Touring setup?
03-29-2004, 11:56 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 174
Touring setup?
Hi!
It seems that most american musclecars such as the camaro are all modified solely to be quick up the quarter mile and on straight flat roads for streetracing etc...
My problem is that I live in the UK and the roads here are small, bumpy and winding with a wide variation of hills.
I was wondering what would be an ideal setup for mid range power and handling around such roads?
Would I need softer suspension to deal with the corners? How could I prepare my car to make it handle better? I wrecked my old third gen on a sharp corner hence why I have my new Z and a desire to make it behave
I feel that the third gen had very tight suspension and the fourth gen seems a whole lot softer. Harder suspension seems less able to keep the tire pressed into the road does this sound right?
What kind of gears would suit me best for mid range power? I was looking into 3.79's but I am concerned about fishtailing around the long bends at high speeds, I don't need quick off the mark acceleration but I also don't need 150+ mph top end. I like the third and fourth gear acceleration
My point is that I occasionally come up against some impressive cars such as TVRs, Ford Cosworths, M5 BMWs etc. and I enjoy surprising them as they try overtaking me but I hate having to back off so much on the corners.
Any ideas?
It seems that most american musclecars such as the camaro are all modified solely to be quick up the quarter mile and on straight flat roads for streetracing etc...
My problem is that I live in the UK and the roads here are small, bumpy and winding with a wide variation of hills.
I was wondering what would be an ideal setup for mid range power and handling around such roads?
Would I need softer suspension to deal with the corners? How could I prepare my car to make it handle better? I wrecked my old third gen on a sharp corner hence why I have my new Z and a desire to make it behave
I feel that the third gen had very tight suspension and the fourth gen seems a whole lot softer. Harder suspension seems less able to keep the tire pressed into the road does this sound right?What kind of gears would suit me best for mid range power? I was looking into 3.79's but I am concerned about fishtailing around the long bends at high speeds, I don't need quick off the mark acceleration but I also don't need 150+ mph top end. I like the third and fourth gear acceleration
My point is that I occasionally come up against some impressive cars such as TVRs, Ford Cosworths, M5 BMWs etc. and I enjoy surprising them as they try overtaking me but I hate having to back off so much on the corners.
Any ideas?
03-29-2004, 01:28 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Friendswood, TX, USA
Posts: 3,769
Go look in this Sect. http://web.camaross.com/forums/forum...?s=&forumid=33
You have one small disadvantage with the F-Body and that of course is the solid rear axle.
The single greatest difference will come from tires. Unfortunately the softer the tires the faster they wear out.
You have one small disadvantage with the F-Body and that of course is the solid rear axle.
The single greatest difference will come from tires. Unfortunately the softer the tires the faster they wear out.
03-30-2004, 07:40 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,931
Re: Touring setup?
Originally posted by CamaroUK
Hi!
It seems that most american musclecars such as the camaro are all modified solely to be quick up the quarter mile and on straight flat roads for streetracing etc...
My problem is that I live in the UK and the roads here are with a wide variation of hills.
I was wondering what would be an ideal setup for mid range power and handling around such roads?
Would I need softer suspension to deal with the corners? How could I prepare my car to make it handle better? I wrecked my old third gen on a sharp corner hence why I have my new Z and a desire to make it behave I feel that the third gen had very tight suspension and the fourth gen seems a whole lot softer. Harder suspension seems less able to keep the tire pressed into the road does this sound right?
That sounds right for your small, bumpy and winding roads. Your 95 probably has somewhat better front suspension geometry than a 3rd gen, but it's not racecar geometry by a long shot.
Consider lowering springs, maybe 1 to 1.5 inches to lower the CG. This helps unless your roads have heaves which cause the car to come close to bottoming now. The stiffer lowering springs will decrease the roll somewhat.
Adjustable shocks, which you can experiment with, would be my next choice. I would try to keep away from very large antiroll bars with your roads. A large front bar ties the actions of the wheels together negating the independant features. The 3rd gen's stiffness and large bars were made for the US highways, not the British byways.
The late Caroll Smith referred to very heavy antiroll bars as a "solid axle conversion kit" for IFS.
For your jousts with the TVRs and M5s, I would suggest the best handling tires you can afford and replace them as needed, which might be frequently. If your spirited driving is limited to dry roads (in the UK?), something like BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD would be a choice. KDW might be better if you drive in the wet, however.
