The recent long thread about the best rear control arm styles and suspension bind is fairly close to convincing me to shift from stock arms with all poly bushings on the wagon project at some point. At this time I have dumped a fair amount of cash into the entire chassis build: polyurathane bushings all around, QA1 coil overs, QA1 adjustable rear shocks, Hotchkiss rear springs and air bags - a Hotchkiss recommendation with their springs, 1-1/8 inch front sway bar, a 1-inch rear sway bar, 11-inch front disc brakes, spindle height extenders (effectively making tall front spindles), rear disc brakes, a beefed up 12-bolt and an AGR quick ratio steering box. Nothing incredibly sophisticated, but much more than I had originally planned without entirely busting my budget.

I figure having largish rear brakes would allow me to upgrade to larger front brakes at some point though 11-inch rotors all around should be a good start. I also figured since this car will ride lower and get more aggressive driving treatment than the coupe I may want to do further upgrades in the future such as better rear lower control arms. I haven't experienced any downsides to the poly bushings in the coupe so I figured they'd do well in the wagon too and if not I'll upgrade later. But for now I plan to run what I've got and go from there. No need to throw money spent out the window until I can make an informed decision as to whether it's even worth it to me.

Anyway, today I installed the rear axle onto the frame. The poly bushings made the control arm installs quite difficult, not because they are so stiff, but because the bushings are slightly wider than the brackets in the frame on on the axle. I had to literally pound some of the control arms into the brackets to line up the bolt holes. Yes, I greased the bushings up quite well and none of them squeek or groan throughout their ranges of motion. I guess someone had torqued down the control arm bolts a bit too much over the years and closed up those brackets a bit.

I installed the axle in the frame without springs at first. The front of the frame was supported in the center and thus would allow the frame to be tilted from side to side. Once the axle was bolted in, I did a little experiment and lifted the passenger side frame rail well over a foot. Considering the information provided in the "control arm" thread I expected it to be very difficult to raise the frame on one side while the other remained where it was because bind would enter the picture and I'd basically be lifting the frame and some amount of the weight of the axle at one time. On the contrary, I was able to lift this heavy boxed frame quite easily and the control arms pivoted quite smoothly and quite readily. I experienced no noticeable bind in the control arms whatsoever in my completely non-scientific test.

Now my question. Is the amount of bind an issue due to the speed with which the suspension should be able to go through it's motions? Since the speed I am lifting the frame cannot hope to duplicate the speed with which the axle would cycle up and down when encountering a hole or bump, perhaps the bind would raise it's ugly head by slowing down this cycle?

On a side note, my exaggerated suspension travel experiment also showed to me that the axle actually pivots slightly when the frame is raised unnatrually high which makes sense given the long-arm/short-arm set up and where all the pivot points lie. But the axle pivots in such a way as to aim thrust to the wrong side! In other words, if I lifted on the passenger side (thus duplicating what that side of the car would do on the inside of a turn), the passenger side wheel moved forward in relation to the frame while the drivers side wheel remained steady thus pointing the thrust of the axle against the turn instead of into the turn. This would have to contribute to oversteer situations if the suspension were allowed to move too drastically as would happen if the car did not maintain a generally flat stance through a corner. Hopefully the stiffer springs and sway bars for tuning will help keep body roll to a minimum.

Rich, try doing the same type of test only lock the frame and 1 side of axle in place and move only the other side of the axle up and down.

Did you torque the control arms to spec?

Also try jack the entire rearend, not just one side... If you have time, try jacking the rear (torqued) without the springs...

I had trouble installing the shocks with STOCK rear springs, when trying to lift the entire rear at once... I had to jack one side up at a time...

I have not torqued the bolts yet. I'll only do that when the car is assembled and it is at the proper ride height.

I may try some more experiments while I have it in the stage however which would need to include torquing those bolts and removing the springs. The Hotchkiss rear springs I'm using are only a little bit shorter than stock springs but the are more resistent to compression as you would expect. I had no difficulty installing the springs. The shocks (QA1 Alumi-Stars) have enough draw to be installed without any weight on the chassis to compress the springs which is convenient. I am a little displeased that the attaching hardware for these shocks are all slightly larger than the holes in the frame brackets which will require that I drill out all the mounting holes slightly. If the car was assembled instead of being a bare frame this would be somewhat more difficult to do.

