Jeremiah

iTrader: (5)

Im simply posting some questions hoping for an educated response, im not trying to start a pissing contest. Like I stated earlier in the thread, if this set up works in an aplication like Ed's then I will probably be buying it. I dont understang how it could be the best option givin the issues I brought up.

How is it that pinion angle isnt a problem with sutch short arms? The shorter the arms the more rotation your going to get in the axle under load....right?

1BAD02WS6

iTrader: (-1)

with the way it is designed it is riged. I dont see how the lengths of the bars will matter with it being solid.

Jon B.

iTrader: (5)

*Most* Ladder bar setups I have ever seen have parallel upper and lower control arms. This does not have any upper arm to speak of. If you do a little research, this system looks nothing like a typical 4-link with the same sized bars and nothing like a triangulated ladder bar setup. Both of which are commonly used. Length of the bars does matter, so does where it attaches to the body of the car, and in this case, the upper bars don't attach anywhere on the body. So I don't see how they can be doing any good.

Jon

Jon B.

iTrader: (5)

I can't find any useful info on these Pete-Z bars that Ed Wright uses. I imagine they are like a typical four-link or a typical ladder bar setup. NOT anything close to what this G-Force setup is.

Maybe it's just me, but looking at those pictures again made me realize that the entire rear axle is hanging by the coil-over springs. That doesn't look all that great from my point of view.

Jon

ghettocruiser

iTrader: (17)

Yeah but what normally holds the rear axle up??? You think that bushing next to the trans will use the torque arm to hold the trans up? It usually hangs by the shocks, and I guess the panhard bar and what not.

Im so torn on this stuff... I had the credit card out, and ready to buy the upgrade kit for my 87... But then I keep reading good/bad reports, and it made me nervous. So Im making a custom crossmember to clear exhaust and still use my spohn stuff.

By the way...One thing this week that made me want to get these bars... The darn bolts on my spohn arm keep getting loose. Red loctite, lots of torque on the bolts...they just keep comin loose. These bars really simplify things. I just wish either g-force would come in with some more testing info or just answer some of the issues. Or that more people that are using the set up would chime in and give the pro/cons...

Justin

blown90lx

iTrader: (3)

heres a link to the pete-z bars. They are the same thing with a longer bar. this is what I plan on runing. It is triangular just like a ladder bar would be.

http://members.***.net/ken95z28/Proj...Suspension.htm

Time2Kill

iTrader: (49)

The control arm that is added keeps the axle from spinning, not the coil overs.

ghettocruiser

iTrader: (17)

I think he is talking about the entire axle swinging under the car. Its not gonna happen... The panhard bar maxes out at some point. Your shocks hold it.

If you can drive in reverse, and pull your ebrake, and have the wheels hit that hard to a stop...you have the best ebrake set up in the work. It just isnt gonna happen.

The only time your rear axle even droops is when its on a lift. And if you notice, our third gens have a ton of suspension droop in the back and the front. So it would take a heck of a lot for that axle to swing under the car.

Besides, like I said before. Do you really that that one little bushing at the front of the stock torque arm would keep it from doing it...if it were possible? The amount of energy required to do that would probably rip that stuff up too.

Just my thought... I just dont think you'd ever see that during regular driving.

Justin

ghettocruiser

iTrader: (17)

Im still confused by your questions about what keeps the axle from flopping. During driving that will never happen. The coil overs, or shocks will never have to keep the axle in place unless you jump it. And if you jump it that much...you have more problems than just traction. haha.

But, When I used to put my 87 on the lift, the torque arm never really kept the axle from drooping. Thats my point... My spohn torque arm is attached with a shackle at one end. Its allowed to pivot freele in that shackle. When I lift the car, that torque arm doesnt do squat for keeping the axle up there. Heck even my lifted Jeep gets held up by the shocks. Its just what they do. Are they meant to be limiting straps? No. Are most cars' suspensions limited in droop by the shocks...yes.

As for the forces. They were talked about earlier in this thread. G-force's claim is that the forces somewhat cancel out. You get pushing on the lower arm, and a certain amount of "pulling" albeit in a different direction on the top arm. They state there is no issues with the control arm pocket strength due to weird forces. Most of use that are doing mods like this to the suspension have already done things like SFCs...which in most cases, esp in 4th gens, means the control arm pocket has been boxed or reinforced atleast.

I think Im going to stick with my torque arm for now. Atleast until more people have this set up on the street. If that ever happens. For now Im going the free route and building a new crossmember to accomodate my exhaust. But Im keeping my eye on these bars. Just want to see some more people running them in daily drivers before I commit. Like 8a8mfh says...its also kind of hard to really tell from the pictures, without holding the bars in our hands or driving the cars that they are in.

Justin

Jon B.

iTrader: (5)

I never meant to say that the Torque-Arm was a solid attachment point. It does help in locating the axle though with it's attachment AND it has to articulate with the rest of the suspension. So, it does help with keeping the axle LOCATED in the car, just by it being another attachment point. Think of it as keeping the axle in the car (and not hanging by something else) longitudinally, and the Panhard Rod doing it's job of locating the axle laterally. That was my entire point I was trying to get across.

