weaksauce

Recently got some UMI sfc's, and spohn lcas installed. The car seems much more solid, but I can kick out the rear end much more easily now.

Installed a wonderbar and strut tower brace (myself) and the car is MUCH more solid! It seems that all the supports are working together now and it's much better than SFCs alone.

BUT, now it also seems like it's much harder to maintain traction under fairly, well, pedestrian conditions. It seems like the car just always wants to break loose, so to speak.

Do I just need more tire (my first thought) or is something not right here? It seems like these "upgrades" have reduced low/mid speed cornering in favor of high speed.

Some car info:
92 camaro rs, torsen rear, motive cromo axles
225/45r16s
KYB gr2s x4 (2yrs old)
Camber -1 right, -.8 left; stock caster
Poly sway bar mounts (all), 34mm front bar

Any help is welcome! Help me get more grip!!

Alice89

iTrader: (6)

Rear sway bar is probably too big. You will need track testing to re-balance the car to your tastes (alignment/swaybars/springs/S&S rebound).

RedLeader289

iTrader: (2)

I think you just need better tires.

When you tighten up a car that has major flex issues (like every third gen) then you are eliminating an energy loss by allowing more energy to be transferred to the wheels instead of out through the body via flexing/etc.

DynoDave43

iTrader: (11)

That's where my mind went when I read your description.

Base91

iTrader: (1)

The point by NOSHO is everything works together. Change one thing and it's likely something else needs to change to work best with the first change. I always knew suspension set up wasn't a simple thing but the more I've read the more complex it seems to get!

SlickTrackGod

Has nothing to do with tires being better or worse on a chassis change.

The chasis is now stiffer so the inside rear wheel lifts easier where before the chassis flex kept it more planted.

You can search on here where I have stated a dozen times over the years that sfc addition requires a minimum 2mm drop in rear sway bar size.

The addition of sfc's will result in more consistent tire footprints in relation to each other.

Alice89

iTrader: (6)

This is exactly what I was thinking when the op described that he could "kick out the rear end much more easily now" after installing chassis bracing.

weaksauce

Less rear sway bar makes a lot of sense. I do plan on larger tires in the future, but for now I guess it's time to look for a smaller bar!

SlickTrackGod

Nope. Buy the Jegs panhard relocation bracket and drop the panhard mount on the axle side one hole from stock position. Trust me you'll thank me later. They are about $80

Tibo

iTrader: (15)

You still only want the panhard bar to be parallel with the ground/horizontal correct?

weaksauce

SlickTrackGod: is this significantly easier than getting a smaller swaybar? More effective? Or is it because I'll be able to change it later?
I understand why it would work (roll center will drop) but I'm just trying to be practical.

GCrites80s

Mmmmmmmmm, good discussion. I had Alstons put on last year in the middle of the autocross season and immediately noticed that the car wasn't snap loose nearly as bad. It still pushes some but doesn't immediately transition to snap loose anymore. Buuuut, I did notice that the rear axle felt like it wanted to go to the right on launches. I don't remember it doing that too bad back in my drag days. Granted these autocross courses aren't prepped like a strip.

These days a lot more autocrosses in my area take place on speedways where you start on the banking. Whether they start us counterclockwise or clockwise it always wants to go to the right on launch. I thought it was just us pushing the car harder and that I needed to replace the floppy stock panhard rod but this relocation bracket sounds like the hot ticket. Perhaps people with this issue should do both? Also the inside rear wheel lifts fairly often (not high, but enough to make the tire spin) especially in right turns both at autocross and coming out of 13 at Nelson Ledges. Diffs don't like it! I have an 87 IROC so the stock rear bar is fairly big.

Flip 2

iTrader: (1)

Weaksauce, do you have LCA relocation brackets??

weaksauce

Flip, I do not. The car is not lowered and it won't be in the foreseeable future, so it's not something I was looking into.

