We are looking at doing something new for the rear suspension on a 1st Gen Camaro and we need your input! In terms of suspension, how much are you willing to compromise the geometry so it will fit under the stock floor pan? We are talking about doing two options: a triangulated 4-bar and a 3-link. The Tri 4 will fit under the stock sheet metal with only very minimal floor cutting. But what about the 3-link? If we have the tri 4-bar option, would you guys want the 3-link to be a no-compromise piece where more floor mods are required? Or is keeping the stock floor more important than maximizing the suspension’s performance? We are working on some designs now, but it looks like the stock seat will need some mods or you might have to run custom rear seat or no back seat at all. Thanks for your input on this! The more we hear back from you guys, the better this is going to be for the 1st Gen community.
Craig, is it possible to offer 2 different versions? A 'bolt in' version and one where you have to cut the floor? Just thinking out loud here...
Personally, I have no problem cutting the floor as needed. Look at how many people are mini-tubbing their cars these days. As long as the stock back seat still fit in the car, I'd be more than happy with it.
We are planning two different options, the Tri 4-bar will have the same amount of trimming as what you would have with the DSE kit, the three link more.
I was planning on getting the tri 4 bar rear clip but now that you guys are doing this I will def wait. Lateral Dynamics already offers a 3 link that requires alot of work. I think if you make a 3 link that requires some modification, but lets you retain the rear seat while only sacrifing the performancte that wuld be noticed on an all out track car you would have a winner. I think I talk for alot of the people here as I think the majority of cars are street/strip cars and we can sacrifice a tad of performance for ease of installation. How much performance will be sacrificed for both systems, tri 4 bar and 3 link?
Craig, is it possible to offer 2 different versions? A 'bolt in' version and one where you have to cut the floor? Just thinking out loud here...
Personally, I have no problem cutting the floor as needed. Look at how many people are mini-tubbing their cars these days. As long as the stock back seat still fit in the car, I'd be more than happy with it.
I have to agree with Scott. I want to keep a stock looking interior as much as possible. I'd sacrifice some performance to keep the look I want.
If you need a car to install a 4 bar in and test...mines available.
__________________ Curtis
Pilots: We're not better than you, just way cooler.
i was thinking a rear end that you can run 19 or 20 inch rear wheels with anywere from 305- 345 tyre BUT get a great stance with it without major mods and if any1 nows about stance its you guys!
I think many guys don't want to do major fabrication. I think the more instruction you can provide the better. It is the fear of the unknown, cutting into these classics, is an undesirable. I think it just depends on how well the project is engineered and how well you can document it will determine its success. Good luck.
__________________
1969 Camaro, Procharged D1SC GM PP HO 454, Retrotek Speed Boss EFI, MSD6 BTM ignition with Pro billet distributor, Edelbrock RPM Air Gap intake, 700R4, 12 bolt 373 with posi, pypes exhaust. Air Ride Suspension. http://gallery.mac.com/bobb22#100046...lack&view=grid
Brian Hobaugh SCCA National Tour June 2014
First Hemi 'Cuda Convertible Ever Built
Short clips: Goodguys Pleasanton autocross and pit videos
1st Gen rear suspension question!
Linear Mode
