QA1 Six-Link Rear Suspension Conversion Installed
You guys spend too much time on here.
I never wrote a Corvette doesn't handle. What wrote was they don't put a transverse monoleaf in a Corvette because it's better.
They do it because it's a smaller package and fits in the tight space of those cars because they sit low and don't have the space to put a coil over shock system in. And yes, composite monoleafs with delaminate and break on the ends. I've tested hundreds of them.
As far as everyone that keeps bringing up RMS AlterKtion and thinking it was designed with the same quality as say anything from Detroit Speed and Engineering is kind of funny. It was designed originally for a lite weight drag racing kit. Then... Modified a few times to what it is now.
But you all know everything. And sit around waiting to find something to pick apart.
The kit initially this post was about was for a Bolt in Kit. I think it's a great effort. I wish we could see some track time or notes from how it turns out.
And no, you really won't convince me that Chrysler had designed every aspect of a 45 year old car to be perfect for auto crossing or handling today in 2016. The only way I can get rear frame rails to not buckle, break around mounting points is to replace them with thicker steal. And you definitely aren't going to get much chassis strength unless you reinforce it anywhere you can.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. You say you've broken suspension mounting points and ripped more sway bar mounts out of cars than you can count, and that you can't keep the rear frame rails from buckling without heavy reinforcement, but you think the bolt in QA1 6 link is the way to go. It bolts to the stock suspension mounting points and un-reinforced frame rails because it's a bolt in system. So...?
Further, what makes you think that any of these uni-body cars can handle well without chassis stiffening? I don't care what suspension conversion you install, if you don't include subframe connectors, torque boxes, and probably more, you won't be successful running autoX or road courses. None of my posts suggest a unibody chassis will handle well without reinforcement, and in fact all of the cars I've mentioned have at least moderate chassis stiffening, including my own car. Coilover conversions in the front require even more stiffening in my opinion, because the chassis was not designed to carry load the way the coilovers distribute it. And the rear 6 link will not replace the need for further stiffening either. It would be a colossal waste of money to install the 6-link without subframe connectors at the minimum.
As for the Chrysler design, first, it's older than 45 years. The '67 cars set all the major chassis/suspension points for all the A bodies up to 76. Obviously it was designed before that, so, it's over 50 years old. And, I didn't suggest it was a perfect system. It was designed for bias plys, the stock geometry doesn't even work well for radials. But lowered more than and inch and with the geometry of the UCA's corrected for additional caster the camber curves and bump steer numbers are very good. But, to do that you also need larger torsion bars, different bump stops, and at least offset bushings if not UCAs with different geometry. You will also find in my posts that I always recommend adjustable strut rods. And reinforced LCA pivot tubes, reinforced torsion bar anchors, and the chassis stiffening I've already talked about above. But they're still torsion bar/leaf cars.
And
ALL suspension design is a trade off. There is no "best" design. Some designs work better given certain applications, but they ALL have pros and cons even within a specific application. So far, everything I've experienced and seen shows that the torsion bar/ leaf cars are still the fastest when properly tuned. That doesn't mean it's the "best" suspension design, but it seems to work the best where the rubber hits the road.
