Mine has a 12 bolt, and it does not hit the shock crossbar.

I noticed a couple weeks ago that my shock crossmember is the first thing to hit with my setup too. Specifically the oil filler on the Fab9. Seems like maybe Chassisworks could come up with a solution since both the housing and the G-link are Chassisworks products. I plan to call them soon. I'm actually debating on whether to raise the trunk floor and redo the entire shock mounting setup to gain a lower ride height and exhaust clearance. And I thought this would be a "bolt-in" like setup... :rolleyes:

I'm not understanding where you are coming from about your "mistake", because your car has leafs. I don't have an agenda, yes my car has a g-link, no it doesn't sit like a 4x4 (nor does vegas69's). I'm not sticking up for who sold it to me, and he's not responsible for the thing anyway. Alston Chassisworks designed it and built it. The subject doesn't have anything to do with salesman. I got a g-link because one of my priorities was not cutting the floor out of a 68 one owner car like the dse rear suspension requires.

How a car sits visually, is largely dependent on the tire sizes. A 67-8 looks quite different with an 18 335 tire than a 69. Doesn't have anything to do with the suspension, its the shape of the wheelwell. They can all look good, the g-link, the DSE, and yours on leafs also.

If you are trying to help other forum members like you say, why not listen to others who actually have a g-link, instead of inflammatory comments like saying they make a car sit like a 4x4. John510's problem is apparently a rear filler tube on a fab9, the tube or the shock crossmember can be moved. It isnt the end of the world. It's probably not a rear that the suspension was originally designed for, but since they sell it, redesigning the crossmember would be a good idea. One modification effects another, that is hot rodding. Fix it and go on.

You don't like one of the vendors who sold them, I understand that and assume you have good reasons, but it doesn't make any issue his fault. If you read Vegas69's build thread, you will see he has recently changed to double adjustable shocks, and reports improvements from the change. Does this make the stock g-link shock junk? Not necessarily, everything has a price point, and not everyone needs double adjustable shocks. Shocks prices go to the moon, go price out some Penske's if you want a heart attack. If you wanted, you could spend more than the price of a DSE front sub on shocks.

The running height of the DSE 69 test car and Vegas69's car look to be almost identical. If you search, you will find magazine photos of the DSE 69 that look lower, but shots of it at events look like it usually runs a little higher, ie about where vegas 69 runs his. This is because a good performing suspension needs adequate travel, and the limits of travel are the floorpan and frame rails. DSE engineers good parts, and I guarantee they don't bottom theirs out on the frame rail, neither does a g-link. If there are any differences, they are probably because of the difference between the 67, and the 68-9 floorpans. The 67 is different right above the differential, and has less room. The DSE suspension eliminates the issue by cutting the whole area out. Find a picture of the DSE rear with the shocks installed and no springs, fully compressed, and the glink the same way and I bet you will find the whole discussion is splitting hairs.

Bottom line is that any differences are minor at best, and they are both good performance suspensions.

https://lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=29563 :_paranoid

Barraza I do have a G-Link in my car now was upgraded last year. I did upgrade to the double adjustable Varishocks in the rear. The overall system performance has been fine I was not happy that an engineered kit had to be modified to get right in the car it's designed for. (IE Ride height) I don't have a problem with Frank, he got me my parts and for a good price. He did not rip me off at all. Just logistics and delays. I asked him probably 100 times about the ride height before I ordered as I couldn't find many G-Link cars sitting like the Q-Link cars online. He just kept emailing me the same pictures of a Yellow 69 they did. And I think pictures of your install with a 12-bolt.

FYI Vegas 69's suspension is the older style G-bar/Prodigy Bar/Air bar not the later design G-Link like were running. So comparing his car is a little different, he knows what I'm talking about.

Anyways thanks for the reply, sorry to call your car a 4x4 you should really post some pics of it and your install to help these members out.

Sorry, I looked at your feature page and it said leafs.

I haven't run mine down to see how much clearance is available at the frame rail when the differential touches the floorpan, maybe I will just for grins. Doesn't matter to me though, mine sits where I want it for the speedbumps I have to go over to drop my son off at school daily.

