Team Camaro Tech banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have searching through the threads here and P-T as well as Pozziracing for about a week straight and I know there are tons of opinions on the proper modification/UCA/Coil setup, but I have not figured it out yet.

From what I have learned, I need to do the G-Mod and upgrade to some Hotchis UCA (or similar) to fix the geometry up front...Got It.

Now, assuming the G-Mod and UCA have been upgraded here is my confusion.......I have a buddy (I know how that sounds, but bear with me) who's been around the industry a bit, but doesn't know 1st gen Camaros like some of you. He recommends the drop spindles vice drop springs and this is why.....

The natural movement of between compression and decompression of the front suspension causes the wheels to move between negative and positive camber being the worst when compressed. He says that drop springs would keep the vehicle at a worse camber at all times due to the pulling action of the steering components. Whereas, drop spindles would maintain the proper geometry. The caveat is that larger wheels would probably be required to avoid the contact between tie rod and tire.

I didn't want to go larger than 17" or 18" wheels, so I am wondering what your take is on the opinion above. Do drop spings counter the benefits of the G-Mod and upgraded UCA's? Most people are running drop springs, so I didn't think so.

Also, anyone running the Hotchis 3" drop springs? Any issues with tire clearance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
I have searching through the threads here and P-T as well as Pozziracing for about a week straight and I know there are tons of opinions on the proper modification/UCA/Coil setup, but I have not figured it out yet.

From what I have learned, I need to do the G-Mod and upgrade to some Hotchis UCA (or similar) to fix the geometry up front...Got It.

Now, assuming the G-Mod and UCA have been upgraded here is my confusion.......I have a buddy (I know how that sounds, but bear with me) who's been around the industry a bit, but doesn't know 1st gen Camaros like some of you. He recommends the drop spindles vice drop springs and this is why.....

The natural movement of between compression and decompression of the front suspension causes the wheels to move between negative and positive camber being the worst when compressed. He says that drop springs would keep the vehicle at a worse camber at all times due to the pulling action of the steering components. Whereas, drop spindles would maintain the proper geometry. The caveat is that larger wheels would probably be required to avoid the contact between tie rod and tire.

I didn't want to go larger than 17" or 18" wheels, so I am wondering what your take is on the opinion above. Do drop spings counter the benefits of the G-Mod and upgraded UCA's? Most people are running drop springs, so I didn't think so.

Also, anyone running the Hotchis 3" drop springs? Any issues with tire clearance?
Dan,

I went all DSE. I did NOT do the G-mod, but the guy doing my car has on some of his builds... I don't plan on a track car so elected to just do coilovers. I am running 18x8s w 5.25backspacing.





Give Brian a call @ ScreaminPerformance. He might be able to help.

TC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
Dan,

The 1st gen camaro suffers from lack of negative Camber. And can use more positive Caster as well.

Guldstrand suggest Going to a 1.5 inch shorter spring to take full advantage of the mod. So shorter springs are recommended.
This also puts the lower control arm more level to the ground for better Camber curve.
Coil overs offer easier height adj. and adjustable shock dampening and look trick. They are not necessarily better than a good spring and shock just our preferance for this build.

So G-mod for more negitive camber and positive caster.
This can also be accomplished with a good upper arm that adds needed caster and a tall upper ball joint to add negitive camber.

I may add tall upper ball joints to TC's project before we finish ! If he lets me spend the bennies ! :)

Hope this helps !

Brian
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,349 Posts
And to add to what Brian said above ^^^^, only do one or the other, taller ball joints or the G-Mod. Not both!
As far as "track" goes he might be talking road course days at a track!? More and more are taking their cars to track days at local road courses. It's a highly addicting thing... worse than crack! :yes:

Hey Tango what size tires are those? I'm running 17x8's up front. Is there rubbing on the rear of the subframe at full lock?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
69 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Dan,

The 1st gen camaro suffers from lack of negative Camber. And can use more positive Caster as well.

Guldstrand suggest Going to a 1.5 inch shorter spring to take full advantage of the mod. So shorter springs are recommended.
This also puts the lower control arm more level to the ground for better Camber curve.
Coil overs offer easier height adj. and adjustable shock dampening and look trick. They are not necessarily better than a good spring and shock just our preferance for this build.

So G-mod for more negitive camber and positive caster.
This can also be accomplished with a good upper arm that adds needed caster and a tall upper ball joint to add negitive camber.

I may add tall upper ball joints to TC's project before we finish ! If he lets me spend the bennies ! :)

Hope this helps !

Brian
So if a 1.5" drop spring is recommended, would a 3" drop spring counter the corrections made by the G-mod?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
IMO, Either way you decide to lower the car the G-mod is a good idea.
I would limit the spring to a 2 inch drop and if you need more I would run an ATS dropped spindle for the added drop.

The problem is if you lower the car too far by shorting the spring and raising the lower control arm the lower control arm will be pointing up and this is not optimum for good camber curve.

Keep in mind this is for optimum handling and hard driving and depending on how you drive your car you may not need to do all this. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,349 Posts
Another option is to give Mark at SC&C a call (if you can spare 45 minutes or so).
http://scandc.com/new/
http://scandc.com/new/node/4

Not installed yet, but I went with the SPC Stage 2 Plus upper kit and the SPC lowers. The upper kit will eliminate shims and will let you adjust for modern alignment specs. It also has the tall upper ball joint and tall tie rods to help correct bump steer. The lowers have 2" of drop built in, can be used with coils or coilovers, and have an optional ride tuning kit for setting the height. They're supposed to help with suspension geometry as well as opposed to a lot of tubular lowers which are mostly copies of the stock arm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Dan,

The 1st gen camaro suffers from lack of negative Camber. And can use more positive Caster as well.

