4-links are hard to impossible to fit under there, the way the frame rails bend up for axle clearance would put the leading upper link arm mounting mount somewhere inside the body, or so short its worthless. Ladder bars are much easier… less adjustment sure and ride quality suffers a little (they dont allow the axle to articulate just swing up and down)… but its a lot more compact and simpler, yet very effective design.
2000 SS with 4link? lol
Thats not a 4 link. Well to be specific that’s not a “parallel 4 link” everyone assumes when someone says 4 link.
a “4 link” is generally 2 equal length upper and lower forward facing control arms mounted to adjustable points chassis and axle for instant center adjustments and a track or panhard to control side to side.
That would never fit in there without backhalfing most of the frame.
ahhh gotchyaaa
Also that car is still running a T arm.
Mike why not fabricate your own chassis mounted short T arm setup?
S&W makes a setup that comes with their frame connector kit. I have one if you want to come check it out at some point. There are a lot of guys running very low numbers on stock suspension configuration, because it does work well.
The ladder bars are also tried and true and less fab cause he would have to mount that torque arm to a ford 8.8 that doesn’t have the provisions for it. I like the direction here. After looking at that diagram and thinking about being under my car or the pics rich posted I see exactly what you mean about the upper 4 link bars. They would be so short that the pinion angle would increase fast with upward axle travel.
the camaro pictured above is also lacking a fuel tank over the axle…
Both very valid points guys. The budget doesnt allow for too many off the shelf products. So the S&W components wont find their way under the car. Infact all the subframe connectors, ds hoop, etc will be simple fab jobs just about anyone can do… sticking to the budget build idea. Also the trailing arm is tough to design actually. There is a suprising ammount of math involved in making one that wont bottom out or bind. Not something i want to get into with this build.
Also like he said looking for the 8.8 later on the T arm will be a pain in the ass to adapt to it. so a few extra tabs and 2 more bars/links welded to the lower controll arms are cake and can be adapted very easily later when the gm rear blows apart.
Ladder bar is a shit setup esp when stopping . That’s why there is a trq ARM under mine we I heavly researched it . Use a s/w subframe trq ARM kit as a good setup .
That’s a stock style setup ya fuckin yum yum
lol not even close! look where the shoXXX are lolzzzzzz and that little rig where the fuel tank would beeee
That’s an aftermarket sway bar and coilover setup where the gas tank used to be.
Right , still mostly stock susp just a sway bar spring upgrade .
Yeah its a “Stock type” setup. This chassis has been around since the dawn of the mullet, there are a million ways to field dress a possum.
For budget and simplicity’s sake, mini ladders in place of a tq arm setup are what I am doing. I thought about it last night. I am going to plate in the stock lower arms and pan hard, make the mini ladders off the stock arms, and just add the tabs for the upper connection point on the axle tubes and be done with it. When the stock rear blows apart, i will jig up those components, make chromoly duplicates with QA1 heims at one end and poly bushings at the other and mount them all to the ford 8.8.
That way it covers both spectrum’s of the scale. Dirt cheap in place upgrade. Then slightly more expensive but still dirt cheap (compared to other solutions everyone thinks is mandatory for these cars.)
I know what works on these cars lol , this is mostly all I have ran . Just cause some tard on ls1tech said it works don’t mean it does . If the ladder bar setup was so good why are all the fastest f-bodies still on a trq ARM ? Trust me the first time ya slam brake and the rear lifts cause of rotation ya gonna regret it . Instead of listening to the knowitalls on there ask questions specific to it and see . I like john but a lot of his ideas are very flawed on these cars .
The headlights wired up nicely yet…
Actually I havnt talked to john at all about the suspension. Its all my idea.
The torque arm doesnt mount to the transmission i have going it in. Making a trailing arm mount on the transmission crossmember might work, if it doesnt physically hit the larger dia and slightly longer tailshaft on the 4l80… if it hits, the mount needs to be fixed farther back under the car, which means shorter/reworked tq arm. TQ arm doesnt mount to the ford 8.8 which will at some point be under the car.
shorter trailing arms must have a more precise mounting location for the forward fixture point becasue of the increased swing on the axle from the shorter arm. Also that mounting point is going to be higher than stock, the closer it is to the rear end (to maintain the stock instant center).
$600 for a tq arm relocation and new arm is not in the budget, then I still need to deal with mounting it to another rear end.
Lastly, any torque arm is EXACTLY the same as a “ladder bar”. 3 fixture points (on on chassis and 2 on axle) that none of which on the bars themselves can physically change. Only difference is a ladder bar setup uses 2 “tq arms” under the car.
The key to the entire equation is the instant center point. The IC is the single intersection point from the 2 axle mounting points. No matter if its a tq arm, ladder bar or a 4 link design. The placement of the IC VS the center of gravity determines the anti-squat of the car when its launched or under braking.
The country bumpkins that blindly add a piece of pipe and 2 brackets to the axle and the stock lower control arm to make the “ladder bars” are the reason people think they fail… BECASUE THEY DO… becasue they didnt design it right!
I am going to design the ladder bars to match the stock instant center location. See my diagram. The top is the imaginary tq arm and the blue dot is the IC. Bottom is the same IC dot/location, with the ladder bar. Only handling character differences will be very slight due to the over all length of the suspension being shorter.
On paper, the suspension works. I made measurements and will pump them into suspension calculators to verify my assumptions. When I search for ideas, I dont search for “does XXXX work for XXXX car” and look for Joe blow said it works great and Jim blow said he stuffed it in the wall… I search for “Suspension concepts 101” and do my homework. The same physics can be applied to any car under the sun, make and model dont really have much to do with it.
sounds dumpy. just make something out of aluminized and call it good.
just throw like a 355 roller in it holley 750 and some spray should get you in the 10’s with slicks and you’ll have money left over
Yeah cause that’s as easy lol , ya ever look at one of our cars ? Carbed is not a easy option and stay rd legal .
I would like to know where you conjured up that bullshit statement from… there’s a reason why I still run a torque arm setup, it’s because it’s simple and it works. That’s laughable. Last I checked, I have one of the few F-bodies on this site that actually still runs and drives. :dunno