Okay, I have only driven one Chevelle with the tall spindle conversion, and it was way before I heard of the handling issues... I don't recall any problems, and my friend couldn't remember any specific handling/bumpsteer issues.

So lets here the "real world" concensus of the tall-spindle swap... I know there are some here that have had bad experiences with bumpsteer, etc (Q-ship, etc), but still others seem to think its great...

So how 'bout it? Lets here those comments, BC, Dreinecke, Chad, etc...

For the record, I am running 72 A-body discs, which work fine, but I am considering larger wheels, tubular control arms, etc, and thought the 12-inch discs and tall spindles (using the 65-82 Corvette rotors, fabbed hubs and Suburban calipers - Thanks to RJ and BC) would be a logical swap. I don't have the money to be purchasing a Baer system, etc, and I will likely have to get by with the 15-inch rallys for a while...

Sorry to make this so long, I talk too much http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif!

Anyway, lets keep this with actual hands -on experiences... Are the steering affects noticible?

------------------

"Once you go RAT, you never go back..."
TC #1366
Tony
The Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleA.jpg)
Dual Quad 396 (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleC.jpg)
Side View (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleD.jpg)

My experience with the conversion is positive overall. The only complaint that I have is the Ackerman problem. I've not noticed any bumpsteer issues, but the car dropped 2-1/2" after adding the Eibach springs and there really isn't much suspension travel left to bumpsteer. I would definitely do the conversion again, but I am interested in whether or not the tubular arms make any difference(I used the stock upper a-arms like D. Rienecke).

I say go for it! http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Daryl Hafele
TC #1910
'69 Chevelle - 350 w/ TH350 180K miles & counting.

Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so
popular?

I have no problems whatsoever with driveability. I don't notice any bumpsteer or the Ackerman problem.

I will say that it drives better with the tubular arms than it did with the stockers. The stockers tended to bring the camber more positive under compression and the tubulars keep it negative. The caster is a thousand times better with the tubulars.

I really love driving the car in all conditions since I made the swap. Before I didn't like driving on wet roads or in traffic.

------------------
My Web Site (http://www.landry-family.com) (updated 01-04-03)

"Long Live Freedom!"

Chad Landry
TC Member #643
ACES Member #4556
'68 El Camino

Keep em coming...

I am debating which uppers to use... I like the Global West, but I am still worried about header clearance with my BB... still thinking about the Pole Position upper arms too...

------------------

"Once you go RAT, you never go back..."
TC #1366
Tony
The Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleA.jpg)
Dual Quad 396 (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleC.jpg)
Side View (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleD.jpg)

I would like to hear from people that have had a negative experience. I have been reading about the various potential problems. I would like to know more about the specific symptoms of the ackerman and bumpsteer issues. So far I have not noticed anything negative with the set up that I have. The car tracks straight and true and does not do anything funny when hitting bumps. My setup may even be worse then the normal tall spindle swap, since they are dropped spindles. I have not checked the bumpsteer of my setup, but I am not debating the research that some people have done. This issue needs to be explored further, for sure.

Andrew

------------------
Project GatTagO (http://groups.msn.com/projectgattago)

If CJ and Andrew like the tall spindle set-up,it has to be pretty good. It definitely sounds like a good thing to do.

------------------
Clint Hooper
ACES #1650
Wichita Falls,Tx
Clint's 69 Elky (http://www.dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint_hooper.htm)
Clint's 91 Callaway ZR-1 (http://personal.tmlp.com/scorp/vette/images/members/usazr1/purple-9.jpg)

Well, I'm pretty sure you can tell by looking at the previous posts that I really like my tall spindle swap! I have not noticed any driveability problems such as bump-steer or Ackermen issues that I would say are bad. Are there issues? Sure... but they sure are better ones than the stock setup! I'm using the GW uppers (because I didn't know better when I did mine!) and have been impressed with the driving from day one! I do have bump-steer, but no worse than I had when using the stock spindle with stiffer springs and poly bushings. Never had a problem with getting GW specs on alignment (once I got the frame rolled!) and I really drives good! I have a 468 BBC in there with the Hooker Comp headers and not even close to having problems there... only spot is by the steering column shaft.

