Building a better handling turbo Regal.
- Thread starter TriShield
- Start date
i spoke with GW a few years back on their suspension system and have also seen and ridden in cars with them installed.
The idea is if you go with their rear lower control arms, you will not need a rear sway bar. It is optional.
poly binds in in lateral movement...the rear, for performance street and autox applications should be allowed lateral movement to follow in the tracks of the front tires.
its unfortunate that some people are having such a hard time getting in touch with GW. Their product is excellent for the money outside of having a race-fab shop make something from scratch for you.
Lowering the car's center of gravity, insuring that the tread patch stays on the ground through turns, increasing the ability to control the car are all prime points in improving performance.
The idea is if you go with their rear lower control arms, you will not need a rear sway bar. It is optional.
poly binds in in lateral movement...the rear, for performance street and autox applications should be allowed lateral movement to follow in the tracks of the front tires.
its unfortunate that some people are having such a hard time getting in touch with GW. Their product is excellent for the money outside of having a race-fab shop make something from scratch for you.
Lowering the car's center of gravity, insuring that the tread patch stays on the ground through turns, increasing the ability to control the car are all prime points in improving performance.
I understand I don't want poly for the binding reason, however, I would like the option of using a sway bar. I mean, I do plan on running at the car at the dragstrip also.
It is ashame the GW can't give me a little bit of customer service because like you said, the product is definitely quality. I talked to Doug the first time I called and since then I've only spoke to the lady that answers the phone.
I found some pictures of the GW lower arms on someones website last night, and they are not like mine. The bars I saw the picture of have a tab hanging off the bottom that would have to be drilled for the sway bar to mount. This seems in line with everyone talking about having to drill their own holes for the sway bar. The ones I received from GW have holes through the main control arm tube that are sleeved and welded! They are just a ~1/2" of in center to center dimension.
Dave
It is ashame the GW can't give me a little bit of customer service because like you said, the product is definitely quality. I talked to Doug the first time I called and since then I've only spoke to the lady that answers the phone.
I found some pictures of the GW lower arms on someones website last night, and they are not like mine. The bars I saw the picture of have a tab hanging off the bottom that would have to be drilled for the sway bar to mount. This seems in line with everyone talking about having to drill their own holes for the sway bar. The ones I received from GW have holes through the main control arm tube that are sleeved and welded! They are just a ~1/2" of in center to center dimension.
Dave
You must have heard that wrong. The type of Rear lower control arm has almost no bearing on the cars handling (especially with no sway bar attached) while a larger rear sway bar reduces understeer considerably.
People get confused when they listen to people talk about set ups they road race with. The difference between a road race car and a street car is the road race car is atleast twice as stiff, with stiff front springs, stiff chassis from the roll cage and has tons of negative camber cranked in at the front. This would be fun on the street for about 100 miles and you'll be changing front tires every 2000 miles.
It's more important in Road Racing to have a car that is comfortable at the limits of its handling than one that actually handles better below its absolute limits (where 99.9% of driving on the street is done)
The ATR sway bar makes the car TURN. A dare anyone who thinks a rear sway bar isn't necessary to bolt 275/60 tires on the back and then go autocross it. The car will drive like its hooked up to two oxen, even if the front suspension pieces were designed and built by God.
I have to disagree with you on the issue of the ATR rear sway bar. On my car I used it and it was horrible. Made the car steer from the back end. My front end is all GW Del Alums, Moog 5660's in front and 5651's in the rear, GW ucas, b body spindles, stock front sway bar, Bilsteins and all 4 corners, 1LE bushings in boxed rear control arms.
GW specifically states to eliminate the rear sway bar when using their stuff. I still have my stock rear sway bar and it is near perfectly balanced. It was horrible with the huge sway bar in the back. The only thing I can see the big sway bar being good for is for the guys that drive around without their front sway bar. No flame, just my experience with it on my Buick. It might work for a G body with a big block (meaning a lot of weight in the nose). It just didnt work for me.
The rear bar is a matter of preferance and useage.
While a given bar might be fine for use at 90 MPH, the same bar at 30 might stink. Larger bar out back also helps reduce the need for an air bag which heavily biases the weight distribution.
For me and rather HS driving, I have
12 front B body brakes,
11 PST rear discs
Lowered
ATR rear bar
Radiator support bar
Cross member rods
Rear seat braces
upper fender braces
all the body bushings in poly
Hotchkiss upper front arms
Bilsteins
With the braking forces I can generate, I had to go to rather high rate front springs, to keep the bumper off the ground. The higher rate also min'd the bumpsteer issue. While not for going around cones in a parking lot, it serves a purpose well on the open road........