I hesitate to remove the springs but I'll only have this opportunity once before the car gets more completely assembled but now the issue is time to do it!

Rich, I may be wrong but I don't see your test being the same as was described for determining bind inthe previous string. Not that your's is not valid also, just different in my view.

All the bind testing in the other string was done by raising one side of the axle towards the frame, not hyper extending the frame away from the axle on one side with little to no resistance on the other end. I thought in the previous testing, the bind was experienced due to lack of give in the upper arms and bushings under a "twisting" action of the entire C4L by raising one wheel against the weight of the vehicle.

The relationship between the frame and the axle are the same whether the frame moves or the axle moves, it is just accomplished in a different manner. In short, either test is testing the resistance to the axle and the frame moving into different (not parellel to each other) planes.

With the springs out it was easy to lift and drop the frame as a whole (axle and frame remaining in the same relative plane) throughout the entire range of motion allowed by the arms before the lower arms bang into the axle housing at the highest point and when the axle housing hits the frame on the bump stops at the bottom. My results were observed both when lifting one frame rail with the frame rails starting at their lowest point and with the frame rails starting with a more raised position (on jackstands) roughly equating to expected ride height. What is fundamentally different is that my experiment is simulating the wheel going into a depression while the other test were simulating the wheel going over a bump.

I'll remove the springs and support the frame at roughly ride height and raise one wheel at a time and see what happens. I'll measure the frame to floor distance while static and I'll raise one wheel and measure the frame to floor distance again and see the net change as compared to the distance the wheel was raised. If the frame rail on the side with the lifted wheel raises noticably this would indicate bind, if it remains unchanged it would indicate little to no bind or not enough to cause problems. Correct?

I still think bind, even minor amounts, would become more of an issue when considering the speed with which the axle can move AND return to it's original position but then overall unsprung weight, spring rates, sway bar rates, shock rates, etc., etc. would also factor into the entire equation.

I'll try to take some pictures as I go along. It's really pretty cool to see how all the arms articulate as the frame and axle move.

Gotcha.

Yeah, pics would be cool. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Measuring bind of the entire axle moving in bump/rebound is a pretty much futile test. There is no "handling" to be done driving straight, to measure how the systems kineamatics work and measure bind you need to lock one side in place or even extend it somewhat to simulate roll conditions, then only move/measure the opposite side.

Another point is that measuring "smoothness" by hand is not a valid test as the results cannot be validated, there are no real measurable results.

I never said I was gaining any knowledge by lifting the frame straight up and down, only that when I did so that it moved smoothly. My comments focused on what I observed when I lifted one side and one side only which does simulate the relationship between the frame and the axle in a roll situation or when one wheel encounters a hole and the other does not.

I realize I'm dabbling in pseudoscience here, but it sure helps to put things into a real world frame of reference, at least for me. Measuring bind by numbers is only useful if you can understand those numbers in the context of ALL the numbers that are factoring into the entire equation. When I read that a full poly set up creates 67 inch/pounds of linear resistance all that really comes to mind to me is that if 3800 pounds of Chevelle can't resist a mere 67 pounds of force without much trouble then there is more to the equation. For me at least, I sometimes need to take things off the computer screen or piece of paper and put them in my own two hands and see if I can more fully understand and observe the dynamics at work.

Again, that's why I still think it has to do with the speed with which the axle needs to move which I can never hope to duplicate in my "tests". For example, a 1 ounce slug won't hurt you too much if I simply throw it at you, but if I fire it out of a gun it certainly will. It's a factor of mass times speed. Now imagine an entire axle trying to resist 67 in/lbs of force while being raised by my two hands vs. an entire axle trying to resist 67 in/lbs of force in under a half a second. A whole different picture emerges. If I can observe for myself that bind is in action at the speeds I can create I can more easily imagine what that is doing in a more real world (driving) suspension movement event.

