A-Body Level II Rear Suspension

-
K

Kazmainiandevil

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
NJ
better consider your clearance between the tank and the rearend. i don't think i could get that panhard bar in my car as low as it is. i guess if you ran a fuel cell you would be fine it looks like. check out RMS before you decide. i raced jon clarks valiant at the popular hot rodding musclecar challenge,and i was very impressed with the RMS stuff.
 
Before I left XV, I modified the current level II to fit the A body. I would not suggest using it at this point. Under the direction of the ownership, I made it "fit". I have now idea how it works. It does require a custom tank too. It is a completely untested product, (like most XV parts), and was put on a non running car for picture purposes.
 
That rear sway bar design is interesting as hell. Very intriguing.

A_REAR_01-640-400.jpg
 
In theory its a good idea, becuase its sprung weight. However, in practice, it complicated things and makes the critical third link mounting uncessarily difficult. Besides, the independent articulation of the suspension relies on the hiem joints of the third link twisting. Sketchy at best.
 
GMachineDartGT said:
In theory its a good idea, becuase its sprung weight. However, in practice, it complicated things and makes the critical third link mounting uncessarily difficult. Besides, the independent articulation of the suspension relies on the hiem joints of the third link twisting. Sketchy at best.
Click to expand...

Twisting in the upper third link? I'm not seeing it Gmachine... If you use two rod ends, you effectively double articulation and if you don't run out of axial rotation (about the upper link) then zero friction, no twisting. I would be more concerned about the tiny length and how anti-squat and tire loading works. Or perhaps one of those links in the upper is a bushing? Hard to tell from pic? GMachine, do you know of a good and affordable software for evaluating these 3 links? Bill Shopes webpage is back up here: http://www.shopeshop.org/contentsDrag.htm

HOWEVER, that tells me how to arrive at the optimum solution. I want to go at it in reverse. That is, here is my design, given packaging consideration, now what do I end up with, as far as anti-squat, tire loading, etc....

thanks,
Cam
 
GMachineDartGT said:
In theory its a good idea, becuase its sprung weight. However, in practice, it complicated things and makes the critical third link mounting uncessarily difficult. Besides, the independent articulation of the suspension relies on the hiem joints of the third link twisting. Sketchy at best.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if twist in the upper third link would be a problem with two rod ends in it. Does the upper their link use a bushing in one end that limits articulation?

Also, GmachineDartGT, do you know of a good and affordable software package for evaluating this and other suspension designs? Bill Shope's webpage is back up here: http://www.shopeshop.org/contentsDrag.htm

That information is good for designing the perfect solution, but packaging constraints limit options and I want to see how the XV system compares to my own designs.

thanks,
Cam
 
I talked with someone close to DSE and they just received an E body roller last month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top