1969 Camaro tru-turn

[Damn True]

Originally Posted by jlwdvm

I measured mine exactly as pictured at Ride Tech. So my brake rotor wheel mounting surface must be thicker...causing Wilwoods to need a little more back spacing than recommended?

Both.

Wilwood hats are thicker than Baer and certainly there is a difference in the alignment shim stack (given that RT's demo stub has none)......add to that the fact that old cars are rarely if ever exactly the same even if of the same model year and plant. Lots of ways to account for 1/8" difference.....even more reasons to measure everything, thrice, before ordering interdependent parts.

[jlwdvm]

I have no alignment shims either. I think Rod measured what he did so that people would have a base line to compare different rotor and hubs too. Ride Tech suggests 5.75 back space for cars with the 15 1/8 measurement. Since I have more, I'll need a little more back spacing.

[Rod P]

Originally Posted by jlwdvm

I have no alignment shims either. I think Rod measured what he did so that people would have a base line to compare different rotor and hubs too. Ride Tech suggests 5.75 back space for cars with the 15 1/8 measurement. Since I have more, I'll need a little more back spacing.

the 5.750 backspace isn't a super tight fit so an 1/8 inch here or there wont cause the wheel to rub, the 5.750 set up has about 1inch of fender clearance, if it was .250 (1/4) or .500 (1/2) then you need to adjust backspace

[jlwdvm]

SO even though Wilwood mentions that the rotors are +0.38", they aren't all that more wide than the Baers (which are considered baseline for this discussion)?

[Rod P]

Originally Posted by jlwdvm

SO even though Wilwood mentions that the rotors are +0.38", they aren't all that more wide than the Baers (which are considered baseline for this discussion)?

dude that's 3 times more than the 1/8 that someone measured earlier?

0.38" is alot, just because you wrote it short doesn't make it short that's .380 thousands that's almost 1/2 and inch...actually closer to 3/8

if its 0.380 you need to adjust for that, so a 6.00 inch backspace would be better

[jlwdvm]

38/100 is the same as 380/1000. My point was that even though I am using Wilwoods that are supposed to add 0.38" to track width, but they are only 1/8" wider than the Baers that Ride Tech used. Baers must not be 0 according to our measurements. The measurements you gave off of the frame gave everybody a baseline (as long as there car is measured with no shims, at ride height, etc).

[glr0212]

I am at 15.5+ I measured from the base of the control arm mount rather than the control arm cross bar. so that is worth at least another 1/4" or 0.250"



We measured from here

[glr0212]

After measuring - my back of the napkin calculations tell me I am not that far off from ride tech’s specs on BS. Maybe an 1/8” – 3/8” at most. The only thing I’m missing is a degree of negative camber and ¾” of ride height. I’ll be back on when I get those two issues addressed.

For future reference – the guy in the thread below is having similar issues.

Any more guys out there with 69’s on the road with the ride tech setup?

Originally Posted by jlwdvm

This guy is making a stock frame with tru turn, headers, an LS, and 265 tires work:
http://www.pro-touring.com/threads/9...ld-in-PA/page2

Check out post #26.

[Shmoov69]

I got mine finally running again and have the RT uppers, spindle and TT setup with hochkiss drop coils and stock lowers. But, I have not drove it and I have MASSIVE front tires and wheels...... 17x7 & 235/45/17's!! LoL!
Well, maybe not so massive!
Hopefully I can get mine on the road in the next week or two.

[jlwdvm]

Trying to figure out what type of mods Ride Tech did to the 48-hour and Good Guys camaros. this is all I have found so far:
https://lateral-g.net/forums/show...t=38523&page=8 Check out post #78. It gives a peek at what was done with the inner fender.