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

    Login / Register




    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
    Results 21 to 22 of 22
    1. #21
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Location
      Manteca, CA
      Posts
      383
      Thanks for the input Dave.....but I wanted to clarify one thing...... its really based on alot of Mustang II suspension....not a Corvette....so I wouldnt use the vette geometry as a starting point reference....

    2. #22
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Posts
      424
      Hi, I just saw this thread.



      About the suspension raising decision -

      I understand the desire to get the front end lowered, but I fail to see how the stock Mopar & RMS combo had any farther to go.

      No matter what you cut up, no matter what crossmembers & framerails you shift around . . . the car can still only go as low as the rocker panels hitting the pavement. And the fact is, that point of bottoming out is already pretty close to being reached even with the factory stock suspension when it's fully compressed.





      By the way, something to think about:

      It looks to me like the factory put the compressed bumpstop-ing point where they did for a good reason. If you get air under the front end General Lee style, then there's just enough room to bottom-out both front wheels, compress both tire sidewalls pretty badly, and still have just enough room to keep the K-frame from digging into the pavement.

      Or, you could blow out both front tires and then still bring the car down to a stop without digging the K-frame into the pavement. Which means at least a little bit of front suspension travel is still needed here, too.

      (They sure have the bases covered for a lotta bad contingencies, don't they? That's why they're a real designer/manufacturer and we're not. The aftermarket still doesn't hold a candle to the factories in terms of real world idiot-proofing.)




      I don't know the specifics of the RMS deal enough to say for sure that it'll go as low as the factory suspension travel already did, but I assume it probably would. Once that is reached I don't see too much point in trying to squeeze the wheels any higher up into the wheelwells.




      If you're hellbent on getting it that extra inch or two lower, I would vote with the others - damn the geometry calculations, just move the UCA mounts equally upwards and spare yourself the complications of it all.

      I don't say this out of laziness or lack of understanding. I've read and re-read the Herb Adams book until I wore out my first copy and bought another one. But I just think it's a better plan to keep it normal if you can here.



    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com