TheSkunkWorks

I guess maybe I'm missing something here...

Strictly from a technical/performance standpoint, notwithstanding any virtues it may have in the areas of strength or safety, what's the "advantage" of the 6-Link?

The reason I ask is that adjusting the lower camber strut rod height to alter camber gain can be done without this kit, the 1/2 shaft already suffices as an upper link, and because Guldstrand's 5-Bar package with dual trailing links (rather than maintaining the OEM single trailing link design, as does the DV) would appear to provide superior geometry. Also, dampers remain a significant factor not to be discounted, regardless of suspension design.

Please, leave any arguments about strength and/or safety aside for the sake of this discussion, as I've already done the 12-bolt IRS, big shafts, solid U's, HD stubs w/0.5" lugs, hi-nickel shock mounts, spherical struts, solid locating kit and such, so the topic of beefing up things would best be left to another thread, and I concede that 1/2 shaft loops add a measure of safety to the system.

Further, since many of us don't measure performance by ET slips alone, I ask that drag strip only issues not supersede aspects of overall handling. What I'm seeking here, for myself and anyone else interested, is a better understanding of how the DV setup compares to Guldstrand's for all types of C3 enthusiasts.

So, with the above qualifications, I open this thread as an opportunity for anyone who has a firm handle on C3 suspensions to learn me somethin'.

For convenience, here are links to information on the two designs...

http://www.dragvette.com/irs_build_up.htm

http://www.guldstrand.com/scripts/pr...p?idproduct=80

Thanks, in advance, for any comments you may share.

edit - This thread's true purpose was to open a debate, since a number of owners seem to have missed a few suspension fundamentals. The 6-link's geometry does, in fact, work well at the strip. However, it doesn't provide optimum geometry for cornering due to an enharent lack of camber gain.

BigBlockk

If you're asking why someone would get the Dragvette kit over the Guldstrand stuff it is a useful upgrade over stock for those that want to go in a straight line and it is less expensive.

BigBlockk

Later.....

Belgian1979vette

I find this an interesting thread. I would think someone would be able to give a good answer.

Since i'm not a user, but have looked into these systems, I would say the mayor difference would be :
- price
- adjustibility of toe-out in the rear which is better with the guldstrand due to two lower struts.

shafrs3

Guldstrand system is road race proven. Upper link of Dragvette system is weak.

Jason Staley

It appears to me Guildstrand's system would improve the rear end geometry and make it similar to a C4's suspension. The setup would eliminate the bumpsteer that is inherent to the C3's suspension and can only be minimized as Greenwood suggests in his VIP article.

The DragVette's setup retains the stock geometry, but it does make you NHRA legal if your going fast. If your looking for safety while drag racing an independent rear suspension, it looks like a good option. I don't think it would improve handling though.

Hadez

Looks like the Guildstrand's system allows you to adjust caster also? That would be great given that many of our cars have been hit one time or the other over the years allowing for what a frame machine can't undo previous damage.

USALT1

The Dragvette 6-link does not use stock geometry, it uses a strut bar exactly the same length as the half shaft and create a mount that would allow the strut bar to be parallel to the half shaft. The strut bar is the same exact length as the half shaft and it forms a perfect parallelogram. It also uses an upper strut that is also parallel, that take the side force stress off the half shaft & the rear. What this does is keep the rear wheel camber constant, you cannot do that with stock geometry.

cardo0

Well both systems maintain the rear wheel straight while in vertical motion and will resist any twist in the T-arms. And thats where the major problem is on the C3 independant rear suspension - twist in the T-arms. Yes the stock frame pockets are not strong enough and have twist and slop that can be excessive enough to cause the wheels to "hop".

Both the DV and the Guldstrand system will help resist this and only by installing both in the same car to accurately measure results from each will anyone be able to make any claims. Who gonn'a do that? But i do see more regidity in the Guldstrand system due to way it has some forward mounts to the frame.

But as far as traction devices neither compares to the old traction bars that can transfer load fwd on the frame as when the old solid axles try to wrap up under launch pwr. What i'm saying is that if u what better traction u will need to go to a solid axles setup. But for road course work both the DV and Guldstrand system will be a major improvement.: :

And that my 2 pennys folks,
cardo0