1.1.-1.2g on a skid pad, low 9 1/4's and 60-0 in 90-95 feet, then i will make it pretty. the g5 setup is a very nice piece but it requires a lot of cash. the 4th gen parts are easier to get and much cheaper. plus the aftermarket support is less expenxive.

and it is a very different setup. the car is getting back-halfed soon and i want an equally performing front suspension.

i have driven many stock and modified 4th gens and they are a very good starting point. i have aslo driven many c5's and i like the characteristics/feedback of the 4th gen better.

what is the max potential of a stock type suspension g-body with bolt-ons?

[gen3bu]

btw i am looking for professional advise and experience, not getting shot down by some smartass for having a differnt idea. like the title says it is an oddball idea.

[zbugger]

Dennis, you're thinking too much again. Simplify....

gen3bu, I do remember someone tackling this same thing on their project, but I think it was with a much older car. Too bad I don't remember who or what car. Anyway, if you're willing to try it, I say go for it. But there's much more to fitting a tire that size than just the suspension. I think the difficulties lay in keeping the original geometry intact while transfering everything over. Start with getting a suspension design program, and plug in all the numbers for the 4th gen suspension. Then you can go from there to figure out all the fabrication necessary to swap everything over to your car. Basically, what's on the line here is your time and research to begin the project.

Oh, and keep in mind that you shouldn't let others influence your own decisions when it comes to being different. It's always good to be different. It's just a lot of work doing what you want to do, and I'm too lazy to do most of the research myself. I say check it out. All the work may be worth it.

[sinned]

I'm trying to be nice Allen, really.



If I understand correctly you assume that putting the under pinnings of a chassis that handles well under your chassis will make your chassis handle similar. If that is really what you think you couldn't possibly be more wrong. That chassis and all its parts were specifically designed to work together, not on any other car. Hanging 4th gen parts on a C5 would not make the C5 feel like a 4th gen. Again I ask, why do you want 4th gen parts besides the "different" factor?

[Stu Seitz]

Not trying to be mean here but you may want to lower your goal of 1.1 or 1.2 on a skid pad. Once agian I'm not trying to shoot you down but that's Ultima GTR territory. Feel free to correct me but I think big red is only around 1.05 or somthing; down force (a wing or splitter) might be the deciding factor

[Marcus SC&C]

Believe it or not we have a G chassis with a 4th gen spindle mounted on it sittin down in the fab shop! We had a customer that was hot on the idea so we did some fitting and checking for him. It`s not a practical conversion to bolt them onto a G body. For one they`re 17 freakin inches tall! That puts the mounts for the stubby UCAs at about valve cover level. The steering arms are very short so even if you could get the bumpsteer okay the ratio would be so fast the car would be all over the road. A better idea if you wanna use the 4th gen frontend (which has decent geometry overall) would be to use the whole lower suspension cradle out of the 4th gen which mounts the LCAs and the R&P. You`d still have the UCA mounting issues but the lower half would be box stock 4th gen geometry and you get a decent R&P out of it. The track width is a lot wider than a G body though. You`d need to run C5 front wheels and probably flare the fenders an inch or so on each side. FWIW this customer decided for all the work to go full custom on fabbed rails instead. Frankly we get comparable or better geometry out of existing packages (G-5 and Stg.2),just without the R&P and with a less ideal scrub radius. Honestly driving our G-5 Cutlass and `99 C5 back to back on the same roads you`d think you`d notice the huge difference in scrub radius but you actually don`t even when you push em pretty hard (4 wheel drifts etc.). You`ll get a MUCH bigger difference by upgrading to the next better set of shocks or tires.
Skid pad numbers aren`t necessarily what I`d be shooting for. You can put some really sticky tires,super stiff springs,shocks and bars on just about any car and get good skid pad numbers but it`s dynamic handling and street manners might be horrible. Mark SC&C

