Factory Five Racing Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
GTM# 255
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Will someone please enlighten me about the subtleties of the GTM standard (Corvette) suspension in relation to camber, caster, and toe? Are they all adjustable on the standard GTM? Are there aftermarket enhancements that would allow all 3 adjustments?

Thanks for the info in advance,
Scrivy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,573 Posts
All of the same adjustments on the 'Vette are the same on the GTM....with the exception that I think you could have a bit more adjustment on the front suspension on the 'Vette by using spacers on the upper control arm bolts to move it around, and that adjustment's not really available on the GTM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,313 Posts
Well, I really have two ways to go with your question.

Either you are asking for a general description, which would be available from just about any source on either the GTM or the Vette. Magazine reviews, spec sheets, etc, Or...

You really meant to ask what the adjustable elements of the suspension are.

If it was the later, then as far as I know slotted brackets and eccentric bushings/bolts are the answer. The only place where there are adjustable rod ends is in the steering up front.

Now understand that I don't have one of these vehicles in front of me or have even built one yet, so there may be more that I don't know about, and I'm sure if there is, others will chime in.
 

·
GTM# 255
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
GTM Suspension Adjustments

You really meant to ask what the adjustable elements of the suspension are.

If it was the later, then as far as I know slotted brackets and eccentric bushings/bolts are the answer. The only place where there are adjustable rod ends is in the steering up front.
I guess what I am asking is the suspension adjustable for good hilly, curvy back roads and also long high speed courses?

Scrivy
 

·
GTM# 255
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Aftermarket Suspension Adjustment Components

Does anyone know if there are any good aftermarket suspension adjustment components/systems that could be added or used to replace some of the Corvette suspension components? Or even electronic actuated blade type anti sway systems with controls in the cockpit.

Scrivy
 

·
Junior Charter Member
Joined
·
280 Posts
Does anyone know if there are any good aftermarket suspension adjustment components/systems that could be added or used to replace some of the Corvette suspension components? Or even electronic actuated blade type anti sway systems with controls in the cockpit.

Scrivy
The Gtm doesn't even have sway bars... a major oversight in the design. Instead of developing them it appears they put all manpower into some lame hot rod. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
Does anyone know if there are any good aftermarket suspension adjustment components/systems that could be added or used to replace some of the Corvette suspension components? Or even electronic actuated blade type anti sway systems with controls in the cockpit.

Scrivy

What are you trying to change and what would be the reason? Certainly no need for cockpit adjustable bars. Even most real racecars dont have them. If you really really want them, there are companys that sell the parts to do it. Check Hoerr racing. http://www.hrpworld.com/index.cfm?form_pic_id=4854_1&action=product_picture

If you want adjustable than just go with a blade and manually adjust. I have that on my AP Cobra, and its a trick setup that takes 30-60 seconds to adjust.

The only parts that I think would help the stock GTM as it sits, is an adjustable upper control arm, to get more caster/camber (and I havent found one out there) or cutting and remounting the upper control arm mount points about .5" towards the back of the car to get the same thing(really easy to do on a car before attaching the Alum in the area.

The other is urethane bushings as suggested, or spherical bearings. I designed these for the FFR cobras IRS and thought of doing it for the GTM... just wasnt sure there would be a market.

Also, a front bar with slightly softer springs would probably help the car some... If you wanted to go really crazy, some good adjustable shocks like Ohlin or Penske or a few others. The challenge there, is getting the rates dialed in... that take a bunch of work.

Really though outside of the alignment challenges, the car works pretty well as is... There is always room for improvement, but I think there is more to be had from picking the right tires and tuning with alignment and tire pressure and learning to drive the car. Jim S from FFR is no dummy and he spent quite a bit of time making the the car would work well our of the box.

