Can't Lower Car w/ G-Bar System

[onevoice]

Originally Posted by Rybar

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.

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.