Suspension TECH Including Brakes, Wheels and tires

          
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-03-2013, 04:19 PM
jasonblair's Avatar
jasonblair jasonblair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 21
Default UMI Control Arms vs Lift Bars

Well, I've finally got my '65 GTO back with the new engine in it. It's now a 461 stroker with ported 6X heads, hydraulic roller cam, and the stock tripower port-matched. I knew I'd have problems hooking up with the new setup, but I was surprised at how serious the problem is!

When I engage the secondary carbs on the tripower, the car will immediately start wheel hopping BADLY in first gear. What I didn't expect was that I'd also get wheel hop in 2nd gear at 35mph! In third gear, the tires break loose at 40mph when I floor it, but hop is non-existent or minimal.

I have new springs and shocks on the car, but everything else on the suspension is stock, and probably pretty worn, making the hop a problem. I know I won't be able to eliminate the problem entirely, but I'd like to reduce it as much as possible. Which brings me to my question -

I've been looking at a complete set of rear end components from UMI. UMI offers both a lift bar that "GREATLY reduces wheel hop," and they also offer a lower control arm with spherical delrin bushings that "helps reduce wheel hop." (UMI's lift bar replaces the lower control arm, so both cannot be used simultaneously.)

Obviously "GREATLY reduces" sounds better than "helps reduce." But this car is not a strip car, so I'm not looking to sacrifice everything else for better 60' times. The car is a pro-tourer that I want to handle, corner, and ride well. What are the real-world pros and cons to the lift bar vs the control arm?

Thanks!

Jason

(PS - I can provide links to the products if need be, but I wasn't sure what linking was allowed under the forum rules.)

  #2  
Old 12-03-2013, 04:43 PM
67drake's Avatar
67drake 67drake is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Muscoda WI
Posts: 2,878
Default

First see what condition your rubber bushings are in. The rubber on these dry rots and the rubber can actually get kind of wallowed out over the years. The bushings were about $15 a piece,and my local NAPA still carried them. Also,is your car at stock ride height. Raising or lowering the front or back end can make wheel hop worse. A few pics here-
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...ight=wheel+hop

I had BAD wheel hop on my 71' when I first got it. I replaced all my bushings and it still hopped,but not as bad. I then went to lower control arm relocation brackets. These took care of all my wheel hop issues,but I HATED the way they looked!
I had plans on removing my original rear end and putting an 8.5 in. So when I did that swap I pulled the lower arm brackets off and went with "No Hop" bars for the upper control arms. These work as good as the lower brackets,but not nearly as ugly!
Another thread of mine- http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...ight=wheel+hop

__________________

71' GTO -original 400/4-speed/3.23 posi
13.95 @ 102.1 on street tires @ 4055lbs.

‘63 LeMans- ‘69 400 w/ original transaxle. 2.69 gears.

Last edited by 67drake; 12-03-2013 at 04:54 PM.
  #3  
Old 12-03-2013, 05:39 PM
TCSGTO's Avatar
TCSGTO TCSGTO is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Warren,Ohio,USA
Posts: 1,679
Default

Lots of good info in the post & link above. I had severe wheel hop that was cured by replacing all the bushings in the rear suspension. Getting the rear end down as far as possible will allow the GM 4 link to work as it was designed to and help both straight line and cornering traction.

If your building a pro touring type car the no-hops can cause unbalanced braking on hard stops.

__________________
68 GTO,3860#
Stock Original 400/M-20 Muncie,3.55’s
13.86 @ 100
Old combo:
462 10.75 CR,,SD 330CFM Round Port E's,Old Faithful cam,Jim Hand Continental,3.42's.
1968 Pontiac GTO : 11.114 @ 120.130 MPH

New combo:
517 MR-1,10.8 CR,SD 350CFM E's,QFT 950/Northwind,246/252 HR,9.5” 4000 stall,3.42's
636HP/654TQ
1.452 10.603 @ 125.09
http://www.dragtimes.com/Pontiac-GTO...lip-31594.html
  #4  
Old 12-03-2013, 06:53 PM
jasonblair's Avatar
jasonblair jasonblair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 21
Default

The car is slightly higher than stock. I have the A/C springs in front (even though I have no A/C), and I have the wagon springs in the back... I love the stance, although I know that being slightly higher = more hop.

