[HWYSTR455]

I'd look back there and his eyes would be crossed, and would say "I'm ok dad". He still talks about it, says "get that thing on the road, I want a ride in it again, but I'm not sitting in back anymore!"

Thing with the A-bodies is that darn high speed sweeping turn rear end oscillation. It has a term that is evading me at the moment, but wow, if you experience that, it's hairy-white-knuckle stuff.

Only way to fix that is to do a truck arm or 'long' arm conversion, which was developed on oval/stock car/nascar tracks. Hot Rods from Hell have a conversion kit, last time I looked, but it takes fabrication, and chopping up some stuff.

Leaf spring cars don't have that issue, and turn exit speeds are greatly improved. Run a solid bushing in the front eye and all is good. I really don't understand why so many flock to the DSE rear suspension, IMO it's going backwards. Can talk to the Pozzi's and Doug at GW about that.

.

[grrr421]

sub frame connectors and a tightening up is all I would need at best . With that kind of money a nice 70 ta is going for I don't think I would abuse it too much

[Formulajones]

Yep, these are simply enjoyable street cars for me. Even living in a mountainous terrain I find they handle acceptable as is, far better than I'm even capable of pushing them. So I can't bring myself to extreme suspension changes. Besides the cars are getting valuable to the point that I don't want to mess with some of them too much. A little extra HP and I'm happy.

My 70 Formula is one we drive the most. Bone stock, and it handles like a dream to me. Only thing I did to stiffen up the chassis was replace the original sub frame bushings with poly. I don't run frame connectors or anything of the sort. Original 46 year old springs etc...

To put things into perspective. I can jump in the 56 nomad with it's manual steering and brakes, no sway bars, and that thing is like driving a bus around corners. Jump in the Firebird and it's like being on rails in comparison.

It's all about how you put things in perspective

[MarkS57]

I've owned (4) A bodies (2) 2nd gen F bodies (73 & 78) & 1 1st gen F body (68). With the A bodies, it wasn't until the 65 I have now that I drove one with stiffer springs, updated quick ratio steering gear, a set of matching front and rear sway bars & disc brakes. Heck of a difference compared with the other A bodies I had. One thing I find amazing is its composure over speed bumps, better than some of my modern cars even. The 2nd gen F bodies were fun to drive, no question but they had the sway bars & discs stock along with the taller spindles. Only time I had any rattles or squeaks due to the hinge in the middle was in real cold weather. I want another someday. The 1st gen F body was a vert, that was a good handling car but did not have the benefit of the later refinements of the 2nd gen, I want another 1st gen too...hmm sensing a theme here.

[Formulajones]

Our 1st gen is a 69 Z28. A little different than most 1st gens since these were designed with a little handling in mind from the start. Different rate springs and a lower ride height than any other 1st gen Camaro. With it's quicker steering box it's actually a very nimble car that drives through the mountains nicely.

Our 70 Formula is certainly a more refined car, with the addition of a rear sway bar that 1st gen Z's never had, it also has a low ride height, quick box, and handling is nice. It's probably a better handler than the Z but to be honest, driving up through the same mountain roads, considering I'm not a road racer, I can't tell much of a difference between the two.

I can tell you which is my favorite though. The Z is much more fun with a high winding engine and a 4 gear behind it.

The Z does have a slight advantage being that it's also much lighter. It's only 3240 lbs. and my 70 Formula scales at 3690 lbs, without me in it. That's starting to get heavy for a car you want to toss around corners, but I do think it rides just a tad nicer than the Z does.

My A-body is an SS chevelle, already has the F41 suspension with front/rear sway bars, boxed lower control arms, etc...so it's already got an edge in handling over some other A-bodies. I like the ride quality overall better than any of the F-bodies. But it's also a bigger car, and scales 4,108 lbs with me sitting in it. Still more comfortable for everyone though.

[72projectbird]

My 71 handles fairly good, even with old 245-60's and tired springs. I do have SFC's and aluminum body bushings, and the 5.3 shed some weight off the nose. Even still, for a 45yo car its not bad. Yes the doors are huge, and getting out can be awkward sometimes. They are kinda chubby for their size, but then again A bodies aren't lightweights either.

The A bodies are definitely more roomy inside. They feel much larger then they actually are when coming from an F body, but they still are bigger.

I like both, to me one isn't better than the other.