While a given bar might be fine for use at 90 MPH, the same bar at 30 might stink. Larger bar out back also helps reduce the need for an air bag which heavily biases the weight distribution.
For me and rather HS driving, I have
12 front B body brakes,
11 PST rear discs
Lowered
ATR rear bar
Radiator support bar
Cross member rods
Rear seat braces
upper fender braces
all the body bushings in poly
Hotchkiss upper front arms
Bilsteins
With the braking forces I can generate, I had to go to rather high rate front springs, to keep the bumper off the ground. The higher rate also min'd the bumpsteer issue. While not for going around cones in a parking lot, it serves a purpose well on the open road........
Rear LCAs
Because of the rear suspension geometry, the lower control arms twist as the car leans, or as one rear wheel goes over a bump. Boxing and stiffening the lower control arms will increase the rear roll stiffness, so, yes, the LCAs do affect the need/size of the rear sway bar. If you get too stiff with the LCAs, sway bar, and the bushings, the rear suspension will bind up to the point that the car will corner on three wheels. It really limits traction coming out of a turn when one of the rear wheels is off the ground.
Because of the rear suspension geometry, the lower control arms twist as the car leans, or as one rear wheel goes over a bump. Boxing and stiffening the lower control arms will increase the rear roll stiffness, so, yes, the LCAs do affect the need/size of the rear sway bar. If you get too stiff with the LCAs, sway bar, and the bushings, the rear suspension will bind up to the point that the car will corner on three wheels. It really limits traction coming out of a turn when one of the rear wheels is off the ground.
Re: Rear LCAs
What planet would that be on
? Rear wheel drive cars don't lift a rear wheel accelerating out of a corner. The rear swaybar helps to equallize the loading between the tires. A rear wheel drive car with a rear sway bar will come out of a corner faster than one without one because the inside tire won't be boiling smoke. The type of binding described above does not happen with street tires and probably won't happen with race tires either, unless your TR weighs 2200 lbs.
What planet would that be on
? Rear wheel drive cars don't lift a rear wheel accelerating out of a corner. The rear swaybar helps to equallize the loading between the tires. A rear wheel drive car with a rear sway bar will come out of a corner faster than one without one because the inside tire won't be boiling smoke. The type of binding described above does not happen with street tires and probably won't happen with race tires either, unless your TR weighs 2200 lbs.Matt Weiser
It's an F.U.V.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
I'll toss in a couple points/opinions:
--It is the GW front upper control arms that eliminate the need for a rear swaybar. These arms (and the Hotchkis, etc. versions) change the suspension geometry so the front tires maintain negative camber as they turn, giving better grip up front so you MAY not need/want a rear sway bar as a band-aid to dial out understeer.
--Nobody that I know of makes a fix for bump-steer on G-bodies equipped with B-body spindles and 12" brakes. That said, I haven't found it to be a problem on my car.
--I do believe GW makes the superior product in their category. Their control arms are beautiful and bulletproof. Their Del-a-Lum bushings are a great option for street/track use: no bind, no increased harshness or noise, HUGE boost in suspension control. Poly might be OK in the front control arms, as long as they are the graphite type to prevent squeeks, but I wouldn't use poly in the rear end. Poly kills the articulation that needs to occur in the stock 4-link for good cornering. The GW rear lower control arms use a spherical bearing in the frame end that gives great articulation. Several other places (Currie, Edelbrock) make a spherical rear upper arm that helps even more. The car will feel different after doing these mods but it will handle better.
--The ATR rear swaybar is a nice piece but as I understand it, it basically eliminates articulation in cornering situations = oversteer city. Probably great for drag racing and street use if you haven't gone to 12" brakes up front.
--To get ideal cornering force and performance, you want the tires to follow the road surface as much as possible, so anything that restricts that is bad (poly bushings, too-stiff swaybars, etc.).
--Probably the best way for most people to eliminate the 'floaty' feeling in the rear suspension is to use poly body bushings. I still gotta do that one someday.
--It is the GW front upper control arms that eliminate the need for a rear swaybar. These arms (and the Hotchkis, etc. versions) change the suspension geometry so the front tires maintain negative camber as they turn, giving better grip up front so you MAY not need/want a rear sway bar as a band-aid to dial out understeer.
--Nobody that I know of makes a fix for bump-steer on G-bodies equipped with B-body spindles and 12" brakes. That said, I haven't found it to be a problem on my car.