Like I said, I don't want to mess up the ride height and all that just to improve traction and reduce hop at all costs... I'm sure that replacing the bushings will go A LONG way to helping, and that no matter what UMI setup I go with, I'll be much better off than I am now... But I just wanted some feedback on how the UMI lower control arms compared to the UMI lift bars.

Things like the unbalanced braking and having the car's rear end dump to the ground on every takeoff are NOT where I want to be... But I want to improve the traction as much as possible without ruining the ride height or streetability of the car.

My gut feeling is that the lift bars are great for a drag car, and that the spherical bushing control arms are great for a street car, but getting some more expert feedback is appreciated.

In the meantime, I'll check out the thread you linked to above.

Thanks!

  #5  
Old 12-03-2013, 06:59 PM
67drake's Avatar
67drake 67drake is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Muscoda WI
Posts: 2,878
Default

Sorry,I know I didn't answer your questions directly,but figured it was relevant. I forgot I also played with adjustable upper arms too. I have other threads besides the ones I listed,as well as some other good threads from others too, if you do a search.
Wheel hop is very hard on the suspension and rear end,so don't leave it as is.

__________________

71' GTO -original 400/4-speed/3.23 posi
13.95 @ 102.1 on street tires @ 4055lbs.

‘63 LeMans- ‘69 400 w/ original transaxle. 2.69 gears.
  #6  
Old 12-03-2013, 07:17 PM
jasonblair's Avatar
jasonblair jasonblair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 21
Default

It's even harder on my head! Haha... I let right off the throttle when it starts to hop.

I just read through your thread. Definitely good to know the upper adjustable control arms and lower UMI control arms solved your problem... What about them is so ugly? Did they alter the ride height of your car? Or was it just that you could see them from behind the car? (I was planning on buying the black powercoated ones, not the red.) Let me know!

  #7  
Old 12-03-2013, 07:20 PM
Hammertime Mike's Avatar
Hammertime Mike Hammertime Mike is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 986
Send a message via ICQ to Hammertime Mike
Default

I used the QA1 anti hop bars on my 65. They attach to the upper control arms and rearend. So they are not visible nor cause ground clearance issues. And they stopped the wheel hop.

__________________
  #8  
Old 12-03-2013, 08:58 PM
67drake's Avatar
67drake 67drake is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Muscoda WI
Posts: 2,878
Default

This is what one of my worn bushings looked like. It's hard to see how bad they are worn when they are installed.


Original rear with UMI lower brackets installed. No wheel hop,but I could have drove across my lawn and cut my grass with this! I hate the way the anti sway bar looked so low. Without the rear anti sway bar it would not have looked so bad.


Another shot of the brackets installed.


My current set up. Removed the lower brackets,installed an 8.5 that I built,and put the no hop bars on,which you can't see.


Hope this helped.

__________________

71' GTO -original 400/4-speed/3.23 posi
13.95 @ 102.1 on street tires @ 4055lbs.

‘63 LeMans- ‘69 400 w/ original transaxle. 2.69 gears.
  #9  
Old 12-03-2013, 10:40 PM
jasonblair's Avatar
jasonblair jasonblair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 21
Default

Yow! That is low! I know that Global West and a few other high-end suspension shops insist that a rear sway bar is not necessary if the proper control arms are installed... But then again, I've had people try to steal my gas tank this summer (you can search for the thread discussing it), and I did come to the conclusion that a sway bar would serve as a theft deterrent!

So did using the prior setup affect ride height at all?

  #10  
Old 12-03-2013, 11:09 PM
67drake's Avatar
67drake 67drake is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Muscoda WI
Posts: 2,878
Default

Ride height was not affected with the lower brackets installed.
I did just remember something though. Right after I put the lower brackets on I test drove it and everything seemed OK (except for the looks). I don't think I ever checked my pinion angle after this as my wheel hop was gone. When I pulled them off the car I sold them to another member here. He used them for awhile then put them up for sale here on PY. In his ad he mentioned he had to drill new holes in the brackets because he couldn't get them to work right with the factory holes.
A few months later another member PM's me asking about the bars (He now owned them). Turns out he put them on his car and noticed his pinion angle was way off. He asked if it was the same way while on my car. I told him honestly I never noticed. Last I heard he was going to get a hold of UMI and ask them if this was a common problem. That's the last I heard from him about it. Just a heads up.
Maybe I'll PM him and ask what UMI said.

__________________

71' GTO -original 400/4-speed/3.23 posi
13.95 @ 102.1 on street tires @ 4055lbs.

‘63 LeMans- ‘69 400 w/ original transaxle. 2.69 gears.

Last edited by 67drake; 12-03-2013 at 11:20 PM.
  #11  
Old 12-04-2013, 12:00 AM
rexs73gto rexs73gto is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Niles MI.
Posts: 4,319
Default

I know you say you like the car up a bit but when the car was designed they put them down for a reason, It needs to be close to correct ride height with whatever parts you use or you'll just be wasting your money. It may help but it won't stop it. If you put the new bushings on the car & get some correct NEW springs & go with a good shock a lot of your wheel hop will be gone. Shocks suspend the hop , springs control the ride & height of the car. The bushings keep the car going straight under load & pressure. Weather your going straight or around a corner the bushings hold the moving parts in place so it doesn't BOUNCE around. If you just get the correct springs & a good set of shocks (QA1) with the new bushings it will be close to the way it was designed & those cars had some wheel hop under very heavy accl. but It can be controlled with a few upgrades. So before you spend all the money on the UMI stuff get the small stuff done first. remember one step at a time is the best bet.

  #12  
Old 12-04-2013, 09:39 AM
AG's Avatar
AG AG is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: NH
Posts: 3,262
Default

I put polyurethane graphite bushings in boxed lower control arms, stop hop bars and adjustable upper control arms on and adjusted the pinion angle to 3° down on my '65. I had bad wheel hop before and broke my rear on the drag strip. After, never any wheel hop and hooks great on the strip with the car running low 12s. The car is a street car I race once in a while.

__________________
1967 Firechicken, 499", Edl heads, 262/266@0.050" duration and 0.627"/0.643 lift SR cam, 3.90 gear, 28" tire, 3550#. 10.01@134.3 mph with a 1.45 60'. Still WAY under the rollbar rule.
  #13  
Old 12-04-2013, 11:54 AM
jasonblair's Avatar
jasonblair jasonblair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rexs73gto View Post
If you just get the correct springs & a good set of shocks (QA1) with the new bushings it will be close to the way it was designed.
I had QA1 shocks on my 2004 Mercury Marauder... Those shocks had to be rebuilt every single year! I think they are a great shock for racing and autocross, but needing a rebuild every 20k miles got to be expensive! (And every time I rebuilt them, the rebuilder would tell me how bad they looked, because they were supposed to be rebuilt every 10k miles!) QA1 = Great for the track, not great for a driver.

I've got new Bilsteins on it now. The wagon springs raise the rear end about 3/4"... I think. When I bought the car, it had a worn-out saggy rear end, so "stock" height is a little tough to determine.

Everywhere I go, I get compliments on the stance, so I'm not going to change it, even if it means my traction is not 100% perfect. But 90% perfect is better than about the 20% perfect I have right now.

  #14  
Old 12-04-2013, 11:59 AM
jasonblair's Avatar
jasonblair jasonblair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 21
Default

Here's the current stance... I know the slight downward slope of the driveway might make the rear end look taller than it really is... It's pretty conservative.

  #15  
Old 12-04-2013, 04:56 PM
67drake's Avatar
67drake 67drake is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Muscoda WI
Posts: 2,878
Default

Nice,my favorite year and color (besides black!)

__________________

71' GTO -original 400/4-speed/3.23 posi
13.95 @ 102.1 on street tires @ 4055lbs.