David
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
889 Posts
Richard M got me thinking about all the different threads that mentioned caster, camber, set up, roll bars, etc. I feel there are a few GTM builders out there who would like to set up their cars for optimal handling for the street, autocross, or track. Yes, I’m sure there are different optimal settings for full race versus street. What would be nice is to nail down what mods are necessary and the best way to do them.
From what I have read, most of the modifications concern suspension mounting points in the front, and roll bars. There is a thread that talks about raising the rear upper shock mount but from the context I don’t know if this is because of lowering the seat height in a race car with longer shocks, or what.
From what I read here the most talked about change is to slot the front upper A arm mounts to move the A arm rearward to increase caster. 4 to 6 degree’s caster was suggested with FFR recommending 2.5.
Looking at the photos on Shane’s “Track-Ready suspension” the photo’s look to me as though both the front upper a arm frame mounts and the a arm link were both slotted. Is this the case? To anyone who has slotted the front a arm, which pieces were slotted, how much movement were you able to get and what caster were you able to achieve? I would love to see a photo of this mod
Other modifications to the front lower frame mounts were to cut the eccentric stops to move the excentric bolts outboard (to one or both?). I would love to see a photo of this mod also.
The next thing discussed was a roll bar. Richard M has built one. Has anyone else? David, any plans to do a roll bar?

The following are pieces of the threads I picked out of past posts. Sorry if it is a bit lengthy.

Shane, 12 31 08, I've just completed an installation of the Wilbers coil-overs with remote oil reservoirs on a GTM in the shop here. This system was developed on Axel Nüsing's GTM in Germany. After a track-day at the Nurburgring, Axel mentioned that the stock Koni's that come with the GTM kit were not up to the task of racing the car around the 'Ring, so Wilbers worked with him to develop this upgrade package to replace the Koni's on the car.
After installing these on his GTM and taking the car back to the 'Ring, he emailed me to say what a huge improvement it was. With the Koni's on, he mentioned that the engine had plenty of power......with the Wilbers on, he said he could've used more power now, which makes sense. You can't use any more power if the car is wallowing around on the track.

Richard M, 12 31 08, Shane, nice set up on the shocks. We are about ready for our complete race set up also. For those thinking of upgrading your GTM suspension for track days, there is more to do than just throw a set of shocks at the car.

Richard Oben, 12 19 08, We ovaled the holes for the upper front A arms to get some more caster, other than that it was all OK, HTH, cheers Richard.

Richard M, 12 18 08, WE used the front corvette sway bar in the front with 600 lb springs and Bilstien shocks (this is a race set up) with poly bushings and slotted the upper control arm inward and cut off the eccentric guides on the lower and moved them 5/16" outward. I didn't want to cut and extend the origonals so we modified them as far out as my safety zone would allow.

David, 12 18 08, The cars stock suspension uses pretty soft rubber bushings that add compliance for a soft ride with low NVH. Changing to Urethane will tighten that up quite a bit. Also, the lack of a front bar is going to reduce responsiveness to turn in quite a bit... that and the stock racks ratio is slowish for a 'supercar'. These are all very easy to correct with fairly little $.
Add power steering with a mustang GT rack, front bar, more camber and caster, urethane bushings, and I'll put money on the car being MUCH more responsive. Im betting most of it was the slower rack. Everyone at FFR that I have spoken too states that going to PS made a HUGE difference to the feel and responsiveness of the car, especially on the track. The quicker ratio makes the car much easier to correct on the edge of traction.
For high speed stability, I would start with more caster for sure... at higher speeds, probably some areo based on what the guys at FFR and Richard have talked about.
I gotta say.. with that said, I dont feel anything wrong with the front of the car, outside of the slowish steering, and lack of front bar. These are all areas I have experience with on my roadster I fixed over time.

Richard M, 11-29-08, You are right David. With the current range offered by the kit construction, it isn't. Auto cross would be ok but like you said, therearen't going to be any quick times laid down by the gTM. through our growng pains, like you suddested, we out grew the current adjusting limits and took your advice to slot and then still had to move the lower cam slides to get the numbers needed to consistantly drive the car 130+ and turn the car.
Sfter all this (revisited), I think FFR should correct the lower slides and allow the Safer, more accurate alignment capabilities this car deserves.

David 11-29-08, I've also autcrossed on a pretty tight course, and found the car worked pretty well... Keep in mind, tire pressures, tires, alignment, driving style... are extremely important in autocross. IMHO, my car worked quite well, and I've logged thousands of autocross runs over many many years in prepared race cars. My guess, is its something simple, or a combo of things.
The car should have more adjustment in the area of castor and camber. Just not enough range and the upper pickup points should probably be moved back about .5" If I knew what I know now, I would have relocated those brackets before riveting my powdercoated panels to the car.
I dont think the spacers will affect motion ratio much if at all since you are not affecting the pivot points. The track change may make the rear a tad looser, but again, I doubt it will make a significant difference.
What did the car do that didnt seem right?
If some of you guys are getting 4 degrees of caster, I think you are doing fairly well. I can barely get 2-2.5 and 1 degree of castor. Pretty sure thats not enough for high speed stability.