Anyway, As always, if someone wants to come on down (up?!) and go for a test drive... you are more than welcome!

Good luck,
Bill C.


------------------
Bill C.
'71 SS (now with 467BBC)
'70 Nova 350/700r4
ACES #2780
Colo Spgs, CO

How about chevellesfromhell tubulars? Only trouble with these are that they use a diff upper balljoint so they require that the spindle be purchased from them.

You want to hear of bad experences with the tall spindles sway look for the thread where slo307 talked of the car he did that crashed due to bad bumpsteer (1/4 toe out, very bad). The tall spindle sway is a **** poor excuse for a disc brake conversion, remember all who read of those who have done a tall spindle conversion were possibly changing from worn out stock drums to rebuilt front ends, so of course they think the thing handles wonderful. These people have never compaired a rebuilt stock spindles front end to the screwed up tall spindles, I have! The reasoning that it is a cheap disc brake conversion dosen't hold up either, after buying upper control arms and all to rebuilt the suspension you could have bought a stock disc conversion with a good spring, sway bar, and shock combination (which you will still need with the tall spinble crap). BTW no suspension travel as DarylH talks of is not a great working front suspension.

Fact remains, The tall spindle have toe out gain in compression, toe in gain in droop. The longer steering arm slows down the steering response. The global arms are a lot heavier than stock arms. The Hotchkiss arms rub the frame even after beating on the frame for clearance. The spindles are heavier than stock. The track width is increased. The inside wheel drags at parking lot speeds. What are they doing in a corner at speed? You have to cut down the lower BJs to install them. I still do not see an advantage! I have done this swap a couple of times going back to when HO Racing was written up in Car Craft. Tried it again when upper a-arm were offered in the aftermarket. Took the stuff off and GAVE it to a friend with warning of what it did. He belived everything he saw and read. He is now replacing the junk this spring when the weather improves. Good luck to those who follow......

Good info...

Q-ship, the tall-spindle swap (for me) will be more than just a disc brake swap (I already have 72 A-body discs), as is also corrects some of the inherent handling maladies of the stock A-body suspension (Caster and/or Camber), as well as the possibility of even larger brakes (compared to stock setups) which benefits both stopping as well as visually looking better. Suspension travel should not be effected.

I am just trying to research what the trade-offs are. Many I talk to have not "noticed" the negative effects of the bump-steer issues... Has it ever been determined that there is "NO" bumpsteer associated with stock spindles.

I have a quick ratio steering box I am swapping in, so I do not anticipate the shoter steering arm to make a negative difference, as it might when solely swapping the spindles.

Any more observations?

Thanks


Andrew, saw your car in PHR... Looks great...

------------------

"Once you go RAT, you never go back..."
TC #1366
Tony
The Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleA.jpg)
Dual Quad 396 (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleC.jpg)
Side View (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleD.jpg)

[This message has been edited by 1966_L78 (edited 02-19-2003).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Q-ship:
You want to hear of bad experences with the tall spindles sway look for the thread where slo307 talked of the car he did that crashed due to bad bumpsteer (1/4 toe out, very bad). The tall spindle sway is a **** poor excuse for a disc brake conversion, remember all who read of those who have done a tall spindle conversion were possibly changing from worn out stock drums to rebuilt front ends, so of course they think the thing handles wonderful. These people have never compaired a rebuilt stock spindles front end to the screwed up tall spindles, I have! The reasoning that it is a cheap disc brake conversion dosen't hold up either, after buying upper control arms and all to rebuilt the suspension you could have bought a stock disc conversion with a good spring, sway bar, and shock combination (which you will still need with the tall spinble crap). BTW no suspension travel as DarylH talks of is not a great working front suspension.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa! Even though I've experienced some problems with this, they certainly don't make me feel this negative about the outcome. As for wrecking because of bumpsteer, seems to me that there might be more to this than just suspension geometry.