One of the issues is that many of us, me included, have run our cars at much less than the 3 inches of bump travel that suspension designers like to see. Alston is obviously going to design to reasonable ride standard (3"), and I bet the DSE Q-link has a similar design height. However, just like when we were running leafs, we are free to go lower depending on our personal needs. The problem is that the kit as sold didn't really leave much adjustment room to go lower, whereas the DSE design apparently lets you adjust lower. It is still not clear whether a lower ride height Q-link has any more meaningful travel, ie are we talking 1/4-1/2" or something more? You can't just measure from the axle to the frame and call it good, because I bet DSE's also bottoms before hitting the frame. Hitting the frame directly with the axle on a hard bump would surely bend it. Shorter springs are the easy answer, and there is nothing wrong with them as long as the user knows that they are limited in travel and still has bumpstops. I would still like to see a Q-link and a G-link bottomed, I doubt there is much difference.

The floor cutout of a Q-link is an advantage running tailpipes, but because the coilovers don't drop near as far as a leaf, it is actually pretty easy to run the pipes under the rear without them hanging low. I suspect one of the original reasons DSE went with the raised shock crossmember, was that to get the travel needed, you end up with a shock as long as they are. You can raise it into the floor, or lower it down below the axle. Lowering it down can potentially limit your rim size, ie a 15 rim on a g-link at its lowest adjustment may have the bottom of the shock below the rim. Illegal to run at an SCCA autocross that way. It is all tradeoffs, DSE and Alston took different routes, but arrive at virtually the same place.

The other issue is that I believe a 335 18 is not a tall enough tire, especially for a 67-8, because there is no way to tuck the front tire enough, unless it is short, which ends up eating ground clearance. The front of a 67-8 needs a 25.5 " tall tire. The problem is the lack of very many sizes in the range we need them. A 345 19 @ 27.2"is almost too tall, a 325 19 @ 26.7"might be the best.

Like I said, everyone gets to pick what is important to them. I have a one owner car that I didn't want to cut the floor out of, nor destroy the rear seat structure . It is bolt ons to make it original again, and it would take a concours judge to see the wide inner tubs. Handles well, reasonably priced and pretty easy to install. If I wanted it lower, I would have no qualms getting shorter springs.

DSE and Alston products can't even be talked about in the same conversation. There is that big a difference in engineering, customer service, reliability, and performance.

Gotta agree with this 100%

Barraza I guess the whole point of this thread is to help people trying to decide on what setup works for thier individual needs. There were none like this as the G-link was fairly new at the time I ordered. There weren't alot of cars running them and Frank had sold/installed most of the ones known.

I understand most of your points for me not being a suspension guy. I've just NEVER seen a thread about issues like this with so many installs in regards to the DSE Quadra-Link. In fact, I don't think I ever recall one complaint to be honest about ride height issues, CRACKED frame rails after some use, having to modify the shock cross members, having to change springs or issues with thier system bottoming out on the floor pan, be it 67, 68 or 69 Camaros or 68-72 Novas. Every car with the DSE Q-link is pretty slammed low and have never heard or read of one complaint.

If the G-link works for you and you need to drive over speedbumps that's great. Just that a thread like this can be very useful for the guy with cash in hand ready to order but not knowing what will work for them for thier needs. I sure as hell would have appreciated it and our members honesty rather than relying on a salesman looking to make better margins on one brand vs another..

Thats why I gotta agree with Todd here.

And I would disagree. For a thread to really be informative, it needs to be based purely on facts. Todds statement DSE and Alston products can't even be talked about in the same conversation. while valid as his opinion,is just not a provable or unprovable fact. The Alston was newer when he installed it, and anything new will obviously require more tuning than a developed system. He has learned a lot tuning his, and may end up with an advantage, who knows? IF he comes across a setup that wipes up the DSE cars will he be glad he stuck it out? I would guess yes. Sometimes being an innovator leads you to the front, sometimes it doesn't, but you'll never know if you don't try.

The internet forum world tends to think we are the be all end all, but the truth is that both companies have sold a LOT of these suspensions, many to people who have never even heard of Lat G. For us to draw conclusions based on posts on this forum without any volume information is just flat out irresponsible. It is especially unreliable when some of the issues were brought straight to the internet without the manufacturer even having the chance to correct or respond. The DSE product has been around for a long time, the alston not as long. Does anyone know whether alston has even seen a cracked frame? or is it an internet only issue? A quick BBB search shows DSE had a recent complaint, and Alston doesn't show any. Neither are BBB members. Does that prove anything? Not really. A search also shows Alston has been in business over 30 years, does that prove anything? nope. Does vegas69's car getting beat by a DSE suspended car at an autocross prove anything? Not in the least, considering the DSE guys probably autocross 25 plus times a year. These are big damn cars, and it doesn't matter how much tire or what suspension you stuff under them, on a typical autocross a well driven miata will wax us. Does that mean a miata is a better car? not hardly. The key point is that It all depends

