I have a 68 RS, powder coated/box-welded stock subframe, Hotchkis 2 unch drop 550 springs, 1 1/8 sway bar, Hotchkis tie rod connectors, polygraphite bushings, and 5/8 inch threaded offset pivot shafts.

I just started reassembly of the car from the ground up, and after setting it back down on rubber after putting the suspension together and doing "the mod" (be advised there is no engine or trans installed yet), the "bon-bon" type (stock, push through) upper control arm snubbers both decided to shear off and subsequently roll down my garage floor.

The obvious reason to me was that the Guldstrand mod lowers the control arms as well as locate them aft resulting in the snubbers resting on the edge of the frame pad instead of on the center. This caused them to shear off.

So I came up with what I thought was a nifty idea, I purchased 2 new lower control arm snubbers..a little tougher, same thickness, but they utilize a stud/nut with a metal pad imprgnated into them and a guide pin.

I removed one my control arms, drilled a hole for the guide pin in a slightly clocked position thereby making the contact point of the snubber almost dead center on the frame pad.

Problem solved? Nope..There is considerable compression on the snubber with the engine out obviously, but too much I think. I am going to guess that I should cut about 1/2 to 3/4 off of the snubber thickness since the upper arm has been relocated down???

My main concern is that if the front end becomes completly unloaded, the way it currently sits it will affect my effective travel of the control arms and cause the upper to bump the snubber prematurely.

I would appreciate any thoughts and/or suggestions.

The Guldstrand mod moves the A frame to the rear less than a quarter inch. The outboard end is dependent on how much caster you set, so where the rebound stop hits would be influenced by both.

I ran up to 5.5 degrees positive caster with lots of neg camber and stock rebound stops. They are the origonal 1967 stops and the car has fifty thousand miles since the Guldstrand mod.

Were yours rotten?
David

------------------
Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
David's Motorsports page (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/)
First Gen Suspension Page (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/first_gen_suspension.htm)
67 RS 327 original owner. 69 Camaro Vintage Racer, 65 Lola T-70 Chev SB Can-Am Vintage Racer

The stops are brand new. I did simply a first assembly with no shims at all which, I am sure is why this occurred, however, There is not a horridly visible positive camber situation with no shims and it just surprises me that they came so close to falling off the pad despite the fact that there were no shims. I am very pleased with how the lower snubber mod worked out in lieu of the upper "push in" type..and the fact that it came off the pad is no longer my concern. My main interest now is the stock thickness of an upper snubber combined with the Guldstrand mod. Is this only going to be an issue if I plan on bombardiering over the streets of San Francisco and getting the front end airborne? (I obviously don't plan on doing that..just pro-touring duty) Just seems to me that it severely limits the travel of the upper control arm (and obviously the lower) in the downward direction. I know that contact anywhere is not good and can cause an out of control situation in one form or another, but in this case I am not sure if it would be an issue since little weight (if any) would be on the front end at the time the upper arm hits the stop (or would it??). This is the question that I am faced with.

I think once your front end is loaded with the wieght of the engine/tranny this problem will disappear. I put in new GM upper arm snubbers when I rebuilt my front end...I have the same setup as yours without the Guildstrand mod...and they were tight against the frame until I got the car back on the ground. You might want to trim off the same amount of drop the a-arms took with the mod.

Hope this helps!



------------------
See my '68 RS/ZZ4 (http://www.100megsfree.com/choptop/camaro.html)

Most Camaros are lowered below stock height making for plenty of droop on the suspension. I've not heard of any concerns with droop travel from anyone before.
I don't see any problem if whatever you put on there is close to the origonal bumper height.
David

------------------
Check my web page for First Gen Camaro suspension info:
David's Motorsports page (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/)
First Gen Suspension Page (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/David_Pozzi/first_gen_suspension.htm)
67 RS 327 original owner. 69 Camaro Vintage Racer, 65 Lola T-70 Chev SB Can-Am Vintage Racer

Thanks for the information. Yeah, I am aware that there will be clearance between the snubber and the pad once the engine and tranny are installed. It just gives the appearance now by the amount that the snubber is smushed,(is that a word?) that there won't be much more than an inch or so of clearance between the snubber and the pad once the weight is applied.

I guess I am drawing conclusions before I have the car configured in "flight mode" with all weight, shims, etc..applied which may not be wise just yet, but as you know it is a whole lot easier to learn by someone else's experience if there were other knowledge out there on this topic. One of the primary reasons for this website I would assume.

It is also a whole lot easier for me to adjust/correct while I am looking at a naked subframe/suspension no front clip/motor in the way. Thanks again to both of you...and David..I feel a lot more comfortable going my merry way on this thing as is with your input.