Have we forgotten that life is filled with compromise? http://www.chevelles.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

BTW Q-ship just because I don't have stock suspension travel, doesn't mean that my suspension doesn't work.

I feel the aftermarket must like it when they can sell product to the people like us. It is obvious that we are willing to try anything that they tell is great.
I have put bump steer gauge on a stock suspension & a non a-arm & an a-arm conversion. The tall spindle had around 1/8" toe out gain per side per inch of compression from ride height. The stock had 1/32" per inch of travel. FYI, an Indy / F1 car has less than .010 total.
The stock camber curve has almost no loss or gain over the travel. The tall spindle had around 1 deg. per inch gain.
Regarding the very little suspension travel issue why would you install a kit to increase the neg gain if you have a limited amount of travel? I think that if you want to do the conversion by all rights go ahead and do it. It makes no differance to me. I do not have to drive your car.

I did the conversion for the added braking and when I compare the suspension changes to the overall benefits, including the improved camber profile, the positives outweighed the negatives for me. I understand the fact that we still didn't end up with racecar handling, but if I wanted that, I would have invested in the racecar suspension.

What about Baer or Wilwood brakes? Do they have the same bumpsteer and Ackerman problems? The Baer brakes come with a stock height spindle that doesn't change the geometery of the front suspension. Is that correct?? I guess I'm a little confused why Baer brakes work, but GM tall spindles get a bad rap by some people? Break it down for me please http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif I'm curious..

------------------
Alan Ray
1971 Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/desertvelle71.jpg) 350ci 258rwhp @4900/326rwtq@3250
Got 9-inches? (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/nineinch.jpg)
1994 Impala SS (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/alimpala3.jpg)
1997 S-10 V6 (K&N air filter - 15hp at least :D )

Baer has kits for stock and tall spindles. I have the Baer 13" rotor kit on tall spindles with Global West Gen. II upper and lower arms. Car isnt completely assembled yet so I havent had a chance to try them out.

Alan,
I think Baer is available with either the stock spindles of the tall spindles...

But I was mainly looking for dicussion on handling, and not necessarily pure braking performance...

I realize that Baer, etc might be really good breaks, but I am on a strick budget, and with the tall spindle swap, I can still use my 15 inch ralleys. I'd love to get some 17's, but not a priority at all...

My main intention was that some say there are problems and some say otherwise... I had previously driver a car that had the swap, but I was not even aware of potential problems.

I do know that the car handled better than my freshly rebuilt stock drum setup, let alone the braking difference. I wasn't paying attention, but I can't recall any steering problems, and I was driving on regular roads with bumps and potholes...

So thats Daryl, Andrew, CJ and BC (and Dreinecke) that think the swap is pretty good...

Q-ship and Slo307 think its bad...

I tend to think DarylH summed it up pretty well:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I did the conversion for the added braking and when I compare the suspension changes to the overall benefits, including the
improved camber profile, the positives outweighed the negatives for me. I understand the fact that we still didn't end up with
racecar handling, but if I wanted that, I would have invested in the racecar suspension.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its a compromise...

As for the guy slo307 was talking about that crashed into the curb... Logic tells me that this was not due to the tall spindle conversion, but maybe some other aspect of the conversion (something loose, etc).

Even if you were to manage to get 3 inches of compression on one side and none on the other, this would cause the one wheel to toe out approximately 3.43 degrees* BUT, the other wheel would not move. 3.4 degrees by itself would not be enough to hit a curb, even if it came almost instantaneously (and that wouldn't happen unless hitting a really big bump or pothole, which in itself would cause problems), and the other tire would limit how much the car actually "darted", plus the suspension would also rebound returning the toe to as set.

It both tires received a 3" compression, then they would essentially cancel each other with minimal...

To calc the 3.43 degrees, I used simple trigonometry with the ~6.25 inch length of the tall-spindle steering arm and the 1/8"per inch of compression provided by Slo307. Maybe a little oversimplified, but should be in the ballpark.

Sure 3.4 degrees could affect handling, but that is with 3 inches of compression. Whatever causes the 3 inches of compression will likely produce more effects...