Jon

ghettocruiser

iTrader: (17)

Jon, I got what you were sayin. My response was directed more towards the points that 8a8mfh was making. But I think we are all on the same track.

These things seem like a great idea...like I said I just want to see some more people using them before I make up my mind.

J.

blown90lx

iTrader: (3)

I picked up the rest of my parts yesterday. Should have it in and functional this weekend. Ill post pics when finished.

Jeremiah

iTrader: (5)

From looking at that picture it looks like the only difference is the upper adjustment bar? If that is the case then there is really no difference other than design. The three mounting points are the same so the geometry will be the same therefor the lift point ect. will be unchanged from this set up Vs. the one in question with this thread.

Weather its a four link or a ladder bar set up the point of intersection of the two bars is the lift point. With the four link your able to put the lift point anywhere you want it to control how mutch the wheels lift during launch. With a ladder bar set up and this set up your stuck with the lift point that is desinged into it. My question with this set up is I think the lift point of the factory TA offers more of an advantage for weight transfer and offer far less axle rotation giving more consistent pinion angle far less wear/tear/binding on the U joints under a hard launch. The only way I can see to overcome the Pinion angle is to run a really stiff spring to control axle rotation under launch.

1BAD02WS6

iTrader: (-1)

on the launch this kit is designed to push the tires down and the body up. a stiffer spring wouldnt effect axle roll on this instance. Every car ive seen this system on swear by it. always show better 60s. in a straight line this system is proven to work. I dont know about hitting the twisties hard but Nobody ive talked with has had any decress in street drivability.

Jeremiah

iTrader: (5)

I understand what your saying, I have had the south side machine lift bars on a couple of my past Camaros, not exactly the same set up but still same principle. They work exactly as you say in moderate HP aplications but when you get into higher HP cars that launch with the wheels up your going to compress the rear no matter what supension design is on the car. Also, what little added traction you get from pushing the wheels into the pavement doesnt come close to the added traction you get from a proper weight transfer of the entire weight of the car multiplied times the G force of the launch pushing the tires into the pavement. The combination of pushing the rear of the car up and with the lift point being so far back making it harder to lift the nose of the car doesnt sound like the best combo for weight transfer to me. I think this set up would be fine for the average weekend warrior but when you start dipping into the 11s or better I think you would be better off with a Spohn or BMR set up.

I have made up my mind to stick with Spohn products.

1BAD02WS6

iTrader: (-1)

Please take another long look at this video. watch the back when it launches. The front wheels go up and the back rises as well. This is a 9 sec car so it rules out your therory on it not working on sub 11sec cars. this is identical to a ladder bar setup which has been in the drag racing world for years and still is. This proves my side of the point.


http://www.fastchip.com/Ed-995.wmv

Jeremiah

iTrader: (5)

My theory was not that it wouldnt work but that it wouldnt be the best option. When you get down and think about it the stock type torque arm is the same principle as a ladder bar only it uses one arm instead of two and the two LCA's to keep the rear properly located. I have never said the ladder bar set up was bad, all ladder bar set ups I have ever seen have arms far longer than 8-12" and like the factory torque arm set up puts the lift point more to the front of the car and keeps pinion angle more consistent. My entire arguement over this set up is the length of the bars and weather there optimal for high power race applications, proper weight transfer and consistant pinion angle. Think about it....if the bars are pushing up on the rear of the car and there mounted sollid to the rear then what is the angle of the pinion gear in relation to the drive shaft going to be? With a torque arm its not pushing up on the rear of the car its pushing on the center of the car causing the entire car to lift and with less rotation of the axle in relation to the drive shaft. This makes for better weight transfer, more consistant pinion angle, more power to the ground, less stress on the drive line....right?

The only real way to see if the G force set up is a proven performer is for someone to put it on there car and show the before/after results. I want to see cars like the one in the video and hear from the owners about there oppinions pros/cons on the swap. Things like improvements in the 60', increased wear/tear on the U joints, more/less driveline noise/vibration ect.
You cant sell your self on this set up by listening to a guy running 12 second passes. A 12 second street car isnt going to have the weight transfer or traction issues that a serious track car deals with.

Time2Kill

iTrader: (49)

There were a couple people in this thread that were talking about building or purchasing a ladder bar setup. Has anyone gone through with it and got one installed?

I should be finished with a ladder bar setup on my personal car in a few days and will be posting up what I think about it once its completed.

95ttoplt1

iTrader: (3)

Where can you get the Petes z-bars?? I googled and no luck. Can some one PM it to me if it can't be posted.

BlackHawk T/A

iTrader: (3)

You know there are people with cars from other manufacturers (Ford, others) that are adding torque arms to their cars that weren't originally part of their design...and here we have people taking them off...