Fixing front suspension geometry

[Jarcaines]

Okay, I have a 68 Camaro that I want to make into a long term, low-budget Pro-Touring car. I have heard all the nightmares about the bad geometry in the front end of the 1 Gen. Camaros. I want to create a car that is going to be a lot of fun on a windy mountain road and up for a very occassional track day or autocross event.

I was planning on the G-mod at first, it seemed cheap and effective, but I have been reading around here and it seems the problem isn't just the lack of camber. So now I am considering Speed-Tech upper control arms or the AFX spindles.

Which of these is the most cost effective way to get the gemotry issues under control? Do I need some combination of these things?

I will also need to upgrade (again, cost is a huge consideration) to disc brakes when I do these mods.

Any suggestions or personal experience with any of the above mentioned things, or a better solution?

Thanks,
J.R.

[Procharmo]

I'm not a suspension expert. But I had a 1977 Camaro with sport front springs and everything else stock on the suspension. It then had a power adder (700hp+ estimated) intsalled which meant I couldn't drive fast unless in a sraight line and had to brake last week for corners.

I then intsalled Baer Track 13" front, 12" rear, SC&C UCA's, Global West LCA's, Strange adjustable shocks and Hotchkis 1 3/8" sway bar and now its drivable. In the UK its all corners especially in London.
The feel of the car encourages you to push on in corners. The brakes also give you the confidence to stay on the throttle longer.
Lastly the stock items were most probably worn out hence the massive performance gains. Just my experience limited to 1 test drive with the sway bar.

As for a better solution. I also drive a Porsche 996 C2. Its lowered and will out handle a F430. I think you'll agree its cheaper and much more fun to modify a musclecar. I can't even get the rearend loose on the 911 without driving like a mad man. To much refinement = no fun!!!!!

[neki67]

Huge difference between 1st and 2nd gen.!

To make the most of what you have now, you can combine the Guldstrand mod with the taller modular ball joints, SC&C are selling. That way you will have almost the same change as switching to the AFX spindle. To top that of you could go for the SPC arms SC&C is selling. These arms are cheaper than most tubular arms and gives you all you need to change the camber and caster without fooling around with alignment shims, none of the tubular arms do that for you! Give Marcus a call at SC&C and he'll be happy to help you out. Or you can have a look at his posts and read through them to get more info.

Tyler's (ATS) daily driver which is featured in another thread on this forum can also be inspirational in chosing the right components w/o breaking the bank.

When it comes to brakes Kore3 or Touring Classics offer you the best bang for the buck. From personal experience I can tell you Tobin at Kore3 offers great knowledge combined with perfect customer service. It's very difficult to beat their prices piecing together everything and doing it right the first time, which is also crucial when you're on a budget!

[Jarcaines]

Awesome! thanks for the advice.

[Damn True]

I'd strongly suggest you combine the Speed-Tech UCA/LCA with the ATS spindle. IMO it gives you the best combination of geometry and freedom to install wider front wheels/tires.

[Jarcaines]

The ATS spindles make the G-Mod unnecessary right? Esp. when combined with new UCAs? Or is the G-Mod and the tall ball joints that much more cost effective?

I do like the benefits of C6 brakes with the ATS spindle, is that worth the price difference?

Sorry to have so many questions, I am just trying to get a solid plan going before I get into this at all.

Thanks!

[Damn True]

You can go G-mod + improved UCA/LCA = better
Or you can go ATS spindle + improved UCA/LCA = WAY BETTER

There are some compromises in a tall ball joint, though I don't understand them well enough to articulate it with any authority.

[Jarcaines]

You can go G-mod + improved UCA/LCA = better
Or you can go ATS spindle + improved UCA/LCA = WAY BETTER

There are some compromises in a tall ball joint, though I don't understand them well enough to articulate it with any authority.

Do the lowers make a big difference too?

[Damn True]

With Speed-Tech yes. The rest not really.

The Speed-Tech arms feature an adjustable steering stop. This is the key to fitting a 275 front tire w/o rubbing. Speed-Tech is the only mfr that has it.

