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

    Login / Register




    Results 1 to 9 of 9
    1. #1
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      Location
      Ca
      Posts
      201
      Country Flag: United States

      Help with 4 link setup

      Hey everyone, quick question to ask... I'm setting up/installing a tri 4 link in a first gen camaro. I have the uca's installed perfect. But the lca's are alittle off and I just want to know how bad the car is going to ride if I leave it. What I have is about a 4* down angle on the lca from the rearend to the chassis. I know it needs to be level or at the most 1* up at ride height. I'd have to really cut into the floor or cut up really nice rearend brackets to fix this. How bad is it goin to ride? DD, autocross, time attack.... Nothin to crazy



    2. #2
      Join Date
      May 2007
      Location
      Orlando, FL
      Posts
      215
      The angle of the lower link (or, for that matter, the upper link) is unimportant. The important matter is the intersection of the link lines, which defines the location of the instant center. This, in turn, determines the percent antisquat.

      I would encourage you to read Page 45 of my site.
      http://www.racetec.cc/shope

    3. #3
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Since hard cornering activities were specifically mentioned, I think more information is needed. Link pivot locations also define the geometric roll center and axle roll steer effects.

      I have to admit having curiosity about what is defining "perfect installation" of the uppers. This is not a comment on fabrication, but on what idea of "perfect geometry" that it might be tied to.


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    4. #4
      Join Date
      Jul 2006
      Location
      Phoenix
      Posts
      467
      Not slamming the OP in any way but is there such a thing as a "perfect installation" when pretty much everything is a compromise?
      Erik

      https://www.pro-touring.com/showthre...without-a-name

      Camaro LS2, T56, 12 bolt, C6 Z06 brakes, Rushforth Super Spokes, ATS Spindles
      2006 Chevy Trailblazer SS

    5. #5
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      Location
      Ca
      Posts
      201
      Country Flag: United States
      Nothing is perfect in life! As for the uca's, I had a real hard time getting the rearend centered... So now that it's centered I'm goin to say the arms are perfect That's all I ment by saying that..

    6. #6
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      If your lowers are parallel to car centerline in plan view (as I suspect they may be), I'd try pretty hard to get them closer to 2° down in order to put the roll steer at a better starting point. If possible, consider trying to make up some of the change in inclination at each end of each LCA instead of all at one end. I suspect that the combination of plan-view-parallel and 4° down for the LCAs is going to be a little clumsy when asked to do slalom maneuvers.


      The question I should have asked first - is that 4° down angle measured with the car at full weight including at least some fuel in the tank? Half an inch ride height difference probably translates to about a 1.5° change in LCA inclination.


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A

    7. #7
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      Location
      Ca
      Posts
      201
      Country Flag: United States
      Thanks for the info! Good stuff! Right now my rear end is welded I to place at ride height. I guess if I have to I could just raise the right height to get that lca closer to a 2* down angle.

    8. #8
      Join Date
      Nov 2009
      Location
      Ca
      Posts
      201
      Country Flag: United States
      I had decided to try and draw out my rear 4 link on paper. From what I see my IC falls about 22" behind the center of the front axle line.
      With just an estamated CG line my IC is way below the 100% anti squat line. From what other people have seen on here I'm wondering if I'm around the same ballpark?

    9. #9
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Draw a line from the rear tire contact patch through the IC and extend it forward to the front axle line. The height where this construction line crosses the front axle line divided by the CG height is the % anti-squat.

      Very roughly with some mental math: for a PT sort of car, if the IC you have now is about 10" above the ground, it's at least reasonable for the purpose. A more dedicated dragstrip car would probably have the height of an IC at the same longitudinal location closer to 16".


      Norm
      '08 GT coupe, 5M, suspension unstockish (the occasional track toy)
      '19 WRX, Turbo-H4/6M (the family sedan . . . seriously)
      Gone but not forgotten dep't:
      '01 Maxima 20AE 5M, '10 LGT 6M, '95 626, V6/5M; '79 Malibu, V8/4M-5M; '87 Maxima, V6/5M; '72 Pinto, I4/4M; '64 Dodge V8/3A




    Advertise on Pro-Touring.com