Richard M, 11 26 08, My .02. As we got the car just below 150 on the track, it all happened through alignment as David suggested. I have had approx 10 different experienced drivers in the car and none of them suggested the idea of needing power steering or wanting PS. I talked to Jim early on on my development of the car and he explained the choice of rack in relation to the size of the steering wheel and he found it to be the best combination. During a practice session at Thunderhill just before the BIG race, one of my drivers said the steering was to slow. We added a steering quickener and then they could not keep it straight down the straightaway at 80 mph. An hour before the race, Don cut it out , changed the alignment and we went racing with no troubles. Like David mentioned about alignment, as we went faster, the alignments changed without the need of power steering and is a very comfortable and steer-friendly car.

David, 11 26 08, IMHO... the car needs more castor, and agreed, the toe can be an issue.. along with aero.
The most I can get is a couple degrees. I suspect 4-6 degrees would really settle the car at speed. The other option is going with a slightly larger steering wheel.

Richard M, 11 16 08, Saturday was a beautiful day at Thunderhill….. Brake improvements. New front rotors, #60 hawk pads, front recirculating valve, electric blowers, stock corvette calipers. Running 54% front brake bias using front calipers on the rear with stock rotors. New Wilwood master cylinders. Our final alignments are 2.2 d. camber, 4d. caster in front, toe out 1/8. rer toe in 1/32, camber 2d.

Richard M, 10 24 08, I think our best change in the stock suspension with the stock shocks usig 750/450's was to lower the rear shock towers 1.825" at the top. It eliminated wheel hopping and stepping out at higher speeds.

David, 10 24 08, Guys, I posted on the other thread but I'll comment here. I havent run my car on a road coarse, but have autocrossed the car. Generally, autocross will expose handling issues before most anything else due to its quick transitions between braking accelerating and cornering.
The car with stock 450/750 springs and either the adjustable shocks set to full stiff, or new FSD shocks. The car works really well. Transitioned well, broke well and I was able to get from what I remember the quickest time of any car on real street tires. Considering its the first time, and I had miss adjusted the toe, thats very good.
Alignment and ride height is critical on any car when it comes to feel and performance. I would say leave as is, until you get a chance to get some miles on it. If I were to make more changes, I would take Jims advice and do power steering, and reduce the front springs and put in a sway bar. I have an idea on how to do front bar that will be pretty easy to do. If you want to go further, and know what you are doing, maybe some externally adjustable shocks if you are going to track the car a bunch!
Keep in mind, the stock setup is what got great review by Car and Driver. Jim at FFR is very good with suspension setup, and they spent quite a bit of time at Bob Bondurants getting feedback on the car and making tweaks.

Richard Oben, 10 22 08, Stock was 350 front and 450 rears. FFR updated to 750 rears and move the 450s up front.
I am running the 750 rears and put a set of 500s I had on the front. I have the vette rear bar mounted (poorly and ugly) and I am stunned how flat the car is even without a front bar. I know Jim at FFR is not a big believer in sway bars but I like them esspecially in a street application. I have not driven the car hard or on the track, but I am very pleased with how stable the car is in turns. I was out last weekend with 'ironheadvette' and we were taking on ramps at over double the speed posted (suggested) on the ramp. Even at that I could tug the wheel and decrease the radius and have no issues. In short I could have gone much faster than double the 30 mph ramp with ease.
David Borden would be a better source for info than I am. HTH, Cheers Richard.

Turbodon, 6 9 08, On the Koni Shock length issue, the Koni FFR supplies is the correct shock for the stock GTM:
Remember that this car is center seat and the floor has been dropped 2" for tall drivers. That causes the ride height on this GTM to be set higher to allow the 3" min ride clearance to ground. This forces the frame to sit higher than a stock GTM. By about 2". This makes the shock for this setup too short. Hence the possible change to the pickup points for the shocks.