What kind of gears would suit me best for mid range power? I was looking into 3.79's but I am concerned about fishtailing around the long bends at high speeds, I don't need quick off the mark acceleration but I also don't need 150+ mph top end. I like the third and fourth gear acceleration
My point is that I occasionally come up against some impressive cars such as TVRs, Ford Cosworths, M5 BMWs etc. and I enjoy surprising them as they try overtaking me but I hate having to back off so much on the corners.
Any ideas?
3.73 gears might be a good choice. Plug your ratios into this calculator to see what you need to keep the engine in it's best operating range for the speeds you drive.
http://www.f-body.org/gears/
If you want to stay with the M5's, you might consider a little more power, but the chassis changes will let you know if it can handle (pun intended) more.
Hi!
It seems that most american musclecars such as the camaro are all modified solely to be quick up the quarter mile and on straight flat roads for streetracing etc...
My problem is that I live in the UK and the roads here are with a wide variation of hills.
I was wondering what would be an ideal setup for mid range power and handling around such roads?
Would I need softer suspension to deal with the corners? How could I prepare my car to make it handle better? I wrecked my old third gen on a sharp corner hence why I have my new Z and a desire to make it behave
I feel that the third gen had very tight suspension and the fourth gen seems a whole lot softer. Harder suspension seems less able to keep the tire pressed into the road does this sound right?That sounds right for your small, bumpy and winding roads. Your 95 probably has somewhat better front suspension geometry than a 3rd gen, but it's not racecar geometry by a long shot.
Consider lowering springs, maybe 1 to 1.5 inches to lower the CG. This helps unless your roads have heaves which cause the car to come close to bottoming now. The stiffer lowering springs will decrease the roll somewhat.
Adjustable shocks, which you can experiment with, would be my next choice. I would try to keep away from very large antiroll bars with your roads. A large front bar ties the actions of the wheels together negating the independant features. The 3rd gen's stiffness and large bars were made for the US highways, not the British byways.
The late Caroll Smith referred to very heavy antiroll bars as a "solid axle conversion kit" for IFS.For your jousts with the TVRs and M5s, I would suggest the best handling tires you can afford and replace them as needed, which might be frequently. If your spirited driving is limited to dry roads (in the UK?), something like BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD would be a choice. KDW might be better if you drive in the wet, however.
What kind of gears would suit me best for mid range power? I was looking into 3.79's but I am concerned about fishtailing around the long bends at high speeds, I don't need quick off the mark acceleration but I also don't need 150+ mph top end. I like the third and fourth gear acceleration
My point is that I occasionally come up against some impressive cars such as TVRs, Ford Cosworths, M5 BMWs etc. and I enjoy surprising them as they try overtaking me but I hate having to back off so much on the corners.
Any ideas?
3.73 gears might be a good choice. Plug your ratios into this calculator to see what you need to keep the engine in it's best operating range for the speeds you drive.
http://www.f-body.org/gears/
If you want to stay with the M5's, you might consider a little more power, but the chassis changes will let you know if it can handle (pun intended) more.
03-30-2004, 07:46 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 122
Try this site. Great Auto X info and a super body of knowledge regarding suspension, brakes etc & etc.
Steve
http://mtfba.org/rrforum/index.php?
Steve
http://mtfba.org/rrforum/index.php?
03-30-2004, 11:50 AM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 537
CamaroUK. Welcome to the site. I used to live in the UK (Sheffield) and can only imagine what sort of reaction that you get with that car on the roads. NB: In the past, I have helped other UK f-body owners get parts. Should you need assistance in that regard, shoot me an e-mail and I'll see what I can do to help you. (I just re-read this and it looks like I am in the parts business. I am not - I just can get stuff at US prices and drop them in the post for you.)
Anyway, to address your questions, I think the lowering advice is probably pretty good advice. The real question is how much do you really want to spend? This would help set some priorities and some long-term plans. Your choices could be:
1) Koni SA's for the front (there are two spring perches and you can lower the front just with these shocks).
2) Coilover kits such as the ones by LG Motorsports or Ground Control. These threaded kits can be ordered with springs of your choice (rate-wise) and shocks. I have the Ground Control kit with Koni Double-Adjustable shocks on all 4 corners. Each corner has a threaded piece that allows you to independently adjust ride height. This is expensive.
3) On a previous 4th gen, I also did the shock swaybar route. This was a nice compromise between cost, ride quality and performance. For you, the shipping costs for a swaybar would be a significant cost...
While the points above are well understood regarding heavier swaybars, the advantage of them (when compared to a spring change) is that you don't sacrifice ride quality nearly as much. This is down to what you are really looking for.
