[505BBjason]

Ok, since we decided to make one of our cars into more of a strip toy, we're researching the suspension modifications necessary. While the car likely won't see the 9's for a few years, we only want to do the suspension once. So far I've come up with a list of things and wanted some opinions:

Strange Eng. double adj. shocks on all four courners
Moroso trick springs in the rear
HR Parts anti roll bar
Santhuff front springs
Frame gussets to strengthen the LCA mount
UMI Performance boxed LCA's(already have)
Lakewood Adj. UCA's(already have)
Moser Fab9 rear with a 4.xx gear set(final ratio dependent on cam choice)
all behind a 505 with a TH400

 

[BillyGman]

With the HRPartsNstuff anti-roll bar, you won't need the Moroso rear trick springs. The anti-roll bar will do a much better job to counter roll rotation than the rear trick springs ever would do anyway. Having adjustable rear control arms is ok, but you'll need to adopt a better Instant center ("IC") than factory stock in order to get the traction off the line. Altering the IC requires changing the angles of the rear control arms. That means either having a rear end housing that's been manufactured with the upper control arm mounting ears that are 1.5" taller than stock (some Moser and Strange Engineering rears have this feature) or using relocation brackets like those offered by UMIperformance, or the use of Anti-hop bars.

http://www.umiperformance.com/

Your choice selection for rear suspension also has to do with your intended use of the car in queston. Will this car have a race gas engine or pump gas? If it will be race gas, and you don't plan on very much street driving with it, then more hardcore suspension choices can be considered such as the 32" weld-in ladder bars like those from Competition Engineering, and Art Morrison, or the 22" bolt-in Ladder bars like the Alf Weibe copycat ones from the follwing website....

http://www.azzatochips.com/

...(note that the latter can only be used with stock GM 12 bolt rear end housings. Other rears will need slight modifications which would require some welding).

 

[505BBjason]

Thanks for the reply, we already have the relocation brackets from UMI so we can use those if the rear doesn't have the raised ears. Since the trick springs aren't going to be necessary, what do you recommend for springs? We are looking at different options such as the ladder bar setups you mentioned, but we are trying to keep the car as intact as possible. For now we haven't decided on making this a pump gas or race gas engine, it will definitely have some compression, but high altitude tames that a little bit.

 

[Harold Sutton]

I'd only get a couple of items at a time. The Santhuff front springs are a good item, as are adjustable upper rear control arms and solid lower rear control arms. The ladder bars aren't neccessary and neither is added gussets on either upper or lower frame mounting points in the rear. Only late model "g" body cars have any problems in that area. Santhuff makes some really nice double adjustable shocks, if you can afford them. My son's car uses stock mounting points in the rear with no extra frame gussets, has over 1300 h.p., and has never broken anything on the frame.

 

[bracketchev1221]

If you go with weld in ladder bars, I would go with coil over shocks. I tried the ladder bars and stock suspension parts, it was hard to keep the housing from flexing.

 

[BillyGman]

For the rear springs, some racers on here have spoken very favourably of the direct replacement MOOG rear springs.

 

[Bob West]

No frame gussets here either. No evidence of pulling on my old frame that I replaced 2 yrs ago after the wreck. I think the bracket that connects the front of the uppers and lowers is the key.

 

[BillyGman]

No frame gussets here either. No evidence of pulling on my old frame that I replaced 2 yrs ago after the wreck. I think the bracket that connects the front of the uppers and lowers is the key.

x2

..these are the ones I have:

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/EDL-5211/

 

[505BBjason]

Ok, I can skip the gussets and we can run the those other braces suggested and sorry again about the rear springs. Which ones, the regular stock or cargo coils? This is in a 68 El Camino if it matters.

 

[Tommy the Cat]

Cargo coils will put the rear end way too high and plague you with traction issues forever. Ask me how I know... I now run factory big block replacements from Moog.

 

[Sean]

Cargo coils will put the rear end way too high and plague you with traction issues forever. Ask me how I know... I now run factory big block replacements from Moog.

If you are talking about REAR springs, I respectfully (and completely) disagree on the ride height and traction comments.

The cargo coils I bought didn't raise my rear at all from the worn out stock spring height. I even thought they were defective at first.