Flip 2

iTrader: (1)

The sticky says, even if it's not lowered, trailing arms in the stock location can have an unfavorable angle. They would probably do a lot to cure your tire spinning. Plus, even it's ok sitting still, as soon as you put any roll into it, the outside trailing arm goes in the wrong direction for traction. Add some squat from acceleration……..
Of course, too steep an angle makes braking an exciting proposition. This is very true- I tried the lower setting once. It hooked up like mad, but the car got very funny as soon as you let off the gas and turned the steering wheel- like for bend in the road. 1 test drive and I put it right back. LOL.

Another thing to think about is setting your pinion angle.

BTW- I just went to a second set of SFC's (Alston- the inners) and it stiffened my car a ton. Had no bad effect on my traction, that I have seen.

Flip 2

iTrader: (1)

Dean-
Not coming up with this item on Jeg's website……
Assume you are suggesting lowering the rear roll center.

Flip 2

iTrader: (1)

UMI relocation brackets have the holes to choose from, instead of the two offered on my Spohn's.
The upper of the 3 holes is probably best for cars that are not lowered.

red rock

iTrader: (2)

http://www.jegs.com/i/Jegster/550/41...oductId=754011

Flip 2

iTrader: (1)

Thanks-

weaksauce

Thank you all for the help! As soon as I get some good time off I'll be trying some of your ideas.
I may opt for the lca relocator and panhard relocator over the smaller swaybar. I like to tweak settings wherever I find them, so these two options really speak to me!
I'll keep you posted...

plum92_camaro

I would like to add that by not running the stock 245/50R16's you are leaving some grip on the table. What the others have suggested is the fix to your problem. This is just one more thing that will help.

Or you could move up to 17x9 or 18x9 with some 275's but thats another thread.

weaksauce

Yeah 17x9s are in my plans but I want to wear out these skinny ones first!

Zeifer

I'd also like to know the answer to this question.

Flip 2

iTrader: (1)

The answer is yes.

Zeifer

Much appreciated. Added PHBRB to my list of stuff.

SlickTrackGod

Sorry, I missed this.

You can have the chassis side bolt about 1" higher from the ground then the axle side bolt when both measured at static heght without anyone in the car and aprox half tank of fuel. Dynamic set and bump travel articulation will put it past parallel the opposite way. It's a happy medium in travel. If you set the oanhard parallel at static, it will very likely severely invert in corner set & bump travel combined.

Flip 2

iTrader: (1)

Ah, better!

86Z

iTrader: (4)

when i added sub frame connectors i had done a strut brace and wonder bar, instant improvement to the rigidity of the car, i added a 12 bolt rear axle and with 36/24mm sway bar combo it was a nightmare the rear was so loose, i since removed the 24mm for an 18mm and it's much more easier to control

Joe Tag

iTrader: (4)

Disregard what was here, guess I'm just

conlinj

iTrader: (3)

I too also had a lack of "grip" after putting in spohn lca's The problem is the poly mounts, they are too stiff to let the axle rotate in relation to the car when it leans. The poly's are great for straight line traction and wear, but they do not allow rotation like the soft rubber mounts or rod end lca's do.

Zeifer

This is the exact reason why when I get my LCAs I'm going to be doing Founder's poly/rod-end on-car adjustable LCAs. Bind/snap = bad news bears. Poly is fine for the panhard bar, but LCAs are subject to much more torsion due to body flex.

conlinj

iTrader: (3)

A friend has those founders pieces, softest poly I ever felt. Definitely a step in the right direction. I mull over the derlin rotojoint/delsphere or full rod ends. My car isn't a daily driver anymore so I'm leaning towards the rod ends more.

Zeifer

Founders has ones with poly on one end and the rod end on the other. Should be a good balance.

SlickTrackGod

Poly on the chassis side is fine, but yes putting poly on the axle side will lock up some of the articulation of the axle. If the mounts where twice as wide you probably would not need a panhard rod either.


JoeTag- I do not recall the avatar you are talking about. Nothing of that sorts comes to mind.