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

    Login / Register



    Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 ... LastLast
    Results 101 to 120 of 388
    1. #101
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      Norm you might not have seen this yet, This post is from the negative camber thread at MCSS from last year...had to go looking for it after the new discoveries.


      Quote Originally Posted by SSLance
      Quote Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

      I'm also having a bit of difficulty visualizing how the rear cambers could be significantly different, although the difference would tend to explain the greater sensitivity to throttle in left turns that I think I'm seeing in the various videos. Second cup of coffee isn't helping, either.


      Norm

      You know, now that you mention that, the car is way more sensitive to loosing the back in left hand turns vs right handers...

      Can that small of a difference in rear camber, rear toe, or weight differences really make that much of a difference in left turns and right turns?

      And if the rear axle tubes weren't welded perfectly straight onto the center section, and that created the camber difference between sides...how would changing the front settings change that rear camber?

      I'm also curious how making very small changes on the front of this car, can affect the rear toe?

      What I know now is...yes the axle tubes are not perfectly straight on my rear axle, that is a fish to fry another day. But the real culprit to the uneven feeling in the turns is in the position of the passenger side front LCA.



      Almost a year later...
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car


    2. #102
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      I should probably update this to add...do not use this method of setting your car up for measuring.




      I then made a careful measurement of the spindle heights and removed the front tires and set bottle jacks under the A-Arms as close to the ball joints as I could get them and adjusted the screws in the bottle jacks to get the spindle heights at exactly the same height as they were with the front tires on. This allowed me much more room to make the measurements needed.





      Ron entered the numbers I gave him after the initial measuring using this method, then got back to me to go over some discrepancies...things weren't adding up. So I put the car back on the front tires on the rack and remeasured all of the height numbers...and they were all quite different.

      I'm guessing the bottle jacks kept the suspension from settling completely like it will when sitting on the tires themselves. Was a nice try I thought, but in action, did not work as hoped. Part of the learning experience I guess.

      Eventually I plan on fabbing up or purchasing some steel plates to bolt onto the hubs that will extend down to the ramp to set the hub at ride height. They'll have to be a bit adjustable height wise and also be able to slide around a bit once on the ground surface to allow the suspension to settle completely. What they will do though is not only allow more access for pivot point measuring, but also provide a nice flat base to measure from for setting alignment specs once changes have been made. One or two trips to the alignment shop saved should more than pay for the stands I believe.
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    3. #103
      Join Date
      Nov 2012
      Location
      Sacramento, CA
      Posts
      1,918
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post
      Hi Ron,

      Not necessarily a primary cause.

      I see it as something that causes the local tire loading at the very outer edges of the contact patches to vary a little depending on whether it's a ridge or a groove that's underneath there
      Absolutely.

      , and this might be clouding the picture a bit.
      No clouds. All clear.

      Tire size vs wheel width may even be involved with this.
      I concur, if the tire was on a wider rim, with more psi, the situation would be lessened.

      I do know that kind of road surface sure feels different ("woozy") to drive over even when you aren't driving hard. Only one car/wheel/tire combination I've ever had might not have felt like that.

      Norm
      In the front, the tires push on both surfaces when turned far enough. The front end geometry & excessive body roll are causing the outside tire to go into positive dynamic camber & the inside tire to go into negative camber. Lance's helpful video provided insight & started on us on this working relationship. The tire loosing contact patch is the primary cause of the push. When it happens on the grooved concrete, it obviously adds another dynamic to the tires.

      On pavement, the rear tires get a little "bound up" when the front tires go into a push condition, but are not snapping loose in this situation. The oscillations initiated from the grooved concrete are causing the rear tires to loose grip in that section, making the car momentarily loose, until Lance counter steers & it "catches".

      The rear springs being too soft of rate & older shocks with weak valving are not able to control it. The soft rear springs ... combined with his rear sway bar & roll center ... are also contributing to his push condition ... as the car is not rolling equally or balanced.

      During cornering, the suspension is traveling much farther in the rear than the front ... more than twice as much. As you probably know, when that happens, the car rolls diagonally ... working the outside rear tire more (increasing rear grip) and working the inside front tire less (decreasing front grip). This issue is simply compounding the push issue ... as is the uneven surface of the grooved concrete.

      Lance & I are focused on both ends of the car ... with plans to travel the front end farther ... travel the rear end less ... and roll less. But first, we're working on steering geometry to correct the dynamic wheel angles to maximize front tire contact patch.

      Last edited by Ron Sutton; 07-19-2013 at 10:19 PM.