------------------

"Once you go RAT, you never go back..."
TC #1366
Tony
The Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleA.jpg)
Dual Quad 396 (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleC.jpg)
Side View (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleD.jpg)

[This message has been edited by 1966_L78 (edited 02-20-2003).]

http://beautifulskins.uhome.net/straysheep6.gif &lt;-------- There I am in all of my might. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif


Hope it doesnt lead me to----&gt; http://beautifulskins.uhome.net/straysheep9.gif

I plan to find out fo' myself. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
'70 SS 396
4spd, 4.10's and a smile
TC# 1341
ACES# 5388
Beaux
The SS (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/btmyss.JPG)
The Rat (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/btmill.JPG)
Interior (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/midint.JPG)

Life is a gateway drug that leads to Chevelle addiction.

[This message has been edited by Midnight Marauder (edited 02-20-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Midnight Marauder (edited 02-20-2003).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> http://beautifulskins.uhome.net/straysheep6.gif &lt;-------- There I am in all of my might. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where Beaux, I can't see you?... Ohhh You must be behind that sheep.... Baaaah! http://www.chevelles.com/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------

"Once you go RAT, you never go back..."
TC #1366
Tony
The Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleA.jpg)
Dual Quad 396 (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleC.jpg)
Side View (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleD.jpg)

Well I had a chance to drive my car today. We had a nice break in the weather with 50 degrees in the Chicago area, and I could not resist going for a drive. I paid very careful attension to any signs of bump steer or anything else. I want over some bumps and pot holes on purpose, and I have to say that the car tracked straight as an arrow. My suspension is fairly stiff, and I doubt that I am getting much more then 2 inches of compression travel when I hit a bump. I have dropped spindles and this reportedly might cause an even greater problem with bump steer. If indeed it is happening, it is totally transparent. I am certain that the tall spindle and the dropped tall spindle that I am using do not have ideal geometry, but I can't see how anyone would actually run into a curb because of this issue. I have driven the car from Indy to Chicago on the highway and once again the car tracked straight as an arrow. I do have some issues of not being able to get enough caster in my alignment, but this is certainly not caused by the spindles. I plan on getting the Gen II uppers from GW with the more offset arms, and I am certain this will allow me to align the car to a more favorable caster setting.

So take this post for what it is. One mans experience.

Andrew

------------------
Project GatTagO (http://groups.msn.com/projectgattago)

1966L78 If your car already has disc brakes you are wasting your time and money to do spindles swap! Just by lowering the stock suspension you will have some camber gain travel improvement, as to caster yes GM didn't build alot caster into the Chevelle but this is due to the tire tech at the time. The chevelle with stock spindles can be aligned to have approx. 2.5 to 3.0 postive caster which will be very exceptable on a good street car, with out all the caddy whamper steering geometry. If you really plan on doing this crappy swap can I have your stock spindles I mean all you here believe the tall spindles is great so this would make the stock disc brakes spindles worthless, so I will do you all the favor of taking them off your hands for free. Please reply for the address to send them too.

As I stated previously (ok, only in about 300 threads so far...) the swap is great for two reasons: Great brakes, and low cost. Come with me as I break (or brake) this down for you once and for all...

1) I am running stock upper arms that have a 1/8" notch on the driver's arm to deal with the bumpsteer causing a hit on the steering rod. Problem solved. I also am not going to purchase a GW or Hotchkiss setup to pay them big money. I think my car does fine with the stock setup. I am running less than 3/4" of shims on mine. I was able to get 1 degree of negative camber, and perfect caster on the car. I also think CJLandry has brass ones for fabbing his own! I don't possess such talent, nor shall I ever.

2) The brakes stop very well compared to a stock disc setup in my opinion. Have I done a side by side comparision? No. However, seat of the pants tell me it's so - in my car.

3) Cost - About $300 or less for the whole setup for manual discs. Hmm. About $1200 less than Baer or Wilwood. I'll take that!

