1968 Camaro "Badmotorfinger" v2.2

[fleetus macmullitz]

People that post alot of pics should not have their 'plans' questioned.

[68protouring454]

These are dual purpose cars we are building, so there are compromises.
Is 1 inch lower ride height really worth the re-engineering of not only the front susp geometry, the front steering geometry, the issue with limited room above the tire till it will want to hit the hood hinge area on a first gen when going that low, to the issues with moving/raising the floor for exhaust and ground clearance, this is still a street car and it needs to navigate roads and drive way entrances(which is a chore with current ride height let alone dave has 1 inch longer front splitter).Let alone moving to the back of the car now you have to re- engineer the shock travel(upper crossmember, already tight to floor, trailing arms and tq arm angles and mounting height, as well as the dual layer unibody area right in front of and above the center section, so you have to question "why did i even buy a production style susp system" why not just cut everything out and build a one off race chassis, where mounting oil tanks, fuel cells, fire bottle, sway bar control etc is easy?
There is a ton of work to this and to cut before thinking about the big picture is not good, let alone the other work in the rear, on a first gen camaro, you will need to raise the wheel tubs( they are already close at full bump at designed ride height), which then leads into cutting into the inner quarter supports, 1/4 window mounting area etc. I am not sure one could do that effectively without all the panels removed from the car.
This all sounds great if its what the customer wants, but if he wanted this why would the shell of the car be on a perimeter style chassis jig, not jackstands.
my engine crossmember is 5 inches at ride height with a 25.5 tall tire, that puts the undercar legs at 4 inches, what are you going to clear at 3 inches? Thats only lowering the car 1 inch (why do all this for one inch)
Last question is what does all this work do in the end? look cool? cost a ton? how much time did you shave off at the track? I have a proven formula for road racing, track day and time trial, raced it myself for the last 5 years, with many class wins,track records etc, from autox to time trial, to wheel to wheel racing, when you get to the track, whether the ride height is 4 inches or 5 doesn't matter when your 4 seconds behind.
Build some rocker extensions, and build flares to sit over tires, keep all the clearance you can get, these camaros don't have much extra room.

[Vegas69]

I'm with Jake, are you worried about performance and drivability, or looks?

[Flash68]

Originally Posted by Vegas69

I'm with Jake, are you worried about performance and drivability, or looks?

I can you tell what I am not worried about.. and that is a Torino.

[Vegas69]

Originally Posted by Flash68

I can you tell what I am not worried about.. and that is a Torino.

I wouldn't be either. He's had the car for 6 months and hasn't even bothered to unload it off the trailer. I'm assuming they don't make ramps that will handle the weight and girth.

[Sieg]

Originally Posted by 68protouring454

Build some rocker extensions, and build flares to sit over tires, keep all the clearance you can get, these camaros don't have much extra room.

[U-turn]

Originally Posted by 68protouring454

These are dual purpose cars we are building, so there are compromises.
Is 1 inch lower ride height really worth the re-engineering of not only the front susp geometry, the front steering geometry, the issue with limited room above the tire till it will want to hit the hood hinge area on a first gen when going that low, to the issues with moving/raising the floor for exhaust and ground clearance, this is still a street car and it needs to navigate roads and drive way entrances(which is a chore with current ride height let alone dave has 1 inch longer front splitter).Let alone moving to the back of the car now you have to re- engineer the shock travel(upper crossmember, already tight to floor, trailing arms and tq arm angles and mounting height, as well as the dual layer unibody area right in front of and above the center section, so you have to question "why did i even buy a production style susp system" why not just cut everything out and build a one off race chassis, where mounting oil tanks, fuel cells, fire bottle, sway bar control etc is easy?
There is a ton of work to this and to cut before thinking about the big picture is not good, let alone the other work in the rear, on a first gen camaro, you will need to raise the wheel tubs( they are already close at full bump at designed ride height), which then leads into cutting into the inner quarter supports, 1/4 window mounting area etc. I am not sure one could do that effectively without all the panels removed from the car.
This all sounds great if its what the customer wants, but if he wanted this why would the shell of the car be on a perimeter style chassis jig, not jackstands.
my engine crossmember is 5 inches at ride height with a 25.5 tall tire, that puts the undercar legs at 4 inches, what are you going to clear at 3 inches? Thats only lowering the car 1 inch (why do all this for one inch)
Last question is what does all this work do in the end? look cool? cost a ton? how much time did you shave off at the track? I have a proven formula for road racing, track day and time trial, raced it myself for the last 5 years, with many class wins,track records etc, from autox to time trial, to wheel to wheel racing, when you get to the track, whether the ride height is 4 inches or 5 doesn't matter when your 4 seconds behind.
Build some rocker extensions, and build flares to sit over tires, keep all the clearance you can get, these camaros don't have much extra room.

