I just googled these pics and I think they are from Franks album. I'll see if I can find some showing my setup.

I'd have to agree with you Tony, I bet a good chunk of these G-bars and G-Links were sold by Frank and they aren't as fully tested as DSE suspensions. Although the Ridetech Airbar is the same layout as Todd and Tony's G-bar. Haven't heard much issues on their end.

Here's a photo where mine sits now, with the shorter springs.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d1...Picture026.jpg

Amen to that statement right there!
G.

I saw same on my Strange fronts and Varishock rears. One of the things I really like about swapping all 4 to the RideTech coilovers - the collar does not have that freak-you-out-might-fall-out notch. Plus with the built-in, tapered rubber "bumper" they just seem to find home everytime as well. (Can't tell you the number of times I've been working on the car and the previous setup would "click" back into place a minute after lowering the car - scarred the bejesus out of me lol!)

As Todd says - should not be an issue under most circumstances but the safety wire is a great idea for sure. Plus, it is my understanding that coilover spring adjustment is designed to be for pre-load, NOT ride-height adjustment but you will rarely see that behavior around here lol!

Gregg

My rear springs will support the car with 0 preload. I have changed over to a stiffer hypercoil spring. The 12" alston spring did need a bunch of pre load. You definitely don't want that collar popping on and off of the shock body. That won't lead to anything positive.

Yep, 17s. I will let you know what I find out.

You can get helper springs to take up the slack. They are made from flat stock have a very low spring rate and only decompress when the suspension is not loaded. Eibach makes them among others. You also need a collar that installs between the two springs. I had to use them on my Art Morrison subframe to get the ride height I wanted without worrying about the springs falling off the perch.

Here they are, the picture is not accurate:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EIB-HELPER250/

These are the collars:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EIB-SPACER250/

A pricey solution but one that guarantees safety.

Don

I don't have any pictures yet, the cracks are still hairline. I already had the cradle welded in and at the paint shop before I heard that this was happening, so I've been keeping a close eye on it. It is mini-tubbed, 4 point roll bar and the frame rails are the flawless originals. Once the Autorama is over with, I plan on addressing this problem. If you go to Vegas69 thread probably page 230 something, Todd has some pictures of his and another Camaro that this has happened to. In my opinion it is a flaw in the design that can easily be repaired, just sucks if your car is already done and the underside has nice paint on it.

Thanks for pointing me to that photo. Thanks for that info. I've attached for others to see. I don't know that I'll knock my car around that hard, and I'll keep an eye on it when the car hits the road.

That's not mine but a g link failure. Mine was just cracked around all three sides.

I'd get full weight and a few miles on them before you make the changes. But before switching to a shorter spring try a 150# or 175# 12" spring you should get a bit more compression out of it and still maintain a good ride.

Photo posting
 

Todd, Thanks for your input and comments on the subject. I've read through your problem description and fix, and it looks like you have had a chance to beat it pretty hard since the repair. Is the fix holding up?

I'll fab up some supports and have the shop weld them in when I get my G-link welded in.

I've wondered what might happen by cutting the rear of the car to get the mini-tubs in. Looks like we can get a few things to bend and break that weren't supposed to.

And 2,500 posts on your build thread, you are the man!!:unibrow:

I agree.. also measure the eye-to-eye of the shock when the springs have been broken in, or at least with some added weight in the trunk to simulate the sub box, full tank, etx. I believe the shocks are supposed to be 13.5" i2i at normal ride height leaving about 2.5" for bump travel and 2.5" for rebound travel.

If the spring is broken in and the i2i measurement is ~13.5" with normal weight on the 200lb/in springs, I don't think shorter springs or lighter weight springs would be the answer.

Lighter weight spring would be taking the same coilover but asking it to sit deeper into it's travel at regular ride height, so i might have 2" of bump travel and 4" of rebound travel, and on top of that the reduced stiffness of the spring will allow the shock to come that much closer & that much easier to bottoming out over a same bump for a heavier rate spring.