The one thing I have been able to observe thus far is how the axle points to the outside of the turn instead of into the turn when the axle and frame are in dramatically different planes. This is disturbing and clearly illustrates the importance of attempting to keep the chassis parallel to the ground (and thus the axle) in a turn to avoid counterproductive thrust angle changes. It also helps explain why cars with this style of rear suspension walk sideways when going over washboard surfaces, something my 4-wheel independent suspended sports car does not do. Of course the amount of unsprung weight has a lot to do with it as well.

In short, I'm trying to understand my observations in a real world context. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, only to put it into some kind of context that is more meaningful, to me at least, than just information on a page.

That’s good Rich, do whatever you have to do to visualize it. You are absolutely correct that while 67in. lbs. do not seem like much, in actual application it is huge. Remember that track cars will go to massive lengths to reduce 5in. lbs. of resistance.

Hey Rich,

You listed "spindle height extenders" in your set up. Are those "tall ball joints" or what?

I see your analogy. Also, I didn't know that about the pivoting of the rear. tx.

/herb

Herb, we haven't talked much about those. They are basically ball joint spacers, kind of pricey, not widely used anymore due to other/better alternatives.

Like the raised pivot upper ball joints we mentioned a week or so ago?

Very similiar, the "tall" ball joints are much better way of accomplishing the same thing though.

Yes, old technology that does what it is designed to do and that is less expensive than a g-body spindle swap since I already have stock a-body disc brake spindles and control arms. They also don't create the same bump steer issues as g-body spindles. For what I've got to spend at the moment they are a good alternative to gain better front suspension action while not creating other problems. They eliminate negative camber gain, just like taller g-body spindles but allow the original spindle and control arms to be maintained. Until I care to drop the change to change to tubular arms, g-body spindles and tie rods with rod ends, they make the most sense. Considering the intended use of the car, I'll likely be pleased with what I've got.

Actually Rich you are referring to the b-body swap and you WANT negative camber gain (which the spindle extenders will do). Using Marcus' tall ball joints does not require any other modification to be made last I checked and I think they are a little cheaper than the spindle adapters.

Whoops! Got my letter's wrong. I meant the b-body spindle swap of course.

When I was shopping for solutions the only tall ball joints I found didn't extend the height of the spindle as much as the extenders and cost as much or more AND required modifications to the spindle (to accept larger ball joint studs). I guess I didn't shop around enough but the extender kit I did get is made out of quality stuff so I'm happy with it thus far.

Anyway, here are some photos of my little experiments. The photos don't really show much but read the comments associated with each.

Everything at roughly ride height with the axle level and the frame level. The frame is 13 inches from the floor on both sides:

http://heartland.chevelles.net/RCstorage/axlezero.jpg

At this point it takes the same amount of effort to lift either frame rail. As an additional test I loosened one upper control arm bolt and one lower control arm bolt. Either bolt could be turned in their holes with light finger pressure. The bushings weren't binding in such a way as to cause the bolts to be hard to turn.

http://heartland.chevelles.net/RCstorage/axlethree.jpg

Here are things with one wheel raised three inches. It was now easier to lift the frame rail (I assume bind was partially lifting the frame on that side) on the side where the wheel was up but there was still some heft to the lifting. At rest, both frame rails were still 13 inches off the ground. When I loosened the control arm bolts they were more firm but could still be turned with moderate finger pressure.

http://heartland.chevelles.net/RCstorage/axlefourhalf.jpg

Here the wheel is raised 4 1/2 inches. While the frame rails remained at 13 inches off the floor on both sides it was quite easy to lift the frame rail on the side where the wheel was up, it could be lifted with a couple of fingers. As expected, the bind increases as the angle between the plane of the axle and the plane of the frame increases. When I loosened the control arm bolts I found I could just barely turn the bolts by hand but COULD still turn them by hand.

