The only upgrades I've done to date at 17" wheels, good tires, and a DSE600 steering box. These helped a lot, but I'd still like to bring the confidence of the ride up to modern standars.

I'm -not concerned that much with actually cornering ability, etc, so I didn't think the control arm relocation steps, etc, would make much difference in my case.

My thoughts on the main things would be:

- Subframe connectors to stiffen the car
- A smaller steering wheel, if I can bring myself to it

What else would be low handing fruit to make a '69 Camaro ride and confidently, similar to say, a mid-90s BMW 5 series?

We need to be on the same page.

First, a 5-series rides and handles very well. But I get confused because you stated you aren't concerned with handling. I assume you want a "luxury-sport" ride?

"Luxury sport" is exactly how people describe our GT55 chassis. As one guy stated "Handles like my '05 Porche 911, but rides better". This was a huge compliment to me. FWIW, our '55 ran .94g on the skidpad, and if I'm not mistaken, is one of the fastest musclecars ever tested by Primedia (even beat new Ferarris, Vettes, NSX's, etc). So to hear a guy say it rides good is a big deal.

There are many things to consider when obtaining this, and I wont even scratch the surface:
1. More caster (Yes, the control arm relocation will help you out in this case)
2. Better camber curve (Again, UCA relocation)
3. Correct durometer bushings (This is a big can of worms, but I recommend rubber or poly, I used poly in the GT55)
4. Extremely careful spring selection (are you familiar with suspension frequency and motion ratios?)
5. Extremely careful shock tuning (Road time/tuning!)
6. Well thought out suspension characteristics such as FVSA, anti-dive, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc (Am I making this point clear?)

Ok, what I'm saying is: You can do this, but if you really want to do it right, it takes some hard work! Honestly, the biggest thing you can do is load the car up full of insulation, use rubber bushings (replace ALL of them!), and carefully select a spring and shock combo that works best. It does help to make the chassis stiff, and don't use a wheel over 17" - you need to maintain a decent sidewall height. Good luck!

Thanks... could you send me a link to it? All I could locate at your site that the "MaxG" chassis... or is that what you were referring to?

What kind of insulation do you recommend? Sprayable or dynamat, etc?

Thanks,
Dave

Dave, do the Guldstrand mod.
It will completely kill off the understeer, which is the biggest "feel" difference between our old cars and a new one.

I know about the Guldstrand mod, but really the Camaro corners well enough for my purposes. I have a new M3, and lapped my C4 often, so I do know what decent handling is like...its just not an issue for me in this car.

I should probably define my goal a little more clearly: I'd like the car to feel "solid", like its carved out of billet. I'd like it go down the highway and not wander at all, with tight on-center feel, and not follow road irregularities.

That's why insulation and subframe connectors sound like the place to start (after the DSE box and good radial tires, which I've done).

I have two Pontiac 2+2 427s, one a hardtop and the other a convertible. The convertible I left alone, but the hardtop I went though and replaced EVERY bushing and suspension component with polygraphite as well as adding a new steering box, pitman arm, idler arm, etc. It rides 500% better than the old worn out convertible. I guess that's all I'm aiming for, but on my Camaro, all the suspension parts are already new, so I need a different approach.

Thanks... could you send me a link to it? All I could locate at your site that the "MaxG" chassis... or is that what you were referring to?

What kind of insulation do you recommend? Sprayable or dynamat, etc?

Thanks,
Dave

Dave,
Our GT55 chassis is our bolt-on frame for '55-'57 Chevrolets. But, you can order the same suspension used on the GT55 on our Max G Chassis so the handling would be the same, but the Max-G is about 10% stiffer. But it's a BIG project, and it sure ain't cheap! For insulation, Dynamat works well but there are cheaper alternatives. Search on this site for more info.

Here's the Tri-5 link:
http://www.artmorrison.com/tri5/perf/index.cfm

Dave - here's my take on what you want... (assume everything is new)

Front end: stock rubber bushings throughout, Hotchkis springs, a decent sway bar and quality shocks like Koni's on the light setting.

Rear end: Hotchkis 3 leaf springs, use the urethane pads and bushing that come with the kit and again Koni Shocks in the light setting.

Body & Frame: Stick with rubber or maybe urethane body bushings and ditch the subframe connectors.

Wheels and tires: 17's if they are quality alum wheels will make a big improvement and mounting the right tire, at least a 45 sidewall and not the widest you can fit. 255's, maybe 245's in the rear and 235's up front at most.

The last part is the most over looked but the cars structure needs to be tight and whole. A good sound deadener under the carpet, door panels and window fit and work properly and finally you throw in a set of seats from a more modern car. Makes a big difference in over all ride quality.

No this isn't going to make the car handle like a go-cart but you'll be surprised how well manored it will be on the street. Guys often build a track suspension under their classic and find the ruts and potholes and general maintaince of our streets doesn't allow that track suspension to function 100% as designed.

If you don't want the dropped look that comes with the Hotchkis springs do the homework and match their spring rates in a std height spring.

Good handling, great ride... Don't expect it to out ride an expensive lux sedan but considering the history and over all design of the car for it's time, it should impress you...

Thanks for all the info!