4) Parts availability - a heck of a lot better than finding a stock system in a boneyard or paying someone an outrageous amount on ePay. Not to mention I can still get parts like any other GM car.

5) As far as toe in - that's not my experience. I put 12k mile on mine since performing the swap almost 2 years ago. I've not had alignment problems at all and no wearing on the tires at all. This car is driven through some really tough roads and long distances, and some good twisties thrown in for fun.

6) I don't have any problems running the car with it's lowered condition and rubbing on the frame or inner fender ANYWHERE. I also don't have any offset problems. I'm running P24560's on a 15x7 Z-28 wheel and could easily fit P275s in there if I wanted to.

7) I've noticed a slight loss in turning radius. But this is a 19 foot car with 35 year old technology. If I need a fast u-turn, I use the throttle...

8) As for handling. I installed all new PST poly front bushings, a T/A front sway, and and F41 rear arm and sway kit with KYB shocks, and all new stock springs. The car is a virtual slot car. This thing handles very nimble and is a lot of fun to drive on any road. Is it my father's 2002 Vette? Nope. But would it be fun to autocross? You bet. As a matter of fact, I'm going to try a few this year and I'll let you know how it does.

The great thing about this country is that everyone is entitled to opinions. I'm not disagreeing that there aren't some inherant issues with this swap. However, I also don't believe that due to some person's possible poor driving habits, the swap should be labeled with such doom and gloom predictions.

There, I'm off my soap box.

Now...off to write the tech article for this month's RMCC Newsletter on the swap...

------------------
David Reinecke - aka - FINE 68
1968 Chevelle 300 Sport Coupe Deluxe
http://dreinecke.home.att.net/

[This message has been edited by dreinecke (edited 02-21-2003).]

Where is the low cost, after buying the upper control and the baer bump steer kit along with rebuilding the brake you will into a disc brake swap for more money than if you just used the OEM 11" brakes and you still won't have the caddy wompper steering geometry.

Ther low cost is that for Dave Reinecke, he used the stock upper control arm with offset upper shafts (standard rebuild stuff)...

Sure, upgrading from 11 to 12 inch brakes probably isn't worth it, but the tall spindle also allows the better caster/camber at the expense of some steering issues...

Based on most peoples experiences, those steering issues are very minimal.

I myself, will be swapping a quick ratio steering box at the same time, so turning radius and feel will still improve over the stock Chevelle setup.

I will also tend to agree that performing this swap on my Chevelle might not net too much of an improvement for the cost involved, since I currently have the stock A-body disc setup... But the stock setup is worth more than most of the parts I am swapping will cost me, so I can have a completely fresh new setup with better brakes and better handling, and still have my stock A-body disc setup that I can sell to someone to recoup most of my costs... Sure, if I get the Hotchkis, etc arms it will cost more, but there is also the asthetics (bigger brakes, eventually bigger wheels, fancy control arms, etc.).

I also think the control arms can be a safety issue. 30+ year old arms are subject to metal fatigue and are past their intended service life.

If I solely wanted a car that braked and handled better, I'd go buy something new, but I'd like something that looks a little more high-tech, but with a strict budget, I am precluded from a system like Baer, etc...

Maybe I will have negative issues with the swap, but so far the only 2 people (Q-ship and Slo307) have had overall negative comments, and SLO307s story about the guy crashing makes absolutely no sense...

When I do perform my swap, I will definitely drive carefully for the first few miles, to see if there are really any significant problems...



------------------

"Once you go RAT, you never go back..."
TC #1366
Tony
The Chevelle (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleA.jpg)
Dual Quad 396 (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleC.jpg)
Side View (http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/1966_L78/ChevelleD.jpg)

I have also done this swap back in the early 80's at the time HO racing had the article in Car Craft, and used the offset cross shafts, it required enought shim stack to get the caster close to correct that you could not run headers on a small block, a big block would have been out of the question. To top it off you will not get any camber gain using the OEM upper arms so why would you do this?

Q-ship,

I was wondering what you think about the possility of making custom "tall" spindles that would give benefits of the camber gain, yet would correct the ackerman and bump steer issues. Would the ideal spindle be the same height as the "tall" spindle, but have a different steering arm?