Rear end gears. Hmmm... My old 4th gen had the stock 3.42's in them and my current car has the 3.73's. I ran both of these cars on road racing courses and I wish I had my 3.42's back. With the 3.42's, I could pretty much use 3rd and 4th. With these 3.73's, I now need to use 2nd-5th... If you aren't going to see much variation in speeds, 3.73's may work for you. If you are going to have a run through the Peak District or Lake District, the 3.42's may be the ticket. I'd check that calculator at the link above. Keep in mind that you have a pretty flat torque curve from about 1,500 - around 4,750 rpms... It's not like my old Mini!
Good tires are definitely good advice. I am not sure what you have available to you...
Post back with some more feedback and let's see if we can fine-tune some input.
Anyway, to address your questions, I think the lowering advice is probably pretty good advice. The real question is how much do you really want to spend? This would help set some priorities and some long-term plans. Your choices could be:
1) Koni SA's for the front (there are two spring perches and you can lower the front just with these shocks).
2) Coilover kits such as the ones by LG Motorsports or Ground Control. These threaded kits can be ordered with springs of your choice (rate-wise) and shocks. I have the Ground Control kit with Koni Double-Adjustable shocks on all 4 corners. Each corner has a threaded piece that allows you to independently adjust ride height. This is expensive.
3) On a previous 4th gen, I also did the shock swaybar route. This was a nice compromise between cost, ride quality and performance. For you, the shipping costs for a swaybar would be a significant cost...
While the points above are well understood regarding heavier swaybars, the advantage of them (when compared to a spring change) is that you don't sacrifice ride quality nearly as much. This is down to what you are really looking for.
Rear end gears. Hmmm... My old 4th gen had the stock 3.42's in them and my current car has the 3.73's. I ran both of these cars on road racing courses and I wish I had my 3.42's back. With the 3.42's, I could pretty much use 3rd and 4th. With these 3.73's, I now need to use 2nd-5th... If you aren't going to see much variation in speeds, 3.73's may work for you. If you are going to have a run through the Peak District or Lake District, the 3.42's may be the ticket. I'd check that calculator at the link above. Keep in mind that you have a pretty flat torque curve from about 1,500 - around 4,750 rpms... It's not like my old Mini!
Good tires are definitely good advice. I am not sure what you have available to you...
Post back with some more feedback and let's see if we can fine-tune some input.
03-30-2004, 03:30 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: abington MA
Posts: 998
this might help a bit, i live down a long dirt road and i didn't want my ride to hurt my back everytime i drive down it so i was looking into the same type of thing. i got eibach lowering springs and kyb gas adjust's they have a soft spot when you first hit them and then they get stiffer so, when i hit bumps it seems to be a bit softer then it has the stiffer section so you can handle good also.
03-30-2004, 07:54 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Brookville, PA
Posts: 715
I have a customer in England with a 4th gen (and one in Spain, Greece, and a few in Germany too). I'll be damned if I can remember his name...... Anyway, I know he did some posting on an F-body Europe site might want to try and find him. We did a kit with some Revalved Bilstein shocks and Eibach springs, etc. He reported to me he was very pleased with the way the car drove. FWIW.
AS for the gears. I'd say the 3.73 would be absolutely perfect for you. Not too deep to kill mileage, deep enough to make 4th and 5th more useable than normal on the smaller roads.... Fits a stock series 3 carrier. Cheap, readily available.
AS for the gears. I'd say the 3.73 would be absolutely perfect for you. Not too deep to kill mileage, deep enough to make 4th and 5th more useable than normal on the smaller roads.... Fits a stock series 3 carrier. Cheap, readily available.
03-31-2004, 06:14 PM
#10
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 174
Thanks for the replys guys!
To clarify on my driving needs, well I do drive in both wet and dry conditions, the car is my daily driver and the weather here is "tempermental" I'm sure KeithO can vouch for that
To be honest I don't push the car in the wet, its not an option. In the dry however I like to have the occasional bit of fun.
I dont want to hurt fuel economy too much when I'm just doing normal driving but I also want to have power on tap should I need it without the fear of powersliding into the bank the other side of the road.
My car is completely stock at the moment, and I notice the car drags the tires sideways in the sharp turns even when I'm not touching the gas pedal
I don't want this to happen at a fast speed on a slight bend!!!
As my car is quite new and I intend on keeping it for a while I dont mind paying a half decent amount for peace of mind as far as suspension mods go but I'm not made of money
Will lowering 1-1.5" really make all the difference? I was thinking along the lines of coilovers.
