C1 Restomod....SRiii or Art Morrisson?
01-07-2014, 04:00 PM
#61
Mr Colletta and Mr McGraw, first off I am specifically talking about the RS chassis. To the OP's question, use SRIII and save yourself some headache. Me, personally, I had wished a manufacturer would put together a decent frame that wasn't tube based (ie SRII, Jameson).
Now, Mr C, I didn't buy the F'n thing. You know why? Because somebody couldn't verify the track width with a lousy tape measure or typing on a keyboard, nor would they supply the static ride height reference point. Should a customer have to drive a 1000 miles with tape measure in hand to verify what they ask top dollar for when they could easily get off their dead ***** and walk 100 feet and do it? I think not.
The RS chassis is a tubular a-arm deal, it doesn't use corvette control arms. I don't have a problem with that. It's just the other things that they won't address, either on the phone nor on their website, like not having core support mounts and bumper mounts, and the advertised track width is actually .75" wider than advertised.
Although they advertise some big wide wheel selection, the selection is, imo, based on the forgeline wheels they like to sell, as they are a dealer.
But I don't want to run forgeline wheels, excuse the hell out of me. After I found the trackwidth was actually 58.75" (just like in the email quote they sent me), I questioned that wide wheel selection. Just because you can cram in a tire/wheel and it has 1/4" clearance or only occasionally rubs don't make it okay.
58" maybe so, 58.75", I don't think so. So I asked for a 57.75" track.
No problem they say, just add $2000. And I said 'well that actually would get what you are advertising'. Deaf ears because they're the greatest.
Whatever. Just like I said, nobody wants to answer a simple question.
And Mr C, you won't use SS because of 'little stuff', well it's the little stuff about RS that concerns me too.
And Mr MCGraw you said "If you know the track width, then you should be able to calculate your own wheel fitment. Withe the track width, the distance between the lips of the quarters, and the width of the wheel you want to run, it is a pretty simple matter to calculate the offset and backspacing of the required wheel. If you can't do this, then you probably do not need to be building a car this complex."
You know, you are absolutely correct. BUT RS said it's 58", then it's 58.75", well, that .75" makes just a bit of difference. Now, which is it? Well, after a year, it's really 58.75". Calculating offsets are easy, calculating suspension travel is easy. But they damn sure aren't easy when the target moves or the starting point moves or you just can't get a straight answer from the powers that be other than 'send in your money and find out what you get when it's delivered'.
And FYI, I've built race cars from the ground up that are a helluva lot more complex that the 2 stupid questions I couldn't get answered.
Now, Mr C, I didn't buy the F'n thing. You know why? Because somebody couldn't verify the track width with a lousy tape measure or typing on a keyboard, nor would they supply the static ride height reference point. Should a customer have to drive a 1000 miles with tape measure in hand to verify what they ask top dollar for when they could easily get off their dead ***** and walk 100 feet and do it? I think not.
The RS chassis is a tubular a-arm deal, it doesn't use corvette control arms. I don't have a problem with that. It's just the other things that they won't address, either on the phone nor on their website, like not having core support mounts and bumper mounts, and the advertised track width is actually .75" wider than advertised.
Although they advertise some big wide wheel selection, the selection is, imo, based on the forgeline wheels they like to sell, as they are a dealer.
But I don't want to run forgeline wheels, excuse the hell out of me. After I found the trackwidth was actually 58.75" (just like in the email quote they sent me), I questioned that wide wheel selection. Just because you can cram in a tire/wheel and it has 1/4" clearance or only occasionally rubs don't make it okay.
58" maybe so, 58.75", I don't think so. So I asked for a 57.75" track.
No problem they say, just add $2000. And I said 'well that actually would get what you are advertising'. Deaf ears because they're the greatest.
Whatever. Just like I said, nobody wants to answer a simple question.
And Mr C, you won't use SS because of 'little stuff', well it's the little stuff about RS that concerns me too.
