I've been wanting to install a fays watts link in my '69 since I first read about them. To those who have done it, looked into doing it; the stock fuel tank is is too close to get one in there easily. A custom tank is out of my price range (for now). I was looking at the back of the car yesterday and noticed there is probably 3" of room I could move the tank to the rear of the car if I found a different way to mount the straps (shouldn't be too hard). Then I would just need to shorten the filler tube which I could do myself, shave down the current strap mounts on the floorboard braces, and weld in some ears or something a little further back.

Has anyone done this? I know that the clearance is just a little too tight to get it in there right now, but if I were to move the tank... maybe shave the seam some on the front and back of the tank and weld it to ensure its seal. I figured I'd use a weld in watts cross-member. It's either this or a panhard bar, which I really am wanting to avoid if I can... but I'll probably do if I can't install a watts link. I'm open to opinions.

Have you ever thought about using a fuel cell in the trunk?
I've been looking into this recently but I'm still on the fence.

Where did you find a watts link setup for A-Bodies?

This is a street car so I really don't want to use a fuel cell in the trunk if I can get away with it. I'm planning on getting on getting a weld in fays2 WL what has the axle tube clamps that they are using in the g-bodies.

http://www.fays2.net/fays2_watts_link_23_.html

And from what I understand, the reason they haven't made a bolt in versioon for A-bodys is because of tank clearance. I wish I had a setup in hand so I could test and see if it worked.

If i'm not mistaken I saw a Watts linkage setup in the back of a Chris Alston Chassisworks catalog, it was a simpler setup than the Fays setup. It bolted on to the rearend with the same bolts that hold the rearend cover on. I'll see if I can find it again and post something here.
If I may ask , why do you want to do a Watts linkage or panard bar on your Chevelle ?
I also have a 69 Chevelle with very little tire clearance on the inside or outside and I'm concerned about sideways movement. I haven't finished putting the car together yet so I don't know if it's going to be a problem.
Gene

If I may ask , why do you want to do a Watts linkage or panard bar on your Chevelle ?


id assume for the handling advantages and the superior RRCH adjustability. are you asking why compared to a PHB?

It bolted on to the rearend with the same bolts that hold the rearend cover on.

the issue with the chevelles is the weak frame in the area the watts is installed. without a crossmember, the watts will actually suck in the frame and its benefits will somewhat be negated. plus, mounting the watts to a 12 bolt will increase the unsprung weight. the fays appears to be a pretty simple install, it includes a crossmember, the axle mounts are adjustable (not that they need to be, but its easier to set up) and most of all; jim fay knows his stuff.

heres a pic of my setup. im going to build my own stainless tank with an intank 044 and swirl pot. i couldnt swallow the $2000 price tag from ricks. still going to cost about 1k, but it will be what i want.

http://www.fquick.com/images/vehicles/full/23712235018.jpg?1234929054

Tim

Here's the watts linkage I was thinking of , it looks like it's for Chevy pickupshttp://www.kplinks.com/home.php?cat=5

nice, but no RRCH adjustment, tons of added unsprung weight, no crossmember to keep the rails from flexing and its not that much cheaper than the fays2 kit.

Tim

I guess with that you could weld in a piece of box tubing to brace the frame rails. That WL looks like it may have fewer clearance issues, but like Tim said, theres no adjustment and added unsprung weight.

I need to contact Jim to see what the thickness of the assembly would be so I can try to measure things and make certain it would work... but looking at it again, there is a good bit of room to be had there.

whats the advantage of a WL to a PHB?

aaron

I am pretty sure that SC&C sells them for A bodies

whats the advantage of a WL to a PHB?

aaron
Depends on the application and packaging.

PHB has a lot of advantages, including being lighter, simpler, and easier to package. Its disadvantages (RCH moves in relation to CoG, and it swings an arc which results in some lateral movement) are mostly negated with stiff springs which reduce travel.

A WL with the propeller mounted to the frame keeps the RCH constant with the car's CoG, but requires a heavy crossmember and takes up a lot of space behind the axle.

A WL with the propeller mounted to the axle actually allows the RCH to move twice as much as a PHB in relation to the CoG. There really is no good reason to run one mounted like this.

I like a PHB best in theory, as the simpler design, packaging, and lighter weight outweighs the disadvantages IMHO.

A WL with the propeller mounted to the frame keeps the RCH constant with the car's CoG, but requires a heavy crossmember and takes up a lot of space behind the axle.

youre right about the idea of packaging in theory, but i found it no easier to run a PHB than the watts with my combo. the tank still needed to be moved, both required a custom exhaust, and i needed a crossmember anyways.

according to mark, he has a customer that keeps ripping the mounts off the frame with his PHB(not bad welds, but actually tearing the frame). plus, instead of distributing the force to both frame rails as with a watts, youre putting it all one one.

Tim

It's real easy to tie a PHB mount to both sides with a simple diagonal brace, and shouldn't be hard to squeeze in with a stock tank. :)

f cars use a PHB. seems to work decent for them.

if there were more room, i would def run one.. well what am i saying, i will run one no matter what. lol

aaron