Can you also please recap the reasons why the ackerman is messed up and why the bump steer is present. I would guess the ackerman problem is cause by the longer steering arm. What is the cause of the bump steer. Is it also the position of the outer ball joint?

I do not want this discussion to degenerate into a back and forth fight. I would like to see something possitive come out of this. Perhaps there are options for spindles that have not been fully explored.

Andrew

------------------
Project GatTagO (http://groups.msn.com/projectgattago)

[This message has been edited by andrewb70 (edited 02-21-2003).]

Q,

Did you read any of my posts? I stated several things:

1) I am running 3/4" of a shim pack. No problem on my small block. I've never addressed the BB issue since I don't have one.

2) I have 1 degree of negative camber. How much more do I want? This is not a road race car, and I find 1 degree of negative camber speeds up the turn-in.

3) I used the stock arms due to the COST of the tubulars, as well as to prove GW claim of 1 1/2" shim packs needed as WRONG.

4) I did not say anything about getting the bump-steer kit from Baer. I don't have one.

I'm done with this post since we agree to disagree, and I feel I'm being baited.

If you want to see how it's done, follow the link to my site.

Over AND Out!



------------------
David Reinecke - aka - FINE 68
1968 Chevelle 300 Sport Coupe Deluxe
http://dreinecke.home.att.net/

Well, I was going to be done with this post long ago, but since Q brings up the issue of shim packs on the upper control arms, I'll throw in the facts that he again is very misled. I did the tall spindle swap on my Chevelle quite a few years ago when the mentallity was that you HAD to use someones tubular upper control arms like the HO, Hotchkis or GW ones. So I researched and eventually bought what I thought were the best ones and got the GW ones. They sure are pretty... not $600 pretty??!! NOT! Well, after learning the lesson the hard way and finally getting the wheels alighned, I have less than 3/4" of shims in the rear posts of the upper control arms mounts and less than 1/2" in the front! Now this sure doesn't seem excessive to me and it's no where near the 1 1/2" worth everyone says you will need! And FYI, I am running a 454 with some Hooker Comp headers and they don't even get close to being a problem! That $800 or so mistake of buying the GW arms is exactly why I convinced Dave to do his 68 using the stock upper arms... and I'm pretty sure he's glad he did!

Tony brings up one of the very few valid points I can see as far as why you would want to go with tubular control arms... they are much stronger! I think for the most part, those considering the tall spindle swap are doing so to gain some handling performance and just might be driving a tad more aggressive than the Ol' General had in mind when he built these cars. And being that these parts have been around for 30+ years under constant load gives even more reason to consider replacing them. Do you have to replace them? Of course not, but it's your butt on the line is you happen to dip into that tighter corner at decent speed and those tires grab and the car starts to turn pretty sharp only to have one of the control arms break! But that has little to do with the actual tall spindles...

Bill C.

C'mon,guys. I've learned a bunch from this thread and want to see it continue.
Let's leave the attitudes at the door,ok?

------------------
Clint Hooper
ACES #1650
Wichita Falls,Tx
Clint's 69 Elky (http://www.dalesplace.com/misc/friends/clint_hooper.htm)
Clint's 91 Callaway ZR-1 (http://personal.tmlp.com/scorp/vette/images/members/usazr1/purple-9.jpg)

Guys you are tell me how many shims on my car I needed? when did you see my car? I have never question the install on your car because I have never seen them, so DON'T question mine. The car I did and used the Stock upper control arm needed an excessive amount of shims and did cause headers clearance problems, if you didn't have problems good for you I did! I have been baited on this subject by others, so I know the feeling. I'm off my soapbox now, and if anyone has been offended I am sorry, it was not my intention at all. If you really want to do this swap, then do it, just go in informed.

andrewb70 you have a good idea I believe with making a spindle and A arm combination that would have the steering arm geometry addressed. The ackermann problems are associated with the steering arm being to long which is also why the steer response is slowed down. The bump steering problem is because the steering arm is in the wrong arch of travel as compaired to the lower control arm, this is a very simplistic explanation. I hope this answer your questions

To the others here who have felt baited and said they will not return to this thread, please don't walk away because someone disagrees with you, if you really believe what you are saying to be true then anything anyone says should not scare you away form a intense decussion. That is all I have say on this matter, but I will return to give my opinion on this thread when I feel it is necessary. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/smile.gif

Q-Ship, I believe the other guys are using aftermarket offset shafts put in backwards to get rid of some of the shims.