To use a shorter spring, the spring rate would have to go up (to keep same ride quality and 13.5" i2i) or else say a 10" or even 8" spring (to exaggerate) might coil-bind under full compression on the same 5"-travel shock body.

Really the ideal way to lower the rear end even more would be to get an overall-shorter-bodied coilover that maintains the same 5" travel (VariShock is 16.10", Koni is 16.10", Ridetech is ~15.9".. hard to find any shorter), to get a shorter-travel coilover with stiffer spring (due to reduced bump travel, at a sacrifice of ride quality), or to either lower the axle-side coilover mount or raise the framerail/body-side coilover mount.

CAC Sold me a 12-175 in my G-link Kit
 

Mike at CAC recommended and sold a set of 12" / 175 lb springs for the G-link rear. So that is the recommended set up from them. When I purchased they wanted to know how I planned to drive and what kind of power train package I was running. With a mild LS1/T56 and with my intended use of local grocery getter, summer time commuter up and down mountain roads in the Santa Cruz Mountains, and an auto cross/drag strip half a dozen times a year (fun not competition) that was the recommendation. They didn't recommend a stiffer spring unless it was really going to be used for competition.

And while the mountain roads are fun up here, this County and State are broke and the roads have their problems here and there. Having a stiff suspension would just result in my fillings popping out of my teeth if drive it too hard all the time.

Just my 2 cents.... ;)

So far....:unibrow: And my thread is at least half a bull **** fest. :thumbsup:

Just a FYI I just set my 72 Nova down with the G-Link on the lowest possible settings and it visually looks a lot better than the camaros here. The top edge of my rear wheels is tucked 1/4 of an inch or better and this is with an empty gas tank, no deck lid etc. I'm running 18 inch with 275/40 tires.

It's all just mocked up but I'm happy with the height.

Mocked up on lowest possible setting combination. Here is full compression with an 18" rim and 275 tire...

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-1.jpg

1.75" clearance to framerail at full compression, with axle rotated forward a bit more than it would otherwise be if the upper link tabs were welded on, so figure actually 2.0" clearance...

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-2.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-3.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-4.jpg

2.0" rim tuck at full compression..

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-5.jpg

Recommended ride height for "race" of 50/50 bump travel (~2.5" bump, ~2.5" rebound, total 5.10 travel) equals ~13.5" eye-to-eye on the VariShock (full extended length is 16.10")...

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-6.jpg

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-8.jpg

At 2.5" of bump travel, 18" rim is hanging 0.5" below wheel lip.

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-9.jpg

Guy's i'm also courious about this,i have a g-link installed in my 69 camaro mini tubed,etc,and was wondering what the ride height difference would be between the 12-200 and the 10-200 spring i have the 12-200 spring now.THANKS!

Trouble is that you still want to be roughly centered in the travel of the shock. If you go too low you will not have any shock compression left and you will be bottoming out the shock. Centering the shock travel determines ride height. You can vary from that a little but not a whole lot.

Don

Realistically for a 5" travel shock, you're not gonna want to lower it much more than to 2" bump/3"rebound for street driving. The absolute lowest I would ever let the shock "live" purely with a shorter spring would be with 1.5" bump/3.5" rebound, and that would have to be a lighter car and a very stiff spring, for racing conditions only. And that would only lower the rear end 1" past the max adjustment in ride height from suspension linkage. That's why I would recommend moving the upper shock mount higher or the lower shock mount lower, relative to the frame/rear axle :cheers:

reducing spring height will limit shock travel and will either coil bind or damage the shock for running it too low. if you want to lower the car you need to run a shorter shock and longest spring will give a softer ride.

Does anyone have a pic of a 68 camaro with g-link that sits low? And explain how it was achieved? I see some that are low but it sounds like something other than recommended parts are used in conjunction with the g-link....? Thanks

Frojoe sent me some great pics of how he raised the shock mounting cross bar and modified the trunk floor so it kept the shock in the middle of its travel. Maybe pm him to get the pics. Check this thread post #56 for him.