--I do believe GW makes the superior product in their category. Their control arms are beautiful and bulletproof. Their Del-a-Lum bushings are a great option for street/track use: no bind, no increased harshness or noise, HUGE boost in suspension control. Poly might be OK in the front control arms, as long as they are the graphite type to prevent squeeks, but I wouldn't use poly in the rear end. Poly kills the articulation that needs to occur in the stock 4-link for good cornering. The GW rear lower control arms use a spherical bearing in the frame end that gives great articulation. Several other places (Currie, Edelbrock) make a spherical rear upper arm that helps even more. The car will feel different after doing these mods but it will handle better.
--The ATR rear swaybar is a nice piece but as I understand it, it basically eliminates articulation in cornering situations = oversteer city. Probably great for drag racing and street use if you haven't gone to 12" brakes up front.
--To get ideal cornering force and performance, you want the tires to follow the road surface as much as possible, so anything that restricts that is bad (poly bushings, too-stiff swaybars, etc.).
--Probably the best way for most people to eliminate the 'floaty' feeling in the rear suspension is to use poly body bushings. I still gotta do that one someday.
UNGN-
I have a picture of a G-body (80's Monte) lifting the inside rear wheel going through a turn. I'll send it to anyone who wants to see it. I'm not saying it's doing it accelerating out of a turn. I agree, this isn't what you would want in a rear drive car. But, this backs I'm my point in my other post about the GW rear arm problem I'm having (I can't bolt up a sway bar because mounting holes are not at right distance apart).
Matt-
Baer Brakes makes outer tie rods (Baer Trackers) that you can adjust the height of the tie rod connecting point to the spindle. While I've heard it doesn't completely eliminate the issue it should definitely help.
TriShield-
Do a search for the XH steering box (from F-body-WS-6). If I recall correctly it has the steering locks that will help when running larger tires and a quicker steering ratio.
Dave
I have a picture of a G-body (80's Monte) lifting the inside rear wheel going through a turn. I'll send it to anyone who wants to see it. I'm not saying it's doing it accelerating out of a turn. I agree, this isn't what you would want in a rear drive car. But, this backs I'm my point in my other post about the GW rear arm problem I'm having (I can't bolt up a sway bar because mounting holes are not at right distance apart).
Matt-
Baer Brakes makes outer tie rods (Baer Trackers) that you can adjust the height of the tie rod connecting point to the spindle. While I've heard it doesn't completely eliminate the issue it should definitely help.
TriShield-
Do a search for the XH steering box (from F-body-WS-6). If I recall correctly it has the steering locks that will help when running larger tires and a quicker steering ratio.
Dave
Tri shield. Consider the gnx rear, and your pocket book. If you ever get to drive a stock gnx against a stock gn with similar milage and tires you would easly see that a gnx will greatly outhandle a gn---and not just in a straight line. The ladder bar /panhard system attached to the frame is a huge improvement over those 2 upper sheetmetal links holding the axle to the flexable body that is moving around on the frame.The gnx system is very similar to the newer camero/firebird system , which is why those cars handle like a dream. My gn has the gnx repo rear on it , bilstein shocks, full set of body bushings,seat brace (its a t-top), upgraded springs.the front has hollow 36mm sway bar,hd idler arm,and hd dana intermediate arm. the car handles extremely well on road courses and will run circles around a stock gn suspension car. Even NASCARS ive seen use a ladder bar /pan hard suspension and they dont race in a straight line
Originally posted by Matt Weiser
I'll toss in a couple points/opinions:
--Probably the best way for most people to eliminate the 'floaty' feeling in the rear suspension is to use poly body bushings. I still gotta do that one someday.
Ah, it all makes sense now. The upper arms are moving separately from the chassis. I can see where tying the body to the frame would help but why not add a brace across the frame and connect the upper arms to that?
Interesting thread concerning the GNX suspension. You can check out KevinS website for more info on IC.
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=65955&referrerid=4065
I think this could become the next Powermaster vs. Vac. Brakes arguement. Everybody has their own opinion
Dave
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=65955&referrerid=4065
I think this could become the next Powermaster vs. Vac. Brakes arguement. Everybody has their own opinion
Dave
Thanks for the support, JerseyGN. On THIS PLANET, a rear wheel drive car with too much rear roll stiffness will TRY to lift the inside rear wheel coming out of a curve. The excess roll stiffness has such a bad effect on traction that wheel spin and extreme oversteer usually result. But there are LOTS of photos showing cars in the "up on three wheels" attitude, and sometimes there is actually air under that inside tire!
Similar threads
