I think TT and Norval have a good point. But on the subject of bang for the buck what is the right answer? It probably depends on how many bucks you have! Why does a C5 or C6 cost $120K in Europe? Taxes? Bottom line is the economics in Europe differ from those in the US. This is a comparison between apples and oranges.

 

I think TT and Norval have a good point. But on the subject of bang for the buck what is the right answer? It probably depends on how many bucks you have! Why does a C5 or C6 cost $120K in Europe? Taxes? Bottom line is the economics in Europe differ from those in the US. This is a comparison between apples and oranges.

 

I emailed Jim Meyers racind a while ago and this is the responce i got
Michael: 63-82 coil over kit includs, Upper and Lower tube A-Arms, Adjustable coil over shocks $1495.00. Our handeling package includs the above along with a front and rear sway bars with rear adjustable shocks. Rears are not coil overs. $2495.00

Regards,

Greg

I think the coilovers were QA1, atleast I think that is what was shown in the pic that was posted a while back.

 

we went thru Van Steel and got VB and P's performance plus package but deleted the front monospring system and bilstein shocks and added the QA1 coilovers for the front and QA1 shocks for the back (Both damper adjustable). The only thing is we had to use the stock lower a-arms but it comes with tubular upper a-arms.

 

What about something like this?

 

That's not a 6 link, it's a toe control rod (and from the pics it looks crooked too LOL), this is somewhat confusing because if you add that to an otherwise stock(ish) trailing arm suspension the rod does nothing. The rod can't control the toe as that is determined by the 1/2 shaft and the forward trailing arm mount. The only way this rod can control the toe is if they use a sliding setup for the trailing arm bushing that allows it to slide left/right within the pocket, not using any shims so the rods control the toe. However, this STILL does not fix anything about the toe control problem, what you are left with is still a system that has toe change over the suspension movement arc. The only way to get rid of that is to use a sectioned trailing arm, one that allows the hub to move over the arc without influencing it's toe setting, for this you need an arm (or arms) that have 2 hinge points, like the C4 has.

This rod can not control camber as it is parrallel and in line with the 1/2 shaft but theya re not in the same plane. IMO that's a useless setup. Maybe it's there ust for looks? Obviously the person that deviced that either knows something I don't or he is absolutely clueless and tied to copy the C4 toe control system without fully grasping the C3 suspension

 

You guys don't recognize Groovyjay's rear end when you see it? hehe

I'm not sure what he has going on with the suspension, maybe it's been converted to 5-link?


JLinNY seems to have foot inserted firmly in mouth at the moment. The C5 was a world class car and the C6 is a step up from that, but if I'm not mistaken, aren't there coilovers setups on the market to replace the transverse spring? It works well, but it's not the best. Interchangability of springs gives alot more flexibility than just 3 settings also.

TT and norval, how do these harmonics affect handling? Would they show up in a left/right/left/right slalom type situation? Can't it be tuned out with proper shock adjustment? I'm suspicious also that they might be a theoretical problem that never actually shows up in real life... Just looking for proof is all


To further answer Matchframe's original question... If you're riding on an unrestored suspension, old springs, dead shocks, dead bushings, you will be amazed by the difference restoring the stock setup will make. I recommend poly bushings (a must!), 550lb front springs, 1 1/8" or higher front swaybar, and a relatively small rear swaybar. A 7 leaf is probably your best bet for the rear spring, keep in mind this is the spring that really decides your ride comfort, but you also don't want the car pushing through corners due to relatively too much front roll stiffness.

I have the 5-leaf 400lb/in spring on the rear of my car right now, just to see how it would be. Let me tell you, it's a pain in the butt, actually more of a pain in the head (I have made contact with the t-tops on several ocassions) I couldn't fit a swaybar on the rear with my 275 tires.

Lastly, Norval and Mark (I think I have your name right TwinTurbo?) do you know what the benefits are of a pushrod/rocker arm coilover setup like many modern racecars use? Would it be worth using this type of setup in our front suspension? Pushrod up through the shock tower, coilovers vertical on front crossmember. Or upper A-arm with an addition to make it like a teeter-totter with fulcrum at the current bushing location, coilovers same place, acted on directly by the a-arm. I've just been kicking that idea around, what do you think?

-Chris

 

That's not groovyjays rear, it's DiDi's 82, a German w/ koni coil overs all round, brembo calipers & an LS-1, all done by ACP-Euskirchen Germany.

Here's his pages:
http://www.corvettes.de/crossfire.html

Looks like the bracket has been changed, still visible is where they drilled & tapped the batwing in those round bosses (they are almost perfect for that)


The harmonics Norval and I talk about are those inherent to a spring, a single mount spring has more problems than a dual mount but still, if you move one end of the spring, it affects the othe side. It's like transversal waves w/ knots & all. Shocks don't tune it out, the mounts influence the effect. If the mounts are located at the "knots" then there is hardly any influence, dual mounts are better than 1. It's kind of hard for me to explain though. The result is that, apart from the sway bar, the spring also ties the corners together, taking away from the true independance of the system.

The benefits of a pushrod/rocker or pullrod system are unsprung weight & tunability w/ leverage amrs (wheel/spring rate ratio). It will not be very beneficial, the setup is too complicated and there's no room. If you want to reduce the unsprung weight part of the shock, get some that mount upside down so the rod is attached to the lower arm, that will reduce it also.
Oh, my name is Marck , you almost got it right

 

OMG TT, you know everyones c3 out there! Your some sort of c3 nerd!

 

I only knew because I was snooping around the ACP pages a long time ago to study their coil over & brembo mods

 

Me three.

Transverse leafs are nice and they do the job, but not as well as a coilover. I believe the AC Cobra originally had tranverse leafs but then Shelby went to coilovers to improve the handling.

 

Marck,

Ah! My picture archive is mislabelled! Groovyjay must've posted that picture at some point. Thanks for that page

I think I get what you mean about the springs, I assume what you mean by "knots" is 'nodes', like vibrating a piece of string. I've had some physics, so I get that. Seems like a dual-mount spring would pretty well remove most of that effect, but I guess it would still be there a bit.

You're probably right about the pushrod system too, sometimes I need someone to talk me out of my crazy ideas, hehe. The tuneability of the rocker system couldn't be any better than the tuning of coilovers, maybe a little more convenient.

-Chris

 

Yes, so it's called nodes over ther? It's called a knot here, a point where there is no amplitude A dual spring won't eliminate all of that, a single mount will transfer most harmonics, a dual will help a lot but it won't totally fix it. Best would probably be a flat strip that clamps the section of the spring between the 2 mounts.

 

Yep, nodes is what I've always heard them called. I've never gotten a good look at a dual-mount spring, but maybe there's a way to use the stock mounting plate to isolate the sides?

-Chris

 

Was looking at the differential in my 81 a while ago. Years ago I bought the bracket to lower the inside ends of the lower links. At the same time I also installed an internally threaded tube and rod ends.

I still have the original bracket and with some cutting and fabricating, that bracket could be flipped upside down and mounted on top of the differential and used as the mounting point for the upper links. It would put the inside ends of the upper links the same as lower links.

Before I start re-inventing the wheel, has anyone ever looked at this?

 

got pics?

 

Yes I have one. But guess I haven't been on here long enough to qualify to post attachments... Isn't there suppose to be a browse button where I can select pics to add to messages?

 

I think attachments are disabled. You need to host the pic on your own site or up top in the sticky section i think. The site offers free uploads to their pic gallery. Do that, and post link for pics

 

I think I know what you're talking about and hate to say it but I don't think it can be done. The lower bracket secures w/ 4 through bolts btw, they are identical in arrangement to the later stuff used on the C4, the 2 separate camber brackets for the C4 are a direct fit to the C3, if anyone knows if the C4 brackets have a revised hole location to fix some of the jacking problems and give better camber control then it may be a nice trick to use those. Back to the topic, the 4 bolt holes in the diff lid & housing are not the same as those used to bolt the lid to the housing, on the top there are no 4 bolts to use, there are only 2 bolts that thread into the housing that hold the lid. So, if you would gabricate aa bracket to fit there you'd need a slightly longer bolt but the bracket would only be held by 2 bolts and only on one side, there's no through bolt arrangement possible there. I don't see how you can securely fasten the bracket on top and not have it shear off.

Picture:


Here you can clearly see the holes on the lower end of the diff for the through bolts.

 

Norval, using the lower bracket up top, isn't that what Brutus did? It looks to me like it would be simpler to just fab a backet that is right for the rod end width. Maybe you would have to shim the rod end or the bracket to diff connection a little to get a match but it would be a lot narrower and you would get away from those long bolts.