I'm fine with mine I like the extra "material" in those areas of stress, imagined or real.

 

Slick, Make no mistake; I agree that more material in that area is beneficial. I agree that the Beam Plates are an upgrade and a good idea. I DON'T agree that they can in any way prevent or reduce this lore of "kick out". Kick out has been explained by several on here in a LOGICAL way; (rear toe adjustments, varying traction due to tires, etc). Washers on a bolt (or lack thereof) do not cause "kick out". And if it does, I'm waiting (still) for someone to explain that, in a logical, physics based way. Not "I ran tests w/my butt-o-meter.


Hey buddy, don't paint a false picture here; I ASKED YOU, to simply provide the "science" that YOU referred to earlier. Ya didn't do it. I'm still waiting. I asked you to share the "evidence" that your sway bar gave you...Still waiting on that one too.

I am in NO WAY, trying to "silence" anyone. I ASKED FOR FURTHER DETAILS!! Where are they??

You know...you could READ the link I provided and actually learn something.

 

It's really interesting how people get all worked up... we are all in the same LOUSY boat, think about it... life on the corv-forum equals pretty much an excuse for life.

Some addicted
Some lonely
Some need the help
Some give the help
Some don't know where else to go or maybe they are closet "other forum members, which is worse cause you got more than one stupidity going on here.
Some find Vettes pretty interesting most of the time.
Some save money by posting and not drinking heavily, going to the titty bars or Vegas.
Some like to debate/argue about some car related controversy.

I just have to equate it to the Camber bar.... it's better than nothing and the variables will make the experience different for differing combo's/cars imho, ymmv, ibtl

 

Hmmmm....that's not proof either. I pretty much find myself thinking there HAS to be a miniscule difference in deflection with the beam plates though, but I also think it would be SO small that the difference isn't worth the price.

Like buying a larger throttle body for a stock Corvette.

Nope...upon further consideration....I only see it helping if.....Nope...I just don't see them buggar's helping. Mark me up for the "I don't believe it" camp.

Plus, I had zero issue getting those bolts in/out.




But, let's talk 'bout that ttty-bar comment. You're probably right on that one. Another good thing is: About the time you get too old to get "down" into a Corvette, you pretty much start losing interest in those bars too. So, you can give up one crutch when the other gets too difficult!
Win-Win!

Hey Slick...is that what's written on that T-Shirt?

 

I know one thing for sure, when I tried to sell the car, no one gave a chit about the plates, they didn't even gave a chit about the afr heads and cusinart ported super ram.

I think the more power mods the c4 has in place the more it will tax the factory platform...so in a stock horsepower car, not wreaking havoc on the chassis

( and our c4's are known to move a little here and there, even on driveways with the top off)

4-5 hundred horses will shake things up a bit. and those connection spots need all the help they can, maybe not so much on a straight line and a solid rear setup like 383vette,

but in the twisties and really humping it on choppy roads and chasing down ferraris and leaving 911 porsches in the dust and especially when I didn't change my batwing bushings to poly's... shhhh don't tell anyone....

 

Have not needed beam plates or camber braces on my cars. They are expensive for what they are. Lots of people wind up with a slow but expensive car.

 

You're so bad. LOL

One thing you may not be aware of....those beam plates are made of noflexium-tracktanium alloy.

 

R&D camber brace:

I did notice a difference on my 93 vert. Not night&day, but a definite difference. Top-down handling was improved (felt like I could turn 'tighter). I also noticed a litte bit rougher ride which I equate to the camber brace tightening up the suspension (ie. metal frame rails 'oscillated' and absorbed shock. lol. camber brace prevent that). I was doing autoX at the time I added the camber brace.

Note: that I do have a 6 point welded cage in my vert. Maybe the camber brace was the 'missing link' because I didnt notice as big a difference in handling as I thought I would after the cage was added.

Top-up handling... I didnt notice a thing.

I had to sell the camber brace because it got in the way of my supercharger when I added that.

 

I have both pieces on the 86. And both have added value over the years.

The camber brace is functional to "box" the upper and lower control arm mounts reducing flex. This is most notable when driving with the roof panel off. Steering feedback is still positive and the loose feeling is gone. It's a PITA to install and work around. I left it out after pulling the engine last winter and have noticed the difference when we're up in the hills on the twisties.

The C-beam plates have saved me countless hours of hassle when pulling and replacing the transmission/rear end. The SEVENTY SOMETHING SPENT ON A GROUP PURCHASE YEARS AGO was worth every penny.

Maybe if some of the members here would quit griping at each other and work together for a group purchase on these or other products, the energy spent might make a difference in all of our cars.

 

Tom,

Let's just bury the hatchet for a second. You are obviously passionate about this subject. I'm trying to understand why my car's problem is now corrected. Until recently my car had a pretty serious kick that made it unsafe.

First, the sway bar. When I was under my car this summer replacing the transmission I noticed clean paint on the sway bar where it attaches to the frame. It looked like the body had shifted about 1/2" to the right. Maybe this is normal. To me it was interesting that it only shifted in that direction. I could only attribute that to the violent kick I was getting.

Second, I never stated I had the science. I said I did not get into the science when I bought the plates. I was buying them for installation ease. I did state my observation that after installation my kick-out was gone. At the time, I happended to be test driving a new timing table. It dawned on me that I was launching in a straight line. That was something new. So this wasn't a placebo pill. This was a pleasant surprise. I have launched under hard acceleration several times since then with the same results.

I am honestly scratching my head trying to understand what changed. You have to admit the C beam is a pretty unique design. Typically a transmission is coupled to the frame and the differential is loosely coupled through springs. Under acceleration the engine tends to twist in the mounts from the torque. Normally that twist is not translated to the differential. That's where the C beam differs. Now the twist is being translated to the differential and from the batwing to the frame. So that could be one of the dynamics involved. I don't know.

The other theory from ZF Doc is that the twist in the C beam causes a lateral deflection of the beam. With no way of measuring that deflection it is hard to say if that contributes. But if the beam does deflect in a twisting manner that could introduce new forces.

Here's what I really don't understand. If twist is the problem, I would expect the frame to twist and raise the right rear wheel. That would provide more traction to the left side which should result in a kick to the left. But that's not what we see. So I can only conclude that there must be other forces in play.

Not looking for a fight. I'm not working this week and it's been raining. So I'm bored.

 

the problem is missmatchet components.

 

Camber brace, X-brace, and beam-plates are all obviously different items. I'd consider either of the first two...and have. I'd opt into a group purchase for either. Put my name "in the hat" for the new guy's (RPOvette?) x-brace efforts though I got snubbed with the sidepipes. (OTOH, he didn't ask how set I was on keeping them.)

Maybe these beam plates are bigger than pictures make them look. Seems like a couple of extra large "carriage" washers would do the same thing....you know, not much.

TBH, I'd even look to the r/r of the C-beam as a reason for less kickout. Maybe those satisfied ended up with tighter bolts after taking them out -- to install the C-Beam?

I don't have an issue with kick-out. Just keeping those large 315's planted on less-than-smooth pavement. It may be time to consider dog-bone bushings....or "U-joints" in the rear axles?

 

My thought is that this thread is starting to wear out. Whether camber plates work or not is not worth getting ones blood pressure up. My experience is that torquing the c-beam bolts 55ft lbs up front and 65 in the rear is as good as having the plates.

 

I think tom started this argument back in February,
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-t...al-member.html

my theory is that the c4 is 20 to 27 years old now, if you take something apart, clean it up, put in new parts and do everything up properly again it will perform better !

 

You mean beam plates? Camber brace sits in front of the engine. X-Brace under the frame. I wonder if/what confusion there might be in this thread?

 

I am scratching my head too (seriously), trying to figure out where this "kick out" thing came from. You're not the only one to make the claim, so. I'm not trying to be argumentative either, so please don't be offended by the below....

No. The C-Beam is a terrible device for transmitting torque -as is any "C"-channel beam. A round tube is ideal for transmitting tq (as in a drive shaft) and that is what is used in the C5^, for that very reason. In the C5^, the tq in the powertrain is "resolved" in the tq tube. Total tq from the power train exerted on the frame is basically zero (in a lateral direction). The C4 is 1/2 of the way to the C5^; it has the C-beam which manages diff tq in the longitudinal direction (the tq that makes the wheels turn) but the C-beam doesn't attempt to, and can not manage tq laterally. The frame of the C4 has to, and does resolve this tq.


Again, the C-beam doesn't and can't manage twisting forces. Can't do it.


I agree that the frame is not twisting. Certainly not enough to have a meaningful effect on the subject at hand. The frame is strong and doesn't twist on a stock or stockish car.

The ONLY things that I can think of that would create a 'kick out' (baring road camber, tires, alignment, etc.) -anything related to the C-beam and the diff is this; if the diff moves and that movement changes the alignment -either toe or camber. Let's look at the options.
*If the diff "tilted" CCW as viewed from the rear, under hard acceleration, that would change the camber on both wheels; more positive on the drivers wheel and more negative on the passenger's. But in this mode, the diff is supported by the batwing which is wide and has lot's of "leverage". Deflection in this direction would be pretty minimal and anyway (as stated above) has nothing to do w/the C-beam.

*How about twisting of the diff as viewed from above the car, looking down? This would change the toe on both wheels and could absolutely create a "kick out" sensation/action of the rear. But I can't figure what forces would cause the diff to deflect in this manner. And even if it did, again, this is a force that the C-beam wasn't designed to manage, and can't do very well -though it can manage this better than the tq between trans and diff!

*Lastly, is rotation of the diff opposite the direction of wheel acceleration. THIS is what the C-beam was designed to manage! That and holding the azz-end of the trans up. So assuming your rear beam-bolts were loose, holes oblong'ed, or what ever and this allowed some (slight) upward movement of the pinion...then what? That doesn't change alignment at all.

So I can't see how loose bolts, obling'ed holes, washers or no...any of that can affect the rear end handling of the car. Unless someone can explain how the diff could potentially rotate as viewed from above, looking down at the car, as a result of flimsy beam/diff connection...

 

I think that you're right on both counts.

Here is an excerpt from that thread, that discusses specifically the ability of the C-beam to manage tq along the centerline of the drivetrain...

 

Meant beam plates. This thread is wearing me out.

 

Sorry it's wearing you out 383. You could ignore it...

I'm hoping to clarify something here; maybe learn something in the process. Not intending on "wearing" on anyone.

 

Well, your doing a good job!