Richard M, 6 9 08, We repaired the car for Sunday's event. We worked alittle on the brakes and squeezed another second off the time. We did discover that the Koni shocks do not have enough travel with the suspension. It was discussed with all the participants and agreed the shocks need to be about 2 inches longer the shock mounts need to be lower. We are opting for a different shock right now because we have run out of adjustments for the rear ride height set up. The new front sway bar work real well. We started out with the set up tha Brain Dobbins had on his car but found it didn't function until the control arm traveled about 2". We changed it to the rear corvette bar and installed it under the controlarms nd through the chassis whre the battery normally sits as per build manual. We change brake pads from carbo tech to rabestos and the stopping power is the best. The car was an animal when it came to braking….
The drivers mentioned that the front still appeared a little on the light side, so this week we will be relocating items to the front of the car and resettign the ride heights. Supprising, we have the weight bias at close to 44% right now and with each adjustment, the car is getting better and faster.

john d, 4 30 08, This question has provoked some good, interesting discussion.
About a front bar only -- I'm definitely familiar with that for front engine cars. I run a 35mm bar on the front of my Camaro, and had been running a 19mm on the rear. Until I lowered the panhard/track bar by an additional 4 inches, and then I increased the size of the rear bar.
However, I assumed the bigger bar was matched to the heavier weight on that end of the car. So I figured a mid-engine would need more bar on the rear...
But balancing oversteer/understeer should probably be the deciding factor, based on how the car actually drives. As well as whatever it takes to manage body roll and control unwanted camber changes as the body rolls. So I'll just have to wait and see.
An additional thought for folks to chew on, if the car is sprung stiffly (to compensate for having no bar), ideally the spring rate should be reduced to fairly evaluate the addition of a sway bar. Since the combination of the spring and sway bar produce the effective rate, just adding a bar probably significantly increased the total effective rate.

David, 5 1 08, Sure agreed. My comment is based on practical race experience, in that many car designs just dont work well with a rear bar of any size. Generally its geometry that determines this. Bar fitments rely on roll center, CG height, roll axis inclination, steer axis inclination, roll couple distribution, bar diameter, arm length and attachment point of arm to control arm, and of course wheel rate. Once you have all these variables, you determine the absolute roll you are willing to accept at a given grip level in G's. You then can use a spread sheet like Johns to get a baseline bar rate where you can ... start... testing and move from there. I absolutely agree that you need to tune to a solution that works. In generally, the smaller the bar the better in back as it will lift your inside wheel and cause corner exit wheel spin.

David, 4 30 08, Yeah, I kept telling Richard at the event to pull the rear bar off... When he didnt, I figured I might as well get it done another way.
Its not uncommon for race cars to run a front bar only. Or a very small rear bar for tuning. It really depends on the type of car and supsension, so it doesnt suprise me the car works better with no rear bar.
I have a plan for a 3 piece front bar system that will be very strong amd near hidden.

Richard M, 4 30 08, Mike, that is correct. Dave Borden also confirmed that the rear sway bar is not needed on the car, to use springs to fine tune it. When the sway bar arm broke, we went from 204.00 to a 2.00. at TH.

Richard M, 4 29 08, Dobbins used sway bars on his attemp to experiment. We took his advie while his experience with them I'll presume was not underreal race envirenment. We found using his set up was not complete by any means. The miata bar in the front is to light and the connections to the lower control arms do not give a positve reaction as the suspension travels considerable before the sway bar reacts. We installed the zo6 bar in the rear and the mounting points are to close and restricted the suspension. The location of the bar prohibited the installation of the diffuser package. All the Dobbins photos shows the absense of the diffuser. During the 25 hour, one of the rear sway bar connectors broke and the lap times increased by 4 seconds. We did come to the conclusion that the front bar is needed but we are going to a sprint car type design under the chassis because the layout and arms gets us just inches away from the lower upright.

AllanFFR, 6 21 07, Here's the specs I got from FFR for the alignment:
Front toe 1/8 toe in
Camber -0.25
Caster +2.5
REAR
Toe 3/16 toe in
Camber -0.5
All but the front left aligned perfectly. The front left wouldn't go to the specified castor or camber. Best that could happen was +.7 for the caster and .2 for the camber.
Anyone have any ideas why the system on one wheel wouldn't allow the correct specs?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
Roger,

Nice list there .. Funny you should post this today. I just came in from checking a 3 piece bar I had from my Cobra that I kept around. The bar is perfect width for a swaybar up front, even the arms appear to be bent about right.

