OzCharger69
Well-Known Member
When I installed PST thick torsion bars and thick sway bar + Bilstein shocks, it made a world of a difference
advice on front suspension options?
- Thread starter whiteknuckler
- Start date
Mr. Belvedere II
Well-Known Member
I went the QA1 route, and have been very pleased with the quality and fitment of the entire Level 2 front suspension kit. Tubular K member, adjustable strut rods, tubular upper, and lower control arms, bigger torsion bars, and a beefy sway bar, and singular adjustable shocks. I also did away with the stock steering and went with a Borgeson kit.
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with much that already has been shared here, except for one aspect. I lean towards best bang for buck of an ungraded OEM TB IFS, 2 way adjustable shocks. big TB's 1"+, SFC or Torque boxes, not both, a real K member (the K member is the Pelvic bone equivalent of the chassis), big brakes, fat hollow sway bar, delrin LCA bushings, lightweight OEM unwelded LCA, etc.
However, if you want the best, highest tech, beefiest, state of the art, purpose designed IFS available today that fits your $8K budget, it's an Art Morrision set up, bar none. I have visited their shop, put my eyeballs on it, and nothing compares.
BTW, I have no dog in this fight. I own what I first suggested above, I also have a Reilly, now modified IFS.
Choose wisely.
Home Page - Art Morrison
However, if you want the best, highest tech, beefiest, state of the art, purpose designed IFS available today that fits your $8K budget, it's an Art Morrision set up, bar none. I have visited their shop, put my eyeballs on it, and nothing compares.
BTW, I have no dog in this fight. I own what I first suggested above, I also have a Reilly, now modified IFS.
Choose wisely.
Home Page - Art Morrison
Last edited:
Rusty knuckles
Well-Known Member
Would you be able to weigh what all the new components weigh vs stock ones? Curious what the weight savings is?
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
1. IMO this is not an area that a lot of weight can be saved without really diminishing the structural integrity of the chassis and the IFS
2. Most previously claimed weight reductions revolved around converting to a lighter disc brake system
3. Any weight saved here is mostly below the COG and has reduced benefits, other than RAISING the COG
4. Weight savings in this area should always be after Alum intake, Alum heads, Battery relocation and FG hood, all items above COG.
5, Most everyone is "pleased" with the mods they have made, as they likely have no empirical data to challenge it, they also have no way to do a real A/B comparison performance wise other than from memory (memory about what???), and the normal human nature effects of confirmation bias, unless something breaks
2. Most previously claimed weight reductions revolved around converting to a lighter disc brake system
3. Any weight saved here is mostly below the COG and has reduced benefits, other than RAISING the COG
4. Weight savings in this area should always be after Alum intake, Alum heads, Battery relocation and FG hood, all items above COG.
5, Most everyone is "pleased" with the mods they have made, as they likely have no empirical data to challenge it, they also have no way to do a real A/B comparison performance wise other than from memory (memory about what???), and the normal human nature effects of confirmation bias, unless something breaks
Last edited:
Mr. Belvedere II
Well-Known Member
I really would have no idea, BUT it’s definitely less. Weight honestly was never a major consideration really for me
murfman
Well-Known Member
I disagree with the lower control arm
Bushings, it was a crappy design when new. Urethane or Derlin bushings and greaseable shafts and add tubular UCAs at the least. The stock stuff was designed for skinny 14” bias ply tires. With modern radial tires you want more caster than the factory can provide.
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
Explain first why a 1.625" OD? "tubular UCA's are needed at the least" to replace effectively a 3" 10 gauge I beam that has been supplied for nearly 2 decades almost unchanged, is still in use over 6 decades later and has a proven track record in billions? of miles.
murfman
Well-Known Member
Because the tubular arms move the ball joint back to allow for more caster. The extra caster is the single best thing you can do for modern wide radial tires.
- Local time
- 12:59 PM
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 40,026
- Reaction score
- 143,414
- Location
- Granite Bay CA
Uhhh… I was able to get 6 degrees of caster with stock UCAs (with offset bushings) in two different cars. Tubular ones are not absolutely necessary.
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
So, your point has nothing to do with "tubular", but moving the BJ back will increase caster?
In regard to caster, in your opinion, how much caster is enough, and can you share any downside to be had with adding additional caster?
Be careful, that last one is maybe a trick question.
murfman
Well-Known Member
I have had the best results with 5 degrees positive on the street, have gone as much as 7 degrees for track days and Autocross.
murfman
Well-Known Member
On my Superbird even with Problem
Solver bushings the most I could get was 3 degrees on the drivers side and 3.5 on the passenger side any more than that and the camber went out the window.
j-c-c-62
Well-Known Member
The issues seldom addressed is additional caster adds to steering force/strain on IFS/steering components, which causes weight jacking (by lifting inside turning side of the chassis (forcing that wheel down) and that forces down the opposite outside rear wheel (lowering understeer and increasing oversteer tendencies), and lastly by constantly predisposing the car to always drive straight with no input (take your hand off the wheel), anytime steering the car, you are fighting that tendency of the car, rather than the car doing what the driver intends.
Anybody who drove go karts at a young age learned all about weight jacking with a non-suspension chassis with big caster and a solid axle.
Similar threads
