If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
we shortened a 108 car down to 105 ( but we did a bunch of other stuff too) and it made the car less user friendly, more susceptible to dialing yourself outta the park with adjustments.
but again, not sure that the wheelbase was all of that.
That being said, I would have probably left it at 108, if I were doing it again
108 to 101 on a heavy cars means the world as far as rear weight percentage goes and we cut our frame at the front where the side rail welds to the box....
shorter wheelbases are a lot more twitchy, and darty. unless you can totally re-do the front suspension, and are allowed a lot of aftermarket parts.
stock stuff will have way too much bump steer, and other front end problems for the car to drive smoothly with a short wheelbase.
I would not go under 108 if it were me.
I think there should be lifeguards in the genepool.
The front has already been changed to aftermarket upper A frame Towers and tubular A Frames. If it is shortened I think we decided not to go less then 104.
The front has already been changed to aftermarket upper A frame Towers and tubular A Frames. If it is shortened I think we decided not to go less then 104.
are you running stock upper a arm mounts, in the stock location?
agree with you fastford, on bumpsteer.
I think there should be lifeguards in the genepool.
Comment