LCARB's?
06-15-2012, 09:58 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1984 camaro z28
Engine: sbc 383
Transmission: Th400
Axle/Gears: Moser 9", 4.11 gear
LCARB's?
Here is my lca's angle right now. It seems to be pointed up, when i read it should be down for traction. So do you guys think LCARB's are in order? Also i am pulling 1.68 60 foot times with the stock lca's at the angle they are at. If i put in LCARB's it would help right? And also would it break my 10 bolt that i have in there? Thanks, Greg.
06-15-2012, 10:56 PM
#3
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,117
Received 1,688 Likes
on
1,283 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: LCARB's?
Agreed; looks to me, just from that pic, like you have the wheel hop BAD, without even seeing the car run.
For strictly drag strip use, you'd want the rear of the LCA mostly as low as you can get it. But that's not at all good for street use. If the car is driven on public roads AT ALL, I'd suggest getting the RBs, but setting them ONLY as far as, the rear end of the LCAs being no more than about ¾" below the front end of them. Strange unpleasant loss of control kinds of things can happen if you're too aggressive with that, on the street.
For strictly drag strip use, you'd want the rear of the LCA mostly as low as you can get it. But that's not at all good for street use. If the car is driven on public roads AT ALL, I'd suggest getting the RBs, but setting them ONLY as far as, the rear end of the LCAs being no more than about ¾" below the front end of them. Strange unpleasant loss of control kinds of things can happen if you're too aggressive with that, on the street.
06-16-2012, 11:05 AM
#5
Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 92 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700R4
Axle/Gears: 10 Bolt 3.42 Posi
Re: LCARB's?
I have a set for sale, they are red UMI ones, I lost the hardware for them but im sure you can find some nice grade A nuts and bolts at a local harware store. I didnt use them because I have PBR rear discs and you have to cut them for the E-brake. Let me know if you wanna purches.
06-16-2012, 11:10 AM
#6
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,117
Received 1,688 Likes
on
1,283 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: LCARB's?
Actually, works better to cut the parking brake bracket (these cars don't have an "e-brake" that I know of, whatever that would be; only the "service" brakes and the parking one) than the LCARB... AFAIK it has to be done with ANY brand of LCARB.
Here's a SUPER crappy pic of mine... you can see how the corner of the parking bracket is lopped off. These are Spohn LCARBs but it should be obvious that it doesn't matter who made it, it has to go where it has to go.
Here's a SUPER crappy pic of mine... you can see how the corner of the parking bracket is lopped off. These are Spohn LCARBs but it should be obvious that it doesn't matter who made it, it has to go where it has to go.
Trending Topics
06-16-2012, 09:46 PM
#8
Re: LCARB's?
I love how these things are a solution to everything.
You didn't say anything about wheel hop, and if you're getting it it is not likely from not having LCARBs, its likely because something is worn out or loose.
You don't say anything about traction problems. You're not going to go faster with LCARBs if your not spinning the tires.
you don't say much about the rest of your setup, how fast the car is, what you use the car for, what tires you're running... the short version, you don't what the LCA lower than parallel with the ground on a car that isn't mostly a straight line car running tires with a soft sidewall. Having the backs of the arms lower will cause roll oversteer on a street/road race car (who cares on a drag only car), and a low profile, stiff sidewall tire will not be able to absorb the energy that the brackets will transfer to it and will cause it to bounce and loose traction, a lot like wheel hop (I used to have video of one of my cars doing it with 275/40-17 DR's, but there's plenty of video of mustangs out there using assorted bars which accomplish the same thing where they hit the tires so hard that the rim gets pushed into the pavement and the car looses traction.
You didn't say anything about wheel hop, and if you're getting it it is not likely from not having LCARBs, its likely because something is worn out or loose.
You don't say anything about traction problems. You're not going to go faster with LCARBs if your not spinning the tires.
you don't say much about the rest of your setup, how fast the car is, what you use the car for, what tires you're running... the short version, you don't what the LCA lower than parallel with the ground on a car that isn't mostly a straight line car running tires with a soft sidewall. Having the backs of the arms lower will cause roll oversteer on a street/road race car (who cares on a drag only car), and a low profile, stiff sidewall tire will not be able to absorb the energy that the brackets will transfer to it and will cause it to bounce and loose traction, a lot like wheel hop (I used to have video of one of my cars doing it with 275/40-17 DR's, but there's plenty of video of mustangs out there using assorted bars which accomplish the same thing where they hit the tires so hard that the rim gets pushed into the pavement and the car looses traction.