They are designed to move the upper A-arm mounting further into the engine comapartment to compensate for sagged frames so they can still be shimmed. If used backwards they'd move the mounting out to get rid of some of the excess shims.

I just wanted to throw this in here because I think it's the reason for the disagreement.

Peter

OK, I've been offline for four days and my online time is limited, so I didn't read much of this.

The comment that caught my eye was that those of us who noticed much better performance were probably upgrading from worn out drums and other worn front end components.

My swap was done after a complete front end rebuild a year prior. My drums weren't worn (only 3-years old), and I changed brake shoes every 6-months just for the helluvit.

So, the improvements over stock stand. Even with everything in good condition and proper alignment.

Budget? There's none cheaper than me with this stuff. http://www.chevelles.com/forum/wink.gif



------------------
My Web Site (http://www.landry-family.com) (updated 01-04-03)

"Long Live Freedom!"

Chad Landry
TC Member #643
ACES Member #4556
'68 El Camino

Best conversion mod I ever made.
The safety improvement over drums is well worth the swap, especially in the rain.
I have had the conversion on mine (Hotchkis uppers, and springs, full poly bushings 1-1/8" swaybar using B-Body (Buick LeSabre) spindles) for almost 3 years. No bumpsteer issues that concern me (I drive some fairly bumpy canyons). Other than the slower steering response Its great. Im running 275-50-15 on the front and the BFG's that have been on it for 2 years show little wear (except slightly on the outer edges which is normal) My car is my daily commuter.
http://home1.gte.net/res096qi/71Elky.htm

Oh heck yes you change to disc brake from drums you will feel a improvement, even if you use the tall spindles, it is just that the stock disc brake or a Baer style kit using the OEM height spindle handles better because of correct steering geometry.
Peter I used the offset crossshafts and still had shim issues, all the replacement crossshafts are of the offset varity I believe. I believe all the aftermarket arms use offset shafts as well.

Does anyone have dimentions for a stock spindle? I would like to see the difference when measured using the same drawing that was used for the tall spindle comparison.

Andrew

------------------
Project GatTagO (http://groups.msn.com/projectgattago)

Andrew,

Here are rough measurements for the spindles. Check out: Spindle Drawing (http://chevelles.com/showroom/airrj/Spindle.jpg) and here are some of the dimensions.

66 El Camino stock spindle
1. 7.25
2. 2.0
3. +0.5
4. 0.0
5. 5.75

79 Caprice (11 inch rotors)
1. 8.75
2. 2.25
3. -.5
4. 1.0
5. 6.5

And my opinion of the cause of the bumpsteer is the large camber gain of the tall spindle causes the toe out, in compression. The largest contributor of this with the stock B-body tall spindles is the length of the tie rod. I babbled on and on about what I have found to this point in this thread if you want to read it. Preliminary Bump Steer Test Results (http://www.chevelles.com/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=005318)

Has anyone actually compared the braking between a stock A-body front disk setup (11" ??) VS the tall spindle brake setup (12" ??)

I have to agree that you can't compare stock drums to the tall spindle disks... They are just not the same animal.

After driving my old 69 with 4 wheel drums (all new parts) and my 70 with stock front disks (also all new parts) The disks stop the car 100% better than the drums ever did...

I want to get a set of the Prise Dyno front disk pads and rear drum shoes, they are supposed to increase stop time considerably over stock.

Anyway... I'd like to see a brake test of a good working set of stock front disks vs a set of the tall spindle disks to see how much improvement you get with the 1" larger rotors...