When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I believe that was 1/3 through a 180 degree turn at about 40 or so on the throttle to accelerate out onto the straight. I probably got on the throttle too soon.
I believe that was 1/3 through a 180 degree turn at about 40 or so on the throttle to accelerate out onto the straight. I probably got on the throttle too soon.
It looks worse than it really is because the picture is slightly off of level.
From: Graceland in a Not Correctly Restored Stingray
Originally Posted by ignatz
Draw a right angle off the light standard which is no doubt perfectly vertical and compare to the rear crease. Doesn't look all that bad!
IMCO you do not appear to have excessive roll. And, bear in mind that as long as roll is limited sufficiently as to keep dynamic alignment during suspension travel from going wonky, increasing anti-roll stiffness further has the potential to put you beyond the point of diminishing returns, especially if done by bigger bars.
In any event, it could be another optical illusion, but is there a chance your outside rear (left in this case) may have traveled into positive camber relative to the road surface at full roll? Tho difficult to tell from the pic in your OP, my eye suspects altered rear camber gain.
This is Oklahoma and perfectly vertical light poles are rare! I did some measuring and the roll doesn't seem excessive numerically but the wheel alignment (as mentioned above), including the inside front wheel, looks out of whack. The car only has a front bar. The car is done being driven for the time being so a thorough alignment check is in order. Thank you for the help.
This is Oklahoma and perfectly vertical light poles are rare! I did some measuring and the roll doesn't seem excessive numerically but the wheel alignment (as mentioned above), including the inside front wheel, looks out of whack. The car only has a front bar. The car is done being driven for the time being so a thorough alignment check is in order. Thank you for the help.
What size is the front bar? Front spring rates and shocks type as well?
Does the car understeer now or oversteer? Rear spring type and rate as well as shocks?
One thing to consider since you autocross is competition adjustable strut rods with heim joint ends which minimize rear camber change-they are MUCH stronger (no flex) than the OEM type strut rods and no bushings to compress. Might want to consider a front spreader bar as well if you do not have one...
From: Graceland in a Not Correctly Restored Stingray
Originally Posted by Robert Thomas
...I did some measuring and the roll doesn't seem excessive numerically but the wheel alignment (as mentioned above), including the inside front wheel, looks out of whack. The car only has a front bar. The car is done being driven for the time being so a thorough alignment check is in order. Thank you for the help.
All four contact patches count, but I would focus more attention to what's happening at the outer ones during hard cornering.
I agree with jb78L-82 's line of observations, including that heim-jointed rear camber struts would be a good move. Highly suggest opting for a setup that also eliminates the eccentrics with lock plates, as they don't do a very good job of holding adjustment when you start pressing fairly hard. Could well be bushing compliance here is playing a role in your left rear looking to have gone positive.
And, FWIW, it is absolutely possible to sort a C3 chassis for hi-perf handling with no rear bar, so don't feel obligated to go out and slap one on.