And Mr MCGraw you said "If you know the track width, then you should be able to calculate your own wheel fitment. Withe the track width, the distance between the lips of the quarters, and the width of the wheel you want to run, it is a pretty simple matter to calculate the offset and backspacing of the required wheel. If you can't do this, then you probably do not need to be building a car this complex."
You know, you are absolutely correct. BUT RS said it's 58", then it's 58.75", well, that .75" makes just a bit of difference. Now, which is it? Well, after a year, it's really 58.75". Calculating offsets are easy, calculating suspension travel is easy. But they damn sure aren't easy when the target moves or the starting point moves or you just can't get a straight answer from the powers that be other than 'send in your money and find out what you get when it's delivered'.
And FYI, I've built race cars from the ground up that are a helluva lot more complex that the 2 stupid questions I couldn't get answered.
01-07-2014, 06:08 PM
#62
Safety Car
You sell a nice looking chassis, but as long as the price differential is as high as it is, I would not consider it. I have built several SRIII chassis cars, and have two in my garage right now, and am more than pleased with the ride and handling of every one I have built. I am not sure how you can say any one chassis is "more comfortable" than another, when the level of "comfort" is a function of the spring rate. Anti-squat is not required or even desired by many users, as high anti-squat also equates to higher suspension bind and less freedom of movement in the rear suspension. If anti-squat was that important to me, I would probably use a stick axle.
I can not even come close to driving my SRIII chassis to its handling limit, so I am not sure what I would gain, even it it did extend the limit. I chicken out long before the car runs out of ability.
The subtle difference between a neutral camber gain and a negative 1 degree camber change, is so insignificant that you would never be able to tell the difference unless you were right on the edge, on race tires.I have never knocked your chassis other than to comment on the price, but you seem to have no problem with knocking other chassis designs as somehow inferior to yours. If you really want to convince anyone compare your suspension specs to the other builders out there.
Why don't you list the camber change, Ackerman, anti-dive, bump-steer, ect. specs of your chassis as well as all your competition, so we can all see just how superior the suspension on the Roadster Shop chassis is to all the competition?
Regards, John McGraw
01-07-2014, 06:11 PM
#63
Safety Car
Mr Colletta and Mr McGraw, first off I am specifically talking about the RS chassis. To the OP's question, use SRIII and save yourself some headache. Me, personally, I had wished a manufacturer would put together a decent frame that wasn't tube based (ie SRII, Jameson).
Now, Mr C, I didn't buy the F'n thing. You know why? Because somebody couldn't verify the track width with a lousy tape measure or typing on a keyboard, nor would they supply the static ride height reference point. Should a customer have to drive a 1000 miles with tape measure in hand to verify what they ask top dollar for when they could easily get off their dead ***** and walk 100 feet and do it? I think not.
The RS chassis is a tubular a-arm deal, it doesn't use corvette control arms. I don't have a problem with that. It's just the other things that they won't address, either on the phone nor on their website, like not having core support mounts and bumper mounts, and the advertised track width is actually .75" wider than advertised.
Although they advertise some big wide wheel selection, the selection is, imo, based on the forgeline wheels they like to sell, as they are a dealer.
But I don't want to run forgeline wheels, excuse the hell out of me. After I found the trackwidth was actually 58.75" (just like in the email quote they sent me), I questioned that wide wheel selection. Just because you can cram in a tire/wheel and it has 1/4" clearance or only occasionally rubs don't make it okay.
58" maybe so, 58.75", I don't think so. So I asked for a 57.75" track.
No problem they say, just add $2000. And I said 'well that actually would get what you are advertising'. Deaf ears because they're the greatest.
Whatever. Just like I said, nobody wants to answer a simple question.
And Mr C, you won't use SS because of 'little stuff', well it's the little stuff about RS that concerns me too.
