No more torque arm. G-force suspension setup
08-24-2006, 06:25 PM
#21
Tenured Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as the lca mount doesnt rip off this kit will make 12 bolt and 9" installs cheap.....er. And if it does end up ripping them we can start doing what mustang guys have been for 20 years reinforce the mount.
08-24-2006, 08:28 PM
#22
TECH Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cedar Rapids,IA
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or just use boxed style sfc's like bmr or umi that wrap around the lower mount on the chassis-solved. And gm doesn't seeem to have the problems like fox cars do when it comes to tearing up the mounts on the chasis(or torque box as ford calls them). But I to would like more info on this setup,mainly how it handles on a road course,and any pinion angles that could cause hop or vibration. Also,one more ?- can u get those lower arms adjustable with rod-ends? that would be nice.Is it the same g-force that is a sponsor on this site?
08-24-2006, 09:03 PM
#23
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never gave the strength of the lca mounting point any thought to be honest. I have hothkiss subframes installed which go over that area. For my amount of power I figured That was enough reinforcement. If I was real concerned about it, I guess I fould just weld a plate over the other side and be worry free.
08-24-2006, 09:24 PM
#24
Very cool kit. I'd like to see how it compares to my car the way it sits now.
The added room under the car would be a very welcome attribute. I already have a set of LG Coil overs. What are the spring rates on those QA1s?
It's hard to tell by the pics, but I'm trying to determine how much clearance I lose for some big wheels/meats.
I'm going to cut my new rear 1" on each side. Then replacing my current rear wheels for some to accomodate the new offset/big lip.
It looks like that will be affected by the ladder bars in some of those pics.
Rob
The added room under the car would be a very welcome attribute. I already have a set of LG Coil overs. What are the spring rates on those QA1s?
It's hard to tell by the pics, but I'm trying to determine how much clearance I lose for some big wheels/meats.
I'm going to cut my new rear 1" on each side. Then replacing my current rear wheels for some to accomodate the new offset/big lip.
It looks like that will be affected by the ladder bars in some of those pics.
Rob
08-24-2006, 10:11 PM
#25
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BAD *** TA WS6
Very cool kit. I'd like to see how it compares to my car the way it sits now.
The added room under the car would be a very welcome attribute. I already have a set of LG Coil overs. What are the spring rates on those QA1s?
It's hard to tell by the pics, but I'm trying to determine how much clearance I lose for some big wheels/meats.
I'm going to cut my new rear 1" on each side. Then replacing my current rear wheels for some to accomodate the new offset/big lip.
It looks like that will be affected by the ladder bars in some of those pics.
Rob
The added room under the car would be a very welcome attribute. I already have a set of LG Coil overs. What are the spring rates on those QA1s?
It's hard to tell by the pics, but I'm trying to determine how much clearance I lose for some big wheels/meats.
I'm going to cut my new rear 1" on each side. Then replacing my current rear wheels for some to accomodate the new offset/big lip.
It looks like that will be affected by the ladder bars in some of those pics.
Rob
I'll have the car up on a lift tonight, so tomorrow I'll post pics from behind the wheel/ underneath the car and get them up for you by tomorrow. If you read this tonight, put in your pic requests now
08-25-2006, 02:19 AM
#26
I'm thinking it opens up the rear end possibilities. An 8.8 swap would be MUCH easier and a great solution to the mid powered F-bodies. It'll be interesting to see how this kit performs in performance applications such as drag and autocross applications?
08-25-2006, 02:40 AM
#27
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vacaville CA 707
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like it...
ever since I installed all the tubular adjustable suspension parts w/ my 12bolt moser the car is a damn noisy, annoying, pain in the *** to drive car...
I love the rearend...hate the suspension...
eh...I geuss its cool I lost my wheelhop at least.
~Brian
ever since I installed all the tubular adjustable suspension parts w/ my 12bolt moser the car is a damn noisy, annoying, pain in the *** to drive car...
I love the rearend...hate the suspension...
eh...I geuss its cool I lost my wheelhop at least.
~Brian
08-25-2006, 05:55 AM
#28
Just something to think about.....
For any of you east coast guys, especially the circle track fans, I'm sure that you must have at least heard of NASCAR's "modified" class. For those who aren't familiar, they're light, fabricated tubing chassied cars with 750 hp, 13" wide tires at all corners, and fairly liberal rules. One of the major chassis builders is Troyer Engineering, and they've been using a torque arm rear suspension for YEARS. This is in a class where just about ANY set-up is legal, cost is no object, and "quiet operation" doesn't even get a consideration. Obviously, there is a reason.....
For any of you east coast guys, especially the circle track fans, I'm sure that you must have at least heard of NASCAR's "modified" class. For those who aren't familiar, they're light, fabricated tubing chassied cars with 750 hp, 13" wide tires at all corners, and fairly liberal rules. One of the major chassis builders is Troyer Engineering, and they've been using a torque arm rear suspension for YEARS. This is in a class where just about ANY set-up is legal, cost is no object, and "quiet operation" doesn't even get a consideration. Obviously, there is a reason.....
08-25-2006, 11:04 AM
#29
TECH Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cedar Rapids,IA
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by leadfoot4
Just something to think about.....
For any of you east coast guys, especially the circle track fans, I'm sure that you must have at least heard of NASCAR's "modified" class. For those who aren't familiar, they're light, fabricated tubing chassied cars with 750 hp, 13" wide tires at all corners, and fairly liberal rules. One of the major chassis builders is Troyer Engineering, and they've been using a torque arm rear suspension for YEARS. This is in a class where just about ANY set-up is legal, cost is no object, and "quiet operation" doesn't even get a consideration. Obviously, there is a reason.....
