Global Wests negative roll front suspension for the 5th gen gbody calls for tall spindles. I would like to combine this with Baers "track" front brakes but there is no mention of tall spindles on Baers site. Has anyone installed this combination on their cars or know anything about whether they will work together?

Any company recommending tall spindles for a handling improvement on an "A" or "G" platform needs to go back to basic suspension design 101. I know of GW, and don't recommend any of their products or advice. They make a nice bushing (Del-a-Lum) but so does AFCO or any number of other manufactures building Teflon lined bushings for a much more reasonable price.

As for running tall spindles with Baer brakes, it has been done many, many times. Call Baer directly and tell them what you want, they will give the part numbers required to make it happen.

Hotrod,
I have installed GW a-arms on my 87. My friend put the Hotchkis arms on his and comparing the two the GW are way better built! I'm still running the fact GM 12" rotors/calipers from the 89 Caprice Wagon and they have plenty of stopping power. However they are very heavy and I too will eventually upgrade to aftermarket hub/hat/rotor and calipers. I disagree with dennis68 on the factory geometry issue. The difference in cornering with the tall spindles is HUGE! Take a look at the newer model Mustangs and see how tall those spindles are. By the way-if you update the rear brakes to disc ( I have wilwood 12" ) get the largest front calipers ( total piston volume) you can get as this will make balancing the front/rear easier. I have my prop valve maxed out and it barely keeps from locking the rears first-Very bad if that happens-the rearend tries to pass the frontend!

I disagree with dennis68 on the factory geometry issue. The difference in cornering with the tall spindles is HUGE! Take a look at the newer model Mustangs and see how tall those spindles are. Nothing to disagree with, you have an opinion, I have hundreds of hours of engineering spreadsheets and the backing of every suspension expert that has ever analyzed the A/G suspension. You are also incorrectly comparing the late Mustang spindle height to all suspensions. There are so many other variable that need to be considered besides the spindle length. It is true that the spindle needs to be taller, but the means by which GW recommends going about it are totally wrong. The tall spindle swap was a very old school approach to accomplish one thing, improve the negative camber gain during bump, with no consideration to how it affected the other equally important aspects of suspension design.

Is it possible your biased opinion as to how well it works is based partially on the desire for it to work since you went through all the time and expense of doing it and partially by the fact that you replaced all the bushings, ball joints, and linkage which was probably more to blame for the poor handling than the factory geometry?

I disagree with dennis68 on the factory geometry issue. The difference in cornering with the tall spindles is HUGE! Take a look at the newer model Mustangs and see how tall those spindles are. Nothing to disagree with, you have an opinion, I have hundreds of hours of engineering spreadsheets and the backing of every suspension expert that has ever analyzed the A/G suspension. You are also incorrectly comparing the late Mustang spindle height to all suspensions. There are so many other variable that need to be considered besides the spindle length. It is true that the spindle needs to be taller, but the means by which GW recommends going about it are totally wrong. The tall spindle swap was a very old school approach to accomplish one thing, improve the negative camber gain during bump, with no consideration to how it affected the other equally important aspects of suspension design.

Is it possible your biased opinion as to how well it works is based partially on the desire for it to work since you went through all the time and expense of doing it and partially by the fact that you replaced all the bushings, ball joints, and linkage which was probably more to blame for the poor handling than the factory geometry?

Hey Dennis68 I'm truly interested in your opinion and you seem to have facts to back them up however since it's my money I'm spending I was just wondering who the suspension experts are that you are referring to. I would really like to call them and get the benefit of their advice as well. I also have a question for you. Are the dimensions on a 5th gen Elky the same as yours? If so would you be willing to part with your hard earned dimensions? I've got the same suspension program you have I think. :)

Heatsoaked I've used GW's bushings before and I thought they were great so this time I was considering using their arms as well. I'll check out AFCO too Dennis. Thanks for the advice and opinions you guys.