True Moog Cargo coils have loosely wound springs at one end and tightly wound springs at the other. From what I understand the tighter wound coils only play a role when there is a significant load on the spring. They give a stock feeling ride and I have had very good results with them at the track using Art Morrison rear suspension components.

To each their own I guess. Are you sure they got you cargo coils on your first time around?

 

[Tommy the Cat]

Yes I'm sure they were cargo coils and I should mention they were for an El Camino and were Napa brand (probably a reboxed Moog). I originally bought the big block stuff (genuine Moog) and didn't like how the car sat (too low) so I ordered a set of cargo coils and it picked the rear end up about 3". It gave me the look I was going for at the time but killed any traction that I had and caused a ton of wheel hop.

I could even get you the part numbers I used if anybody were really that interested. Maybe Chevelles use a different cargo coil than the 'Camino that are just a higher rate, I don't know. I do seem to recall that the cargos I used were listed in the book for wagons and 'Caminos....

I have since reinstalled the Moog BB springs as the car is more of a drag car now.

 

[Sean]

No frame gussets here either. No evidence of pulling on my old frame that I replaced 2 yrs ago after the wreck. I think the bracket that connects the front of the uppers and lowers is the key.

Hey Bob,

I have the factory connectors in my 72. Do you think there is an advantage to the aftermarket ones over stock?

The aftermarket ones like posted earlier in this thread sure look alot meatier... (is that a word?)

 

[BillyGman]

about the rear springs. Which ones, the regular stock or cargo coils? This is in a 68 El Camino if it matters.

I was speaking of the standard replacement MOOG springs, NOT the cargo coils.

 

[Harold Sutton]

The 1968 and newer El Caminos and station wagons have 4" inch longer wheelbases than the cars of the same years, 116" w.b. vs. 112" w.b. I can't say where the factory put the extra 4" but the El. Camino i had ('77) rode much better than my '68 Chevelle and about on par with my '67 SS 396 Chevelle. I wouldn't jack up the rear of the vehicle, no matter who thought it was a good idea.

 

[josh]

Does anybody have info on how good those lower relocation brackets work compared to the upper ones from dick miller?

 

[Harold Sutton]

Does anybody have info on how good those lower relocation brackets work compared to the upper ones from dick miller?

I really think that Dick Miller's upper relocation arms are better than the old lower control relocation arms, originally made by Southside Machine. Bob West's uppers and lowers are in the stock location but i believe he said the he had a Mosier housing and it had upper ears that were 1" higher than the factory's housing. It sure leaves good.

 

[BillyGman]

I really think that Dick Miller's upper relocation arms are better than the old lower control relocation arms, originally made by Southside Machine. Bob West's uppers and lowers are in the stock location but i believe he said the he had a Mosier housing and it had upper ears that were 1" higher than the factory's housing. It sure leaves good.

Yes, the mounting ears he has on his rear housing are 1.5" taller than stock. I always remember that about his car only because I also have the 1.5" taller ears on the S-60 Strange Engineering rear end housing in my car too. So the taller housing ears shortens the instant center a little bit. Ofcourse, if he doesn't have a rear housing that has the taller mounting ears, then he will have to either try the relocation brackets for the lower arms (they're only $100, and are completely bolt-on without any drilling required) or the no-hop type bars which replace the uppers (slightly more $$ and requiring slightly more work than the relocation brackets do for the lowers).

 

[Sean]

If you are considering replacing the entire rear, then Morrison sells a housing with 4 top adjusting options. They also sell just the ears to weld to your housing with the 4 adjustments.

Their upper arms are adjustable, lowers are solid... allows for IC and PA adjustments.

looks like this.... (in the second image the gold bars are for use on a stock GM rear by removing the rubber bushings and adding the solid bushings/adjustment arms)

 

[505BBjason]

wow thanks for all the replies, i was trying to stay away from the upper adjustment arms, because from what i hear they will den't the bed on an El Camino, but since were going to a 9 inch from Moser, we should have the raised ears, and if it doesn't we already have the relocation brackets from umi, and as far as control arms go we already have boxed umi lowers and lakewood adjustable uppers.