What's all this really tell me? Well, not a lot actually. But until I did this expriment I had imagined the bind described in the other thread as quite a bit more dramatic. I honestly expected the bind to manifest itself such that the control arm bolts would be so firmly wedged into place as to be impossible to turn by hand. I did also notice that the lower control arm bolts experienced noticeably more bind than the upper control arm bolts. In fact, even with the 4.5 inch lift on one wheel, I could have probably removed and replaced the upper control arm bolts without the arm and bushing holes becoming misaligned enough to prevent the bolts from moving in and out easily and without tools. I expected the upper arms to bind more than the lowers.

While I now have a more tangible "feel" for the bind that is caused and have proven to myself how and when and where it occurs I also observed it isn't as dramatically demonstrated as I thought it might be.

A whole lot more will become evident when I get the car together and on the road and I can see how it reacts in real world applications. I don't plan to seek out an SCCA events (well, that would be fun) but I do plan to push it's limits when prudent, log some 1/4 mile times and cruise short and long distances. If I don't like it, I'll change it (if I'm not entirely broke by then).

Maybe we should discuss "bind" a bit. It is not the bind you would normally associate that word with but more a "tightness" in the whole suspension as a unit. We are not really looking at whether or not the arms themselves bind at the bushings but does the whole assembly bind while being articulated through its natural movement.

Hold your left arm out and up as if to signify a right turn, now rotate your arm at your shoulder in a forward motion...it should move very freely toward the front. Now try and perform that same motion only towards the rear, it should start to hurt very quickly. That is the type of bind we are talking about, the shoulder socket is designed to rotate 360* but due to tendons, ligaments and muscle tissue (or bushings in the cars case) the "link" binds instead of freely rotating.

Does this help to illustrate the point a little bit? I wasn’t sure but it was the best I could come with. The suspension has a natural arc it would like to follow and the links prevent that happening, the prevention is the bind.

Good test though Rich and I’m glad you have a better understanding of how things work, the fact that you are attempting to measure bushing rotation resistance shows your obviously interested in what can be done to make it work better.

Sounds good. So what I'm getting from this, is that Howe tall ball joints are a good mod to the stock front end suspension to improve handling. Since I'm in the process of defining my parts list, I should add these to my list.

I too have stock spindles and will do a Disc Brake conversion, keeping the stock ride height. I'm not interested in doing a tall spindle swap.

My frame goes to the galvanizer in a few weeks and, after painting it, I start the reconstruction. I only want to do this build once.

Denny, any word on UMI's new "jointed" lowers?

Denny, in a way that's exactly what I measured. With one wheel raised, the frame was easier to lift (and harder to push down by the way) on that same side so the bind is presenting itself in that it is providing lift (or at least increased resistance to remaining level) to the chassis as a whole which can't be good. The bind is increasing the likelihood that the chassis will be raised when encounting a bump instead of the suspension simply moving smoothly over it while the chassis remains where it belongs.

I can also see how bind can be bad in a roll situation such as expreienced while turning. Initially it makes sense that roll resistance, even that provided by bind, would be a good thing in that it would help keep the chassis closer to parallel to the ground. However, if you consider the effects of the chassis being lifted if a bump is encountered while in that turn it is easy to see how things get ugly real fast. Additionally, once the free and smooth travel of the suspension is bound up, the center of gravity of the vehicle is now trying to pivot around the binding point instead of the point of contact with the road. That binding point is always going to be higher than the tire's contact patch so it's not hard to imagine in what ways that is bad.

NOW, after all this discussion am I going to change my wagon suspension? Nope, for my purposes and budget I think the design I've mapped out is a sound one. Is it perfect? Probably not, but I now have a better understanding of it's strengths and weaknesses. Since I want to do more than go around corners (I have particular 1/4 miles goals in mind as well) anything I do or choose compromises one thing or another. An incredible handling machine is rarely the best straight line performer (as far as chassis help to the cause at least) and a straight line chassis set up is hardly great at corning.

