IFS on C1

[Duntov-097]

Wow maybe I'll go into business If anyone is looking I also found an 89 with a six speed for $5500 I've seen the ZF setups bring 2K alone but I heard they are a ***** to retrofit into our cars. I also found an 85 auto with a blown motor for $2500.

 

[John Mcgraw]

I do not think that one chassis is necessarily "better" than the other, just different. The Corvette correction chassis is square tube and fits under the body better than the SRIII frame, but does not have the torsional ridgidty of the SRIII one. Mike's chassis is deeply triangulated to stiffen it, but it is visible under the body. Mikes design uses coilover shocks, while Billy's uses the original spring. Billy lowers his engine 2" in the chassis which gives more clearance for accessories. I chose Mikes design for the torsional stiffness, and the WOW factor. His frame is without a doubt, the most high tech chassis being sold for the C1. Once you drive a C1 with C4 running gear under it, you will shake your head in amazement just how good it can corner, and it rides great to boot! The car is at least 600 lbs lighter than a C4 and rides better tha a C4 ever thought about. It would be worth you taking a day trip down to Billy's for a test drive in one of his cars. You will be a believer after you have driven one!
I love original C1 cars, and built a 60 two years ago that won a Duntov award, but not every car is a candidate for restoration, and this car was one of them. I set my goals before the start of this project, to have a car that would run into the 12's, handle like a go cart, get 25 mpg on the highway, and be comfortable enough to drive on cross country tours. It became pretty clear to me that a computer controlled LS1 and an overdrive transmission were the logical choice to achieve all my goals, plus the LS1 looks just a high-tech as the chassis! As much as I love C1 cars, the original suspension was an outdated design when it was used on the 53 model, and it did not substantially change for almost 10 years. It does not handle that well, is hard to steer at low speeds, and rides like a farm wagon on rough roads. This type of modification takes care of all of the issues that make the C1 car such a bear to drive and ride in. I didn't want a car to blast around town in on Sunday and then put back in the garage, I wanted a car that I could drive across the contry and not feel like I had been beat with a baseball bat.


Regards, John McGraw

 

[Stan's Customs]

Well... it's clear to see that the forum majority favors the C4 set up. I was hoping some one had tried the Meyer set up with a 4 link just for their 2cents worth too. Must be a reason for that..I guess it's not really a consideration...to anyone that has actually made a choice.

What about the stance of the independent chassis...arn't they a little wider?? What do you guys do for tire clearance and related issues. What size rims and rubber is the choice on the tube framed cars .

One of the reasons I was looking at the other setup......other than being real easy to do.......was because I wanted a little more tire clearance. In fact since my frame has already had the back half replaced, I was even considering narrowing the rear a little for a even more tire room (not radical like big tubs or anything)...just some meat for traction.

Thank you all for your candid opinions...that 's the kind of information I am after.

Stan

 

[IH2LOSE]

All though a blurry photo,This gives you an idea of the stance. Mine will be as low as I can go

The wheels and tires are the same that are on the front of a C5

the tire size is P245/45zr17 with a tire width of about 10"

 

[Duntov-097]

Heres a pic of the stance on my car. I used 16X8 with 245/50/16 so I wouldn't have the rubber band tire look on big wheels. Just my preference. You can adjust the ride height and rake however you like with the coil overs on the SRIII chassis.

 

[Stan's Customs]

Good attitude on both your cars guys...

I take it there are no fender rubbing issues on the front of either of your cars? Is the front tracking width narrower than stock on those chassis?

Stan

 

[IH2LOSE]

Good attitude on both your cars guys...

I take it there are no fender rubbing issues on the front of either of your cars? Is the front tracking width narrower than stock on those chassis?

Stan

I am not following you quetion.

But as for rubbing you have to do some major front wheel well trimming to clear the a arms,On the rear on my car I could not of been able to fit a bigger tire then what I have with out widening the fenders

 

[Stan's Customs]

Sorry...I thought that the tires would rub on the body with a stock suspension if they were wider tires than stock. I had seen several references to that on the forum I thought....maybe they were talking about rubbing on the frame....

Since the tires and wheels you guys are running are a lot bigger than the stock C1 stuff .....using the tube frame/C4 ......I thought that a provision had been made to accomodate a wider tire by narrowing the frame or something...Likle narrower tracking than the C1 for instance?

Stan

 

[John Mcgraw]

The front track on the SIII chassis is almost 1" narrower than a stock C4, but the rear is the same as C4. About the only thing you have to do is trim a little off the tie rod ends from the rack to accomodate the narrower track. The 84-87 suspensions will be an additional 3/4" narrower due to not having the anti-lock brake sensor rings on each side. Most people use tha 245 tires on all corners, but on 61-62 cars, you can go a little wider on the rear. I think that Rich Lagasse told me that he used either 255's or 265's on the rear of his 62. I do know that 245 is the widest that can fit in the stock wheelwells of my 59 and not take a chance on rubbing on the inside on full suspension compression. I believe that Newman and Billy Dawson both use the same narrowed track on the front. If you really want big rear meats, you can narow the rear end and move the wheelwells in or install the bulged quarters.

Regards, John McGraw