Changing Length and track width of a car

[tyoneal]

Hello:

Does anyone have any experience with lengthening the wheel base, or the track width on a first gen Camaro, or any other car for that matter?

What changes did you notice, or problems did you have to deal with regarding the changes?

I'm only talking about 2-3 inches in length and maybe 2 inches in width.

Any experience would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

[race-rodz]

ok...i will bite.

why/how would you purpose lengthening a 1st gen's wheelbase?

trackwidth 2-3" could be done with back spacing and some SUBTLE fender flaring, im not talking box flares or 70's bolt on flairs....but tastfully done it "could" almost blend in, unless you enhance it with brake vents(BM cars )

the main problems i see would concern the front if you subtract backspace.... the scrub radius would be the most noteable change, increased wheelbearning stress...etc.

the "wider" makes sence (more stability), but i dont "get" the longer. too many downfalls to go with the only real "pro" of a better ride, and more straight line high speed stability.

[tyoneal]

race-rodz

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Ok, here's the poop.

I've had my car up on a rack while working on the parking brake. This gave me a different perspective on everything. I have had a, "Wish list", of everything I would like to have on this car if there were no limits other than a proper design approach to the problem.

After looking at it a bit this idea struck me.

It seams that many people (and me) would like to run a 275+ front tire for that true aggressive road racing stance, but as many people know who have tried, the wider tires look great as long as you don't need to make any sharp turns. I don't know about the rest of you, but a rubbing tire, or steering that makes it impossible to make a normal U-TURN drives me crazy and it totally sucks.

Yes, you had the technique at least pretty close to what I was thinking about regarding the widening. Plus slight natural fender flares would give the car a Bad Ass look especially when coupled with the proper stance. (Ride Height) It would also be easier to implement working brake ducts in the rear without having to resort to the Baldwin Motion solution. (Not trying to diss the car, but for my taste it has drifted too far off from the original Classic Camaro design.)

From looking at it, it wouldn't require very many degrees of fender angle change to implement something that would look natural/normal/real and function reasonably properly. (I don't like pasted on scoops if I have a choice, plus I would rather not add a separate fan to keep the air flow moving to the brakes, because an effective angle to catch air naturally has not been engineered into the design)

Another item people would like to do is, "Fix"/upgrade the front to back weight ratio of the 1st gens. This has been a tough nut to crack so far.

So:

Main Problem- Can't move engine back far enough to make a difference without causing MAJOR problems reconstructing the Firewall, dash, foot wells, etc., etc.

What I was thinking was instead of moving the engine back, why not move the Front Tires Forward?

Plus, pick up better high speed stability along with a wider track.

I was looking at the front sub-frames on the market and thought, Why not lengthen them several inches to the rear, and move the body mounts back the same amount? You bolt it up, use the same sub-frame connectors, then move the engine mounts back for the weight ratio correction?

You would already need to modify the fenders because of goal number one. Add 2-3 inches from the back of another fender to the back of the one you are already having to modify for the width, thus making one longer fender per side.

Do the same with the hood, buy an extra hood and splice 2-3 inches into the hood going on the car.

The rest of the exterior parts basically remain the same. You have just created a bit longer front end to the car, plus have more room in the engine bay for turbo's, inter-coolers etc. etc. Modifying the inner fender wells for a custom fit on the inside is not new by any stretch.

As long as the car was basically kept proportional you could gain all the things many people would like to have on their car and still retain the nice interior, and most importantly the car is Visually still a 1st gen. Camaro without a doubt. It would be subtly different, but I don't think it would be easy to, "Put your finger on exactly what was done to it?"

This may be/sound ridiculous, however I have had to do design work in the past and being creative with your thoughts is often the easiest way to solve a problem or improve a design.

All thoughts are welcome.

Please chime in.

BTW: Thanks for, "Biting".

Regards,

Ty O'Neal

[Garage Dog 65]

Think outside the box... what box ? We don't need no stinking boxes....

I have no clue how mine will turn out - or handle. But, It looks good and drives very well in my mind. I'll let you know.