To clarify on my driving needs, well I do drive in both wet and dry conditions, the car is my daily driver and the weather here is "tempermental" I'm sure KeithO can vouch for that
To be honest I don't push the car in the wet, its not an option. In the dry however I like to have the occasional bit of fun.
I dont want to hurt fuel economy too much when I'm just doing normal driving but I also want to have power on tap should I need it without the fear of powersliding into the bank the other side of the road.
My car is completely stock at the moment, and I notice the car drags the tires sideways in the sharp turns even when I'm not touching the gas pedal
I don't want this to happen at a fast speed on a slight bend!!!As my car is quite new and I intend on keeping it for a while I dont mind paying a half decent amount for peace of mind as far as suspension mods go but I'm not made of money
Will lowering 1-1.5" really make all the difference? I was thinking along the lines of coilovers.
03-31-2004, 08:22 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 537
Well, then, I would go with coilovers and a decent set of shocks (er, dampers). 01 FS Z28 is truly the expert here. My opinion? Stick with the 3.42 gears for now and focus on the suspension. Should you find that the new-found handling capabilities (a good suspension setup with blow your mind in these cars) have exposed the rear gearing as an area for improvement, then look there...
According to the receipts that came with my most recent f-body (click link in the sig for pics), the coilover kit with Koni double-adjustable shocks was about 1,000 pounds sterling... I think that the Koni's hiked the price and there may be other less-expensive options, but that is speculation only. 01 FS Z28 could answer that question...
Let me know how it goes and what you decide to do.
According to the receipts that came with my most recent f-body (click link in the sig for pics), the coilover kit with Koni double-adjustable shocks was about 1,000 pounds sterling... I think that the Koni's hiked the price and there may be other less-expensive options, but that is speculation only. 01 FS Z28 could answer that question...
Let me know how it goes and what you decide to do.
04-01-2004, 01:40 PM
#12
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 174
I also have a question about choice of tire.
I have the stock 16" Camaro wheels with the Good Year Eagle RS-A 245/50ZR16 tires. In my opinion I dont like the look of the stock wheels and it looks too small from a distance.
I was hoping to go for 17" possibly 18" wheels with tires that maintain the stock overall diameter.
However would the lower profile tires for the 18"s negate what I'm hoping to achieve handling wise? I'm thinking about the lateral suspension provided by the tire walls.
Would 17"s be better with a taller tire?
Also what about tire width? The stock road surface width of the Good Years is about 8" would I gain a lot by going to 9" plus?
I have the stock 16" Camaro wheels with the Good Year Eagle RS-A 245/50ZR16 tires. In my opinion I dont like the look of the stock wheels and it looks too small from a distance.
I was hoping to go for 17" possibly 18" wheels with tires that maintain the stock overall diameter.
However would the lower profile tires for the 18"s negate what I'm hoping to achieve handling wise? I'm thinking about the lateral suspension provided by the tire walls.
Would 17"s be better with a taller tire?
Also what about tire width? The stock road surface width of the Good Years is about 8" would I gain a lot by going to 9" plus?
04-02-2004, 05:01 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 537
The SS Camaros came with the 17x9" wheels and I don't remember the tire size. On my 1995 Firebird (see sig), I have 17x9.5 with 275/40 R17 tires. This maintains the stock ride height since I traded diameter (275) and profile (40).
The width of the tire contact patch is determined by the tire, not really the wheel. The wheel just determines what bead width can be mounted and from there you can choose the width to fit your needs. The SS wheel package would be one tried and true way to go. Another is to go even bigger. To improve grip, I have seen people use 17x9.5 front, 17x11 rears with 275/40 front 315/xx rear...
The width of the tire contact patch is determined by the tire, not really the wheel. The wheel just determines what bead width can be mounted and from there you can choose the width to fit your needs. The SS wheel package would be one tried and true way to go. Another is to go even bigger. To improve grip, I have seen people use 17x9.5 front, 17x11 rears with 275/40 front 315/xx rear...
04-02-2004, 06:49 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,931
Originally posted by CamaroUK
I also have a question about choice of tire.
I have the stock 16" Camaro wheels with the Good Year Eagle RS-A 245/50ZR16 tires. In my opinion I dont like the look of the stock wheels and it looks too small from a distance.
I was hoping to go for 17" possibly 18" wheels with tires that maintain the stock overall diameter.
However would the lower profile tires for the 18"s negate what I'm hoping to achieve handling wise? I'm thinking about the lateral suspension provided by the tire walls.
If you mean "taller sidewall is stiffer laterally" it is just the opposite. The downside is that shorter sidewalls are less tolerant of potholes or other sharp impacts.
