[Sipowicz400]

I've recently gotten interested in timed track day events. Like, corners, not 1/4 mile. Anyway, my basically stock, F41 equipped 70 Malibu on 13 year old radials did considerably better than I and the "regulars" (Miata/S2000 guys) thought it would. So now I'd like to address a few of the limitations these cars had from the factory. The catch is that I'd like to stick with essentially factory-ish parts, or at least stuff limited to what was available when these cars were young. I do know that some guys tracked these things back in the day; what tricks or available parts did you throw at these things before the days of tubular control arms, coil-overs, bolt-on racks and chassis bracing, etc? I believe I read years ago that some F or B-Body stuff was used, but I cannot find a reference.

Again, I could order all the catalog stuff, and likely will at some point, but for now I'd like to experiment with the old tech. What were you corner-carvers using back in the 70's and 80's?

BTW, no hate towards the modern Pro-Touring crowd is intended.

- Edit -
I should explain what I'm already running:

• Stock factory power steering
• Stock factory power disc/drums
• Factory F41 Suspension, to include stock rear sway bar, boxed lower rear arms
• 15 year-old KYB replacement shocks
• 13 year-old 235/60R15 Goodyear eagles w/ very little tread left
• Stock steel 15x7 Buick wheels
• Slippery bench seat and stock steering wheel (very fun)

• Mild 355 w/ aluminum heads/intake
• No AC, if weight is the question
• Tremec TKX
• 3.73 geared Limited-Slip ten bolt

 

[hydro462]

If you want better handling. Switch the upper control arms from side to side. You will end up 8 degrees positive caster with .25 negative camber. Your car will handle and go down the road very straight. It is best to get a set of modern adjustable control arms from UMI, Detroit Speed or Spohn Delsphere rear control arms. Don't use Poly..

Adj Rear Upper Lateral Control Arms (Rear) | Charger, Challenger, 300C (spohn.net)

 

[cherokeepeople]

back in the day my only addition was a rear sway bar.man did that help.

 

[Binford]

I know some guys back in the day would box the rear control arms. And I believe some used b body rear springs for more rate.

 

[-SS454-]

So cool you posted this. I went to a track day road racing event yesterday!

I also just made a video that might be right up your alley.

Video of my recent road racing will be up soon.

 

[Sipowicz400]

Hydro462,

I would have never thought of swapping the upper A-arms, very interesting concept.

I actually do have adjustable uppers in the rear, though that was only to cure some pinion angle issues form transmission swaps.

You mention not using poly bushings; I assume you like to stick with stock rubber stuff then. Why is that? I'm currently running all rubber replacements with the exception of poly body mounts.

Thanks for the insight.

 

[Sipowicz400]

So cool you posted this. I went to a track day road racing event yesterday!

I also just made a video that might be right up your alley.

Video of my recent road racing will be up soon.

Thanks, your car was somewhat of an inspiration to take a shot at this. I've always had a desire to see what the factory chassis could do at a track. I figure there must be a reason Chevrolet made several mandatory upgrades to the chassis when the SS package was selected, from 1970 anyway. I've had some autocross experience and even lapped Nurburgring a few times when I was stationed in Germany many years ago. When the opportunity arose, I figured 'why not' try to wreck my Chevelle?

 

[c4racer]

Great video - thanks for making that and for sharing it. Your car is not full PT, but it's at least Resto-Mod level suspension. I think the biggest thing you can do on these cars is correct the geometry with tubular A-arms on the front. Then good shocks, rebuilt steering rack, a good 12.7:1 box, springs for whatever ride height you are looking for and maybe add a few beefier CA's in the rear as well and you have 80% of what you would get with full coil-overs or a frame, etc. That's exactly what I am planning for my car, but I will run 17" wheels and tires 245/275 footprint since the car came with these already and I like the look.

 

[cage2592]

Like the video but agree with where c4racer left off. I laughed when he started by, do you need a PT suspension for general road and the answer is no. Then proceeded to list everything on his car that is included in PT suspension. Then a drive to show you don't need one?

The things he's missing for a full PT kit? Better rate springs in the front or coil overs (the lower stance that you could get with them), better performance tires and wheels. Other small parts? but hes pretty much there.

Mike

 

[SSJohn]

Your F 41 rear sway bar is hurting your time. Joining the lca’s by a bar is not the way to do it. It was the best the general could come up with back then, but there are better performing products out there. The rear sway bar should be attached to the axle and the frame for any real benefit. Look at any modern vehicle, they are the same way. It’s just physics.

You didn’t list a front sway bar, are you running one?

 

[-SS454-]

Like the video but agree with where c4racer left off. I laughed when he started by, do you need a PT suspension for general road and the answer is no. Then proceeded to list everything on his car that is included in PT suspension. Then a drive to show you don't need one?

The things he's missing for a full PT kit? Better rate springs in the front or coil overs (the lower stance that you could get with them), better performance tires and wheels. Other small parts? but hes pretty much there.

Mike

Pro Touring setups are stiffer springs, lowered ride height, big sway bars front and rear, tubular control arms (upper and lower, front and rear), fast ratio steering boxes or even rack and pinion swaps. 17 inch wheels minimum. Usually an LS swapped engine. Often you will see some lightweight "racing" seats. Then the more extreme guys have complete aftermarket frames.

Is all that needed? For most people, it is not

Fast ratio steering box, tubular upper control arms with built in caster, tall ball joints to correct geometry, bigger sway bars, and maybe some decent shocks, and you are 90% where I am in terms of usable suspension. If your car has a small block or LS swap, then you already have a huge advantage over my car.

 

[c4racer]

semantics I guess - I consider your suspension to be pro-touring. the car isn't a pro-touring car. So that's why I called it a resto-mod - PT suspension with old school ride height and tire / wheel combo. Kind of a hybrid.

And I don't think you need a LS engine to be pro-touring, but again totally depends on definitions and it's not a universal standard or anything. I tend to look at it as a car that handles and brakes and accelerates like a modern performance car and that can be reasonably be driven on an autox course. But that's just MY definition.

 

[c4racer]

my 71 Camaro is what I call pro-touring. Traditional springs and shocks with tubular A-arms, 18" wheels with 275/295 autox tires, StopTech 14" road racing brakes, T56, 9" w/ 3.90's, motor is a carb 406 making 530hp with modern in-tank fuel system, fires up like a brand new car - car drives and handles similarly to a 6th gen or late model Corvette and can be driven literally anywhere, but it also built to survive a track day.

71Cam1 by C4RACER, on Flickr

 

[Sipowicz400]

Your F 41 rear sway bar is hurting your time. Joining the lca’s by a bar is not the way to do it. It was the best the general could come up with back then, but there are better performing products out there. The rear sway bar should be attached to the axle and the frame for any real benefit. Look at any modern vehicle, they are the same way. It’s just physics.

You didn’t list a front sway bar, are you running one?

Interesting point on the rear sway bar, and yes, I'm running the factory front bar as well.

 

[cage2592]

Pro Touring setups are stiffer springs, lowered ride height, big sway bars front and rear, tubular control arms (upper and lower, front and rear), fast ratio steering boxes or even rack and pinion swaps. 17 inch wheels minimum. Usually an LS swapped engine. Often you will see some lightweight "racing" seats. Then the more extreme guys have complete aftermarket frames.

Is all that needed? For most people, it is not

Fast ratio steering box, tubular upper control arms with built in caster, tall ball joints to correct geometry, bigger sway bars, and maybe some decent shocks, and you are 90% where I am in terms of usable suspension. If your car has a small block or LS swap, then you already have a huge advantage over my car.

Exactly. My point being that he said you "don't" need that for a good handling car and then he listed almost everything on your list that he had installed. Minus the items you and I just pointed out that he didn't have. The car in the video is about 80% there. Not a good explanation that you can have a good handling car without PT items.

Mike

 

[-SS454-]

semantics I guess - I consider your suspension to be pro-touring. the car isn't a pro-touring car. So that's why I called it a resto-mod - PT suspension with old school ride height and tire / wheel combo. Kind of a hybrid.

And I don't think you need a LS engine to be pro-touring, but again totally depends on definitions and it's not a universal standard or anything. I tend to look at it as a car that handles and brakes and accelerates like a modern performance car and that can be reasonably be driven on an autox course. But that's just MY definition.

My particular suspension is for sure closer to Pro Touring than what I would say is required for most people. Rear Coil overs, which aren't needed and do not help the handling. Tubular lower control arms, again not required and have virtually no benefit to handling. Rear spring rate is higher however.

I agree with your definition of resto-mod. I also agree that an LS is not required, it's just a common mod for the higher level of "Pro Touring"

I think the 17+ diameter wheels is the biggest common trait to falling under the Pro Touring category. Big brakes as well.

 

[c4racer]

I agree with your definition of resto-mod. I also agree that an LS is not required, it's just a common mod for the higher level of "Pro Touring"

I think the 17+ diameter wheels is the biggest common trait to falling under the Pro Touring category. Big brakes as well.

Yes - especially with larger front wheels. My Camaro is running 18x10's all around for example. And I have to run 18's to clear the massive brakes. So yes - PT typically does imply 18" or larger wheels, wide front and rear and massive brakes as part of the package. And honestly that's what makes my Camaro work so well and drive so much like a modern performance car - especially the brakes - that car will out-brake most Corvette's.

 

[-SS454-]

Exactly. My point being that he said you "don't" need that for a good handling car and then he listed almost everything on your list that he had installed. Minus the items you and I just pointed out that he didn't have. The car in the video is about 80% there. Not a good explanation that you can have a good handling car without PT items.

Mike

I'm not sure if you realize the car in the video is mine or not haha.

Yes my suspension is a couple steps up from what I recommend for "most" people, but I also actually track my car. Take away the coil overs and go back to a stock spring rate, remove the front and rear lower tubular control arms, and the car will still be capable of everything I shown in the video.

I still don't have big wheels with wide sticky tires, I don't have 550+ lowering springs, the car isn't slammed to the ground, I don't have big modern brakes. That's the point I was trying to make, you don't need to go full PT to enjoy a "good" handling car.

I like c4racer's term of Resto-Mod, as with just a few simple upgrades you can transform a stock Chevelle to pretty capable in most situations, it just won't be good enough to be legit fast.

 

[Lew540]

What brand rims are on the Camaro?

 

[cage2592]

I'm not sure if you realize the car in the video is mine or not haha.

HAHA! No I was not aware. And agree that there are many variations / definitions of what constitutes PT or RM.

As I said, I liked the video. Nice footage and outstanding quality. Putting in the Traqmate data is a good touch.

Beautiful Car you have as well !

Mike