I think all the mods you suggest are reasonable and have been done on all sorts of rods. Custom f/r glass can be a $$. My only concern would be the final look/proportion of the car. Could someone do a rendering or photochop of it maybe ?

Jim

[TravisB]

Most decent a/m sub frames increase the track width already I know of two off the top of my head not sure if the DSE does and it works well. But the morrison and one other do. And with all a/m subframes you can run a 275 tire some even a 285 tire. So that being said why make the nose longer? With a sbc or LSx weight ratio is easily obtainable. Sounds like a lot of work with no gain..........

[tyoneal]

Originally Posted by Garage Dog 65

Think outside the box... what box ? We don't need no stinking boxes....

I have no clue how mine will turn out - or handle. But, It looks good and drives very well in my mind. I'll let you know.

I think all the mods you suggest are reasonable and have been done on all sorts of rods. Custom f/r glass can be a $$. My only concern would be the final look/proportion of the car. Could someone do a rendering or photochop of it maybe ?

Jim

========================================
Jim you read my mind about having the car rendered with the changes. I've emailed several and I should have that process started soon.

BTW: I LOVE YOUR PROJECT!!!!

I do understand driving in my mind. It handles great and my gas mileage, "OY VEY"! Hundreds of miles per gallon. ;-)

Thanks you very much for your input, please feel free to add anything, anytime.

Ty

[tyoneal]

Originally Posted by TravisB

Most decent a/m sub frames increase the track width already I know of two off the top of my head not sure if the DSE does and it works well. But the morrison and one other do. And with all a/m subframes you can run a 275 tire some even a 285 tire. So that being said why make the nose longer? With a sbc or LSx weight ratio is easily obtainable. Sounds like a lot of work with no gain..........

==============================================
I am probably wrong, but I understood that unless the engine could be moved back, the weight ratio could not be Balanced.

The main reason I am going through this is I am starting a project that I really want to be special (If possible) and since I don't want the project to last for 10 years, I want to investigate everything I can think of before I start, so a good plan can be put together then followed.

The Car is special already, however I really would like to take a stab at correcting or upgrading the things I keep hearing about over and over again that people would like to achieve if possible.

I need to do some panel repair/replacement anyway, that being the case, much of the work is already going to be done.

This is an exercise in the creative process, fulfilling a long term goal and having a good time. If this idea can make a difference, then I will investigate it, if not it can go away. I'm not Married to it, it's just not off the table yet because I'm in the very early stages of planning the build, and this is an area I am not well informed on, thus I pose the question on the forum.

I really do appreciate your questions. Whether or not I have answered them correctly, I'm not sure. However I have tried to be honest with my answers.

I have done a search this evening among many of the Subframe suppliers. The offerings to the market have changed substantially. The First gen Camaro market is starting to specialize. One supplier offers 4 subframes for the 69 Camaro, all tailored for a specific purpose.

I think it is exciting to see as our choices improve daily. Track width for instance between the products ranges from 2 inches narrower to four inches wider than stock!

I will post a quick sampling of what I found under a different heading. There is a lot of reading to it and I didn't copy all of it.

Thanks again for your help and opinion. Please feel free to say anything further.

Best Regards,

Ty O'Neal

[race-rodz]

going to an LSx would shed some nose weight, and be a whole lot easier than the longer subframe, fenders, hood, etc. my way of thinking is that getting rid of weight, is far better than adding more to "shift" it rearward. but lets ponder this....add the length, go to an LSx, now we have a longer more stable platform, at about the same or less weight. im not saying that i would do it(or even own a camaro) but im just adding to the ide-ating.

[TravisB]

LSx and a aluminum front clip.......a/m subframe????? should be very close to your goal.

[Payton King]

I know there is a company making aluminum panels, but it might be cheaper to get a fiberglass front clip.

It would be easier and cheaper in the long run if you want to run a 1st gen body to build the frame with the suspension, engine set back, but use the same wheel base and drop a body over it. It has been done more than a few times.

There was a company on here a few years ago that was developing a carbon fiber 69 body. Evolution something or other was the name. Not sure what happened. Really cool renderings