Guldstrand Mod and ATS Chicane kit

[wickdss]

Has anybody done the Guldstrand mod and used the ATS Chicane kit at the same time? I have my Chicane kit mocked up and ready to weld. Problem is when I measure out the dimensions to drill new holes there looks to be no room to run my bolts for the upper control arm. The lower rear hole interferes with the ATS bracket. This is for a 69 Camaro.



Thanks
Troy

[MrQuick]

you'll have to base drop it... https://www.pro-touring.com/showthre...-hard-way-quot

[wickdss]

you'll have to base drop it... https://www.pro-touring.com/showthre...-hard-way-quot

Thanks for the link!


Troy

[killer69]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my Camaro with the GM done, now i cut off the mounts years ago and moved them instedad of just redrilling.
you do not have to move the bolt holes BACK as the GM shows, if your using a tubular UCA that has caster built into it. The rear bolt hole for the upper control arm gets very close to the Chicane bracket. here is a pictuer of it all installed on my car with the bracket cut off and moved.



Here is the original ATS Chicane as you can see the Chicane bracket is in a slightly different location on both. See how the rear of the Chicane bracket mounts to the original UCA mount and on the one above it is mounted forward of the UCA mount.



In the top picture I ended up with 8 deg of caster and -.25 camber. but it is a drag car
hope that helps.

[wickdss]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is my Camaro with the GM done, now i cut off the mounts years ago and moved them instedad of just redrilling.
you do not have to move the bolt holes BACK as the GM shows, if your using a tubular UCA that has caster built into it. The rear bolt hole for the upper control arm gets very close to the Chicane bracket. here is a pictuer of it all installed on my car with the bracket cut off and moved.



Here is the original ATS Chicane as you can see the Chicane bracket is in a slightly different location on both. See how the rear of the Chicane bracket mounts to the original UCA mount and on the one above it is mounted forward of the UCA mount.



In the top picture I ended up with 8 deg of caster and -.25 camber. but it is a drag car
hope that helps.

Thanks for the pics, and yes it does help. They way I have mine trimmed to fit looks just like your 2nd pic with the stock UCA mount. Since I have mine trimmed and fitted just like I like it I think I might skip the Guldstrand.


Thanks
Troy

[killer69]

if you can adjust your Chicane brackets it would be wort doing the GM as it will improve the suspension geometry by a niticable amount.

[chicane67]

ATS spindles... Guldstrand mod... and cut mounts...

Remember, too much of something... isn't good. The negative camber of those three combined is going to be pretty aggressive... like, too aggressive. When we desgined the spindle it was to be used with OE stamped or AM tubular control arms that would increase the amount of available castor... and in testing, the camber curve with the spindle and the Guldstrand mod was really aggressive. Pre production analysis of kinematic geometry, showed that if a customer wanted to do both... that it would be better suited for lighter spring rates and use less static negative camber... meaning, closer to zero camber.

I would advise you to use... and it would be a good idea to use (for a couple of reasons)... an ALLEN head bolt for the cross shaft. With it's reduced head diameter, it will free up some interfearance that you are having.

[wickdss]

ATS spindles... Guldstrand mod... and cut mounts...

Remember, too much of something... isn't good. The negative camber of those three combined is going to be pretty aggressive... like, too aggressive. When we desgined the spindle it was to be used with OE stamped or AM tubular control arms that would increase the amount of available castor... and in testing, the camber curve with the spindle and the Guldstrand mod was really aggressive. Pre production analysis of kinematic geometry, showed that if a customer wanted to do both... that it would be better suited for lighter spring rates and use less static negative camber... meaning, closer to zero camber.

I would advise you to use... and it would be a good idea to use (for a couple of reasons)... an ALLEN head bolt for the cross shaft. With it's reduced head diameter, it will free up some interfearance that you are having.

Crap! Now I dont know what to do and im using my stock spindle. I just dont want to try and do the GM with my brackets allready fitted mess them up and have to order another set. But it seems stupid not to do it with the car at this stage.


Thanks
Troy

[chicane67]

Stock spindle ? I read around that... sorry.

Don't sweat it then... it's not an issue with the/a stock spindle height.

[killer69]

i was going to clarify Chicane67 but you caught it.
we never recommend the GM with tall ATS spindles. like you said TOO much.
wickdss if i were you i would do the GM considering the point your at.

[TheBandit]

Did you tack in the rear support yet? Maybe you could still use the redrilll method and modify the rear Chicane support to clear the UCA fastener. I'm thinking maybe remove the red section shown in this attachment. Alternatively you could do the GM the "hard way" as shown above.

Other geometry-changing alternatives to the GM include tall upper balljoint or ATX spindles.

[wickdss]

Did the GM and got the Chicane kit in. Finished the front end and got the brakes and wheels on. Thanks for the help!!!


Troy

[killer69]

that car is going to look sick!! whith those wheels and the white!

[wickdss]

QUOTE=killer69;806382]that car is going to look sick!! whith those wheels and the white![/QUOTE]

I think it will look sweet. Cant wait to get the rear done on the back wheels on it.

[


Troy