Can anyone measure the front toe hook holes for me? The holes on the large 3/16 tabs welded to the front of the frame? Im going to start putting something together.

------------------------------

Firstly, Jim the lead engineer at FFR is a racer, and understands how to set a car up. He spent a great deal of time making sure the geometry, springs and shocks provided are a good compromise for handling and comfort. Koni actually helped them tune the GTM at a race track. Very few people get direct support from engineers at Koni who have spent years tuning cars... and have them ride in a car and make valving changes and go at it again. They did this for FFR.

My recommendations for a good handling GTM that willl be comfortable on the street and fast on the track is as follows... in order of importance. (Jim, if you are monitoring, please chime in if you have any corrections, please let us/me know.)

- Good 4 point belts that hold you in the car. If you're flopping around in the car, its hard to drive precisely.

- A good alignment, again street and track will differ, but starting around

Front
-1.5 camber
3-6 caster(depending on taste) More will increase stability and slow the steering down a small amount.
- 1/16 toe in
Ride height 4.5"

Rear
- .5 to .75 camber
- 1/8 to - 3/16 toe in
Ride height 4.75"

- Work on your driving skills. Lots of autocross before you spend much time on a big track. Lots of time in a slower car on a big track. The GTM can get you in deep deep trouble if you are not really mellow due to the performance envelope of the car. Only you know if you have the self control enough to know when to say when and not push the car. I cant stress this enough. Everyone thinks they are a hero on the track :D The only thing that makes that so, is lots of track time and slowly working up the speed and your car control skills. If you know you are happying driving at 70%, starting in the GTM is probably fine. Just be careful !

- The stickiest tires you are willing to run accepting what they will do to your paint from stone chips. Im running PS2's. If your willing to accept stone chips, RA1's are probably a decent choice for a combo time. There are others, but tires will have the most dramatic effect on handling period!! (given proper alignment, and tire pressures)

- PROPER TIRE PRESSURES . I cant stress this enough. Most have no idea how much tire pressure affects the handling, grip and balance of a car. You have to experiment to find the right ones or take the advice of someone with the same tire and rim combo(who has experience and has tested)

- Urethane rear control arm bushings are most important since the deflection in the rubber bushings will cause camber and toe change. Fronts are probably a good idea also.

- Power steering.. Quick ratio mustang rack. I just measured the stock rack and it has 3 turns lock to lock... its a bit slow for driving on the hairy edge. Although I did OK autocrossing and thats much harder to do with a slow rack. I have not driven this on the GTM but have gone from power from the same rack on my Cobra race car and it was a big difference. Jim, Dave, and others have told me PS made a huge diff on the GTM. I trust them.

- Probably a front bar and slightly softer front springs. Again, I have not driven this, but I believe Jim feels this is a good upgrade and Richard has had good luck with it. For a street car, probably between 3/4 and 7/8" solid depending on springs and leverage arm length.

- Upgraded shocks/springs. Single externally adjustable mono tube shocks would probably be plenty for 90% of folks. You can get into double and tripple adjustable shocks, but you really really need to know what you are doing in tuning these. If you get it wrong, it can really cause some bad handling issues that will be hard to figure out unless you have lots of time to learn and tune.

My car as is.... and thats stock with good tires and alignment is WAY more capable that to drive on the street, and it quite good in autocross. Im certain with better tires, the car would be way faster, with no changes.

David
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
889 Posts
David, the smaller hole is .990". My guess is 1.0" before powdercoat.
The larger hole is further forward and lower and measures 1.295". My guess is 1.313 before powdercoat.
Center distance between the tabs is 18.125" and outside the tabs is 18.530".

Roger
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,070 Posts
David, the smaller hole is .990". My guess is 1.0" before powdercoat.
The larger hole is further forward and lower and measures 1.295". My guess is 1.313 before powdercoat.
Center distance between the tabs is 18.125" and outside the tabs is 18.530".

Roger
Thanks Roger! Is the right and left hole a different size position, or are there 2 holes in each tab/bracket?

David
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
889 Posts
Thanks Roger! Is the right and left hole a different size position, or are there 2 holes in each tab/bracket?