The pieces I've incorporated such as QA1 coil overs up front and lowering springs and air bags in the rear and adjustable shocks all around allow me to adjust and tune the car to the needs at hand depending on what I'm doing with it at the time. I plan to set up the rear air bags so the air pressure in each can be set individually (for drag racing applications) or to simply increase the effective spring rates or hauling capacity as needed. Tire selection too will be key, but that one is off in the distance as I'm not sure what width and offsets can be tolerated until the body gets back on the frame.

In the end I've spent a moderate amount on the chassis set up but feel I'll more than likely get a great deal of bang for my buck. If I don't like something in the future, I'll have to consider further upgrades but at least I'll have a decent foundation (disc brakes, quick ratio steering, adjustable suspension, etc.).

Originally posted by Herb:
Denny, any word on UMI's new "jointed" lowers? Should hear something today.

Hey brought this up because I found something for all you straight line guys that relates to bind and poly bushings.

This is a quote from Wolfe Craft Racing, please note the times that stock configuration mustang is running from the R&D done to reduce bind-

Description: Machined from solid aluminium to be direct fit for your stock housing or aftermarket housing(if built to stock deminsion). A spherical bearing is mounted inside to provide a smooth pivoting point to elminate bind. This allows the control arms and rear-end to more freely in there entire range of moting.
Basically you get the feel of solid bushings, without putting your upper control arms in a bind. As well as the freedom of movement of Poly bushings with the feel of solid aluminum bushings

These are the same as we used on Job Spetter Jr's 7.77 @ 186mph stock suspended SSO Mustang.

We are the Creators and Original Designer of the Spherical Bushing. We didn't just copy someone else's design.

Note: If your suspension is in a bind you will never get your car working to it's ultimate potential.

Lets do that again-

Note: If your suspension is in a bind you will never get your car working to it's ultimate potential.

Rich-L79: Feel free to torque those poly bushings with the suspension at ANY convenient height. Rubber bushings must be torqued with the suspension at normal ride height to avoid over-flexing the rubber insert as the suspension travels through it's range of motion. The rubber bushing is bonded to a metal inner sleeve, and bonded to a metal outer shell. As the suspension moves, the rubber is twisted between the fixed inner sleeve, and the pivoting outer shell. Because the poly bushings are not bonded, there is little torsion (shear???) stress, and so no reason to be concerned about suspension position when you torque the center bolt-the poly bushing allows slippage of the inner sleeve in relation to the outer shell.

I'm very curious as to whether torquing the bolts will produce "more" bind in the suspension, tested in the same manner as you've already tested.

Seems like from what I have read of the tests Dennis did the results would be applicable to both cornering and straight line performance.

It makes sense to me that in either situation suspension bind is bad. I would think that how the car performs through corners and down the 1/4 mile could be dictated by your spring/shock setup.

But thats just my uneducated 2 cents.

Originally posted by Schurkey:
Rich-L79: Feel free to torque those poly bushings with the suspension at ANY convenient height. Rubber bushings must be torqued with the suspension at normal ride height to avoid over-flexing the rubber insert as the suspension travels through it's range of motion. The rubber bushing is bonded to a metal inner sleeve, and bonded to a metal outer shell. As the suspension moves, the rubber is twisted between the fixed inner sleeve, and the pivoting outer shell. Because the poly bushings are not bonded, there is little torsion (shear???) stress, and so no reason to be concerned about suspension position when you torque the center bolt-the poly bushing allows slippage of the inner sleeve in relation to the outer shell.

I'm very curious as to whether torquing the bolts will produce "more" bind in the suspension, tested in the same manner as you've already tested. The following quote is from Energy Suspension.
"One of the biggest problems we see is torquing them down too much so they not only bind up in the shells and restrict normal movement but they also squeak."
For what ever it's worth.

The difference is that Energy Suspension is talking about over-torquing, while I'm talking about proper torque, done with the suspension at any "convenient" height, not just at normal ride height.

Another thought for Rich-L79: You have discussed that perhaps suspension bind makes more difference with the suspension moving quickly, as it would over rough pavement, or whatever. I'm curious: What is the resistance to (SUDDEN) movement caused by suspension bind, in comparason to resistance to sudden movement caused by the normal functioning of the shock absorbers? I say the normal damping action of the shocks is so much greater than the bind caused by the bushings that the bushings have proportionately very little effect. I understand Dennis will disagree, and I'd be interested in hearing his comments as well.

Yep, I disagree. The type of bind the links create is totally different then the resistance of the shock absorbers. The links bind due to constraints placed on them that basic physics dictate are not possible. The shocks absorbers are simply doing the job they were designed to do.

Keep thinking though, it’s good practice.

Poor geometry, que no?

Poor geometry for what? The suspension was designed to function well enough for a smooth ride, effectively control the rear with a minimum of complexity and to be inexpensive to manufacture and maintain in normal everyday driving situation. The GM A-body was never intended to be a sports car by the designers. The four link system GM used was NOT a bad design given what they hoped to accomplish. It may not be the best design given what WE want to do with our cars but it can be made to work and work well, again, depending on what you want to accomplish.

The bind caused in the suspension joints increases as the axle and the frame move into different planes and as those planes become further apart in measurement of angle. A quick sudden movement (such as a bump or hole) would encounter this bind and amplify it much more than when the car leans into a corner. Of course, everything is amplified even more when a bump or hole is encountered while leaning into a corner...

Look at it this way: a one ounce lead bullet can't do much if I throw it at you (mass x speed = force) but if I shoot it out of a gun it does lots of damage. An imperfect analogy but illustrates how speed can impact the amount of force that is applied.

The problem with bind or overly heavy springs or overly heavy sway bars is that they won't let the suspension move up and down or differently from side to side while leaving the body/chassis in the same relative location. If any of the above are over done, when a road imperfection is encountered the entire car is raised or lowered causing quite bit of trouble maintaining good contact with the road. The body/chassis has a whole lot more mass than the moving suspension parts and the more mass that is moving uncontrolably the more trouble the car will have staying stuck to the road. If you've ever ridden in or driven a 1-ton pickup you know what I mean. Unloaded, a 1-ton with it's stiff suspension tends to bounce the truck over every bump instead of letting the suspension move up and down while leaving the body relatively unaffected.

Every "fix" is a compromise in one way or another, every suspension design itself is a compromise one way or another. The trick is knowing what your budget can handle, what you want to accomplish and what compromises you can live with and which you cannot.

I've restored the pictures in this thread so folks can again review them. I had deleted them from my server as I thought this thread had passed on.

Originally posted by Rich-L79:
Every "fix" is a compromise in one way or another; every suspension design itself is a compromise one way or another. The trick is knowing what your budget can handle, what you want to accomplish and what compromises you can live with and which you cannot.
Not necessarily. There are ways to improve the OE design with no negative side affects. My rod end lower links with the new bearing housing upper and stock rubber bushings in the stock channel upper link looks to be a very sound arrangement with no trade offs. We'll see some actual track results next month I hope. Daily driver results could be much sooner, maybe the end of this month.

Originally posted by dennis68:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rich-L79:
Every "fix" is a compromise in one way or another; every suspension design itself is a compromise one way or another. The trick is knowing what your budget can handle, what you want to accomplish and what compromises you can live with and which you cannot.
Not necessarily. There are ways to improve the OE design with no negative side affects. My rod end lower links with the new bearing housing upper and stock rubber bushings in the stock channel upper link looks to be a very sound arrangement with no trade offs. We'll see some actual track results next month I hope. Daily driver results could be much sooner, maybe the end of this month. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, and the compromise here may be cost and a more harsh ride with a greater transmission of road vibration to the body. Not everybody wants the same thing, however.

If you've got any kind of serious horsepower you might want to check and/or augment your frame mounting points for the lower control arms. With rod ends every ounce of effort moving and stopping the car will be instantly and harshly applied to the mounting bolts and the frame and axle mounting brackets. If you've ever run solid motor mounts or solid body mounts and compared that to rubber mounts you'll understand what I'm talking about. Let us know the results of your efforts.