For any of you east coast guys, especially the circle track fans, I'm sure that you must have at least heard of NASCAR's "modified" class. For those who aren't familiar, they're light, fabricated tubing chassied cars with 750 hp, 13" wide tires at all corners, and fairly liberal rules. One of the major chassis builders is Troyer Engineering, and they've been using a torque arm rear suspension for YEARS. This is in a class where just about ANY set-up is legal, cost is no object, and "quiet operation" doesn't even get a consideration. Obviously, there is a reason.....
08-25-2006, 04:28 PM
#30
Teching In
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Alchemist
I do have a couple questions....
The last time someone posted about ladder bar style lower control arms (from Lakewood I beleive), the common remarks where that they were'nt strong enough, and that the front lower control arm brace wasn't designed to handle the load being put on them by a ladder bar style control arm. Can you guys elaborate on this? If I can get rid of my torque arm and go to this style, I'd do it in a heartbeat as long as I don't sacrifice drivability since the car is a weekend warrior only, and not driven on a track ever.
Thanks guys.
The last time someone posted about ladder bar style lower control arms (from Lakewood I beleive), the common remarks where that they were'nt strong enough, and that the front lower control arm brace wasn't designed to handle the load being put on them by a ladder bar style control arm. Can you guys elaborate on this? If I can get rid of my torque arm and go to this style, I'd do it in a heartbeat as long as I don't sacrifice drivability since the car is a weekend warrior only, and not driven on a track ever.
Thanks guys.
Last edited by DONAIMIAN; 08-28-2006 at 10:05 PM.
08-25-2006, 04:48 PM
#31
Teching In
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BULLET99Z28
Is it the same g-force that is a sponsor on this site?
Last edited by DONAIMIAN; 08-28-2006 at 10:06 PM.
08-25-2006, 06:28 PM
#32
12 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago Suburb
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ladderbar conversion has no effect on the OEM frame mount. As the axle turns it pushes forward on the upper arm and pulls back on the lower arm essentially canceling the force out between the arms. The forces are concentrated where the brace for the upper arm is welded to the lower arm. As long as that is made well there is no problem with the set up.
How does the car go forward then. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
All of the foward force will transfer through the 2 LCA monting points. All the tie rod between the upper mount and the mount on the LCA is preventing axle rotation.
BTW: How much does the pinion angle vary when the gas tank is full and when it's almost empty???????????????
I realize that a ladder bar set up can be benefical for Drag Racing, but there needs to be adjustability in the front mount to control the loading of the tires.
I just think that any car that is still used on the street needs at least a 4-link or Torque arms set up to control the pinion angle.
Last edited by Dragula; 08-25-2006 at 06:52 PM.
08-25-2006, 08:08 PM
#33
Tenured Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where would this set the lift point compaired to the stock lift point? If I remember corrrectly is at the end of the torque arm. Also has this setup been tested on 400+ whp cars with slicks at the track?
08-28-2006, 11:19 AM
#34
Teching In
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dragula
WRONG
How does the car go forward then. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
All of the foward force will transfer through the 2 LCA monting points. All the tie rod between the upper mount and the mount on the LCA is preventing axle rotation.
BTW: How much does the pinion angle vary when the gas tank is full and when it's almost empty???????????????
I realize that a ladder bar set up can be benefical for Drag Racing, but there needs to be adjustability in the front mount to control the loading of the tires.
I just think that any car that is still used on the street needs at least a 4-link or Torque arms set up to control the pinion angle.
How does the car go forward then. For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
All of the foward force will transfer through the 2 LCA monting points. All the tie rod between the upper mount and the mount on the LCA is preventing axle rotation.
BTW: How much does the pinion angle vary when the gas tank is full and when it's almost empty???????????????
I realize that a ladder bar set up can be benefical for Drag Racing, but there needs to be adjustability in the front mount to control the loading of the tires.
I just think that any car that is still used on the street needs at least a 4-link or Torque arms set up to control the pinion angle.
The pinion angle is taken care of by the double adjustable upper arm. They can be adjusted by plus or minus .25 inches which should be more than enough room to bring your pinion angle back to where it should be.
Last edited by DONAIMIAN; 08-28-2006 at 10:06 PM.
08-28-2006, 02:52 PM
#36
Teching In
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SMOKY
Also has this setup been tested on 400+ whp cars with slicks at the track?
Last edited by DONAIMIAN; 08-28-2006 at 10:09 PM.
08-28-2006, 08:30 PM
#37
Seems a little exensive to me, if it is not going to cut much better 60's than a real nice torque arm. I think I am going to be looking at a nice UMI TA soon. Nice price, and they look and perform great! But good write up, glad to know other options are out there.
08-28-2006, 10:11 PM
#38
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NW Houston, TX
Posts: 10,036
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive asked you before to not post your contact information because you are not a site sponsor. If you would like to become one you can contact Nineball or Pro Stock John.
09-03-2006, 01:32 PM
#39
Tenured Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by G-Force Suspension
It’s not really the HP but the torque that is important. The ladder bar conversion is not the weak point. If you are running slicks either you will shred your tires, which I have seen happen, or your axle will break. If you aren't running slick most likely your tires will break loose. We have run this setup up around 400 ft-lbs of torque with no problem.