You mention myriad problems, which are real? Cracked frame? yes it exists, apparently on a glink and an earlier version. What caused it? unknown. Speculation centered on welding, but it may just be because the "frame" rail is just weak and not much thicker than the floor pan. I'm not seeing how the DSE design is any better. Anyone with either should probably keep an eye on theirs, especially if you are racing with big HP and tires. Bottoming on the floorpan? I thought the complaint was that it won't go low enough to bottom the floorpan? I don't think this is a problem. Modifying the shock crossmember? This one I don't really understand. The clearance is admittedly tight, but mine was build using the alston jig (I was there and saw it), and mine clears fine with a 12 bolt, a 10 bolt should be smaller, and there is apparently an issue with the fill tube on a fab9. Possibly there are issues when pinion angle is at the extremes, really need more info to pin down. I wouldn't call changing springs a problem, they are meant to be easy to change, and not at all expensive.

You mentioned a vendor, so I'll weigh in. Not because I am trying to defend anyone because I only know the facts of my transactions(which were 100% perfect), but because it is an example of how things get could get blow out of proportion. Probably a year ago, issues of order time come up, business competition is fierce, and a move into bigger facilities is in process, allegations of stealing money are batted around, reputations suffer, business undoubtedly declines(though not admitted to), 6 months go by, more late orders, more allegations, more business evaporates, vendor goes silent. Is it possible the internet allegations helped put the final nails in the coffin? Did the speculation pull the rug out from under a recovery plan? Do you see the similarities? Is the above scenario accurate? I don't know, but I see no reason to do something similar by joining in piling on any vendor because of a few internet posts about ride height. Facts are one thing, speculation is another.

You will notice that many vendors don't have an internet forum presence. Probably because anyone with a beef, can argue forever. There is an old saying about never arguing with someone who buys ink by the barrel, it is in reference to newspapers. The internet has made everyone a newspaper. Air Ride has a sterling reputation, and has people on the forums up to and including the owner. And they occasionally still get hammered about products, even when they do everything possible to help customers. Maybe they just have the profits to absorb more, I don't know. I do know that trying to undercut each other has driven a couple of big wheel sellers under in the past year. And that is just a wheel, imagine how much tougher it would be on a more complex product.

Moral - Don't believe everything you read on the internet or magazines, good or bad.

Just to be clear, I don't have a G Link, I have a G Bar. They are NOT the same thing even though they seem to get thrown in the same bowl. A G Bar is a Ridetech Air Bar with Alston Varishocks. A G Link is an all Alston product.

Alston stuff is a couple rungs down the ladder and that's a FACT. I don't like the design and it's not engineered for the desired ride height of most pro touring cars. A triangulated 4 link is not ideal for our thin rails. Then Alston went and designed his G Link with no front crossmember so it doesn't tie in the rails nearly as well as a G Bar. The DSE upper shock mount not only allows for a lower ride height, but it reinforces the structure of the car and utilizes a panhard bar. I also don't see Alston out proving their products in our venue. For MOST guys, it's a great set up. It's just not on the same level.

Hey Vegas guess who makes both the G-Bar and G-Link! BTW, you are correct the G-Bar and G-Link are not the same. The G-Bar is the cheaper version of the Chassisworks suspension.
http://cachassisworks.com/c-340-cama...gm-f-body.aspx

Dude he has the original G bar and NO they are not the same. The original ones were the Airbar. The do not sell the original ones anymore.

Now I see why it's so confusing. I didn't know Alston still marketed a G Bar.

For the last time. :lol: The original G Bar was an Air Bar from Ridtech with Varishocks marketed by Chris Alston as his own.

I have a G link with a 9" if it won't go low enough I'm going DSE.

Rodgers 67 from
Ironworks has the G link with fab 9 have you talked to him about ride height issues ?

Put the bend in the shock cross bar and it will go lower.

Todd
I appreciate your opinion, but I don't think you are being fair about the comparison. I agree that any frame cracking is a serious issue, but have you noticed that DSE has also changed their panhard attachments to the frame?

I am not going to link pictures from their site, but look at the older version in the the Bolin68 album, then look at a later version with a boxed shock crossmember and vertical braces in the Kyle Busch album. They are very different. I also found a mention of DSE reinforcing frames on another forum. Because everyone is dealing with similar forces transmitted into thin framerails, my guess is that they also found cracking issues. As a point of reference, I had cracks develop in the front subframe of my 67 when I was frequently autocrossing it twenty five years ago. Racing breaks stuff. Given the power levels and tires available, anyone racing any suspension should be regularly checking all suspension attachments and links.

