...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Technical Discussions > Chassis and Suspension
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-04-2011, 11:27 PM
69-er 69-er is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Can't Lower Car w/ G-Bar System

I just finished mocking up the ChassisWorks 4-Bar system for a 69 Camaro. I have discovered that the VariShocks included with the kit, VAS 11122-515, will not allow me to lower the car to the height I desire. I was under the assumption that this kit would allow me to lower the car in a typical Pro-Touring stance. At the moment, I have about 1 1/2" of travel before I bottom out the coil-overs.



I noticed that there is another shock, VAS 11111-425, that has a shorter compressed length. I would lose almost an inch of compressed length allowing me to lower the car with less of a chance of bottoming out. Do you think this would work in my configuration? The car will be strictly street driven.



I also thought about lowering the lower shock mounts and maybe even raising the upper shock mounts to gain additional travel. What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-05-2011, 12:03 AM
Vegas69's Avatar
Vegas69 Vegas69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,663
Thanks: 86
Thanked 210 Times in 119 Posts
Default

This seems to be happening on a regular basis with the new G Link. I'd lower or raise the shock mount. Shock travel is a good thing.
__________________
Todd
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-2011, 04:42 PM
glr0212 glr0212 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 131
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

I was told the same thing.

This is supposedly the correct ride height for a g link. I was advised not to go lower.

Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-08-2011, 10:36 PM
Rybar's Avatar
Rybar Rybar is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,169
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I ran into a similar issue with mine, the shop doing the install installed a shorter spring but I don't have any part #'s to help you out.
__________________
1969 CAMARO RS
HKE 383 LS1-T56 Dyno results: 496 rwhp 469 rwtq
Lateral-G Feature Page
Project pics of my '69
Camaro Performers Magazine Feature
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-09-2011, 01:31 PM
6D9 Matt's Avatar
6D9 Matt 6D9 Matt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 246
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Subscribing...

I am interested in installing a 4-link over the winter and Im kinda between the Prodigy Bar and the DSE Q-Link. Im not a HARDCORE autocross guy, etc the car is just for cruising around mostly, but may see the drag strip once a year. I was going to go with the Prodigy Bar, but kinda undecided now that Im hearing of it cracking the frame rails, as seen in Vegas69's build thread (I plan on dropping in a 600+ hp BBC next year). So that lead me to the G-Link, but I have heard these issues of not being able to go as low as some may like.

I think Rybar got the best of both worlds and put in a shorter spring. I remember following his build thread and seeing this. I would look into this option...
__________________
'69 Camaro
416ci / T56 / 9"
Turbo in the works...

Last edited by 6D9 Matt; 11-09-2011 at 05:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-2011, 03:42 PM
Rybar's Avatar
Rybar Rybar is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,169
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6D9 Matt View Post
I think Rybar got the best of both worlds and put in a shorter spring. I remember following his build thread and seeing this. I would look into this option...
Well not quite, the decreased shock travel is not something I would have wanted. If I were to do it over again there would be a DSE Quadralink in my car no questions asked. I also think the Speedtech Torque Arm gets the car to sit pretty low, look into that as well.
__________________
1969 CAMARO RS
HKE 383 LS1-T56 Dyno results: 496 rwhp 469 rwtq
Lateral-G Feature Page
Project pics of my '69
Camaro Performers Magazine Feature
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-2011, 04:29 PM
6D9 Matt's Avatar
6D9 Matt 6D9 Matt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 246
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Oh nevermind I got kinda confused and thought you had a G-Link in the car. I forgot you do not. Sorry for the confusion.
__________________
'69 Camaro
416ci / T56 / 9"
Turbo in the works...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-09-2011, 04:38 PM
Rybar's Avatar
Rybar Rybar is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,169
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6D9 Matt View Post
Oh nevermind I got kinda confused and thought you had a G-Link in the car. I forgot you do not. Sorry for the confusion.
I do have the Alston G-Link in the car
__________________
1969 CAMARO RS
HKE 383 LS1-T56 Dyno results: 496 rwhp 469 rwtq
Lateral-G Feature Page
Project pics of my '69
Camaro Performers Magazine Feature
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-09-2011, 04:51 PM
Vegas69's Avatar
Vegas69 Vegas69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,663
Thanks: 86
Thanked 210 Times in 119 Posts
Default

Put the DSE in it and forget it.

I was basing my previous post off Rybar. I thought you had changed mounting locations vs. shorter springs. I've found that I need 2.5 inches of bump travel in the rear to keep from bottoming out in ALL scenarios. I got greedy and lowerd my car a little less than a 1/4" before I went to button willow last month. I got back and my LR oring was seated against the shock housing .Now, this is a very slight bottom out and I'm no concerned with it. For a weekend warrior and occassional drag car, I wouldn't be to concerned with a little less and you won't see the extreme forces that a road course brings into play. Even with the DSE set up, if you go to low you will also decrease shock travel.
__________________
Todd
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-09-2011, 05:12 PM
6D9 Matt's Avatar
6D9 Matt 6D9 Matt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 246
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rybar View Post
I do have the Alston G-Link in the car
Im sorry I meant to say you dont have a DSE Qlink...

G-bar, G-link, Q-link... I got my keys mixed haha

Vegas - So if Im not going to be TOO ROUGH (no autocrossing, maybe once a year if that at the drag strip) but have around 550-600 rwhp, will the Prodigy Gbar (I guess more asking about the frame rails) hold up? Or would the DSE Qlink be the better option? I just felt the Qlink might be overkill/more than I need to pay for my project.
__________________
'69 Camaro
416ci / T56 / 9"
Turbo in the works...

Last edited by 6D9 Matt; 11-09-2011 at 05:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net