And Mr MCGraw you said "If you know the track width, then you should be able to calculate your own wheel fitment. Withe the track width, the distance between the lips of the quarters, and the width of the wheel you want to run, it is a pretty simple matter to calculate the offset and backspacing of the required wheel. If you can't do this, then you probably do not need to be building a car this complex."
You know, you are absolutely correct. BUT RS said it's 58", then it's 58.75", well, that .75" makes just a bit of difference. Now, which is it? Well, after a year, it's really 58.75". Calculating offsets are easy, calculating suspension travel is easy. But they damn sure aren't easy when the target moves or the starting point moves or you just can't get a straight answer from the powers that be other than 'send in your money and find out what you get when it's delivered'.
And FYI, I've built race cars from the ground up that are a helluva lot more complex that the 2 stupid questions I couldn't get answered.
Now, Mr C, I didn't buy the F'n thing. You know why? Because somebody couldn't verify the track width with a lousy tape measure or typing on a keyboard, nor would they supply the static ride height reference point. Should a customer have to drive a 1000 miles with tape measure in hand to verify what they ask top dollar for when they could easily get off their dead ***** and walk 100 feet and do it? I think not.
The RS chassis is a tubular a-arm deal, it doesn't use corvette control arms. I don't have a problem with that. It's just the other things that they won't address, either on the phone nor on their website, like not having core support mounts and bumper mounts, and the advertised track width is actually .75" wider than advertised.
Although they advertise some big wide wheel selection, the selection is, imo, based on the forgeline wheels they like to sell, as they are a dealer.
But I don't want to run forgeline wheels, excuse the hell out of me. After I found the trackwidth was actually 58.75" (just like in the email quote they sent me), I questioned that wide wheel selection. Just because you can cram in a tire/wheel and it has 1/4" clearance or only occasionally rubs don't make it okay.
58" maybe so, 58.75", I don't think so. So I asked for a 57.75" track.
No problem they say, just add $2000. And I said 'well that actually would get what you are advertising'. Deaf ears because they're the greatest.
Whatever. Just like I said, nobody wants to answer a simple question.
And Mr C, you won't use SS because of 'little stuff', well it's the little stuff about RS that concerns me too.
And Mr MCGraw you said "If you know the track width, then you should be able to calculate your own wheel fitment. Withe the track width, the distance between the lips of the quarters, and the width of the wheel you want to run, it is a pretty simple matter to calculate the offset and backspacing of the required wheel. If you can't do this, then you probably do not need to be building a car this complex."
You know, you are absolutely correct. BUT RS said it's 58", then it's 58.75", well, that .75" makes just a bit of difference. Now, which is it? Well, after a year, it's really 58.75". Calculating offsets are easy, calculating suspension travel is easy. But they damn sure aren't easy when the target moves or the starting point moves or you just can't get a straight answer from the powers that be other than 'send in your money and find out what you get when it's delivered'.
And FYI, I've built race cars from the ground up that are a helluva lot more complex that the 2 stupid questions I couldn't get answered.
I wold agree with you! any builder that would not, or could not accurately tell you the track width of their suspension, is probably someone you do not want to do business with!
Regards, John McGraw
01-07-2014, 09:33 PM
#64
Former Vendor
Member Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, I have never said that you could not modify the geometry and still have a great handling car, but there are chassis builders who do modify the suspension with absolutely no regard for the basics of good suspension design. What I did say, is that I prefer to stay with the suspension geometry the GM spent millions of dollars developing, and I have never said anything about the design of the geometry on the chassis that you sell from the Roadster Shop. There is no reason that I would not consider your chassis other than price. I can just about build 2 chassis for the of 1 Roadster Shop chassis, and I just don't see that much difference in performance.
You sell a nice looking chassis, but as long as the price differential is as high as it is, I would not consider it. I have built several SRIII chassis cars, and have two in my garage right now, and am more than pleased with the ride and handling of every one I have built. I am not sure how you can say any one chassis is "more comfortable" than another, when the level of "comfort" is a function of the spring rate. Anti-squat is not required or even desired by many users, as high anti-squat also equates to higher suspension bind and less freedom of movement in the rear suspension. If anti-squat was that important to me, I would probably use a stick axle.
I can not even come close to driving my SRIII chassis to its handling limit, so I am not sure what I would gain, even it it did extend the limit. I chicken out long before the car runs out of ability. The subtle difference between a neutral camber gain and a negative 1 degree camber change, is so insignificant that you would never be able to tell the difference unless you were right on the edge, on race tires.
I have never knocked your chassis other than to comment on the price, but you seem to have no problem with knocking other chassis designs as somehow inferior to yours. If you really want to convince anyone compare your suspension specs to the other builders out there.
Why don't you list the camber change, Ackerman, anti-dive, bump-steer, ect. specs of your chassis as well as all your competition, so we can all see just how superior the suspension on the Roadster Shop chassis is to all the competition?
Regards, John McGraw
You sell a nice looking chassis, but as long as the price differential is as high as it is, I would not consider it. I have built several SRIII chassis cars, and have two in my garage right now, and am more than pleased with the ride and handling of every one I have built. I am not sure how you can say any one chassis is "more comfortable" than another, when the level of "comfort" is a function of the spring rate. Anti-squat is not required or even desired by many users, as high anti-squat also equates to higher suspension bind and less freedom of movement in the rear suspension. If anti-squat was that important to me, I would probably use a stick axle.
I can not even come close to driving my SRIII chassis to its handling limit, so I am not sure what I would gain, even it it did extend the limit. I chicken out long before the car runs out of ability.
The subtle difference between a neutral camber gain and a negative 1 degree camber change, is so insignificant that you would never be able to tell the difference unless you were right on the edge, on race tires.I have never knocked your chassis other than to comment on the price, but you seem to have no problem with knocking other chassis designs as somehow inferior to yours. If you really want to convince anyone compare your suspension specs to the other builders out there.
Why don't you list the camber change, Ackerman, anti-dive, bump-steer, ect. specs of your chassis as well as all your competition, so we can all see just how superior the suspension on the Roadster Shop chassis is to all the competition?
Regards, John McGraw
Jeff Page
Heartland Customs
01-07-2014, 11:36 PM
#65
Safety Car
I don't believe I have or ever would knock other manufacturers chassis. As a matter of fact I have praised them time and time again. I merely stated the differences in the different chassis and what I believe were improvements to what was available. I have driven cars with all the chassis discussed and IMO the RS chassis by far had the best performance and had the smoothest ride. Corvette Correction has a great ride also, but I'm not of fan of the positive offset wheels you have to use and not a fan of the rear leaf spring. That's my personal preference and a preference that my customers and most of the people I talk to have. Like I said, each chassis has its own plus's and minus's including the RS chassis. The buyer just needs to figure out which one fits what he desires the best. Stating differences and answering questions that are asked to me are not knocking other manufacturers chassis!
Jeff Page
Heartland Customs
Jeff Page
Heartland Customs
Jeff,
That may be your take on it, but to me is just sounds like just your personal opinion not any facts. Your first post said straight out that no other chassis would handle like a C5/C6 chassis, but yours. Then when it was pointed out that some of the builders used exact the same geometry and pick-up points that the stock C6 used, then you said yours was better than the OEM Corvette, so it must handle better than a stock C6.
You make a bunch of assertions that the RS chassis handles, and rides better than any of the competition, without anything other than your opinion. No direct comparison of your specs versus your competition. I get it that you think the RS chassis is the finest chassis on the market, but you are knocking all the other guys, whether you acknowledge or not.
Don't get me wrong, I think the chassis is a work of art, and if money was no object, I might consider it. Unfortunately, money is an object for most of us, and we all have to make value based decisions.