As to shocks, you can bet that DSE isn't running their standard package at shows across the country. Their upgraded double adjustables are a plus $1300 charge, plus another $150 to get poly link bushings that they recommend for competition.

The two suspensions were designed with different criteria, and have very similar performance when equipped comparably. I still think if you don't want to cut a huge chunk out of your floor for the crossmember, and still need to carry rear seat passengers ( ever sat on those upper link boxes?:D ), the g-link is the pick.

Make your choices and take your pick, but in the end, neither is junk, nor are either the absolute best way to attach a solid axle for racing.

yep....and ride tech still offer's the air bar

http://www.ridetech.com/store/1967-1...rd-airbar.html

I have the original G-Bar in my car and FWIW I am happy with it. I have a bunch of seasons out it and one auto cross / track day session it feels solid. I am looking to upgrade the bushings to a better Heim ends and move towards the ride tech shock.

I've got my G Bar working well and I'm certainly not unhappy with the real world performance. I'm simply saying that the Quadralink is a better product from start to finish.

Barazza, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You have a G Link in your car and you're happy with it. That's all that matters.

They all serve their purpose.

I think the quadra link looks to be a better design.....if I was to do it again i'd probably go with the torque arm from JRS or Speed Tech.

Vegas got me curious so I was comparing pictures of the Alston G-Link and Ridetech 4-Link frame bracket designs and I see only one major difference on the mount bracket. The G-link is bolted to the floor in front with no cross member where as the Ridetech 4-Link has a crossbar in front but no bolts.

I was then looking at my G-Link installation on "Dust Off" and realized that it would be very easy to increase the front bolt size to 1/2" then fabricate a cross bar that would bolt to those two front bolts thus tying the front mounts together side to side. There is plenty of room to fit a simple 1" dia crossbar up against the body and bolt it in place. This would give me the same crossmember as the Ridetech mount with the added strength of the two front bolts which Ridetech does not have. Now that I have my plan of attack I can order some material and start to fabricate the cross brace.

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

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

That is the idea. But since my G-Link is already installed, welding in a crossbar like that is not possible. My plan is to use a 1" square tube and weld tabs on each end then simply bolt it to the front mount bolts.

Here is the Ridetech 4-Link mount:
http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Ca...etech4link.jpg

Here is the Chassisworks G-Link mount:
http://hayes-ent.com/steve/images/Ca...works4link.jpg

My plan is to make a bolt in bar to connect the two front bolt mounts together side to side.

Ok I see. One suggestion. Since there will naturally be play between the holes supplied on the G-Link, the holes you drill, and the bolts used, there could still be some side-to-side slipping/flexing allowed of the frame rail brackets relative to the center cross-brace. Since repeated flexing/movement of even 1/16 of an inch could be enough to allow the framerails to fatigue, it would be ideal if your bolt-in cross-brace secured to each frame rail in two directions. Such as using the forward bolts as you plan on but also having tabs that bolt to the framerails. Only difficult part would be finding a flat surface for said side tabs to mate to, as well as getting up in there with a drill to make the thru-frame holes. This would be ideal, altho your idea would still be an improvement over the stock brace-less design.

I should maybe clarify.. even with a bolted surface like the cross-brace to the forward mounting tabs/holes, I feel the side load from the triangulated UCA's could be great enough under hard cornering/acceleration to allow the two mating bolted surfaces to slip against each other.. that's what I meant by "slipping flexing". It shouldn't be a regular occurrence, but if you're only securing the sideloads with bolts in shear, it's a very real possibility of happening at some point, or worst case happening repeatedly.

I understand your point about movement and the use of an additional brace but I see no easy place to add the second pair of cross brace mounts without welding. The car is already undercoated so welding now would be a real pain. That is why I plan to drill out the existing holes to 1/2" and bolt it all together with 1/2" grade 8 fine thread bolts so I can apply maximum torque to limit movement as much as possible. Had I been aware of the frame cracking issue before I installed the G-Link, I would have fabed a cross brace like yours. My goal now is to add a bolt-in brace without having to remove the rear end or weld on the car.

It looks like Chris Alston himself has put out a writeup discussing some of these concerns. Lengthy read but I felt it was worthwhile. Kudos to him for taking the time to do the writeup. You can find it in the tech section of their site but here's a link.

Chris's Corner - G-Bar Misinformation

He seems like a straight-shooter based on the writeup. Sort of entertaining for a piece discussing suspension design :) .

John

Chris makes a good point about the improper installation of the MODERN G Link/GBar. Clearly not using the tab for support compromised the design.

