1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Shocks, Springs, Brakes, Frame, Body Work, etc

Moderator: Team

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7052
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby pdq67 » Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:26 pm

Does anybody have the stock front roll center location points measurements?

Upper A-Arm mount points and ball joint.
Lower A-Arm mount points and ball joint.
Tire centerlines from center of the car.
Wheel spud height. (D-70/14 Redline tires - 25.3" to 25.5" in dia.).
Etc., etc.....

I want to see what my car rolls at now that I have modified it, but I didn't check it before I changed everything.

Thanks in advance.

pdq67

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7052
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby pdq67 » Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:22 pm

Nothing here??

pdq67

crazyamc
Member
Member
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby crazyamc » Tue Mar 08, 2016 10:17 pm

I'm at work and delirious right now, but google "guldstrand mod" and Pozzi Camaro site.... Ken

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7052
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby pdq67 » Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:46 pm

I just found this site...

http://www.musclecardiy.com/performance ... -upgrades/

Good info.

pdq67

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7052
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby pdq67 » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:37 pm

Just finished measuring and then laying out on a drafting board my '67 Camaro's front roll center and found that it is now about 2.5" ABOVE ground!

I have read/heard that 1st Gen. Camaro cars have a stock, "a bit" below ground measurement front roll center so am now wondering how this will affect my car when pushed hard?

Anybody got a guess or would have any experience here??

Some say that it might, "porpoise" in a hard turn??

In other words, raise the inside tire off the ground when pushed WAY HARD??

pdq67

j-rho
New Member
New Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby j-rho » Tue Aug 02, 2016 11:06 pm

Roll center is going to move dependent on ride height. Is that location based on stock height or your actual installed height? Lots of room to lower things.

Lifting the inside front tire isn't necessarily an indication of something wrong. Rear-heavy cars like 911s do it all the time, and even nose-heavy cars can do it when the conditions dictate - i.e. rear roll stiffness relatively soft compared to front, high grip, and cornering under acceleration. By the other side of the same token, FWD race cars often lift their inside rear wheel.

I caught a video frame where I think mine did it once:
Image

You might be thinking of "jacking" which can occur when the RC is much too high, but I don't think it'd be a problem at 2.5" above ground. If you're going to be running crummy ancient tires with no grip, you might not ever work the suspension hard enough for its shortcomings to get that bad. I ran about 6 degrees static negative camber in mine :)

Handling is not these cars' strong suit - they can be made to be fun but you're starting from a pretty bad place. I jabber a lot about first gen Camaro suspension on my blog if you're ever bored: http://www.rhoadescamaro.com/build/?cat=10

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7052
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby pdq67 » Wed Aug 03, 2016 11:19 pm

j-rho,

At one time I had my '67 Camaro set up as follows..

Front, BB A/C coils with aluminum screw-in spacers, an ADDCO 1" sway-bar set level and stock firestone D-70/14 redline wide ovals.

Rear, stock mono's with homemade slappers that slapped right under the middle of the front spring eyes, coil-over, overload springs and an ADDCO 3/4" rear sway-bar. Tires, G-60/14s

I T&T'd the overload coils as well as my slapper gaps over a Sat afternoon until it left like a "rabbit outta the chute at a dog track!"...

Anyway, it was so stiff that it would almost skip sideways at speed going FAST around a 90 degree corner in town. Sure, it pushed hard, but I throttled it to get it to go where I pointed it!

I still have the A/C coil springs out in the garage, but I hung a slapper-bar on a RR crossing rail due to a deep pothole right at the rail and broke one of my mono's so lost them early on. Ended up with '68 'Bird multi-leafs on the back that ended up breaking the short leafs..

My car has full poly under it now except for the rear sway-bar rear end housing rubbers. I will switch them out onna these days..