David
Each bracket is a mirror image. Two smaller holes (one per bracket) higher and closer to the steering rack. Two larger holes (one per bracket) just in front of and lower. I measured the larger hole closest edge to the flat surface of the (front lower excentric washer seat) suspension bracket. Driver side 2 13/16", passenger side 2 1/2". So the driver side larger hole is 5/16 further forward than the passenger side. The bracket may not have been a critical dimension for the frame. The linkage length/angle might compensate for small irrigularities in the bracket location. I took pictures and will send them to you tomorrow.
 

·
Junior Charter Member
Joined
·
148 Posts
specs

Roger,

Nice list there .. Funny you should post this today. I just came in from checking a 3 piece bar I had from my Cobra that I kept around. The bar is perfect width for a swaybar up front, even the arms appear to be bent about right.

Can anyone measure the front toe hook holes for me? The holes on the large 3/16 tabs welded to the front of the frame? Im going to start putting something together.

------------------------------

Firstly, Jim the lead engineer at FFR is a racer, and understands how to set a car up. He spent a great deal of time making sure the geometry, springs and shocks provided are a good compromise for handling and comfort. Koni actually helped them tune the GTM at a race track. Very few people get direct support from engineers at Koni who have spent years tuning cars... and have them ride in a car and make valving changes and go at it again. They did this for FFR.

My recommendations for a good handling GTM that willl be comfortable on the street and fast on the track is as follows... in order of importance. (Jim, if you are monitoring, please chime in if you have any corrections, please let us/me know.)

- Good 4 point belts that hold you in the car. If you're flopping around in the car, its hard to drive precisely.

- A good alignment, again street and track will differ, but starting around

Front
-1.5 camber
3-6 caster(depending on taste) More will increase stability and slow the steering down a small amount.
- 1/16 toe in
Ride height 4.5"

Rear
- .5 to .75 camber
- 1/8 to - 3/16 toe in
Ride height 4.75"

- Work on your driving skills. Lots of autocross before you spend much time on a big track. Lots of time in a slower car on a big track. The GTM can get you in deep deep trouble if you are not really mellow due to the performance envelope of the car. Only you know if you have the self control enough to know when to say when and not push the car. I cant stress this enough. Everyone thinks they are a hero on the track :D The only thing that makes that so, is lots of track time and slowly working up the speed and your car control skills. If you know you are happying driving at 70%, starting in the GTM is probably fine. Just be careful !

- The stickiest tires you are willing to run accepting what they will do to your paint from stone chips. Im running PS2's. If your willing to accept stone chips, RA1's are probably a decent choice for a combo time. There are others, but tires will have the most dramatic effect on handling period!! (given proper alignment, and tire pressures)

- PROPER TIRE PRESSURES . I cant stress this enough. Most have no idea how much tire pressure affects the handling, grip and balance of a car. You have to experiment to find the right ones or take the advice of someone with the same tire and rim combo(who has experience and has tested)

- Urethane rear control arm bushings are most important since the deflection in the rubber bushings will cause camber and toe change. Fronts are probably a good idea also.

- Power steering.. Quick ratio mustang rack. I just measured the stock rack and it has 3 turns lock to lock... its a bit slow for driving on the hairy edge. Although I did OK autocrossing and thats much harder to do with a slow rack. I have not driven this on the GTM but have gone from power from the same rack on my Cobra race car and it was a big difference. Jim, Dave, and others have told me PS made a huge diff on the GTM. I trust them.

- Probably a front bar and slightly softer front springs. Again, I have not driven this, but I believe Jim feels this is a good upgrade and Richard has had good luck with it. For a street car, probably between 3/4 and 7/8" solid depending on springs and leverage arm length.

- Upgraded shocks/springs. Single externally adjustable mono tube shocks would probably be plenty for 90% of folks. You can get into double and tripple adjustable shocks, but you really really need to know what you are doing in tuning these. If you get it wrong, it can really cause some bad handling issues that will be hard to figure out unless you have lots of time to learn and tune.

My car as is.... and thats stock with good tires and alignment is WAY more capable that to drive on the street, and it quite good in autocross. Im certain with better tires, the car would be way faster, with no changes.

David
Hey David,
the specs on the Alignment you listed is that what your car is set up as? if so how is it at high speeds?

Peace
DJ
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top