Guldstrand suggest Going to a 1.5 inch shorter spring to take full advantage of the mod. So shorter springs are recommended.
This also puts the lower control arm more level to the ground for better Camber curve.
Coil overs offer easier height adj. and adjustable shock dampening and look trick. They are not necessarily better than a good spring and shock just our preferance for this build.

So G-mod for more negitive camber and positive caster.
This can also be accomplished with a good upper arm that adds needed caster and a tall upper ball joint to add negitive camber.

I may add tall upper ball joints to TC's project before we finish ! If he lets me spend the bennies ! :)

Hope this helps !

Brian
Dan,

What he said ^^^ :bow: Brian definitely knows his business.

:beers: TC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Dan,

The 1st gen camaro suffers from lack of negative Camber. And can use more positive Caster as well.

Guldstrand suggest Going to a 1.5 inch shorter spring to take full advantage of the mod. So shorter springs are recommended.
This also puts the lower control arm more level to the ground for better Camber curve.
Coil overs offer easier height adj. and adjustable shock dampening and look trick. They are not necessarily better than a good spring and shock just our preferance for this build.

So G-mod for more negitive camber and positive caster.
This can also be accomplished with a good upper arm that adds needed caster and a tall upper ball joint to add negitive camber.

I may add tall upper ball joints to TC's project before we finish ! If he lets me spend the bennies ! :)

Hope this helps !

Brian
And to add to what Brian said above ^^^^, only do one or the other, taller ball joints or the G-Mod. Not both!
As far as "track" goes he might be talking road course days at a track!? More and more are taking their cars to track days at local road courses. It's a highly addicting thing... worse than crack! :yes:

Hey Tango what size tires are those? I'm running 17x8's up front. Is there rubbing on the rear of the subframe at full lock?
Rob,

They are Hankook VENTUS 245/40ZR18s. With the off-set that Brian recommended (5.25BS), as well as the DSE UCA/LCAs, they do not hit lock-to-lock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Tango,
It looks nice. When you say that you don't plan to track it so you went with coil overs what do you mean? What was the defining factor is choosing coil overs vice drop coils and shocks?
Dan,

Brian is a race car fabricator (and a brilliant one for that matter)!! Just look at some of the cars on his website and you will see what I'm talking about! He suggested the tubular front end and the coilovers for all the reasons he stated above. It was form and function combined! (..and he still is trying to talk me into the tall upper Ball Joints!):D

When we started down this trail to rebuild my car and add an LSx motor, I wanted a car that can out handle a brand new Camaro, has A/C, PW, PS, big brakes, runs great, and I can drive to the autocross event or car show and not worry about it. Brian builds awesome race/track cars... but I wanted a DD. That's what I meant. Believe me, I plan on eating a few orange cones with my baby!!

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
702 Posts
The problems your friend is talking about are just the things the Guldstrand Mod address. The GM mod does a few things, most importantly it raises the roll center. It also gives you a few degrees of extra caster, there fore it is important to select the proper UCA's because all of them has extra caster built in. This means that if you select one with a large amount of extra caster you will end up with to much and your tires will hit the inner fender when turning. On my car I have the GM and SpeedTech UCA's (they had the least built in caster) and ended up with 8 degrees caster, about 2 degrees to much. My tires just clear the fenders, they are 26.5" in diameter.

When I did my rebuild the ATS-spindles were not around. The tall spindle one they have does the same thing as the GM except the caster change so it is better in some ways. Note that the ATS-spindle just have a higher upper ball joint placement, it doesn't lower the car, the spindle axle is at the same height meassured from the lower ball joint.

So if you can, go with ATS tall spindle and a set of UCA, like Speed tech or Hotchkis and you're set. All together with a set of lowering springs like the Hotchkis's.

It all depends on how you will use the car. For street use this is enough, you will get a car that drives like it was on rails and you can out corner a lot of fast cars. Myself I have beat some Porsches and BMW's in long corners.

Good Luck

Jan
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,349 Posts
Hey Dan, read the this thread here...http://www.camaros.net/forums/showthread.php?t=197938 #3 by pozzi. I would contact hotchkis first and talk with them to see what's up. I used the SPC adjustable uppers. I have not had in on the ground yet as it is in pieces for paint. Others have used the Speedtech arms with taller balljoints.
 

·
Gold Lifetime Member
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
On my prior 68 suspension setup, I was running Global West arms (upper), stock lower, ATS spindle, Hotchkis SBC 2 inch drop springs and non G-mod. I was also running a 17x8 w/4.75in backspacing with a 235/45/17 tire. While I enjoyed the stance and how it rode (handling wise), it (both sides) rubbed ALOT (upper outer part of tire and inner fender). If you want to drive your car on a FLAT surface at low speeds than you shouldn't have a problem. If you want to drive your car in real world conditions, then I would personally not run the hotchkis drop spring with the ATS spindle for that reason. The ATS spindle has 3/4 inch drop built in to it. Prior to the ATS spindle, I never had any rubbing issues. I am not saying the Hotckis or ATS products are bad (they are GREAT!), just consider this when mixing manufactures parts.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top