Thanks! I'm gonna check it out

No, G-link!!! Frank sold me what he called his Prodigy 4 link. As I stated previously, what arrived was the Alston G-Link (NOT a G-Bar). BTW, the yellow section of the spring is a take up spring from Speedway Motors. This keeps tension on the upper spring retainer when the suspension is unloaded. The take-up spring became necessary when I swiched to the shorter 8-200 springs.

http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Ca...0112%20001.jpg

part of that issue is the higher wheel lip openings over the 69. Second gen firebird guys have the same issue. We had to go to a shorter coilover, but you better make sure your good on ground clearance.

This has been posted numerous times before but here it is again. DSE subframe and G-Link with 8-200 springs which allows for more adjustment down. See my previous post above.

http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Ca...maro%20001.jpg

In the interest of people searching this in the future, do you have 8-200 springs, or 10-200? You said 10-200 earlier in the thread.

Also for reference, the Prodigy Bar was produced when the only option was the g-bar, or air rides version, both of which had poly bushings. Frank sold what was a g-bar that had been modified to have swivel links. He also at one time sold a kit to do the modification yourself, it included the swivel links and taps. When the G-link came out, there was no reason to do the modification, because the G-link was essentially the same thing

An interesting thing I noticed was that there is evidently different adjustment holes in the g-link brackets. The first pic has 5 adjustment holes. The second picture has 6 adjustment holes. Both are the bolt on mounts.


http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-6.jpg

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u...o_g-Bar_04.jpg

In the below picture, with the shock bottomed out(on the 5 hole axle bracket), the axle isn't against the frame, but notice that you can see where the factory axle bumper was attached. There isn't much room under there, and getting into the factory rubber bumper too hard will let the axle kiss the floorpan.

http://ls1tech.com/forums/attachment...972-nova-2.jpg

That is why the DSE 4link has the shock mount that cuts out so much of the factory floor, it is to provide axle clearance when the axle tube is bottomed out.

Wow Im having this same issuer right now with my car not going as low as I want it.

Looks like I need smaller springs.

you need a shorter shock. the pic showing the shock bottomed out before hitting the bump stop is not ideal. If you run a shorter spring, it in turn has less travel and trying to get the car lower could ultimately damage the shock by bottoming it out.

Is there any wonder threads go around in circles forever? You already started a post about your car sitting high, but it isn't even assembled. What do you expect? How exactly is a car supposed to sit at ride height when it is just a shell?

This isn't rocket science guys. Coilovers exist so that springs and ride heights can be easily changed. Alston specified a coilover with 5 inches of travel, because it is generally accepted that a rear suspension needs 2-3 inches of bump travel for good handling and ride. We all know that our cars often run with less suspension travel to get the look we are after. So if you want to run lower, get shorter springs. There is plenty of adjustment on the threaded part of the shock, the different shock mount attachments, and springs, so that you can find an ideal setting for your needs. Its not like it comes welded together in one fixed position.

It really is as easy as that.

Anyone care to guess how many people would complain that there wasn't enough travel if the suspension came with a 4 inch travel shock, and bottomed out into the floorpan? :rolleyes:

The Alston installation instructions show the factory bumpstop is retained. In that picture, the bumpstop is missing. The shock is fine if the bumpstop is installed, which it always should be.

I am no suspension engineer or expert and I know you support Frank and his business. But everyone has a different idea of what they want for thier car. And when an experienced salesman like Frank tells you the car will sit where you want or need it to sit without any of these problems like most of these guys are experiencing, this is why these people are complaining. If it was known or disclosed from Alston or its dealers that the standard 10" spring would have alot of these cars sitting like 4x4's even if they have the correct amount of travel, I doubt alot of the kits sold would have ever been ordered in the first place.

I think I specifically asked you in a previous thread about the DSE shock cross member allowing for a different shock position hence thier suspension being able to work at a lower ride height and you said I was incorrect. Now your saying it's there to allow axle tube clearance when bottomed out?