I just think your marketing message is similar in style to the guys at Backyard Buddy lifts that state that all their competition is unsafe, without any evidence to support that. This is all done in an effort to sell a lift that is twice the price of most of their competition. I just think that this type of marketing just does not sit well with most people.
State what your product brings to the table, and then let your satisfied customers sell your chassis for you.
Have you ever seen Billy Dawson , Mike Stockdale, or Art Morrison ever post on this forum? No they don't have to speak out and tell you that their frames are better than their competetion, to sell their frames, as their customers do that for them. When you build a good product at a fair price, and then follow it up with exceptional customer service, you are never short of customers.
In any case, this simply appears to have become a circular argument, and I have said my last on this issue. I wish you well and hope you are very successful with this chassis.
Regards, John McGraw
Last edited by John McGraw; 01-07-2014 at 11:38 PM.
01-08-2014, 08:24 AM
#66
Former Vendor
Member Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff,
That may be your take on it, but to me is just sounds like just your personal opinion not any facts. Your first post said straight out that no other chassis would handle like a C5/C6 chassis, but yours. Then when it was pointed out that some of the builders used exact the same geometry and pick-up points that the stock C6 used, then you said yours was better than the OEM Corvette, so it must handle better than a stock C6.
You make a bunch of assertions that the RS chassis handles, and rides better than any of the competition, without anything other than your opinion. No direct comparison of your specs versus your competition. I get it that you think the RS chassis is the finest chassis on the market, but you are knocking all the other guys, whether you acknowledge or not.
Don't get me wrong, I think the chassis is a work of art, and if money was no object, I might consider it. Unfortunately, money is an object for most of us, and we all have to make value based decisions.
I just think your marketing message is similar in style to the guys at Backyard Buddy lifts that state that all their competition is unsafe, without any evidence to support that. This is all done in an effort to sell a lift that is twice the price of most of their competition. I just think that this type of marketing just does not sit well with most people.
State what your product brings to the table, and then let your satisfied customers sell your chassis for you.
Have you ever seen Billy Dawson , Mike Stockdale, or Art Morrison ever post on this forum? No they don't have to speak out and tell you that their frames are better than their competetion, to sell their frames, as their customers do that for them. When you build a good product at a fair price, and then follow it up with exceptional customer service, you are never short of customers.
In any case, this simply appears to have become a circular argument, and I have said my last on this issue. I wish you well and hope you are very successful with this chassis.
Regards, John McGraw
That may be your take on it, but to me is just sounds like just your personal opinion not any facts. Your first post said straight out that no other chassis would handle like a C5/C6 chassis, but yours. Then when it was pointed out that some of the builders used exact the same geometry and pick-up points that the stock C6 used, then you said yours was better than the OEM Corvette, so it must handle better than a stock C6.
You make a bunch of assertions that the RS chassis handles, and rides better than any of the competition, without anything other than your opinion. No direct comparison of your specs versus your competition. I get it that you think the RS chassis is the finest chassis on the market, but you are knocking all the other guys, whether you acknowledge or not.
Don't get me wrong, I think the chassis is a work of art, and if money was no object, I might consider it. Unfortunately, money is an object for most of us, and we all have to make value based decisions.
I just think your marketing message is similar in style to the guys at Backyard Buddy lifts that state that all their competition is unsafe, without any evidence to support that. This is all done in an effort to sell a lift that is twice the price of most of their competition. I just think that this type of marketing just does not sit well with most people.
State what your product brings to the table, and then let your satisfied customers sell your chassis for you.
Have you ever seen Billy Dawson , Mike Stockdale, or Art Morrison ever post on this forum? No they don't have to speak out and tell you that their frames are better than their competetion, to sell their frames, as their customers do that for them. When you build a good product at a fair price, and then follow it up with exceptional customer service, you are never short of customers.
In any case, this simply appears to have become a circular argument, and I have said my last on this issue. I wish you well and hope you are very successful with this chassis.
Regards, John McGraw
Maybe a Corvette magazine should do a side by side comparison of all these chassis, we would gladly accept the challenge!