POW!!!

[FETorino]

Originally Posted by 68protouring454

These are dual purpose cars we are building, so there are compromises.
and build flares to sit over tires, keep all the clearance you can get, these camaros don't have much extra room.

Originally Posted by Vegas69

I'm with Jake, are you worried about performance and drivability, or looks?

Originally Posted by U-turn

POW!!!

Jake you certainly have a racing pedigree and it can't be denied that you have proven your stuff is competitive on track days. Your post on the other hand isn't so great and is obviously all about personal attachment to your product and not really trying to be a productive part of Dave's build.

It sucks that it comes across as taking a cheap shot at another fabricator because his customer bought your part.

I didn't see him bashing your product. Is it perfect or was he just respectful in not saying anything?

Maybe you read something else into what he posted. If you did maybe the PM function would be a better first step that bashing a guy posting a build plan.


Do you, Todd or U turn really think that lowering the body over the subframe is going to be the limiting factor in drivability?
Not the Tilton triple disc clutch or the non syncro trans or the boom tube exhaust? Those are common to all soccer mom cars. But that 3.5" to 4" ground clearance is a deal killer.

I've seen Brett drive his too low to be streetable (by your definition because it's lower than what is proposed on Daves) 67 Camaro from Long Beach to Irvine and back to Cars and Coffee. Something like 80+ miles of street driving.

His car has 315s on all four corners and no flares yet he seems to have done the impossible and been able to find room for suspension travel in that cramped first gen. Must be magic Or maybe he just thought things though and executed a good plan. It's not like this is his first rodeo with a Camaro.

Don't give him credit for his attention to detail and building things that work just attack hi for modifying your part. That makes sense.

Do looks matter in a Protouring (or whatever we are calling these builds these days) car? F yes. The idea is function and style. Otherwise why waste your time building a First Gen Camaro. Just build a clapped out tube chassis race car and hit the track.

People on this site spend tens of thousands of dollars on stuff that doesn't add a hint of performance in the name of bling. I don't see you lecturing them.

Would you be posting on this thread if he had started with a Howe subframe?

What I see is you got offended that somebody was modifying one of your subframes. A subframe he bought second hand, not new from you.

He bought it because he believes in the suspension geometry you use (he probably read a few of your posts about how great you are and how many races you've won. You know like the one on this thread )

But he has a vision for what his protouring car is going to look like and it didn't include mudflap looking side skirts so he talked with Brett about lowering the body over the frame while maintaining your geometry and suspension travel.

You could have offered to help in that effort, add you input and win some fans. Instead you just came across as bitter.

Hopefully that changes cuz I know Dave is a fan of your stuff and I bet he'd like you to support his build instead of throw stones at it.

[Vince@Meanstreets]

Rob, I don't think Jake meant to bash anyone. I believe he is questioning the motives behind the work involved to achieve what he believes is a small gain...productive or not.

As a performance shop I have been down that road and felt that the required modifications to do it right might hurt performance. It wasnt worth the time or money to even try it. As a great friend once said "street car or race car, there is no in between, You only end up with a fast street car or a slow track car. Make your choice."

I believe Dave has a goal in mind of how he wants his car to look and perform. If he achieves his goals then he will be happy. If he doesn't he will fix it.

[fleetus macmullitz]

I still think this thread will somehow get to 200K page views someday. This stuff may help.