The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network - View Single Post - whatt would it take to get my truck into the low 12's

Jesse 67 c-10 · 05-15-2002, 03:51 PM

Blue Pig is right in a way and so is 67 ls1. for optimum traction you want a suspension design that if it were not for weight transfer, the torque would lift the rear end of the car up under acceleration. To get optimum traction you want the lift that the rear suspension provides to push against the weight transfer from your forward acceleration. This pushes the rear tires into the ground, giving you good hook up. If there was no weight transfer the rear susp would lift, but this would just push the weight to the front, and if there was no lift from the suspension the rear would just squat and you wouldn't get the added traction provided by the lift. This is my understanding of it anyways. To save some weight, a four link rear is probably lighter than our setup, an aluminum drivshaft saves a lot, tubular front control arms, no power steering, bumpers, fender skirts, fiber glass body parts, and so on. There is lots of stuff you can do.
my 3 cents
Jesse

------------------
Near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 67 c-10, Long fleet, Newly swapped front disks, 5 lug rear end, 327 v-8 with Vortech heads, edlbrock performer rpm air gap manifold, 1406 carb and comp XE 256 cam. Backed by a getrag 5 speed and 1 piece driveshaft. Finnally running, almost driving! www.geocities.com/chevy67jesse

05-15-2002, 03:51 PM	#27
Jesse 67 c-10 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 599	Blue Pig is right in a way and so is 67 ls1. for optimum traction you want a suspension design that if it were not for weight transfer, the torque would lift the rear end of the car up under acceleration. To get optimum traction you want the lift that the rear suspension provides to push against the weight transfer from your forward acceleration. This pushes the rear tires into the ground, giving you good hook up. If there was no weight transfer the rear susp would lift, but this would just push the weight to the front, and if there was no lift from the suspension the rear would just squat and you wouldn't get the added traction provided by the lift. This is my understanding of it anyways. To save some weight, a four link rear is probably lighter than our setup, an aluminum drivshaft saves a lot, tubular front control arms, no power steering, bumpers, fender skirts, fiber glass body parts, and so on. There is lots of stuff you can do. my 3 cents Jesse ------------------ Near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 67 c-10, Long fleet, Newly swapped front disks, 5 lug rear end, 327 v-8 with Vortech heads, edlbrock performer rpm air gap manifold, 1406 carb and comp XE 256 cam. Backed by a getrag 5 speed and 1 piece driveshaft. Finnally running, almost driving! www.geocities.com/chevy67jesse __________________ Edmonton, Alberta, 67 c-10, Long fleet, front disks, 5 lug rear end, 327 with Vortechs, edlbrock manifold, comp cams XE 256, 600cfm carb. Backed by a getrag 5 speed and 1 piece driveshaft. 1993 Dihatsu Hijet Jumbo cab 4x4, currently converting to battery electric power.