Do you have a G link with a Fab 9 or 12 bolt.

My Bad! That was a typo which I corrected. I'm running 8-200 springs. The G-Link was delivered with 12-200 springs.

If you are curious like I was then simply remove the springs and use a jack and stands to raise the rear until you reach the minimum 13.5" eye-to-eye length for the shock. That will tell you roughly where your ride height will be. You may later end up needing shorter springs to get to that value but no need to worry about that too much until you get the weight in the car.

Yes, I just did this last weekend because I was curious :).

John

Can't miss an opportunity to continue beating a dead horse, can you?

It is simple, the purpose of buying an adjustable suspension is to take advantage of ADJUSTING

To say any of them look like 4x4's is just ignorant. Given the different rear floorpans (you did know 67's have less clearance before the top of the axle hits the floor didn't you?) and the production tolerances, G-links can be adjusted to get as low as the factory floorpan and bumpstops will allow.

Like I care if you call me ignorant or beating a dead horse. I am trying to help other Lateral-G forum members learn from my mistake in listening to a good salesman. Not bashing them for trying to help eachother out to solve a problem. You obviously have an agenda to stick up for what's in your car and who sold it to you and installed it for you. So again. Have fun with your 4x4 67 with correct geometry.

So my advice, do your due dilegence in researching a rear suspension design that meets goals of looks, performance and adjustability. And don't always think a salemans words are as good as gold.

OK let's all just calm down a bit.

A rear suspension is a rear suspension is a rear suspension. GBar, G-Link, Quadralink, LateralDynamics 3link... all have the same hinderance if you want your car low... framerails and trunk floorpan.

There's no way about it, if you want your car silly low you will run into differential axletube clearance to the framerails at full bump. GLink is designed to retain the factory bumpstops and not to have the pumpkin collide with the trunk floorpan. Quadralink cuts the trunkpan out between the framerails and raises it, for two reasons: 1) so that a stronger reinforced boxed section can be put in there to support the load from the shocks, and 2) to gain additional pumpkin clearance at the low ride heights that Quadralink is lusted after for. I'm guessing the Quadralink relies on the coilover's bumpstops for full bump/bottomout protection, and if that's true and the factory framerail bumps stops can be removed, then there you go, that's a good extra 2" of low that can be had without worrying about the rear end hitting the framerails.

As for the topic of just using shorter coils on the G-Link, I can't believe it's still going on. IF you're to use a short coil (but to be safe can only be marginally shorter) then you have to up the spring stiffness to better protect against harsh shock bottomout with the reduced bump travel available. Simply reducing the free length of the spring without increasing spring stiffness is a disaster waiting to happen. And when you consider the recommended bump travel range of a 5" shock is 3" (street) down to a minimum of 2" (racing)... is reducing the bump travel of the shock via shorter coil really worth it for ~only~ a maximum of maybe 3/4" drop (depending what eye-to-eye you're starting with) overall?? I don't think so.

Does the DSE Quadralink modify the driveshaft tunnel? Not that I'm aware of....

Joe is exactly right, you can put shorter springs on the car but you lose precious bump travel. All you need to do is lower your bottom shock mount to retain your travel. Mock it up as has been said at the ride height you want and then modify your lower shock mounting point. Just make sure you take into account the pumpkin/yoke clearance. The more POSITIVE pinion angle you run, the less freedom you have.

I've got mine setup as low as it will go while having 2.25" of bump and having a realistic margin of tunnel clearance.(Old G Bar) But it's the same concept. I believe it's around 24.25" to the crease on the quarter at the centerline of the axle.( I can check my notes) I set mine up at 24.5" with 50/50 bump/rebound and have since lowered it a .25". It didn't bottom out at 2.5" but it will lightly at 2.25 under extreme conditions.

diff. hitting shock bar
 

Hi there i am new to this site but i just finished installing the g link air ride this spring i am runing a 10 bolt and my diff hits the shock bar when lowered. to fix the problem i just cut the shock bar above the diff and rewelded it in 1.25"futher to the back