If you don't want to run a 275 up front though you don't "need" new LCA's, but it's a good idea to sandblast and inspect your OE arms for cracks and possibly box them for some additional strength if you plan to track the car.

[Jarcaines]

With Speed-Tech yes. The rest not really.

The Speed-Tech arms feature an adjustable steering stop. This is the key to fitting a 275 front tire w/o rubbing. Speed-Tech is the only mfr that has it.

If you don't want to run a 275 up front though you don't "need" new LCA's, but it's a good idea to sandblast and inspect your OE arms for cracks and possibly box them for some additional strength if you plan to track the car.

Okay, great info, Thanks!

[Damn True]

Keep an eye on this thread: https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/sh...highlight=trak

there'll be some more info there soon.

[Jarcaines]

Keep an eye on this thread: https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/sh...highlight=trak

there'll be some more info there soon.

Sweet. Will do.

[Marcus SC&C]

Okay, geometry change and improvement are done through relocation of suspension pickup (pivot) points. Arms that simply connect those same old points together cannot change or improve geometry in any way. They simply permit static alignment change. This is also beneficial but don`t confuse the two. The AFX spindles will provide the most radical geometry improvement, followed by our tall ball joints AND the G mod,followed by our X-Tall upper ball joint alone (no frame mods), followed by out std. tall ball joints alone. Significant geometry change almost always requires a change in upper A arms to match it and compliment it with performance alignment specs. In this way they are also very important, just don`t put the cart before the horse.
As stated above lower arms are typically not a performance improvement. I don`t consider a steering stop a performance mod,it just has the potential to make your turning radius larger. If you want to add one to any other arms just weld a nut to it and screw a bolt in it. The SPC tubular lower are the only ones I know of that have any actual advantages such as adjustable ride height, the ability to run either coil overs or conventional springs in the same arm,greasable delrin bushinsg std., extra wheel/tire clearance, altered arm geometry to allow maximum tire clearance at higher caster settings, optional modern progressive rate jounce bumpers, multiple swaybar end link mounting holed to adj. clearance and swaybar rate (through altering it`s motion ratio). Are they 100% necessary? No, but if your think you`d benefit from any of those features they`d be a nice addition to the package. Mark SC&C

[Jarcaines]

Mark, Thanks a ton, that is very helpful.

[neki67]

Tyler's (ATS) daily driver which is featured in another thread on this forum can also be inspirational in chosing the right components w/o breaking the bank.

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/sh...t=47129&page=3

https://www.pro-touring.com/forum/sh...ad.php?t=46466

I don`t consider a steering stop a performance mod,it just has the potential to make your turning radius larger. If you want to add one to any other arms just weld a nut to it and screw a bolt in it.

Exactly what I did. Quite simple and def. not a reason to buy a particular arm if/when you're on a budget.

[bbnova]

Would using the std. tall balljoints in a stock upper control arm result in binding at full droop?

Just curious.

[Procharmo]

Looks like I'm selling my Global West lowers and purchasing som SC&C's!

[Jarcaines]

Arms that simply connect those same old points together cannot change or improve geometry in any way. They simply permit static alignment change. This is also beneficial but don`t confuse the two.

So do all the aftermarket A-arms just use the same pivot points? I was under the impression most of them where improved over the stock points. Is there any way of knowing which do and don't? What about your SC&C arms?

Also, if you use arms with improved picot points, will it be overkill to go with the ATS spindles too?

So far I am liking the idea of the SC&C arms and the ATS spindle. I was planning on using a TVS kit as well, how will those all work together?

I have so many questions, probably some stupid ones, but you guys have been very helpful, thanks for all the comments.

[neki67]

All arms pivot at the same (stock) pivot points unless you do a mod like the Guldstrand mod, that's where you change the pivot points. Only thing that changes on the aftermarket arms is where the upper Balljoint is located. Roughly said; moving the upper BJ to the rear of the car will give you more caster.

[Jarcaines]

All arms pivot at the same (stock) pivot points unless you do a mod like the Guldstrand mod, that's where you change the pivot points. Only thing that changes on the aftermarket arms is where the upper Balljoint is located. Roughly said; moving the upper BJ to the rear of the car will give you more caster.

oh yeah, that makes sense.