Chris, I am using the full version of Wingeo3, Performance Trends was OK but left a few things to be desired for running full analysis. You can check with the guys at ATS, Marcus at SC&C, any of the guys running early GM's at corner-carvers (they are all engineers& and big meany heads so watch out), Mark Steilow (although difficult to get a hold of), Kyle at DSE even though he is geared more towards the "F" body, heck pretty much everybody but Baer brakes (they still sell the tall spindle with their kit) and GW has concluded that the tall spindles suck and there is no fix to running them. Probably best talking with Marcus; he specializes in the 5th gen chassis.

No, I'm sure the x,y,z measurements are different from the "A" to "G" bodies, besides-NOBODY runs my measurements, too harsh for most. If you are going to play with any of the analysis programs it is important that your measurements be accurate...and I mean to the 1/8". It should take at least a couple hours to accurately measure the front.

dennis68-You agree the spindle lenght needs to be taller for performance than GM made them but how else can you accomplish that without simply bolting some in? Short of modifying the a-arm mounting locations -the arms themselves are the only things left? The GW arms improve the - camber gain which I believe to be the biggest issue and they increase caster. The improved caster makes the steering a little heavy at parking lot speeds but the stability at road speed is really nice. I will admit the swap did induce more bumpsteer which was uneasy in a corner if you hit a dip/bump at the same time. However I basically eliminated that by useing tie rod adapters from afco to raise the mounting point on the spindle. Yes, I will agree that replacing the bushings, ball joints, springs and shocks during the conversion added to the overall effect. Tire/wheel size will greatly affect the handleing also. As with everything else it takes everything to work together. Sometimes you change one thing and its benefit wont be realized until you change something else. Now if I can find somebody who has adapted a rack and pinion to a G-body I wont have to be the first one to do it! Thanks for your thoughts!

dennis68-You agree the spindle length needs to be taller for performance than GM made them but how else can you accomplish that without simply bolting some in? There are a bunch of different options out there for taller spindles without going to the "B"/"F" spindle. Fatman has a tall spindle, ATS has a tall spindle, Coleman and SCP also have tall spindle (although some work is required to make them fit). SC&C working with Howe also have tall ball joints that will accomplish much the same thing. There is also a company, can’t remember who, who makes ball joint extenders. The GW arms improve the - camber gain which I believe to be the biggest issue and they increase caster. Actually replacing the CA has nothing to do with the improved negative camber gain, that is why the spindle needs to be taller. The arms just simplify the alignment process (not really but that is the claim) and add some positive caster. I will admit the swap did induce more bump steer which was uneasy in a corner if you hit a dip/bump at the same time. However I basically eliminated that by using tie rod adapters from afco to raise the mounting point on the spindle. Good attempt to resolve the issue but you didn't raise it enough. I tried, you cannot fix the bump steer issue period. You would have to cut the steering arms off and re-weld in a new position.

Well after a year of talking about it and too many nights up past midnight punching keys looking for the elusive "perfect" combination of parts and fabrication work it's done. The Coleman upright/custom steer arm/piece together brake system is finally on and rolling. I'll spare the details of exactly what was involved as you can read all about it at www.onrails.us if you so desire, instead I'll post a pic or two and just say that I have driven about vehicle known to man including the infamous Viper, Z06, BMW 8 series, M5, Porsche, etc... and this thing flat hauls ass! I could literally drive it on some of the worst roads around with little more than one finger holding the wheel as there is zero feedback in the form of bump steer and even with 950# springs it rides comfortable. The 2" spindle drop in the circle track uprights puts the ride height just right while still maintaining a minimal amount of ground clearance.

http://www.onrails.us/images/rstopveiw.jpg


And here is where it sits now-

http://www.onrails.us/images/frontground.jpg

Like your web site, Dennis, but I'm an engineer and we're wierd about tech info... ;-)

Anyway, my question is where there is similar info for a G-body, since I'm driving an '84?

Marcus at SC&C (http://www.scandc.com/) is probably the most knowledgeable "G" body guy around. He has done tons of research including a prototype 3-link that is almost ready for launch and a redesigned front suspension based around the C5 upright.

Thanks for the kind words, I try to keep it basic enough for anyone to understand yet technical enough for those who are able to understand the thought process and design work that went into the project.