Panhard bar on A-body 4-link
 

Does anyone know who makes a panhard bar kit for an A-body 4 link using a stock 12 bolt? Anyone think that's a bad or unessecary idea? I'm usng the Hotchkis complte TVS system but would like to add the panhard for extra latral stability at the track. Would it possibly create too much oversteer or does it not do that much?

-Thanks,

Call Kip Valdez @ metal works performance 303-980-4700 he can help you good luck :thumbsup:

It's not really necessary for lateral stability, as the axle really can't go anywhere with the UCA angles as they are. It would help lower the rear Roll Center Height, which is too high on the stock rear, but that's not really going to help much until you have the rest of the setup sorted out.

I'd suggest losing the Hotchkis rear arms, and get some with spherical bearings to allow articulation, and eliminate most of the bind... such as Edelbrock's uppers, and Currie's lowers.

I would think that the converging angles between the upper bars and the ph bar would serious binding issues.

This would be my thought as well. Hot Rods to Hell (the truck arm guys) make a PHB for the Chevelle frame to go with their suspension, but I wouldn't use it with the stock converging link suspension. If you went with a torque arm though, it looks to be a stout piece.

Shiny Side Up!
Bill
'72 442 "Inamorata"
www.FQuick.com/ProTouring442

Not really, if the PHB is long enough and level, the lateral movement through it's travel would be so little that it wouldn't be a problem. I would, however run rubber bushings in the housing ears, so that there's a little compliance to keep the RCH from moving between the PHB and upper links.

sooo...
 

In the end it is sorta overkill. I don't think the travel would be so severe, vertically, that it would bind, but it does seem like the latral stability could be done in a better way. OK, then I'll most likely stick with something proven instead of adding extra pieces into the mix.

Thanks,

Check this out
http://www.onrails.us/

Well paint me yellow and call me a school bus! I guess it works.

Thanks!
Shiny Side Up!
Bill
'72 442 "Inamorata"
www.FQuick.com/ProTouring442

Just because someone did it doesn`t mean it was a good idea. :unibrow: Dennis knows better too. If it were mine the spherical bearings in the "ears" would fly and be replaced with stock rubber,then the PHB could set the new RC height and you wouldn`t have 2 conflicting rear RCs. From an engineering standpoint it`s still a bad idea *but* we do have several customers running a PHB on the C4L (with rubber bushings up top) with good results in auto X and track day events. It may be a case of the wrong things,in the right combination for a particular car. I wouldn`t mind experimenting with it some time just for giggles. Mark SC&C

Denny is a smart guy, but I argued this with him a while ago here... http://www.chevelles.com/forums/show...&highlight=PHB :_paranoid

Hi guys...caught my eye while lurking and thought I'd stop by and say hi.

The PHB does change the RRCH drastically and it is definitely noticeable, a big improvement in feel and response. Is it the right way, of course not, neither is adding one to a leaf application but the early Mustang guys have been doing since the days of Mark Donohue and the Javelin/Camaro/Mustang wars. Bottom line is it works but there are better options. The chance of the UCA's conflicting with the PHB and creating a mechanical bind issue are virtually non-existent.

If you are serious, look into putting a 3-link together.