[Formulajones]

If weight is a concern, the 2nd gen F-bodies also get heavier as the years progress. 1970-72 are the lightest of the bunch. In 73 the enduro noses got a little heavier. Door bar reinforcements were installed for side impact collisions, among other things as well as options that became more commonly seen making them a little heavier.

I believe the wheel base dimensions are the same between 1st and 2nd gens even though they give the appearance of being longer. The body itself is definitely longer than a 1st gen. What GM did that really helped handling with the 2nd gens is move the engine/trans and the passenger compartment slightly rearward, in an effort to create a better weight balance front to rear. Hence the appearance of a very long hood and an extremely short trunk lid (which by the way makes it a pain to put anything much bigger than a grocery bag in the trunk, lol)

[MarkS57]

Originally Posted by MarkS57

I've owned (4) A bodies (2) 2nd gen F bodies (73 & 78) & 1 1st gen F body (68). With the A bodies, it wasn't until the 65 I have now that I drove one with stiffer springs, updated quick ratio steering gear, a set of matching front and rear sway bars & disc brakes. Heck of a difference compared with the other A bodies I had. One thing I find amazing is its composure over speed bumps, better than some of my modern cars even. The 2nd gen F bodies were fun to drive, no question but they had the sway bars & discs stock along with the taller spindles. Only time I had any rattles or squeaks due to the hinge in the middle was in real cold weather. I want another someday. The 1st gen F body was a vert, that was a good handling car but did not have the benefit of the later refinements of the 2nd gen, I want another 1st gen too...hmm sensing a theme here.

I've decide I want another set of B bodies too. Owned 62, 69 & 79 Bonnevilles. On the other hand, I want to stay married. Rats..

[HWYSTR455]

Yeah, I swapped the '71 F-body's doors for 73's, for the braces, to add some rigidness. I found a set that were in great condition like back in the 80s, and when I did the body the first time, swapped them.

Added custom sub frame connectors, GW upper and lower arms, slightly narrowed 9", GW CAT5 springs, Herb Adams VSE front structure supports, lowering solid body bushings, reinforced the cowl area, and a vintage Hooker 4 point roll bar. (Which wasn't vintage when I bought it!). Have a Baer big brake setup, with modified spindles, want to swap the spindles for AFX ones, maybe next year.

That car goes where you point it. It is so predictable, provides excellent feedback, it's just insane how that thing handles. Ground clearance is my biggest complaint, and the only other thing that pops to mind is it sometimes gets 'washboard' effect, mainly because I have cheap Koni's on it. But those are minor complaints. Top of the fenders are 31" off the ground, which is about at one's knee when you're standing next to it.

The A-body is built for handling too, pretty much to the same level as the 'bird, but that thing, the moment you stop respecting it, it will remind you, and not in a subtle way. If you push one of those cars, you better have some years behind the wheel of pushing them, because unless you're lucky, you won't get a second chance.

My favorite years for the Pontiac A-bodies are 65, 67, and 70. The styling of those years just call to me. For 'birds, 70-73 are the top of the list, but do like 74-76s, 77/78s, and 79s. All for diferent styling reasons. As others commented, the 79-81s are the most refined. Shame 80-81s were limited on power plants/power.

.

[Formulajones]

GEEZ! 31 inches? My 70 Formula with it's stock suspension is almost 34 inches and it's already too low to drive around comfortably. Certain speed bumps are already dicey and I have to be careful how I enter/leave certain driveways. And that height includes running tires on it that are already 2" taller than stock (effectively raising the car an inch). When I put the F70-14's on it, it's even worse.

No way I'd entertain the idea of lowering it, or the Z28. Speaking of which, that's another one that you have to be careful with, and it's stock ride height too. It's already lower than other factory 69 Camaros by nature. Certainly can't fly in and out of driveways and speed bumps are a slow crawl. You definitely have to pay attention to where you are.

[HWYSTR455]

Some of the drop comes from the half height body bushings, but yeah, it's low. The frame connectors save the mufflers from getting eaten up on speed bumps etc, and the pan doesn't go below the crossmember/saddle. The Doug's help too, they are pretty tucked up, so not much risk there. The biggest risk is the chin spoiler! Roof line is like mid-chest.

Oddly, I don't have many issues of bottoming out, only a couple times have I had serious contact, and that was the saddle, or the connectors. It's a manual car though, and I did have to trim the bell and block shield, cut the bottom 'smile-ee' off the thing, where the two bolt together, and all was good. I have posted pics of that before if anyone is interested.

.