Since he drug me into this deal I'm not afraid to give you my opinion. :unibrow: The changes I made to my suspension set up were MANDATORY. I tore up the end links in two autocrosses and my car wasn't anywhere close to where it is today. I'm talking my first two autocrosses with a green car. The upper link design required pulling the end links to make a pinion angle change. What a pain in the butt so I naturally went to an end link that would handle the load required in a triangulated 4 link and easily adjustable upper sleeves.

I agree with Chris, the G Bar wasn't engineered for my cars capabilities. I've modified it and it works great.

Regardless, I still feel you will see frame rail problems with either set up. A triangulated 4 link just isn't ideal for 40 year old paper thin frame rails. My reinforced rails are holding up just fine. To take it one step further, I think any car that is used to it's full extent could benefit from new, thicker rails, regardless of suspension design.

Thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read.

Don

Well I think it's good that they have taken notice of these issues and addressed them sort of. No mention of Tony's cracked frame rails (69x22) only Todd's and Rodgers. Looks like they are looking into other options like that 2nd gen kit with complete new framerails. That would be a good kit for a 1st gen.

I think this thread can really help people decide to buy this kit or not. And I think that's why it's very beneficial.

I like his response, but am somewhat disappointed in the "lower shock mounting extension bar things" In the lowest lower shock position, the aluminum bracket is a good 3-4" off the ground (18" wheels) which is a little close for my comfort, but ok. Lowering that a further 2.5" should not be condoned by the manufacturer especially if the manufacturer knows and openly admits it's for "fairgrounds only". He says that he knows it will likely hang below the rim of an 18" wheel at the lowest setting, which is illegal as far as I'm aware. Even the 1-1/4" lower position is stretching it, but would be okay as the maximum additional lowest setting that should have been offered.

I also find it funny that these lowering brackets are included in the sub-section of reducing bump travel.. in fact the only thing these lowering brackets do is decrease axletube-to-framerail clearance, but do nothing to reduce shock bump travel. A stiffer spring would absolutely be mandatory.

I'm not in any way knocking Chris Alston, on the contrary good on him for having the balls to step up and write such an all-encompassing.informative piece of literature to customer present & to-be. However, myself coming from a manufacturing industry where warranty and risk-to-customer is so critical, I think the decision to produce/sell, such lowering brackets is too risky regarding liability as well as possible customer complaint. If the customer wants lower than the GLink can possibly go (even with say a 0.5" or 1" bracket lowering block), then customer has to realize that floorpan modification is required like all the other systems out there.

Good on ya Chris, good read regardless!

Joe

That was covered in the last page iirc. Ideally those of us that went with the complete glink and fab 9 setup could simply swap our crossmember for one they've already modified. Presumably they have the jigs and such to do it better than most of us. Then again, like Chris kinda says, it isn't the end of the world and some level of this type of thing is to be expected.

I now have a little over 1000 miles on "Dust Off" running the G-Link with 8-200 springs and double adjustable vari-shocks in a soft setting. I have inadvertantly hit a couple of rather large bumps (I really have to pay more attention) and I have not experienced any suspension bottoming out. I have a Moser 9" and it too has the filler tube which will hit the shock cross mount but so far this has not been a problem. I still plan to fabricate a cross brace and tie the two front mount bolts together, but I am happy with the handling and ride quality.

Can someone recommend a good suspension for a 69 Camaro (Best bang for the buck)

how much fab do you want to and what is the budget?

I'M not going to say a thing.

As little fab as possible. In terms of budget just looking for the best bang for the buck. Just trying to figure out approximate costs before I decide. Relatively new at this so my knowledge isn't great at the present time but I am learning quite a bit from this site.

Depends on the definition of good? Good ride, good track manners, which is more important? Can you live with one and without the other?:D

Did you read the subframe sticky?
Did you read the how to get a good deal on parts sticky?

I'd start your own post with.

1. What you intend to do with the car
2. A budget of what you could spend if you got everything you wanted.
3. What you are willing to cut on the car.
4. Are you doing the work (what is your skill level if so) or are you paying a shop.

I think on this post you will get a lot of don't buy a g-bar. ;)

Was this set up discussed in this thread ? Jakes rod shop?

http://www.jakesrodshop.com/public_html/Products.html

It's pretty well agreed that a torque arm is very nice for its ease of installation compared to the Q-Link, et al.... and a big reason why I went with one. Worth looking into with SpeedTech and Jake's Rod Shop.

I think you just did. :thumbsup: Speedtech would be a good choice if you want to keep everything under the car.

G Bars work. If you can figure them oiut. :unibrow: