FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Tubular control arms suspension upgrades worth the expense?
I have my '71 GTO in the shop rebuilding the TH400 and installing a new posi and 3.55 gearset. While looking under the car, I can see the front and rear control arm bushings are all shot and the shocks date from 1989. It was pretty much a reality check looking at the derelict underside compared to the shiney topside.
I am thinking about putting on new tubular upper and lower control arms which have poly bushings and new ball joints, rear tubular control and trailing arms w. poly bushings, KYB gas shocks and a rear sway bar. I am also going to do the Jeep steering gearbox swap. The car has a front disk brake conversion already and I may leave the rear drums alone for now. The labor to install the new suspension parts is no different than the cost to install all new bushings so I am thinking seriously about doing this. Can I expect a huge handling improvement from the suspension parts? I am expecting the car will feel much more nimble, precise and well controlled. Right now it floats like a boat. The remaining item is springs and this is the dilemma ... the springs are 44 years old but the stance of the car is perfect. I just know if I put it new springs, the car will stand taller. Would I be giving up a lot of ride quality and control by reusing the old springs? My gut says the new springs will make a big of difference in the ride of the car also. Is there a way to check the old springs' spring rates to see how far off spec they atre compared to new replacements? Could I buy 1" drop springs and expect the car to sit the same? The whole ride height thing is a crapshoot to me. Any thoughts from someone who has gone through this? Last edited by NeighborsComplaint; 05-22-2015 at 07:38 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Why not just go with coilovers so you can set the ride hight just as you want it?
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
That was an option but the cost would be around a grand, I know they are engineered but it just seems wrong to support the entire weight of the vehicle on the shock absorber mounts.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Coil over kits should run you about $ 350.00 for your car & the coil over is supported on the lower control arm not the shock mount. The coil over shocks mount on top of the control arm for better support & it give you a great ride plus you have a lot more control over the front end height of your car then to. We just put a set on my friends 69 camaro & the total for the springs coil over shocks & the Torrington bearings was $ 362.00 & some change. The kit for your car is the same price as it will use the same parts. Bought right through Summit.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I talked with my friend tonight & he said he paid 445.99 for the front set. I thought it was the 349.00 so my mistake but that is still a good price for them, & all I was talking about was the front ones not the rear. We didn't put rear on his so I never got any prices for the rear. Usually you don't need them on the rear as your mainly putting them on the front to get it lowered because the rear is usually low enough. Once we dropped the front on his Camaro the rear was plenty low .
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Well, I took the leap and will let you know how it turns out. Here's what I bought:
Ebay tubular upper/lower control arms w. urethane bushings and ball joints UMI tubular rear control and trailing arm kit Moog 5400 Front and CC5501 Rear springs Hellwig rear sway bar KYB Gas shocks for all 4 corners Energy Suspension end links with urethane bushings Energy Suspensions urethane sway bar bushings Rear disc brake conversion kit with Caddy Eldorado calipers/ebrake Moog rear spring isolators GM proportioning valve kit w. lines New brake hose lines New rear brake hardlines Carter M6907 mechanical fuel pump (taking out the whiney Holley red pump) Cardone 1997 Jeep steering box Lares 200 rag joint Repro RAV Holley dual feed fuel hardline I went with the Carter M6907 pump since the previous owner had pulled the return and vapor lines off the car and the carter pump did not require either. Supposed to flow 120 GPH at 5.5 - 6 psi. I'll let you know how this turns out w. pics when done. Car had a front disc conversion done by the prior owner and no proportioning valve installed so the car really has always had poor braking. Should be interesting to see how it drives when done. With the suspension in place and the TH400 perf rebuild/3.55 posi in place, it should be much more enjoyable to drive. Now I have to work on how I can make my "springy" stock seats (I put in new foam buns before reicovering them) feel like the new cars! Last edited by NeighborsComplaint; 05-24-2015 at 11:15 AM. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Keep us posted.
I am planning on purchasing UMIs full setup plus QA1 double adjustable coilovers front and rear. I still need to figure out which front setup would work best for my goals with the ATS AFX spindles. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Just some feedback on the Eldos - their e brakes weren't known for working well. I had that kit on my car, and ended up throwing it away in favor of a disk rotor with an internal drum for the parking brake. Had I known before, it would have saved me a few bucks.
__________________
1965 Pontiac LeMans. M21, 3.73 in a 12 bolt, Kauffman 461. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I paid $355 for the complete kit. The kits without eBrake weren't any cheaper because they put larger, drilled rotors and different calipers in those kits. Seems pointless to have bigger brakes on the back compared to the fronts that are on the car anyway. Honestly, I could have left the drum brakes alone and it probably would have been fine except the drums look dumb behind the 17" wheels. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Relying on a manual to stay in gear as an ebrake is a risky game. You need to use both, not one or the other. It is too easy to bump it out of gear, or for you to have not engaged it all of the way without knowing. Also depending on how steep your hills are, engine compression might not even be enough.
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
The front geometry is the issue here. In order for the parts to improve handling they have to address the front end specs. I fixed that with control arms that fix GM mistakes, matched springs/sway bars, and the Jeep steering box, mine handles as good as my Volvo R does around town and when pushed hard just above the speed limits. I used SC&C control arms and springs with Bilstein shocks.
__________________
V/R, Lance 1971 442, & 1987 Regal Turbo T with a new GT 3255 turbo, 50lb MSD injectors, & more converter. SOLD 2002 Acura TL Type S (Ouch) |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
The control arm set I ordered advertise their design offers improvements by increasing camber gain and improving roll camber. I didn't spend a bundle on the assemblage of parts so it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That's a lot of nonsense coming from a guy who drives an auto. A properly setup cable ebrake will not lose tension. A hydraulic one has an higher chance of losing pressure. A manual transmission car can be bumped out of gear by someone hitting it while parking, or by someone inside the car (say a passenger waiting, exiting, or entering the vehicle). Not to mention you can easily think you engaged the gear bit it just isn't quiet there yet. No one is disputing the clamping force of a pressure plate. Depending on weight and the friction coheficient of your tires, you could over come engine compression. While this situation isn't as common, it is possible. You must not be familiar with bump starting a manual. Putting a manual in first gear and putting an auto into park at two very separate things. As far as driving with an Ebrake on, yeah you can tell. You will have a difficult time taking off from a start and then rear will noticeably drag with a properly adjusted parking brake. It will be harder to tell if your driving an automatic, which simply has a go button and requires zero attention from the driver to operate. Long story short, fix your ****ing ebrake. It'll hold your car in place provided you did it correctly. Don't rely on either a parking prawl or first gear to hold it in place. If you trust your brakes to stop your car you should trust them to hold it in place (along with an engaged gear or parking prawl). You just need to keep your equipment maintained, it could kill someone. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This is straight out of a current Chevy Owner's manual: "Parking If the vehicle has a manual transmission, before getting out of the vehicle, move the shift lever into R (Reverse) if parking on a downhill slope. On a level surface or an uphill slope, use 1 (First) gear. Firmly apply the parking brake. Turn the wheels toward the curb for a downhill slope, or away from the curb for an uphill slope. Once the shift lever has been placed into gear with the clutch pedal pressed in, turn the ignition key to LOCK/OFF, remove the key, and release the clutch." So go ahead and worry about the 1 in 10,000,000 chance my car will get hit from behind and shear off the parking pawl but be unconcerned that your car is parked in neutral on the hill and you are relying solely on your parking brake's cable adjustment to keep your car from rolling away because you left it in neutral. Here's a pic of Turbo 400 Parking Pawl that would have to be sheared off to fail: Last edited by NeighborsComplaint; 05-25-2015 at 11:55 AM. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Your reading comprehension is dismal. I have stated multiple times that you are to use to two together, not one or the other. Either option ~should~ keep the car in place but **** happens, so you need to use both options to make sure your car doesn't go anywhere. You claim you have never used an Ebrake in the past 36 ears, good for you. Fix your **** and use it.
That picture of the pin is useless for proving your point. I know what one looks like, and has neither a scale, nor 36 years of parking abuse. Also, that Chevy example is exactly what I have been saying. Did you also happen to notice that in their instruction, at no point is the weight of the car resting on the drivetrain? It's all resting on the emergency brake and hoping that in the event of a failure, the drivetrain will catch and stop the car. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
No problem. I am just saying that with these older cars, the contribution of the parking brake IMO is less than the putting the car in gear.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I just want to share why it is important that all parts work together. At times when issues arise we need to troubleshoot the "why" did it do that. Even stock parts give us fits. The other discussion on the parking brake is we all have to decide when any issue should be corrected. Whether we used a vise grip to seal a ruptured front brake line in 1982, ignored a trashed/faulty wiring harness, or had a 72 GTO with no rear brakes at all with a good pedal because the rear line was pinched off; just for a test drive. I am not admitting to these infractions but they do arise hopefully we have all learned a few things from owning these fabulous cars over the years. I would recommend fixing it sooner than later to protect your GTO and the other guys rides that you call friends. Especially after you get the new susp parts installed. I wish you the best when the parts arrive. Maybe you have but, if not take a look at a few books or articles on making our cars handle. Pro-Touring dot com or Lateral G has some good info. Lance
__________________
V/R, Lance 1971 442, & 1987 Regal Turbo T with a new GT 3255 turbo, 50lb MSD injectors, & more converter. SOLD 2002 Acura TL Type S (Ouch) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ever push-started a car with a dead battery?
__________________
---------------------------- '72 Formula 400 Lucerne Blue, Blue Deluxe interior - My first car! '73 Firebird 350/4-speed Black on Black, mix & match. |
Reply |
|
|