Rear camber strut bracket design change
#1
Racer
Thread Starter
Rear camber strut bracket design change
What year was the design changed?Can the newer version be used on the early c4?I noticed the design was changed to eliminate the camber change during suspension travel.
#3
I've seen your "reason why" debated I believe.
#4
Safety Car
Have you compared it to the Banski kit? If you use the newer ones you might be able to sleeve the bolts down to 10 mm and not have to drill and tap anything assuming this other one doesn't do what you need.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
#5
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
Do you mean that the newer design doesn't eliminate camber change? I agree that it doesn't eliminate it. Newer car still exhibits pretty radical camber change throughout it's travel. Only way to eliminate it is to lower the lower arm mounting point until it's the same distance from the u-joint center line (pivot point of the "upper arm") as the outer u-joint centerline is from the outer lower arm/knuckle pivot.
#6
Racer
Thread Starter
I have a 57 Chevy I am working on with 85 vette rear suspension.The camber change when cycling the rear suspension is quite severe .I got a set of 1990 brackets and I am going to check the fit on those.I have a buddy that has a 4x4/ fab shop and I just might try making a single piece the bolts across the bottom of the diff for both sides.I have a 87 I want to fix this on too.Tom400cfi spotted the cure for the design.I can't believe GM would design something like that but low profile tires were just coming on the market .
Last edited by odxr; 08-27-2017 at 07:24 PM.
#7
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
If we eliminate body roll though, with big bars, suspension geometry and low COG, then we want to minimize camber change, since we won't create any with body roll, but we'd be hurting traction through suspension jounce and rebound over bumps as the tire won't stay vertical on the road.
#8
Le Mans Master
I hear that...but keep in mind that there are benefits to that feature in a typical street car. A street car has some body roll in turns. Adding negative camber during jounce (compression) will compensate for the angularity of the body and consequently suspension points and tire angle (actual camber)....keeping the tire straight up and down during cornering and body roll. In theory.
If we eliminate body roll though, with big bars, suspension geometry and low COG, then we want to minimize camber change, since we won't create any with body roll, but we'd be hurting traction through suspension jounce and rebound over bumps as the tire won't stay vertical on the road.
Radial tires are interesting creatures. They actually want to corner with negative camber (tires leaning into the corners). So the idea of keeping a tire perfectly vertical in cornering is not really the goal for radial tires. That said, if you look at good action shots of any production car cornering hard, you won't find any with negative camber on the outside tires. It's a whole lot harder to make that happen than people think. If you don't believe that, here's a pic of my car with 1125lb front spring, 550lb rear spring, -3.5* static front camber, and -2.5* static rear camber:
At best, you see that the front is only just vertical and the rear still has a little positive camber. At some point you have to account for longitudinal traction in braking and acceleration, though. So there are limits to static camber settings.
To the OP's question, I think the basic answer depends on whether the two camber arms (older and newer) at the same length. The newer C4 rear geometry changed more than just the camber arm length. I believe the mounting height for the camber arm was lowered to reduce the roll center height. I don't know what introducing the newer camber arm into an old suspension actually will do. One thing about all these OE arms is that they seem to have a bad habit of moving their static camber setting (the eccentric) when a car is cornered hard. The Banski arms (or any spherical bearing setup) will eliminate that.
Last edited by MatthewMiller; 08-28-2017 at 11:44 AM.
#9
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
with all of that. I was just trying to KISS an answer to "I can't believe GM would design something like that".
The pic is great, and pics like that can be great diagnostic/tuning tools. At least, for a poor guy like me.
.
The pic is great, and pics like that can be great diagnostic/tuning tools. At least, for a poor guy like me.
.
Last edited by Tom400CFI; 08-28-2017 at 03:10 PM.
#10
Racer
Thread Starter
Matt-very cool pick of your car working very hard-left front wheel is off the ground.Probably a little frame twisting going on there.I got a set of the 88 up style brackets from ebay cheap.The mounting point is lower to the ground and I am going to install them on the project car to see if it will work.I had an old 77 Datsun 280z that I ran hpde track days with and it was set up with negative camber front and rear.Its amazing when you get a good set of tires up to operating temp how good they will stick.
#11
Le Mans Master
Matt-very cool pick of your car working very hard-left front wheel is off the ground.Probably a little frame twisting going on there.I got a set of the 88 up style brackets from ebay cheap.The mounting point is lower to the ground and I am going to install them on the project car to see if it will work.I had an old 77 Datsun 280z that I ran hpde track days with and it was set up with negative camber front and rear.Its amazing when you get a good set of tires up to operating temp how good they will stick.
What the tire coming up means is that the car is relatively stiff in the front roll rate (spring plus swaybar), and therefore transferring a lot of grip to the outside rear tire. That makes it launch out of corners hard, possibly at the expense of steady-state grip compared to if it had more rear roll stiffness. I will probably experiment with a bigger rear swaybar to see if moving some grip to the front will be an overall improvement. I may find that helps with the Hoosiers but not with the Rivals.
I'm curious what you'll find with the updated camber rod and mount. If the length is correct, it will probably help keep the rear grip more linear, with less jacking effect (due to lower roll center). Let us know.
#12
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
#13
Le Mans Master
That was presumably with 1980s street tires at 255mm width, though. In that pic I'm running 315 Hoosier A7 tires. Consider that I'm probably pulling 1.4-1.5G in corners. We can probably add 500lb to that number for my situation.
#14
Team Owner
Pro Mechanic
Yeah, that is quite possible. I've always thought that the most force applied to the frame in torsion would be driving through a gutter diagonally, like when entering or leaving a gas station. When doing that, I can get my car on two opposing wheels for a second, before it teeters over onto a third wheel (or I roll back onto flatish ground). Anyway, at that point, 50% of ~3400 lbs is twisting the frame. What is going on when you're cornering like in your pic? Hard to say but if you're pulling over 1g (and I have no doubt that you are), with one wheel in the air, it stands to reason that you could be applying 1.xg * .5 * ~3400 lbs in torsion to the frame of the car. She's under some stress, for sure.
Whatever the actual numbers are, the measured figure in the text above was pretty mind blowing when I first read it. The roof has a hell of a job to do!
.
Whatever the actual numbers are, the measured figure in the text above was pretty mind blowing when I first read it. The roof has a hell of a job to do!
.
Last edited by Tom400CFI; 08-29-2017 at 10:27 AM.
#15
Racer
Thread Starter
I bought a set of 88-up brackets on ebay.I am building a 57 Chevy with c4 rear suspension I noticed the extreme camber change while cycling the suspension with a floor jack.The 88-up brackets are a direct bolt in.I am sure GM didn't have the software and computer power we have today with programs like Solidworks.