I installed ProMotorsports spindle extenders on my stock spindles to raise my front roll center and it did to about 2.5" above ground. My front springs are clock cut 5536's with a coil cut off so my car now sits LOW!! I raised the rear leaf spring front eye mount points about 1" to maybe 1.25", (I forget?), to try to better the rear roll center. I "windowed" my rear, front spring eye bracket tops to fit them......

Rear leafs are JCW, Nova 3-leaf mono replacements with a couple of leafs added from the 'Bird springs to really stiffen them. BUT like you mentioned, they are arched way too high!!

Hope all this is of interest??

pdq67

PS., and I have met David Pozzi and his lovely wife years ago. I ended up ranting about a job loss so he probably doesn't want to remember me??? He, He!! Great guy by me...

j-rho
New Member
New Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby j-rho » Thu Aug 04, 2016 10:01 pm

I think we may have crossed paths virtually on camaros.org and maybe elsewhere.

It's fun to try to make these things turn. And since they're so bad, it's easy to dive in deep and start replacing everything. Autocrossed mine for a season with shortened front upper arms but otherwise stock geometry - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeSZkTGG5x8

That was on class-limit 265/35-18 Hankook 200TW tires, which provide way way way more grip than those 14's will. Avon makes a tire called the CR6ZZ that offers more modern grip and feel but still looks vintage. Tires will make a bigger difference than just about everything else you can do to the car.

Generically, a higher roll center means the roll center and center of gravity are closer together, which means the car will roll less at a given lateral acceleration. There are some downsides to this but when the camber curve is one that suffers with roll (as is the case with most production cars but especially these old things) it is probably a net positive thing for front end grip.

I talk a bit more about the problem with these cars here: http://www.rhoadescamaro.com/build/?p=338

Good luck, have fun!!

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7052
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby pdq67 » Fri Aug 05, 2016 8:29 am

Stock lower A-Arm ride height except for tire diameter change.

On my front, I went from stock D-70/14 "redlines", to 225-45/17's now.

I really want a pair of Tyler Beauregard's, (SC&C), fully adjustable upper A-Arms, but they are a bit pricey.

I think that JimM, (1st Gen. site owner), has them on his '68 vert..

pdq67

j-rho
New Member
New Member
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 9:02 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby j-rho » Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:26 pm

You're talking about these ones?
http://scandc.com/new/node/24

I ran those in my car (stock height ball joint though), and shortened their length a bit beyond their initial range so I could get even more negative camber.
http://www.rhoadescamaro.com/build/?p=1461

With stock geometry, 1400+lb. front springs (about 2x the rate most run) and a huge front bar, -6 was about right :)
Image

Those 17's should be a lot better (assuming they're a decent performance construction and compound) but there's still room to get way more grip going wider on wheel and tire! Next iteration of mine I'm hoping to fit 315's on 11's all around. :D Part of making that work, I went with the high-clearance but not-adjustable upper arms from Speedtech (I think?) - they should allow more wheel inboard without the below happening. I'll have to run traditional camber shims to get it where I want, but I've also gone to 2" taller spindles now so I'm hoping -3 or so static camber will be enough now.

Image

pdq67
Guru
Guru
Posts: 7052
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: 1st Gen. Camaro Frontend Info.

Postby pdq67 » Fri Aug 05, 2016 2:48 pm

Yes, those adjustable upper A-Arms....

I forgot to mention that I have Pro-Motorsports "spindle extenders" on my stock upper A-Arms on my car. They raise the front upper ball-joints right at 1-15/16"!

Rims are 8" x 17", "Pony-car" Bullitt's! I had Moser's convert my stuff to the Ford 4.5 bolt circle so I could mount them, and to this day, I think they are the best looking stock rim going!

I would really like to have stock type just 1.5" taller though. Don't want 2" dropped stock type taller spindles...

I have four stock spindles and if it wasn't such a hassle, I would cut and weld them to make a pair of 1.5" taller ones! of course, certified welder, heat-treated and x-ray'd and mag'd for safety here!! Whatever is needed to guarantee them safe to use.

pdq67


Return to “Chassis / Suspension / Body”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests