LCA's and relocation brackets
12-29-2003, 12:12 AM
#16
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Christiansburg, VA
Posts: 1,853
Originally posted by steve40
i noticed an improvement on the 60' times
isn't it that .1 on the 60 is approx .3 to .4 over the quarter
so then they would be an improvement
i noticed an improvement on the 60' times
isn't it that .1 on the 60 is approx .3 to .4 over the quarter
so then they would be an improvement
jesse
12-29-2003, 11:56 AM
#17
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Chicagoland Area
Posts: 560
Originally posted by bruecksteve
They help very little. Even the people that sell them admit MAYBE .1 in your 60 foot times. And the stock geometry is not crap. Ask any guys that autocross or road race their cars. Most of the guys that are allowed to do it in their class do it for the added strength, reduced weight and more precise location, not because it gives them more traction or anything else. Get a torque arm if you want to play with pinion angle.
Another myth....
They help very little. Even the people that sell them admit MAYBE .1 in your 60 foot times. And the stock geometry is not crap. Ask any guys that autocross or road race their cars. Most of the guys that are allowed to do it in their class do it for the added strength, reduced weight and more precise location, not because it gives them more traction or anything else. Get a torque arm if you want to play with pinion angle.
Another myth....
There is a huge difference in the suspension set-up for an auto-cross car and a strip car. For auto-cross you want to have your car lowered. For drag racing, you don't want your car lowered. So you can't compare the suspension set-up on an auto-cross car and drag strip car. They are totally different.
But I would have to agree that getting a torque arm will help with traction, if you get an adjustable one.
12-29-2003, 01:34 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Atlanta Ga
Posts: 1,132
I'm not comparing. I can't use them in my class anyway. I base my statement on what I've not only heard from others but particularily one company that sell's them. I haven't found anyone that can show (with factual information) any real substantial performance benefit, if if there is any, it won't be some really big amount. The point is, there are much better ways to get a performance improvement then LCA's and brackets. The torque arm is a MUCH better improvement for the money.
12-29-2003, 01:47 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Six Mile, SC, USA
Posts: 2,054
Originally posted by bruecksteve
The torque arm is a MUCH better improvement for the money.
The torque arm is a MUCH better improvement for the money.
The relocation brackets work well and they are much lighter. I have seen several stock TA pull some really good 60's and most of them had the relocation brackets. The problem I have with the stock TA is that it is mounted to the trans. Not a huge problem in an auto set up but for an M6 I just do not like that idea.
On the other side, depending on the set up, I have seen the relocation brackets create more starting line problems than fixing...car would hop and spin on take off with the brackets, removed them and it comes out much better.
It is dependent on each set up....
11-14-2006, 08:46 AM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kerrville, Texas
Posts: 636
I'm not comparing. I can't use them in my class anyway. I base my statement on what I've not only heard from others but particularily one company that sell's them. I haven't found anyone that can show (with factual information) any real substantial performance benefit, if if there is any, it won't be some really big amount. The point is, there are much better ways to get a performance improvement then LCA's and brackets. The torque arm is a MUCH better improvement for the money.
And my god, I just realized how old this thread is
11-14-2006, 06:12 PM
#23
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Erie, Canada
Posts: 90
I've been doing suspension on trucks for almost 10 years and the logic still applies to a car. Stock, the rear control arms sit pretty close to parallel to the ground. When you stomp on the gas and the rear suspension compresses, the rear mounting point will end up higher than the front mounting point because of how the suspension travels and affects the position of the frame rail where the front of the arm is mounted is related to the axle position. If the control arm does this and the rear ends up higher than the front, the drive from the tires will actually try to put the axle up and over the front mounting location which in turn causes wheel hop because the tire starts to fight the suspension. When you put in the lower control arm brackets you maintain the downward angle on the control arm. You can hammer on the gas, compress the suspension but still the rear of the control arm won't move above the parallel point, or above the front mount of the control arm. As long as the control arm is at or below parallel with the ground the tires are going to try to drive the axle into the ground putting the power where you want it and eliminating wheel hop. It doesn't change your pinion angle at all and the relocation bracket will use the stock length control arm in any of the holes. Just my opinion with my own personal experience with many different suspensions. I have them and will be doing all the suspension work on my Z once it's put away for the winter in my garage.
11-14-2006, 07:01 PM
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Carleton, Michigan
Posts: 580
Well a tenth on your 60' is at least that in the quarter. As far as a difference goes.....I noticed a HUGE difference in my car. Before my car would wheelhop so bad I thought the rear was gonna come through the trunk. I have never felt wheel hop since. I only spin tires now but thats because they are like 2 years old with 30k on them.
11-14-2006, 11:26 PM
#25
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
Posts: 70,831
I've seen/measured significant improvements in 60-ft times with the LCA relo brackets, on 4th Gens ranging from 500-1,350HP. Baxter's car picked up 0.1-sec, the same day Steve Spohn welded on the brackets, and that 1/10th was dropping from ~1.44 to ~1.33 60-foots. Nothing else was changed. A car that was traction challenged gained so much traction we had a hard time keeping the rear bumper off the pavement.
11-16-2006, 12:31 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 470
My car is not lowered. I went with just the LCAs and no RLBs for the sake of handling. I read (dont know the validity to this) that RLB's on a stock ride height vehicle will not improve and actually hurts cornering a bit. I decided to go with just LCA's and if I still had wheelhop then I would get them. My wheelhop is gone with just the LCA's and I dont see a need to get RLBs. I have no 60' times to compare but launching the car is worlds more consistent. Handling also improved with LCAs and a panhard rod. Im happy with everything.
11-16-2006, 06:46 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Three Oaks MI
Posts: 993
Umm.....actually getting relocation brackets will greatly improve the suspension geometry of you car.
What the hell are you smoking? The stock suspension geometry is crap on the f-bodies. Getting relocation brackets will improve straight line traction because it will relocate the pitch of the rear.
So yes, go ahead and get some relocation brackets and LCA's. You will notice an great improvement in traction.
What the hell are you smoking? The stock suspension geometry is crap on the f-bodies. Getting relocation brackets will improve straight line traction because it will relocate the pitch of the rear. So yes, go ahead and get some relocation brackets and LCA's. You will notice an great improvement in traction.