Yes SS has 275/40-17 stock size, which are the same diameter as your 245/50-16s. With 18's you get down to 35 aspect ratio which makes the pothole thing worse. Also remember that 18s have more of their mass or rotating inertia near the outside compared to 16s of the same diameter. That slows acceleration a little.
Would 17"s be better with a taller tire?
Also what about tire width? The stock road surface width of the Good Years is about 8" would I gain a lot by going to 9" plus?
KeithO has a good point about contact patch.
More important that actual contact patch width is tire construction. A tire like the BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD even in 16 inch size will give you better lateral force than a larger, but less competent tire. Size is important, but it's not the MOST important thing. RSA's are maybe 2 on a scale of 1-5 with KD's being a strong 5. Just my opinion.
Each tire size has a recommended wheel width range and a design wheel width. Stay in the range. Wider than design does make the tire a little stiffer laterally. I like 17 x 9 or 9.5s for Camaro.
With about 55% of the weight on the fronts, and with more roll stiffness in the front, they do most of the cornering work. Don't skimp on size there. 255/50-16 or 275/40-17 should be about right, provided you get a max performance tire.
Unless you have lots of excess hp, keep the fronts and rears the same size. You can tune a bit with tire pressure.
I also have a question about choice of tire.
I have the stock 16" Camaro wheels with the Good Year Eagle RS-A 245/50ZR16 tires. In my opinion I dont like the look of the stock wheels and it looks too small from a distance.
I was hoping to go for 17" possibly 18" wheels with tires that maintain the stock overall diameter.
However would the lower profile tires for the 18"s negate what I'm hoping to achieve handling wise? I'm thinking about the lateral suspension provided by the tire walls.
If you mean "taller sidewall is stiffer laterally" it is just the opposite. The downside is that shorter sidewalls are less tolerant of potholes or other sharp impacts.
Yes SS has 275/40-17 stock size, which are the same diameter as your 245/50-16s. With 18's you get down to 35 aspect ratio which makes the pothole thing worse. Also remember that 18s have more of their mass or rotating inertia near the outside compared to 16s of the same diameter. That slows acceleration a little.
Would 17"s be better with a taller tire?
Also what about tire width? The stock road surface width of the Good Years is about 8" would I gain a lot by going to 9" plus?
KeithO has a good point about contact patch.
More important that actual contact patch width is tire construction. A tire like the BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KD even in 16 inch size will give you better lateral force than a larger, but less competent tire. Size is important, but it's not the MOST important thing. RSA's are maybe 2 on a scale of 1-5 with KD's being a strong 5. Just my opinion.
Each tire size has a recommended wheel width range and a design wheel width. Stay in the range. Wider than design does make the tire a little stiffer laterally. I like 17 x 9 or 9.5s for Camaro.
With about 55% of the weight on the fronts, and with more roll stiffness in the front, they do most of the cornering work. Don't skimp on size there. 255/50-16 or 275/40-17 should be about right, provided you get a max performance tire.
Unless you have lots of excess hp, keep the fronts and rears the same size. You can tune a bit with tire pressure.
04-04-2004, 03:30 PM
#15
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 174
The pothole thing is quite an issue, the roads here are full of joins, repairs and potholes.
In my experience, cars with a shorter sidewall seem to have less tolerance to road imperfections (this is what I meant in my previous post) when cornering at a decent speed the slightest bump tends to make the car skip/shudder sideways as I guess the tire is momentarily off the ground and cornering G's do the rest.
I would like at least 17" wheels as the 16"s look too small (I'm trying to improve the appearance too )
My problem here is I would choose the wheel first and then select a tire to fit, say I picked out a 17" rim, and planned on running 9.5" wide tires what sort of rim bead width would I need as a minimum what are the limits generally?
How can I recognise the width range? is it marked on the tire?
In my experience, cars with a shorter sidewall seem to have less tolerance to road imperfections (this is what I meant in my previous post) when cornering at a decent speed the slightest bump tends to make the car skip/shudder sideways as I guess the tire is momentarily off the ground and cornering G's do the rest.
I would like at least 17" wheels as the 16"s look too small (I'm trying to improve the appearance too
)My problem here is I would choose the wheel first and then select a tire to fit, say I picked out a 17" rim, and planned on running 9.5" wide tires what sort of rim bead width would I need as a minimum what are the limits generally?
Each tire size has a recommended wheel width range and a design wheel width. Stay in the range.
Last edited by CamaroUK; 04-04-2004 at 03:45 PM.