Jeff Page
Heartland Customs
01-09-2014, 12:18 PM
#67
Former Vendor
Member Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aluminum control arms, spindle and sway bar ends
Aluminum control arms, spindle and offset sway bar ends for the SPECVETTE Chassis.
Last edited by Heartland Customs; 01-09-2014 at 12:22 PM.
01-09-2014, 12:53 PM
#68
Team Owner
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: cookeville tennessee
Posts: 28,846
Received 1,762 Likes
on
1,529 Posts
These look just like the stuff from PFADT sway bars. Jst not gold powercoated and yours has diff cuts in them. But look like the same angle's & hook up and all. But your stuff really looks great wish I had the time and money to work on the 65 vette but the c5 is taking all my time at the moment. Robert
01-09-2014, 01:19 PM
#69
Former Vendor
Member Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These look just like the stuff from PFADT sway bars. Jst not gold powercoated and yours has diff cuts in them. But look like the same angle's & hook up and all. But your stuff really looks great wish I had the time and money to work on the 65 vette but the c5 is taking all my time at the moment. Robert
01-09-2014, 11:26 PM
#73
Team Owner
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: cookeville tennessee
Posts: 28,846
Received 1,762 Likes
on
1,529 Posts
These are custom designed for the SPECVETTE C1, C2 and C3 chassis and offset to give you full turning radius with no wheel contact even with wider front wheels and tires. Yes, they are splined and easily removable and the sway bar can be changed out for thinner or thicker tubing to dial in the car exactly how you want it like the PFADT ones.
Really man some very nice parts you guys have and the work looks 2nd to none. If they work just half as good as they look it is one hell of a set up all around.. Do you want to give one of the set up's for a man to go race with the c2 set up. Crap I could put my RHS 427 motor with the F1X blower in it. Robert
01-10-2014, 12:40 PM
#74
01-11-2014, 12:00 PM
#77
Regarding the suspension components, they are beautiful; although priced a little heavy at a $10K up-charge for the front and rear suspension, driving the chassis well into the mid $30K range. This is very understandable given it is still somewhat early in the production cycle and the cost of design is allocated across the number of units produced.
The base setup shown in all black is not personally appealing to me, as I like the look of the aluminum components, but I am certain others will have the exact opposite opinion. That is what is great about life, each of us has different perspectives on what we prefer...
In some contrast to the Specvette, my SRIII was around $25K, fully loaded plus a number of additional items Mike did for minimal to/no up charge; but the cost of his design has been allocated over many chassis' as SRIII has built almost 500 of the tube based frames. Of the differentiation points on the chassis, I noted that most of the points were common to the SRIII and some of the points common to other chassis as well. I like the idea of a true comparison grid to help people select what would best fit their personal needs.
Responding to some others comments, I just did a test fit of the front and rear bumpers on my SRIII and everything bolts on with stock components and the SRIII has integral mounts on the frame so they attach and are all pre-aligned for easy bolt on, the only piece that appears to require custom fitting is the lower bumper mount bracket on the bottom of the front bumper, which uses a 1x square tube; The radiator radiator support and fuel tank also bolt in stock locations. I personally like the look of the tube frame, however some don't care for it. However, a tube frame also makes adding mount points for additional features that were not planned ahead of time a little more challenging due to the multiple angles, but given all of the support on the forum and the prior posts from others, it is not too difficult to plan for these items and have them included at initial time of construction.
01-11-2014, 12:20 PM
#78
Former Vendor
Member Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff - you guys build some great cars with some unique and appealing design.
Regarding the suspension components, they are beautiful; although priced a little heavy at a $10K up-charge for the front and rear suspension, driving the chassis well into the mid $30K range. This is very understandable given it is still somewhat early in the production cycle and the cost of design is allocated across the number of units produced.
The base setup shown in all black is not personally appealing to me, as I like the look of the aluminum components, but I am certain others will have the exact opposite opinion. That is what is great about life, each of us has different perspectives on what we prefer...
In some contrast to the Specvette, my SRIII was around $25K, fully loaded plus a number of additional items Mike did for minimal to/no up charge; but the cost of his design has been allocated over many chassis' as SRIII has built almost 500 of the tube based frames. Of the differentiation points on the chassis, I noted that most of the points were common to the SRIII and some of the points common to other chassis as well. I like the idea of a true comparison grid to help people select what would best fit their personal needs.
Responding to some others comments, I just did a test fit of the front and rear bumpers on my SRIII and everything bolts on with stock components and the SRIII has integral mounts on the frame so they attach and are all pre-aligned for easy bolt on, the only piece that appears to require custom fitting is the lower bumper mount bracket on the bottom of the front bumper, which uses a 1x square tube; The radiator radiator support and fuel tank also bolt in stock locations. I personally like the look of the tube frame, however some don't care for it. However, a tube frame also makes adding mount points for additional features that were not planned ahead of time a little more challenging due to the multiple angles, but given all of the support on the forum and the prior posts from others, it is not too difficult to plan for these items and have them included at initial time of construction.
Regarding the suspension components, they are beautiful; although priced a little heavy at a $10K up-charge for the front and rear suspension, driving the chassis well into the mid $30K range. This is very understandable given it is still somewhat early in the production cycle and the cost of design is allocated across the number of units produced.
The base setup shown in all black is not personally appealing to me, as I like the look of the aluminum components, but I am certain others will have the exact opposite opinion. That is what is great about life, each of us has different perspectives on what we prefer...
In some contrast to the Specvette, my SRIII was around $25K, fully loaded plus a number of additional items Mike did for minimal to/no up charge; but the cost of his design has been allocated over many chassis' as SRIII has built almost 500 of the tube based frames. Of the differentiation points on the chassis, I noted that most of the points were common to the SRIII and some of the points common to other chassis as well. I like the idea of a true comparison grid to help people select what would best fit their personal needs.
Responding to some others comments, I just did a test fit of the front and rear bumpers on my SRIII and everything bolts on with stock components and the SRIII has integral mounts on the frame so they attach and are all pre-aligned for easy bolt on, the only piece that appears to require custom fitting is the lower bumper mount bracket on the bottom of the front bumper, which uses a 1x square tube; The radiator radiator support and fuel tank also bolt in stock locations. I personally like the look of the tube frame, however some don't care for it. However, a tube frame also makes adding mount points for additional features that were not planned ahead of time a little more challenging due to the multiple angles, but given all of the support on the forum and the prior posts from others, it is not too difficult to plan for these items and have them included at initial time of construction.
01-11-2014, 12:26 PM
#79
Former Vendor
Member Since: Aug 2013
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Email...
You can email me at info@Heartlandcustoms.us and I can send you a SPECVETTE Chassis build template with prices.
Jeff Page
Heartland Customs
Jeff Page
Heartland Customs
01-13-2014, 07:29 PM
#80
I do not wish to further comment about anything concerning this thread, but I did go back and check my notes. Just for clarification and a general FYI for anybody that's wondering, the RS chassis advertises a 58.75" track, but that does not account for the thickness of the brake hats, so in reality, the wheel mounting surface to wheel mounting surface dimension would be about 59.25".
IMO, this limits to about a 1.9" front spacing on wheels, not what I'd call a vast selection or showing a lot of 'lip'.
Salesman originally said it was 58", which I could have dealt with, but the extra 3/8" per side was a bit too much.
You can get a narrower track , but it's a $2K kicker.
IMO, this limits to about a 1.9" front spacing on wheels, not what I'd call a vast selection or showing a lot of 'lip'.
Salesman originally said it was 58", which I could have dealt with, but the extra 3/8" per side was a bit too much.
You can get a narrower track , but it's a $2K kicker.