I think the pinion angle was not right when you first installed the lift bars. I have every bit the lift you have(with SSM lower mounting points) and am currently 60 footing in the 1.71-1.72 range and not making near as much power as you are.

 

It could be the pinion angle. I run SSM bars with the lowered mounting point and pull the left front and get 1.61 60's. But each car is different. Perhaps your car would like no-hops better. My buddy gets 1.48 60's with SSM bars. Runs 11.20's.

 

Originally posted by Rapid Robert:
I think the pinion angle was not right when you first installed the lift bars. I have every bit the lift you have(with SSM lower mounting points) and am currently 60 footing in the 1.71-1.72 range and not making near as much power as you are.

Nope, no way, I have a digital pinion angle finder! I have it 2.5 degree down at this time. I've gone from 4 to 2 down, 2.5 seems the best. Our track isnt known for good 60's, I will be going to Boise in a few weeks and we'll see how it hooks there.

Lee

 

Originally posted by Pat Kelley:
It could be the pinion angle. I run SSM bars with the lowered mounting point and pull the left front and get 1.61 60's. But each car is different. Perhaps your car would like no-hops better. My buddy gets 1.48 60's with SSM bars. Runs 11.20's.

I have a ford 9" and I'm told that they upper mounts have already been raised a bit. This and the lowers must not get along with each other!

Lee

 

That could be. If the uppers are raised the SSM bars could make it hit too hard. It could be that the uppers need to go up more with the lowers in the stock position.

 

I've read that the SSM bars and others actually bind the suspension and hurt more than help.

 

I thought I mentioned this before, but using SSM drop down brackets with a raised upper ear is not a good situation. This makes for an incredible short instant center and very high anti-squat percentages.

I know with my car, by dropping the front of the upper control arm by 7/8", the anti-squat figures go from a bearable 137% to a whopping 216%.

I'm sure your A/S percentage was much higher than that. What that means is you get alot of rear suspension separation, but very little lift on the front end to transfer weight. This drives the rear tire into the ground, but it's only half the operation needed. You also need that front end lift to help push weight down on the rear tires as the rear suspension is separating pushing the tire down.

I'm gonna build aother instant center relocation bracket similar to the one I run now, but tweak the hole locations to change the IC & A/S dimensions a bit. I'd like to lower the A/S some, but lengthen the instant center from it's current 36-37" to somewhere closer to 50". I'm hoping this will give more front end lift and a bit less rear separation.

Anyway, good to know the suspension tweaks are helping a bit. Keep working at it and I feel there's no reason you can't get in the mid/low 1.6 range.

Time to put your drag radials back on

.

 

Originally posted by knudsonm:
I've read that the SSM bars and others actually bind the suspension and hurt more than help.

I can't even imagine how SSM bars would bind the suspension. They operate on exactly the same plane as the stock components. Also, they have delrin bushings so there would be even less resistance to movement than polys might have.

 

Todd, when you decide to start building suspension stuff for us 68-72 guys...I'm in.

 

Originally posted by 70_FathomBlueMalibu:
Todd, when you decide to start building suspension stuff for us 68-72 guys...I'm in.

Someday I sure would like to, but right now, I'm still trying to setup my home garage/shop and still have some work to do as well as aquiring some needed larger tools. I'd also have to come up with some local A-bodies to take measurements off of to have a data base to work off of.

The problem with coming up with aftermarket suspension pieces is that vehicle ride height as well as tire diameter can play big roles in the cars final instant center locations. Trying to come up with a suspension instant center relocation device that's a "fit's all" is a near impossible task IMO. Very, very few people ever take the time to plot out their rear suspension mount points. I know I went up until last week till I took the time to measure and plot mine.

There's alot for me to learn before I could ever think I know enough to market a specific suspenison device and be able to predict how it will react on each different chassis and total power combination.

An internet friend Kevin Slaby is quite savy at this stuff. He and I discuss this type of stuff and I bounce ideas off him from time to time. He's got a very useful site for anyone looking for more info.

http://www.geocities.com/kdslaby/Tech_Page_Glossary.html

 

Originally posted by 10secBu:
Very, very few people ever take the time to plot out their rear suspension mount points. I know I went up until last week till I took the time to measure and plot mine. [/QB]

Can you explain how you did this? Probably over my head, but might be helpful for someone on here.

 

Originally posted by 70_FathomBlueMalibu:
Todd, when you decide to start building suspension stuff for us 68-72 guys...I'm in.

And why not the 64-67 cars. We are aways left out .

 

Lee,
See my post on Chevytalk, I think you might be retrieving and saving data incorrectly.

 

Hi Lee, I think that Boise will show you what the car or cars will do as it is where most of the Altitude Corrected records are set. That track may produce near sea level times with its weather being very good. Keep us posted.

 

Originally posted by Harold Sutton:
Hi Lee, I think that Boise will show you what the car or cars will do as it is where most of the Altitude Corrected records are set. That track may produce near sea level times with its weather being very good. Keep us posted.

Hi Harold, we've taken my wifes camaro there for 2 years now and the DA is usually around 3500 feet. She drops a little more then .5 seconds! Not near sea level but a ton better then our air here!

Lee