67 GTO Rear Suspension Q's

[wmhjr]

You're on the right track. The stuff I got from Mark (along with his advice) has made my '66 more fun to drive than should be legal.

[Skip Fix]

I'm not disagreeing. I was just responding back to why they would be adjustable to begin with. These braces in particular aren't rocket science. All they do is connect a lower control arm mounting point to the crossmember/upper control arm mounting point. It's not like they change the geometry or anything. I'd guess you could make an argument that because they're adjustable, the design would allow them to flex just a little more, but even that sounds a little crazy to me.

Yep, if they are half the price might be a piece to consider.

FWIW the guy that ran the speed shop when I was in high school(early 70s) had a 64 Chevelle BBC Mod Prod car(big slicks legal) that "spun" the rear end housing mounts because the very early Chevelles did not have even the stamped steel ones like the stick GTOs got later on. So I think they are probably a worth wile addition for any kind of traction and alot of power.

[wmhjr]

The GTO story is interesting. They weren't even available at first, then they were options with manual trannies. The first year they were installed on the manual trans cars they were a dealer installed item. They finally later got installed on manual tranny cars at the factory.

There's no reason for anyone having a traditional rear suspension to not install them. They provide some additional support that is very helpful. I used the Edelbrock ones. IMHO they all function the same.