[gen3bu]

i did some test fitting tonight. the uca is touching the valve cover. if i move all of the mounts out 3.25 inches it will clear fine and i like the look of the c5 wheel on it (backspacing more than style). the 4th gen spindles also clear a 16x8 wheel with 5.0 backspacing with a ton of room to spare, unlike the stocker.

allen - thanks for the positive comments.

marcus - could we come up with a g5 setup that moves the hub out @ 3 inches per side. that will get that backspacing the way i want it and it will reduce SR. personally i am sick of seeing deep dish wheels. i would like to get a similar look to the 4th gen and c4/5/6 vette wheels, personally i like it.

stuart - with 275-295 front and 345 rear tires all will be "R" compounds. maybbe it is a lofty goal but it is a goal. i want the car to be very well balance in performance and driveability. if it only pulls 1.05 i wont be too upset.

i am also considering a 3 channel abs system and possible tcs. the camaro parts are sounding very good to me at this point. the abs from a 93-97 will work great considering it uses the vss in the trans for the rear wss, and it already has the t56 in it.

i will post pix tomorrow night.

[Norm Peterson]

You need to be looking at 9" or wider wheels up front even with just the 275-width rubber. F-body autocrossers on R-compounds are running anywhere between 17 x 9 and at least 17 x 11 with 275/40 to 315/35 tires (and hitting at least instantaneously peak g's above 1.1).

Norm

[Marcus SC&C]

Gen3bu, of course moving all the mounts 3.25" outboard would put most of the front tires outside of the front fenders. Were you using a G body UCA? Can I guess from your name that your 3rd gen is a Malibu? If so keep in mind that the front end sheetmetal is 1.5" narrower than a Monte. Stuffing 275-315 tires in there is going to be enough of a challenge without making the already too wide 4th gen front end even wider. ;)
Can we make a G-5 3" wider? Sure. You`ll need custom LCAs for starters. Then you should loose the frame spring pockets and switch to coilovers mounted farther outboard to get a decent motion ratio out of the springs/shocks with the longer arms (and you might as well make it better than stock while you`re at it). Front swaybar will need attention too. Longer adj. upper arms are no sweat. We`ve done a number of custom variations like this before. It`s a lot of fab work though and can get rather expensive. Mark SC&C

[Ralph LoGrasso]

i am also considering a 3 channel abs system and possible tcs. the camaro parts are sounding very good to me at this point. the abs from a 93-97 will work great considering it uses the vss in the trans for the rear wss, and it already has the t56 in it.

I would skip the ASR from a 4th gen. It's a very intrusive system that does not work very well, IMO. The first thing I do upon getting in my car is turn the ASR off.

[Norm Peterson]

I think that's a LS1-specific issue, and that for the LT1 years it's not a problem. Best bet for finding more information on this topic would be FRRAX.com .

I'm not sure whether anything else would need to be tinkered with to swap the ABS over to a different platform and/or a somewhat different tire size.

Norm

[Ralph LoGrasso]

Norm,

I've never driven an LT1 4th gen, so you may be right. The traction control in my buddies Z06 isn't intrusive, and he seems to think it works well. I'm not really a fan of TCS systems though, so I'm biased. Though, the system Jody was planning for his '69 before he sold it, looked very promising.

[gen3bu]

You need to be looking at 9" or wider wheels up front even with just the 275-width rubber. F-body autocrossers on R-compounds are running anywhere between 17 x 9 and at least 17 x 11 with 275/40 to 315/35 tires (and hitting at least instantaneously peak g's above 1.1).

Norm

I HAVE THE 17X8.5 C5 WHEELS ON IT NOW AND THERE IS @2.5 INCHES OF CLEARANCE TO THE SPINDLE UPRIGHT. I WAS PLANNING A 18X9.5 WITH 275/35/18'S MINIMUM. I AM PLANNING TO GET SOME FINAL MEASUREMENTS AND PUT THE MAX IN IT.