06-17-2012, 08:19 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: '08 Mustang GT
Engine: 4.6L
Transmission: º º 0 . . . |-|-|
Axle/Gears: 8.8", 3.55
Re: LCARB's?
First off, don't guess. And don't assume too much from the apparent shape of the LCA itself. Measure. You need to measure the heights to the centers of the bolts at the axle and at the chassis, as that is what defines your geometry.
You didn't mention having wheelhop, but that's a problem mostly associated with things like LCA bushings and engine mounts being too soft anyway.
You seem to be getting a decent short time, but how does it compare to others at the same track on the same night with the same make/model tires? If the other guys - particularly those with relo brackets - are running generally similar times, don't expect them to be a magic answer. I'm not saying don't run them if this is the case. Just don't expect a lot and don't be disappointed if the gain is less than what you're hoping for.
Crossfire makes a good point about there being a downside to going too aggressive with LCA inclination. While it isn't going to spit the car off into the nearest ditch the moment the road stops being straight, there will be a different handling feel that you'll need to adapt to. Safer and more likely, you should end up always driving mildly enough on the street that things like axle roll steer remain tiny effects. Always, because you can't sneak much past geometry that's really bad for street driving any more than you can geometry that's really bad for the dragstrip when you're making your runs.
Keep in mind that having more axle roll steer will affect how straight the car will launch, because the axle will steer slightly when the car rolls over from the engine torque reaction pretty much like it does while cornering. The axle geometry doesn't know the difference. IOW, you may find that the relo bracket as a band-aid for immediate launch bite needs a band-aid of its own.
Basically, pay attention to what's happening rather than to whether or not you have any given mod.
Norm
You didn't mention having wheelhop, but that's a problem mostly associated with things like LCA bushings and engine mounts being too soft anyway.
You seem to be getting a decent short time, but how does it compare to others at the same track on the same night with the same make/model tires? If the other guys - particularly those with relo brackets - are running generally similar times, don't expect them to be a magic answer. I'm not saying don't run them if this is the case. Just don't expect a lot and don't be disappointed if the gain is less than what you're hoping for.
Crossfire makes a good point about there being a downside to going too aggressive with LCA inclination. While it isn't going to spit the car off into the nearest ditch the moment the road stops being straight, there will be a different handling feel that you'll need to adapt to. Safer and more likely, you should end up always driving mildly enough on the street that things like axle roll steer remain tiny effects. Always, because you can't sneak much past geometry that's really bad for street driving any more than you can geometry that's really bad for the dragstrip when you're making your runs.
Keep in mind that having more axle roll steer will affect how straight the car will launch, because the axle will steer slightly when the car rolls over from the engine torque reaction pretty much like it does while cornering. The axle geometry doesn't know the difference. IOW, you may find that the relo bracket as a band-aid for immediate launch bite needs a band-aid of its own.
Basically, pay attention to what's happening rather than to whether or not you have any given mod.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 06-17-2012 at 08:25 AM.
06-17-2012, 08:49 AM
#10
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 26,117
Received 1,688 Likes
on
1,283 Posts
Car: Yes
Engine: Usually
Transmission: Sometimes
Axle/Gears: Behind me somewhere
Re: LCARB's?
For those of you who are too young to have BEEN THERE, I can tell you with absolute certainty, wheel hop in these cars IS NOT necessarily due to "worn out" parts; THEY DID IT RIGHT OFF THE SHOWROOM FLOOR.
The reason they wheel-hop is, defective suspension geometry. Now I know the factory guys are pretty bright and all that, and would NEVER create a car with defective design right off the drawing board. For example ALL factory motors make AS MUCH POWER AS POSSIBLE per cubic inch, ALL factory tires are the best they can be even though it was GM's policy to purchase tires BY THE POUND ("yes Mr Tire Supplier, here is my purchase order for 275,000 pounds of tires.... what kind you ask? well I want 275,000 pounds of them, and I want to pay the lowest possible price per pound, so whatever kind costs the least per pound..." so we end up with garbage like the Eacle GTs that came on these cars instead of Michelins like came on one of our immediate competitors' cars who instead viewed tires as a system with potential performance improvement) And of course as we all know, they SURELY would never build in a transmission mount that you could break THE FIRST TIME YOU LET OUT THE CLUTCH if you wanted to, and you could do that to AS MANY MOUNTS AS YOU WANT up until the transmission grenaded... which they surely would never have put something as inadequate and poorly chosen as a T-5 into a heavy powerful car like one of these with a V8 in it, either. Or gas tanks whose filler necks get constantly bent back and forth by the chassis flex and eventually crack the tank around the neck and leak fuel. They know better than to do stuff like that. So I'd prefer to think that there was some other constraint that we can't see from out here - some manufacturability thing, some emissions regulation, some liability insurance specification, something that would logically account for what otherwise appears to be mere stupidity - that they were forced to work with, that obligated them to build a car that HAD WHEEL HOP right off the production line.
In this case, the OP posted a picture that CLEARLY shows the defective geometry. He doesn't HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING about whether it has wheel hop or not, because we can take ONE LOOK at that pic and see that it does. It would be about like posting a pic of an exhaust pipe that wasn't connected and talking about ... something, and everybody going "I'll bet your car is loud", and some people telling us "how do you know it's loud, he didn't say anything about loud" when we can LOOK AT THE PIC and see what's wrong.
To the OP, I'd suggest going right on ahead and putting the LCARBs on your car; set them to where they're JUST SLIGHTLY lower at the rear than at the front; FIX THE OBVIOUS DEFECTIVE GEOMETRY, but don't get carried away and do anything stupid; and don't worry about all this doom-and-gloom "roll oversteer" business that only occurs by making the geometry EQUALLY DEFECTIVE except in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
The reason they wheel-hop is, defective suspension geometry. Now I know the factory guys are pretty bright and all that, and would NEVER create a car with defective design right off the drawing board. For example ALL factory motors make AS MUCH POWER AS POSSIBLE per cubic inch, ALL factory tires are the best they can be even though it was GM's policy to purchase tires BY THE POUND ("yes Mr Tire Supplier, here is my purchase order for 275,000 pounds of tires.... what kind you ask? well I want 275,000 pounds of them, and I want to pay the lowest possible price per pound, so whatever kind costs the least per pound..." so we end up with garbage like the Eacle GTs that came on these cars instead of Michelins like came on one of our immediate competitors' cars who instead viewed tires as a system with potential performance improvement) And of course as we all know, they SURELY would never build in a transmission mount that you could break THE FIRST TIME YOU LET OUT THE CLUTCH if you wanted to, and you could do that to AS MANY MOUNTS AS YOU WANT up until the transmission grenaded... which they surely would never have put something as inadequate and poorly chosen as a T-5 into a heavy powerful car like one of these with a V8 in it, either. Or gas tanks whose filler necks get constantly bent back and forth by the chassis flex and eventually crack the tank around the neck and leak fuel. They know better than to do stuff like that. So I'd prefer to think that there was some other constraint that we can't see from out here - some manufacturability thing, some emissions regulation, some liability insurance specification, something that would logically account for what otherwise appears to be mere stupidity - that they were forced to work with, that obligated them to build a car that HAD WHEEL HOP right off the production line.
In this case, the OP posted a picture that CLEARLY shows the defective geometry. He doesn't HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING about whether it has wheel hop or not, because we can take ONE LOOK at that pic and see that it does. It would be about like posting a pic of an exhaust pipe that wasn't connected and talking about ... something, and everybody going "I'll bet your car is loud", and some people telling us "how do you know it's loud, he didn't say anything about loud" when we can LOOK AT THE PIC and see what's wrong.
To the OP, I'd suggest going right on ahead and putting the LCARBs on your car; set them to where they're JUST SLIGHTLY lower at the rear than at the front; FIX THE OBVIOUS DEFECTIVE GEOMETRY, but don't get carried away and do anything stupid; and don't worry about all this doom-and-gloom "roll oversteer" business that only occurs by making the geometry EQUALLY DEFECTIVE except in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
06-17-2012, 04:44 PM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1984 camaro z28
Engine: sbc 383
Transmission: Th400
Axle/Gears: Moser 9", 4.11 gear
Re: LCARB's?
First off, don't guess. And don't assume too much from the apparent shape of the LCA itself. Measure. You need to measure the heights to the centers of the bolts at the axle and at the chassis, as that is what defines your geometry.