    4. #104
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
      Norm you might not have seen this yet, This post is from the negative camber thread at MCSS from last year...had to go looking for it after the new discoveries.
      I chased it down, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around the "cross" being so much. Particularly when the 'before' cross was 0.3° smaller - it's still too easy to blame alignment setup error/shift. Otherwise I'm looking for almost a visible kink in the left side axle tube midway-ish out between the pumpkin and the axle end . . . like maybe under the left rear spring?

      But anyway, all of those rear cambers are less than the amount the axle rolls due to the differences in tire compression from load transfer, and the right side will go further positive than the left at the same lateral g, so it still sounds more left turn sensitive no matter which set of rear camber numbers you care to use for this anyway.


      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

    5. #105
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      I think the "problem" has been there all along, to one degree or another. Through all of the changes I've made so far, the car has always handled differently turning left than when turning right. I've just had to adjust my driving style to fit it, never really knew what the cause was. The side to side differences I found in the frame mounting points of the front LCAs along with the resulting different positions the lower ball joints are in side to side were what Ron and the software used to come to the conclusions he posted above.

      Just one example showed when I put the DSE front UCAs on last summer, at the alignment shop we didn't have enough stud on the passenger side frame mounts to get the caster to the same point as we had on the driver's side, while retaining the same camber setting...we had to put the offset slugs in the cross bar on the passenger side only to get the two sides close to even.

      What is amazing to me is how little the differences are at the mounting points, yet how much they affect the actions of the spindle\ball joints out at the other end of the control arms, and how those actions affect things like Roll Center the amount they do.
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    6. #106
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Ron Sutton View Post
      The rear springs being too soft of rate & older shocks with weak valving are not able to control it. The soft rear springs ... combined with his rear sway bar & roll center ... are also contributing to his push condition ... as the car is not rolling equally or balanced.

      The shock issue is interesting. My understanding of the IAS shocks is that they can differentiate on their rebound side between the chassis moving upward as in roll and the wheel moving downward as into a pothole, and apply different amounts of damping using a Ricor valve (some sort of inertia valve) like a hydraulic switch.

      I wonder how badly the inertia valves are getting confused by the combination of chassis-up due to roll plus the up/down of wheel chatter. In that scenario, does the valve allow "full" fluid bypass through the piston, some bypass, or none at all? I suspect that once roll is essentially fully developed that the valve might be migrating to somewhere in the middle of its travel, doing a little chattering of its own there, bypassing at least some fluid, and generally behaving like a tired conventional shock. And it would still pass a static-ish "bounce test" just fine.


      Got it on the rest.


      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. #107
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
      I think the "problem" has been there all along, to one degree or another. Through all of the changes I've made so far, the car has always handled differently turning left than when turning right. I've just had to adjust my driving style to fit it, never really knew what the cause was.
      Makes sense that the better you get as a driver, the more these little things get noticed.


      The side to side differences I found in the frame mounting points of the front LCAs along with the resulting different positions the lower ball joints are in side to side were what Ron and the software used to come to the conclusions he posted above.

      Just one example showed when I put the DSE front UCAs on last summer, at the alignment shop we didn't have enough stud on the passenger side frame mounts to get the caster to the same point as we had on the driver's side, while retaining the same camber setting
      Don't you just love "factory tolerances"?

      ...we had to put the offset slugs in the cross bar on the passenger side only to get the two sides close to even.
      Bet it was at the rear shim pack and involved a header tube. At my autocross alignment I got awfully close to running out of threads there as well.

      What is amazing to me is how little the differences are at the mounting points, yet how much they affect the actions of the spindle\ball joints out at the other end of the control arms, and how those actions affect things like Roll Center the amount they do.
      I think you'd have to be the suspension's original designer/engineer to be ably to look at a sheet of numbers and instantly know what they all meant. Or somebody of equal or higher talent. For the rest of us, it's a matter of actually running the numbers and looking at the plots that makes it make sense. Ergo, Performance Trends and other commercially available softwares in Ron's case and spreadsheets in mine (never could get the Perf Trends demo to work on my computer, so I wasn't about to throw any money at it).


      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

    8. #108
      Join Date
      Nov 2012
      Location
      Sacramento, CA
      Posts
      1,918
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by Norm Peterson View Post

      The shock issue is interesting. My understanding of the IAS shocks is that they can differentiate on their rebound side between the chassis moving upward as in roll and the wheel moving downward as into a pothole, and apply different amounts of damping using a Ricor valve (some sort of inertia valve) like a hydraulic switch.

