drain89

iTrader: (10)

Pro's and con's of each one (besides costs)?
UE's decoupled version proven for street duty?
Experts...your opinions please.

vsixtoy

I like the basic design but I think personally it could be improved on and more stable to replace the floating center link with a torque absorber under the braking side to keep the forward bite snubber from "freewheeling" so-to-speak. I'd like to see a certain amount of pressure be built up the more it decouples to snug itself back into place as braking is relieved and not slammed back on when the power is applied. This way , the more braking force applied, then the instant center 'progressively move forward rather than causing an immediate jump towards the front causing the nose to brake dive.

UE may have it set-up so the rubber snubbers are always in contact and just damper each way, but it looks to me that this isn't the case from what I see. As those rubber snubbers wear, the "freewheeling" space between gas and brake gets worst and slams in contact just as you'd feel a broken tranny mount do with a stock torque arm.

You'd be looking at another $200 to set things up as I discribed.

I could be wrong thought, it need to be road tested over time- we'll see.

vsixtoy

I would not even be interested in trying one for my car because its a V6 and what I have done to it. If I had a V8 car I think I would definately be interested in trying it.

The reason for me not wanting one with my V6 is because the weight bias on my car is different along with my springs types and rates- I have an entirely different setup than anyone here on the boards and have found that the close to stock length of Spohns design fits me perfectly.
1) I don't have very much rear to front weight transfer under braking.
2)my nose end is lighter than most of you by at least 200lbs- and this is pushed back a little further also so this equate to alot more loss in nose dive under braking.
3) I have very high rate fronts springs, and a very high rebound rate on the rear shocks
4) I run progessive rear springs that induce squat on initial braking and cornering, but snubbers stiffen a rather quick but progressive rate when compressed upping the stiffness dramatically while still allowing squat first. This also controls weight transfer without very stiff linear springs unloading the rear -or- soft springs causing wheel hop.
5) I don't suffer from high HP front to rear transfer exiting the corners either My instant center stays put alot more than you V8 guys

Spohns works for me.

drain89

iTrader: (10)

I currently have a Global West TracLink from a 4th gen T56 car (that version uses a tad shorter arm than the 3rd gen or auto version), which will work for my application since I converted to t56.
I haven't installed the traclink yet, so I can only go buy what others have said about them. I know jerrywho really likes his and others I spoke to swear by them. It seems to be a very versatile piece that works well not only on the road track but on the street as well.....which appeals to me.
I don't know if this UA setup would be better...or if so, worth getting rid of my traclink to get it.

vsixtoy

The thing to consider most (which I have no experience at all tweaking a V8 high HP {edit- thirdgen camaro/firebird} car) is UE is showing their instant center in the dirt (lower level) than what most here run do to LCA angles. I don't have any experience to know if his shorter version will withstand wheelhop under exceleration at slower speeds with the LCA angle he's presenting. On the flip aide(braking) that steeper angle most around here run their LCA's will put that brake instant center up higher and unload the rear more. This gets alittle technical, but its the same basic principle of the roll center heights and side to side weight transfer- and how it affects spring rate (only here, we are talking front to rear).

The Trac-link would keep the car from standing on the nose as much- I like that. Brake wheelhop can be better controlled through the right choice of shock damper and springs.

Personally, I have never heard of anyone getting brake hop on the street. And even on the track, its only the heavier 4th gens that I have ever heard experiencing this.

drain89

iTrader: (10)

Thanks dean. I'm gonna keep the traclink.

Oh...one other thing:
Do you think that the upper panhard rod brace is necessary? Or can it be removed for additional exhaust clearance w/o compromising anything?

vsixtoy

If my Camaro wasn't a designated street car, I would be further bracing the hell out of this area of the subframe. The stock brace is absolutely necessary.

Dewey316

Dean,

If the UE peice can effectivly control wheel hop, both accelerating and braking, with the angle like he pictures on his site. That would be a very good thing, that would let you set the LCA's so that you would have roll understeer, instead of having to have a slight amout of oversteer, because you need the foward traction. That would help make the car SO much more predictable.

Let me also add, that I have talked to Jason about this, the TA will not fit in a thirdgen. I specificly asked him if it could be adapted, he said no. He did say he is working on making a thirgen version.

vsixtoy

I totally agree on the angle (I run almost that same angle on my car). But as I stated above it would have to be tested on street use coming off stop signs and lights from a dead stop. We both know those slow speed don't happen on a road course so it may be fine there at 30mph and above(based on someone HP levels)