You didn't mention having wheelhop, but that's a problem mostly associated with things like LCA bushings and engine mounts being too soft anyway.
You seem to be getting a decent short time, but how does it compare to others at the same track on the same night with the same make/model tires? If the other guys - particularly those with relo brackets - are running generally similar times, don't expect them to be a magic answer. I'm not saying don't run them if this is the case. Just don't expect a lot and don't be disappointed if the gain is less than what you're hoping for.
Crossfire makes a good point about there being a downside to going too aggressive with LCA inclination. While it isn't going to spit the car off into the nearest ditch the moment the road stops being straight, there will be a different handling feel that you'll need to adapt to. Safer and more likely, you should end up always driving mildly enough on the street that things like axle roll steer remain tiny effects. Always, because you can't sneak much past geometry that's really bad for street driving any more than you can geometry that's really bad for the dragstrip when you're making your runs.
Keep in mind that having more axle roll steer will affect how straight the car will launch, because the axle will steer slightly when the car rolls over from the engine torque reaction pretty much like it does while cornering. The axle geometry doesn't know the difference. IOW, you may find that the relo bracket as a band-aid for immediate launch bite needs a band-aid of its own.
Basically, pay attention to what's happening rather than to whether or not you have any given mod.
Norm
You didn't mention having wheelhop, but that's a problem mostly associated with things like LCA bushings and engine mounts being too soft anyway.
You seem to be getting a decent short time, but how does it compare to others at the same track on the same night with the same make/model tires? If the other guys - particularly those with relo brackets - are running generally similar times, don't expect them to be a magic answer. I'm not saying don't run them if this is the case. Just don't expect a lot and don't be disappointed if the gain is less than what you're hoping for.
Crossfire makes a good point about there being a downside to going too aggressive with LCA inclination. While it isn't going to spit the car off into the nearest ditch the moment the road stops being straight, there will be a different handling feel that you'll need to adapt to. Safer and more likely, you should end up always driving mildly enough on the street that things like axle roll steer remain tiny effects. Always, because you can't sneak much past geometry that's really bad for street driving any more than you can geometry that's really bad for the dragstrip when you're making your runs.
Keep in mind that having more axle roll steer will affect how straight the car will launch, because the axle will steer slightly when the car rolls over from the engine torque reaction pretty much like it does while cornering. The axle geometry doesn't know the difference. IOW, you may find that the relo bracket as a band-aid for immediate launch bite needs a band-aid of its own.
Basically, pay attention to what's happening rather than to whether or not you have any given mod.
Norm
At no point did i say i want a "magical" part that will make my 60 foots increase? The question i was basically asking is that i had heard what the angle was supposed to look like, and while looking at mine it didnt look like that. If i hadnt had read anything about the lca angle, i would not have felt like anything was wrong with the car.
Also, the only reason i was going to purchase the lcarb's was to correct the geometry on my car, as i dont want something being off on it. It wasnt to try and increase anything. The only thing i was wondering was if the lcarb's would help me out or not, because otherwise i'd rather not put them on and put too much to the ground and break my stock 10 bolt.
And last, i could care less about if i have any given mod? I really am lost at that point as well. I just read the stickies on the boards and then fix my car accordingly. I'm pretty sure noone runs around bragging that their car is amazing because it had lcarb's anyway.
You made alot of good points however! I just didnt get the hostility in the post is all!
06-17-2012, 04:45 PM
#12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1984 camaro z28
Engine: sbc 383
Transmission: Th400
Axle/Gears: Moser 9", 4.11 gear
Re: LCARB's?
For those of you who are too young to have BEEN THERE, I can tell you with absolute certainty, wheel hop in these cars IS NOT necessarily due to "worn out" parts; THEY DID IT RIGHT OFF THE SHOWROOM FLOOR.
The reason they wheel-hop is, defective suspension geometry. Now I know the factory guys are pretty bright and all that, and would NEVER create a car with defective design right off the drawing board. For example ALL factory motors make AS MUCH POWER AS POSSIBLE per cubic inch, ALL factory tires are the best they can be even though it was GM's policy to purchase tires BY THE POUND ("yes Mr Tire Supplier, here is my purchase order for 275,000 pounds of tires.... what kind you ask? well I want 275,000 pounds of them, and I want to pay the lowest possible price per pound, so whatever kind costs the least per pound..." so we end up with garbage like the Eacle GTs that came on these cars instead of Michelins like came on one of our immediate competitors' cars who instead viewed tires as a system with potential performance improvement) And of course as we all know, they SURELY would never build in a transmission mount that you could break THE FIRST TIME YOU LET OUT THE CLUTCH if you wanted to, and you could do that to AS MANY MOUNTS AS YOU WANT up until the transmission grenaded... which they surely would never have put something as inadequate and poorly chosen as a T-5 into a heavy powerful car like one of these with a V8 in it, either. Or gas tanks whose filler necks get constantly bent back and forth by the chassis flex and eventually crack the tank around the neck and leak fuel. They know better than to do stuff like that. So I'd prefer to think that there was some other constraint that we can't see from out here - some manufacturability thing, some emissions regulation, some liability insurance specification, something that would logically account for what otherwise appears to be mere stupidity - that they were forced to work with, that obligated them to build a car that HAD WHEEL HOP right off the production line.
In this case, the OP posted a picture that CLEARLY shows the defective geometry. He doesn't HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING about whether it has wheel hop or not, because we can take ONE LOOK at that pic and see that it does. It would be about like posting a pic of an exhaust pipe that wasn't connected and talking about ... something, and everybody going "I'll bet your car is loud", and some people telling us "how do you know it's loud, he didn't say anything about loud" when we can LOOK AT THE PIC and see what's wrong.
To the OP, I'd suggest going right on ahead and putting the LCARBs on your car; set them to where they're JUST SLIGHTLY lower at the rear than at the front; FIX THE OBVIOUS DEFECTIVE GEOMETRY, but don't get carried away and do anything stupid; and don't worry about all this doom-and-gloom "roll oversteer" business that only occurs by making the geometry EQUALLY DEFECTIVE except in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
The reason they wheel-hop is, defective suspension geometry. Now I know the factory guys are pretty bright and all that, and would NEVER create a car with defective design right off the drawing board. For example ALL factory motors make AS MUCH POWER AS POSSIBLE per cubic inch, ALL factory tires are the best they can be even though it was GM's policy to purchase tires BY THE POUND ("yes Mr Tire Supplier, here is my purchase order for 275,000 pounds of tires.... what kind you ask? well I want 275,000 pounds of them, and I want to pay the lowest possible price per pound, so whatever kind costs the least per pound..." so we end up with garbage like the Eacle GTs that came on these cars instead of Michelins like came on one of our immediate competitors' cars who instead viewed tires as a system with potential performance improvement) And of course as we all know, they SURELY would never build in a transmission mount that you could break THE FIRST TIME YOU LET OUT THE CLUTCH if you wanted to, and you could do that to AS MANY MOUNTS AS YOU WANT up until the transmission grenaded... which they surely would never have put something as inadequate and poorly chosen as a T-5 into a heavy powerful car like one of these with a V8 in it, either. Or gas tanks whose filler necks get constantly bent back and forth by the chassis flex and eventually crack the tank around the neck and leak fuel. They know better than to do stuff like that. So I'd prefer to think that there was some other constraint that we can't see from out here - some manufacturability thing, some emissions regulation, some liability insurance specification, something that would logically account for what otherwise appears to be mere stupidity - that they were forced to work with, that obligated them to build a car that HAD WHEEL HOP right off the production line.
In this case, the OP posted a picture that CLEARLY shows the defective geometry. He doesn't HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING about whether it has wheel hop or not, because we can take ONE LOOK at that pic and see that it does. It would be about like posting a pic of an exhaust pipe that wasn't connected and talking about ... something, and everybody going "I'll bet your car is loud", and some people telling us "how do you know it's loud, he didn't say anything about loud" when we can LOOK AT THE PIC and see what's wrong.
To the OP, I'd suggest going right on ahead and putting the LCARBs on your car; set them to where they're JUST SLIGHTLY lower at the rear than at the front; FIX THE OBVIOUS DEFECTIVE GEOMETRY, but don't get carried away and do anything stupid; and don't worry about all this doom-and-gloom "roll oversteer" business that only occurs by making the geometry EQUALLY DEFECTIVE except in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
06-18-2012, 12:02 PM
#13
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: '08 Mustang GT
Engine: 4.6L
Transmission: º º 0 . . . |-|-|
Axle/Gears: 8.8", 3.55
Re: LCARB's?
At no point did i say i want a "magical" part that will make my 60 foots increase? The question i was basically asking is that i had heard what the angle was supposed to look like, and while looking at mine it didnt look like that. If i hadnt had read anything about the lca angle, i would not have felt like anything was wrong with the car.
I thought that running through a list of things would help you figure out where you are and whether adding relo brackets would be appropriate. You see, I'm a big fan of sneaking up on a solution that's defined by results rather than the presence of certain parts or their settings.
BTW, I wasn't being hostile. Just blunt.
Norm
06-18-2012, 01:05 PM
#14
Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: '08 Mustang GT
Engine: 4.6L
Transmission: º º 0 . . . |-|-|
Axle/Gears: 8.8", 3.55
Re: LCARB's?
For those of you who are too young to have BEEN THERE, I can tell you with absolute certainty, wheel hop in these cars IS NOT necessarily due to "worn out" parts; THEY DID IT RIGHT OFF THE SHOWROOM FLOOR.
The reason they wheel-hop is, defective suspension geometry. Now I know the factory guys are pretty bright and all that, and would NEVER create a car with defective design right off the drawing board.
The reason they wheel-hop is, defective suspension geometry. Now I know the factory guys are pretty bright and all that, and would NEVER create a car with defective design right off the drawing board.
No, the geometry isn't optimum for a drag race car with big power, big grip, and a non-fragile powertrain. But drag racers weren't GM's primary target buyer, and not being engineered mainly for drag racing from the get-go does not make it "defective". Engineering a car as a consumer product is very much an exercise in finding good overall compromises. Engineering a race car is something else entirely.
To the OP, I'd suggest going right on ahead and putting the LCARBs on your car; set them to where they're JUST SLIGHTLY lower at the rear than at the front; FIX THE OBVIOUS DEFECTIVE GEOMETRY,
but don't get carried away and do anything stupid; and don't worry about all this doom-and-gloom "roll oversteer" business that only occurs by making the geometry EQUALLY DEFECTIVE except in THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
Norm
Last edited by Norm Peterson; 06-18-2012 at 01:09 PM.
06-18-2012, 03:01 PM
#15
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Clinton MD
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 RS
Engine: LQ4
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: Too lazy to check!!
Re: LCARB's?
I just corrected my LCA angles to about 3/4" lower in the back and shaved .50 off of my ETs. Keep in mind my car is a turbo car is now a mid 10 second car. My 60' didn't change much because my problems started a little farther out when I hit boost. Like the others said it really depends on what kind of problems you are having.
06-18-2012, 06:10 PM
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1984 camaro z28
Engine: sbc 383
Transmission: Th400
Axle/Gears: Moser 9", 4.11 gear
Re: LCARB's?
Then I'm a little confused - if you aren't considering getting them for enough of a performance improvement to matter (noting that you're already getting decent times) it doesn't make a lot of sense. At least not at this point, because I don't see you having the sort of "problem" that they'd fix.
I thought that running through a list of things would help you figure out where you are and whether adding relo brackets would be appropriate. You see, I'm a big fan of sneaking up on a solution that's defined by results rather than the presence of certain parts or their settings.
BTW, I wasn't being hostile. Just blunt.
Norm
I thought that running through a list of things would help you figure out where you are and whether adding relo brackets would be appropriate. You see, I'm a big fan of sneaking up on a solution that's defined by results rather than the presence of certain parts or their settings.
BTW, I wasn't being hostile. Just blunt.
Norm
06-18-2012, 06:12 PM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 1984 camaro z28
Engine: sbc 383
Transmission: Th400
Axle/Gears: Moser 9", 4.11 gear
Re: LCARB's?
I just corrected my LCA angles to about 3/4" lower in the back and shaved .50 off of my ETs. Keep in mind my car is a turbo car is now a mid 10 second car. My 60' didn't change much because my problems started a little farther out when I hit boost. Like the others said it really depends on what kind of problems you are having.
06-18-2012, 07:37 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Clinton MD
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 89 RS
Engine: LQ4
Transmission: TH400
Axle/Gears: Too lazy to check!!
Re: LCARB's?
My angles looked almost indetical to yours before I added them. My 60' didn't change because my car leaves soft anyway. I couldnt keep my tires planted beyond 60' once I went into full boost. I plan on working in my short times now that in keep traction. I did my 10.6x pass with a 1.8x 60'.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