      I wonder how badly the inertia valves are getting confused by the combination of chassis-up due to roll plus the up/down of wheel chatter. In that scenario, does the valve allow "full" fluid bypass through the piston, some bypass, or none at all? I suspect that once roll is essentially fully developed that the valve might be migrating to somewhere in the middle of its travel, doing a little chattering of its own there, bypassing at least some fluid, and generally behaving like a tired conventional shock. And it would still pass a static-ish "bounce test" just fine.

      Got it on the rest.


      Norm
      Although I know a guy that worked for Edelbrock valving shocks ... I am not familiar with that shock design feature, so it's outside my wheel house. I can tell the valving is weak & the shock is not controlling the wheel when I watched the video.

      Since the shocks are old, one of the changes Lance is planning in the future will be purchasing shocks, instead of revalving these. I will suggest a valving curve for the new shocks to go along with the suspension strategy he decides on.

      But all these changes take money ... Lance's money ... so we're on the same page that the improvement of his Monte Carlo will take time & be done in steps.

      Please stay with us as we make these steps.


      .

    9. #109
      Join Date
      Nov 2002
      Location
      state of confusion
      Posts
      1,499
      Country Flag: United States
      I'd specifically looked into them myself quite a few years ago. On the surface, it sounded like a good concept, so I did my research on them and ultimately decided against them. Can't remember exactly why any longer, only that it was with less well developed reasoning than what I posted above (because back then I knew even less about shocks). FWIW, I ended up getting Bilsteins, with the front shock part number being for the S10 and assumed to be a better match for the 640# springs.


      I know - it can be awfully easy to spend somebody else's money.


      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

    10. #110
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      Well, we made a pretty good jump on spending some of Lance's money this week.

      Phase one parts have been ordered, now we are just waiting in parts jail for all of them to come in. I'll document what we ordered and the installation process once they all get here. Should be a pretty major difference in geometry and setup once they are all installed.

      One of the parts Ron suggested was a much bigger sway bar for the front...he says once we get the front suspension traveling again, it will be much needed. A popular upgrade for these cars is a 36 mm bar from a 3rd Gen Camaro...and I found one this week locally so I cleaned it up, painted it and went ahead and installed it today.

      From just a short road trip to the car wash and back, I can tell a difference already. Turn in seems much more crisp and the car definitely stays flatter. Tomorrow will be the real test though as our SCCA Solo Event 8 is scheduled. The car is prepped and on the trailer, can't wait to get back out there.
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    11. #111
      Join Date
      Jul 2005
      Location
      Grain Valley, MO
      Posts
      92
      Country Flag: United States
      Lance, I had a blast riding along for yesterday's autocross. You're going to be giving me serious fits by next season!

      P.S. I call dibs on another ride once you get the rest of the parts installed.

    12. #112
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      No problem, as you can tell I have a blast out there just driving...even more fun to share it with a passenger.

      So I wanted to do some before and after suspension cam shots, yesterday was the before...

      http://youtu.be/FqR2GJ1LPM0

      I couldn't find a suitable spot in the back to put the camera to get any rear suspension shots, I'll work on that before the next autocross in two weeks. The bigger bar up front really helped the front stick and kept the car flatter in the corners. It'll be interesting to see what if any still shots our photographer grabbed of the car in the corners and if it looks any flatter. Seat of the pants told me it was significant though.



      Meanwhile, the first box of new parts showed up today...



      I'll go over all of them in detail once they all show up. Stay tuned...
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    13. #113
      Join Date
      Nov 2012
      Location
      Sacramento, CA
      Posts
      1,918
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by SSLance View Post
      Well, we made a pretty good jump on spending some of Lance's money this week.

      Yes we did spend some of your money. Not a ton ... but hey ... there's still time.

      In a PM, I proposed to Lance the following changes:
      A. New LCA's that move the lower ball joint forward for more caster ... and replaces the worn out bushings in his stock LCAs with poly
      B. Taller lower ball joints to move the roll center as outlined in the coming graphs ... and increase camber gain.
      C. Raise the car 1" front & rear ... to increase travel.
      D. Bigger front sway bar.
      E. Stiffer rear springs
      F. Adjusters for all 4 springs to adjust ride height & corner weights.
      G. Tie rod kit with spindles studs to correct bump steer.
      H. Modifying & correcting the pivot angle of passenger side LCA.
      I. Adding additional caster with LCA pivot modifications on both sides.

      I ran some new calcs with raising the car 1" and adding the 3/4" taller lower BJ's & like the set-up. I've attached the graphs. It creates a powerful migration of the roll center to the inside of each corner (evenly).