Why do you say lose the subframe connectors, and to use rubber body bushings? That will allow a lot more flex, which is sort of counter to my goal, isn't it?

I think it is b/c our old cars are designed for stock rubber parts to be used to tune out some road feel/harshness at the expense of being less "taught"/"tight" or whatever.

Same deal with the S/F/C's,.

I installed full poly and new bolt-on S/F/C's and the first time I jacked my car up from the side back towards the rear by my new S/F/C's, I could tell it was a whole bunch stiffer which is contrary to what you are seemingly asking out of your car unless we are mis-reading your inputs here?

I figure what you actually want is a tight ride caused by more like stock springs and shocks, but using GOOD matched sway-bars to eliminate body roll and a more pliable tire sidewall height to hold down road harshness to create as close to a new car ride as you can get, imho..

It's gonna be hard to do b/c it's just an old car......................

Think '65 Cad. here b/c the great big suckers road like a dream, but cornered flat as a pancake when pushed b/c their suspension and tires and such were matched very well! They had soft everything, but great big S/B's to hold them flat while cornering is all............. And tight they were!!!!!!

Hope this helps??

pdq67

PS., I think our poorer front roll center has a lot to do with what you want. Might consider raising it??

Thanks for all the info!

Why do you say lose the sub-frame connectors, and to use rubber body bushings? That will allow a lot more flex, which is sort of counter to my goal, isn't it?

Well what do you want? You said you wanted ride quality over handling... Stiffening up the under side of the car with sub frame connectors is going to transfer more of the road throughout the car. Same with urethane bushing in the front suspension and body bushings. The rubber is softer and going to absorb more road feel... Using urethane body bushings may not be too bad, the flex leverage over each connection point is a lot greater than say A-arm bushings.

Using my car as an example adjusting the Koni shocks to the medium dampening from the low setting makes the ride quality go way down. I can't imagine what the third (firm) setting would be like. I have no doubt on a smooth track it would corner better on medium or firm but on the street it actually causes some tire bounce when cornering on a rough surface. The light setting lets the suspension work more and the bounce goes away, the car actually rides and corners better on the rough road because the tire stays on the road...

Apply the shock adjustments to bushings and you kind of have the same thing for ride quality... Rubber (best ride) - Urethane (stiffer, better handling firmer ride) - Solid (better handling on smooth track but very rough ride)

I do not agree that SFCs will hurt ride. IMO, they will HELP ride quality. Structural stiffness is key to a solid feeling, quiet ride.... auto manufacturers know this and even go as far as to advertise it.

I do agree with use of rubber bushings. Poly in leafs will add roll stiffness and drive up ride harshness, IMO. Poly up front *may* add a bit of harshness.

John not many new cars are full frame other than trucks and suvs. There are some like Crown Victoria/Mercury Marquis and the Lincoln Town Car but they are tug boats... Sub frame connectors basically turn a Camaro into a full frame vehicle. The problem is the vintage shells are not designed like those of modern full frame vehicles. The structural support of the sf connector is a big handling benefit but time after time guys that tie the front and rear of their Camaro together bring up a harder ride even though the handling improves... Typically not a complaint as handling is what they were after...

John not many new cars are full frame other than trucks and suvs. There are some like Crown Victoria/Mercury Marquis and the Lincoln Town Car but they are tug boats... Sub frame connectors basically turn a Camaro into a full frame vehicle. The problem is the vintage shells are not designed like those of modern full frame vehicles. The structural support of the sf connector is a big handling benefit but time after time guys that tie the front and rear of their Camaro together bring up a harder ride even though the handling improves... Typically not a complaint as handling is what they were after...

Dennis,
I believe he was referring to modern-day unibody cars, which I am sure you know, are much much stiffer than first gen Camaros. From what I've seen, new unibodys are stiffer than our cars WITH subframe connectors.

For example, new Ford Mustangs have a chassis rigidity of about 7500 lb-ft/deg. Our cars, w/o subframe connectors, are about 4000 lb-ft/deg. Subframe connectors (depending on design), can add about 1000 lb-ft/deg to that initial number.

Now he initialy wanted a ride similar to a BMW. Typically these cars, like most European sport sedans, have a stiffness in the 10,000-15,000lb-ft/deg range. This greatly enhances the "handles great but rides nice" standpoint. This is also how we get the handling and ride in our GT Sport chassis.

So, I agree with the use of connectors. They will cut down on squeeks and rattles, making it seem more "solid". Stiffer is better, if the rest of the suspension is designed with that in mind.

Like I said before..

"Think '65 Cad. here b/c the great big suckers road like a dream, but cornered flat as a pancake when pushed b/c their suspension and tires and such were matched very well! They had soft everything, but great big S/B's to hold them flat while cornering is all............. And tight they were!!!!!!"

And they had one heck of a great big full frame under them..

pdq67

Modern cars are stiffer, they are made of different metals and have modern suspension components... I just don't see how we can compare the two and apply the physics of one to the other. There is no comparison between my '69 rag-top and the '96 SS I had. The '96 is a race car by comparison (Bilstein Lev II) but the '69 actually rides nicer on city streets and the freeways I drive on.

I will be installing sub-frame connectors in the next few weeks on the '69 and if the ride improves by doing so I will be shocked but I will be the first to come back and share that info...