help wanting to put vette suspension on gn
- Thread starter redd111
- Start date
Welcome!
By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
Are you talking about the brakes? Otherwise, the only real improvement is if you are wanting to do a rear suspension from a Vette. Although it will take a ton of cutting and welding. Probably not the most economical way and you wont get much help on this board. If you are talking about the brakes. I can help.
Junior Samples
Walk Away
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
They make front kits for transverse leaf based on the C4 for about a grand, ment for a C3. both upper and lower arms with leaf in the middle, I had one on my 78 and liked it, and could prolly be made to fit with big weight reduction since your getting rid of coils and replacing with fiberglass leaf.
Other then that your looking at some serious custom fab like Stu said and some big money for C5 or 6 suspension and prolly not worth the hassle.
doesnt hurt to dream and the only dumb questions are those not asked
Other then that your looking at some serious custom fab like Stu said and some big money for C5 or 6 suspension and prolly not worth the hassle.
doesnt hurt to dream and the only dumb questions are those not asked
TurboBuickSix
Active Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Messages
- 1,118
Wouldn't it be easier to put the GN drivetrain in the Vette? What are the plans for this car? Autocross?
Hi Redd,
This is probably a good time to refresh this thread:
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/ge...-rear-into-tr.html?highlight=independent+rear
Since six years (+/-) have passed since the posting of this thread, not all of the data may be up-to-date, but I'm sure at least the bulk of it still applies.
Some basic points:
1.) An IRS swap will add weight to the car, not subtract it. The weight savings occurs only in the realm of unsprung mass.
2.) An IRS has limited (perhaps 50%) anti-squat.
3.) You'll probably have to go back to C4 or older to get an IRS that's narrow enough to fit in a G-body without undue modifications.
4.) You'd better be a seasoned ace fabricator to make the swap. Expect absolutely everything to require modification/adaptation to work in a G-body.
It wasn't long after I started that thread, that I came to the conclusion that the best overall solution (cost, complexity, benefits) to the handling/traction problem was to use a 3-L rear with Panhard rod. Apparently Ford came to the same conclusion with their latest generation Mustang.
And one of these days, I'll actually find the time to do it...
Best,
MAP
This is probably a good time to refresh this thread:
http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/ge...-rear-into-tr.html?highlight=independent+rear
Since six years (+/-) have passed since the posting of this thread, not all of the data may be up-to-date, but I'm sure at least the bulk of it still applies.
Some basic points:
1.) An IRS swap will add weight to the car, not subtract it. The weight savings occurs only in the realm of unsprung mass.
2.) An IRS has limited (perhaps 50%) anti-squat.
3.) You'll probably have to go back to C4 or older to get an IRS that's narrow enough to fit in a G-body without undue modifications.
4.) You'd better be a seasoned ace fabricator to make the swap. Expect absolutely everything to require modification/adaptation to work in a G-body.
It wasn't long after I started that thread, that I came to the conclusion that the best overall solution (cost, complexity, benefits) to the handling/traction problem was to use a 3-L rear with Panhard rod. Apparently Ford came to the same conclusion with their latest generation Mustang.
And one of these days, I'll actually find the time to do it...
Best,
MAP