      Parts are starting to arrive & there is a lot of work to do. But the good news is Lance has to do all the work & I get to drink beer in the air conditioning while I wait on photos & updates.

      Here is the new front end geometry with corrections, ride height change & taller lower BJ's. The 2nd one is making RH turns & the 3rd one is making LH turns. Yes, I designed it to migrate the roll center that far & that direction.


      Reminder: The illustration is backwards, like your looking at the grill. The passenger side is on the left.


      This is at ride height.


      Name:  Front Geometry V5 Ride Height.jpg
Views: 1069
Size:  117.9 KB


      This is "in dive" suspension compress, body rolled & making RH turns.

      Name:  Front Geometry V5 RH Turns.jpg
Views: 1106
Size:  123.4 KB


      This is "in dive" suspension compress, body rolled & making LH turns.

      Name:  Front Geometry V5 LH Turns.jpg
Views: 1053
Size:  122.4 KB

      .

    14. #114
      Join Date
      Nov 2012
      Location
      Sacramento, CA
      Posts
      1,918
      Country Flag: United States
      Hey Lance,

      Is this you when the delivery guy shows up each day with new parts?

      :


    15. #115
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      It's like Christmas in July...over and over and over again...


      Name:  dancing_b.gif
Views: 956
Size:  1.8 KB Name:  woohoo.gif
Views: 932
Size:  12.6 KB Name:  bananawrench.gif
Views: 938
Size:  2.6 KB Name:  wereup.gif
Views: 930
Size:  6.2 KB
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    16. #116
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      So the parts are rolling in and phase 1 of the transformation is underway. I did the 36 MM sway bar swap up front last weekend and this weekend I'll do the spring upgrade in the rear.

      Here are some pictures of the new rear springs and spring height adjusters. The springs have a 2.5" pigtail on one end and a 4.375" ID on the other. The adjuster flange has a 3.5" OD the spring sets on. My friend John turned a set of spacers for me to make sure the big end of the spring stays centered on the adjuster.






      Here is a picture of one of the adjusters set over the spud on the chassis the top of the rear spring rides on.




      The DSE front springs that I am going to reuse have a 4.063" ID so John also made me a pair of spacers for the front adjusters.




      The adjusters offer 2" of range, from a 1/2" to 2 1/2"







      What gets me is these adjusters and springs cost about half as much as any off the shelf drop springs sold for these cars. Just think of how many of these cars have had springs changed out over and over again trying to get the spring rate and ride height where the owner wanted it... Doesn't this make a WHOLE lot more sense?

      Once I test fit everything, I'll decide if the adjuster will go on top of the spring or on the bottom, whichever it fits better on and gives the easiest access to is what I'll use. I think I'm going to drill a couple of holes in the adjuster flange and rosette weld the spacers to the flange to make sure they stay in place. On the big one for the rears, I can probably drill and tap it to run a screw into place but the small one for the fronts there probably isn't enough meat there for that. Heck, the spacers might not even be needed for the fronts, but they are there just in case.

      If everything goes smooth, I should have the rear springs mounted, adjusted and in place on Saturday. I then plan on putting the street wheels and tires back on the car and running our next SCCA event on Aug. 11th where I'll put the GoPro on each of the four wheels per run. This will give an apples to apples comparison to the video I did at the beginning of this thread, only with the sway bar upgrade up front and the stiffer springs upgrade in the rear.

      Then after that event, I'll start on the lower control arm upgrade up front which will be a bit more involved.
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    17. #117
      Join Date
      Dec 2010
      Posts
      709
      Thanks to Ron for turning me toward this thread (I read some before, but not up to date). It's funny how measuring things really starts you down the path of never getting done; it's also funny how it moves you toward improvements that you'd never even considered (or possibly thought possible).

      It's astounding how much body roll occurred in my archaic (yet effective) suspension design on the Falcon after putting bearings in all of the pivot points (short of the sway bar); the original design had bind that both limited and greatly slowed down suspension travel, which in many ways does not actually promote "safe" handling. In one way, I win as a result of my adjustable strut rods, since I can dial in more caster when the UCA angles start to get a bit scary (soon).

      I can feel the pain of dealing with front and rear suspensions at the same time, and I'll look forward to the changes of spring rate and roll center ideas as applied to Lance's car. I recently softened my own rear springs, and have somewhat lapsed on my Panhard adjustments in the face of many other changes I've recently made.

      Not that I'd know, but it seems like the idea of trying to balance the front with the rear will not be unlike trying to figure out how to live with kids...

      As a final thought, are the lower ball joints like K772s? Will camber gain really be greater with the LCAs starting from more of a parallel position (from the taller BJs), as opposed to the previously inverted situation (mine are somewhat inverted, due to ride height)?

      What rear spring rates are on the Lance-mobile? Is there a Panhard, and if so, does it adjust on both sides?

    18. #118
      Join Date
      Nov 2012
      Location
      Sacramento, CA
      Posts
      1,918
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by rustomatic View Post
      Thanks to Ron for turning me toward this thread (I read some before, but not up to date). It's funny how measuring things really starts you down the path of never getting done; it's also funny how it moves you toward improvements that you'd never even considered (or possibly thought possible).

      It's astounding how much body roll occurred in my archaic (yet effective) suspension design on the Falcon after putting bearings in all of the pivot points (short of the sway bar); the original design had bind that both limited and greatly slowed down suspension travel, which in many ways does not actually promote "safe" handling. In one way, I win as a result of my adjustable strut rods, since I can dial in more caster when the UCA angles start to get a bit scary (soon).

      I can feel the pain of dealing with front and rear suspensions at the same time, and I'll look forward to the changes of spring rate and roll center ideas as applied to Lance's car. I recently softened my own rear springs, and have somewhat lapsed on my Panhard adjustments in the face of many other changes I've recently made.

      Not that I'd know, but it seems like the idea of trying to balance the front with the rear will not be unlike trying to figure out how to live with kids...
      OMG ... that's funny !!!


      As a final thought, are the lower ball joints like K772s?
      Same style ball joint as stock ... press in & GM taper. But with 3/4" taller pins & SD strong housings from Howe


      Will camber gain really be greater with the LCAs starting from more of a parallel position (from the taller BJs), as opposed to the previously inverted situation (mine are somewhat inverted, due to ride height)?
      See answer below.

      What rear spring rates are on the Lance-mobile? Is there a Panhard, and if so, does it adjust on both sides?


      No panhard bar. Stock Monte Carlo triangulated 4-link. We'll post spring rates & sway bar sizes soon.

      Antime you are changing control arm angles, you are changing the camber gain. Use this to your advantage.

      A lot of stock production cars have the swing arms so far out … there is little to no camber gain … often camber loss. Plus, in many stock production cars the A-arm angles put the roll center so low it is below ground ... and the CG is high … giving it a ton of leverage to roll the car … which is part of why many stock production cars roll so much.

      Typically, when you dial in your front geometry … you’re goal is to place your RC for optimum handling for the type of driving you do (or find the best compromise) … and end up with the desired camber gain.

      Some quick tips:
      • Anytime you’re shortening the “swing arm” … you’re increasing camber gain … regardless of how you did it.
      • Anytime you’re shortening the swing arm length … & keep the IC at the same height … you’re raising the RC.
      • Conversely, lengthening the swing arm length … & keeping the IC at the same height … lowers the RC.
      • Anytime you’re raising the IC of the swing arms … and keeping the same swing arm length … you’re raising the RC.
      • Conversely, lowering the IC of the swing arms… and keeping the same swing arm length … lowers the RC.



    19. #119
      Join Date
      Aug 2012
      Location
      Peoria, AZ
      Posts
      1,730
      Country Flag: United States
      Quote Originally Posted by rustomatic View Post
      It's funny how measuring things really starts you down the path of never getting done; it's also funny how it moves you toward improvements that you'd never even considered (or possibly thought possible).


      The measuring taught me things about this particular car that blew my mind. It also made things ever so much clearer for me. Hopefully the never getting done part doesn't come true though. My OCD leads me down a path that over analyses everything, plans as much as possible out beforehand and drives me to not stop until I see the plan through completion.


      Not that I'd know, but it seems like the idea of trying to balance the front with the rear will not be unlike trying to figure out how to live with kids...

      I wouldn't know either...unless you consider the four legged kind. Hopefully it's just less expensive than college tuition though.

      More Parts Porn...

      Name:  DSC03118.JPG
Views: 973
Size:  153.0 KB

      Name:  DSC03119.JPG
Views: 986
Size:  135.1 KB

      Name:  DSC03120.JPG
Views: 997
Size:  136.7 KB

      Name:  DSC03122.JPG
Views: 960
Size:  150.2 KB

      Name:  DSC03123.JPG
Views: 970
Size:  156.2 KB
      Lance
      1985 Monte Carlo SS Street Car

    20. #120
      Join Date
      Nov 2012
      Location
      Sacramento, CA
      Posts
      1,918
      Country Flag: United States
      Purdy stuff.

    Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 ... LastLast