Hey all, I've been noticing the ford fox body guys using sphericals on most of there rear suspensions and with positive results.They say it reduces the bind. Does anyone make them for GM yet?
I see alot of aluminum CA's being used too.
Also would making the LCA's parallel (in plan view) to each other provide any advantage over stock? thanks, Detrick

Originally posted by doubletap:
Hey all, I've been noticing the ford fox body guys using sphericals on most of there rear suspensions and with positive results.They say it reduces the bind. Does anyone make them for GM yet?
I see alot of aluminum CA's being used too.
Also would making the LCA's parallel (in plan view) to each other provide any advantage over stock? thanks, Detrick HUH???
Yes, Wolfe is making sphericals for the upper axle housing.

How does changing the material in the arms move the mounting locations to make the arms parallel? If the arms are parallel in plan veiw, what determiones axle lateral position? They need to converge to work.

I think you missed my question.
I will plot it out better.
I have a 12 bolt rear out of a Monte Carlo and the LCA mounts are cut off,so I will have to weld in brackets. I was asking if taking the converging element out of the lowers would help or improve handeling? I plan on getting the UMI lowers as soon as they come out with the spherical ends. All this in conjunction with a panhard bar of coarse.
Do you have a link for Wolf? Also I noticed your in northern California, do you know any local shops or suppliers that can help me with this stuff.I don't have the room for it. I would prefer to keep cost down.
Thanks, Detrick

Nope, I know of 1 shop that I would refer somebody to for this type of work and he is backed up 6 months at least.

Moving the LCA's won't help with the bind issue, it is all in the uppers and the complex working angles involved in control fore/aft as well as lateral loads.

Wolfe Race Craft (http://www.wolferacecraft.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=28)

Thanks Dennis, The wolf parts are very pricey. Its funny cause the mustang stuff that is out there is atleast 25% less. The housing balls are like $50-$60 for fox cars.
The LCA relocate was just a though, thought it might improve something.
Can you give me that shops info anyways,im not very close with my engine so it maybe down for awhile. Plus these shop around here won't touch stuff like this. Everyone just does stock style replacment or just too exspensive.
Later Detrick

Mean Streets Fabrication, Vince is the fabricator. Very talented guy. Builds mostly g-machine style cars, almost always GM so he knows the line well. MSP fab (http://hometown.aol.com/o1mrquick/MSPfabrication.html)

Thank you for the link Dennis, That GTO on his site is awesome, I didn't see a contact link. Any idea how to get in touch with him? Thanks for all the tech help, you helped me go in a totally different direction with my project. Detrick

I've been following these threads for a while now, and there's one thing I think hasn't been addressed yet.

All discussion so far has been, which setup allows the least bind. What's been left out is, how well do the various options LOCATE the rear?

I'm concerned that any solution that has rubber UCA bushings will allow the rear to shift laterally under load. That would clearly be a bad thing; has anyone tried to measure it? My assumption :-) is, a car like the A body, approaching one G, will have about 1500 lbs lateral force on the rear. I suspect that kind of load will make the rubber deflect and let the body shift to the outside of the turn, over the axle.

A panhard bar is the obvious solution to that, but it adds it's own factors to the binding issue.

Any comments?

Also, Dennis, as you get into your daily driving test, I'm very interested to hear your evaluation of NVH with the spherical ends.

Thanks,
Skip

Put the lower links in tonight. I'll post some pics and ride/drive evaluation tomorrow.

With solid links in the lower and OE upper links rebushed with rubber lateral control should be held in check. Totally worn out bushings at close to 1G only deflect enough to allow about 3/8" lateral movement (that is how much tire clearance I have and they will rub when pushed).

Put the lower links in tonight. I'll post some pics and ride/drive evaluation tomorrow.

With solid links in the lower and OE upper links rebushed with rubber lateral control should be held in check. Totally worn out bushings at close to 1G only deflect enough to allow about 3/8" lateral movement (that is how much tire clearance I have and they will rub when pushed).

The deflection would be less than that wouldn't it? Some of the rubbing when pushed could be accounted for with tire sidewall flex, how much depends on how tall and stiff your sidewalls are.

Very short and stiff sidewalls, 315/35R17.