‘63 LeMans- ‘69 400 w/ original transaxle. 2.69 gears.
  #16  
Old 12-04-2013, 09:08 PM
indymanjoe's Avatar
indymanjoe indymanjoe is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Milford Michigan
Posts: 1,748
Default

That does look Good!

__________________
72 Luxury Lemans nicely optioned
  #17  
Old 12-05-2013, 05:15 AM
Nicks67GTO Nicks67GTO is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ia
Posts: 2,895
Default

I had wheel hop problems in my 67' GTO. It was bad. Now I dont have them.

I did some research and discussion with Ramey@ UMI and Marc@ SC&C. I was informed that wheel hop is many times, a result of your rear 4 link binding. Many of them do this, even with new bushings because the factory frame boxes where the RCA's attach to the frame are off a bit in angle for one reason or another. I decided on Currie's Currectrac rear control arms and UMI RCA links. The Currectrac RCA's are adjustable and have Johnny joints which are like the delrin lined spherical bushings in the UMI pieces. They basically allow for the rear end to articulate and keep them from binding. I chose these parts because im going to run the entire SC&C stage II setup and they are a part of it as are the UMI pieces. I installed these pieces adjusted to stock length. I then set the pinion angle and found that was way off as well. After the install and pinion angle adjustment I have virtually no wheel hop now and I didnt use the relocation brackets, although I am running a moser 9" so they might have lowered the mounting point?? Im not sure if thats standard or not on those rears?

__________________


-1967 GTO HO Restomod. PKMM 433ci, SilverSport T56 Magnum 6spd, Moser 9", SC&C and a bunch of other pro touring goodies

- Build Thread
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...615847&page=23
  #18  
Old 12-05-2013, 08:18 AM
jasonblair's Avatar
jasonblair jasonblair is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 21
Default

Thanks Nick! From what you are saying, I think I'm going to go with the control arms with the spherical delrin bushings rather than the lift bars! (Although we're expecting the first big snow of the year tonight, so I might not have an update on driving characteristics until spring!)

  #19  
Old 12-05-2013, 07:56 PM
Mike Smith's Avatar
Mike Smith Mike Smith is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roxboro, North Carolina
Posts: 20
Default

That 65 is beautiful. The stance is perfect. I had wheel hop also. The lift bars above the rearend stopped all of it. Just saying.i could do perfect burnouts...Still run them after 25 years. No problems at all. Handling the same . And this thing hooks on the street very well.

  #20  
Old 12-06-2013, 01:25 AM
Nicks67GTO Nicks67GTO is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ia
Posts: 2,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonblair View Post
Thanks Nick! From what you are saying, I think I'm going to go with the control arms with the spherical delrin bushings rather than the lift bars! (Although we're expecting the first big snow of the year tonight, so I might not have an update on driving characteristics until spring!)
I am no expert by any means and im only regurgatating info from conversations and my little first hand expierence. In other words dont take my advice and expect killer results. Ill give you one piece of advice that I give everyone when they are trying to decide on chassis parts. You cant go wrong here.... Call Marc @ SC&C {Savitske classic and custom} Tell him what you drive, what your goals are, what your budget looks like, get ready for a knowledge bomb,and get your credit card out.

I will tell you that currently I have bilstiens, the 12.7 JGC steering box swap, Hellwig front and rear swaybars and Currectrac RCA's and the car handles exceptionally well and is silky smooth even with big wall 60 series tires.

__________________


-1967 GTO HO Restomod. PKMM 433ci, SilverSport T56 Magnum 6spd, Moser 9", SC&C and a bunch of other pro touring goodies

- Build Thread
http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...615847&page=23

Last edited by Nicks67GTO; 12-06-2013 at 01:49 AM.
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:46 AM.

 

About Us

The PY Online Forums is the largest online gathering of Pontiac enthusiasts anywhere in the world. Founded in 1991, it was also the first online forum for people to gather and talk about their Pontiacs. Since then, it has become the mecca of Pontiac technical data and knowledge that no other place can surpass.

 




Copyright © 2017