LS1GTO Forums banner

Quad eccentics vs Toe link setup. Drag Racers please

19K views 161 replies 40 participants last post by  LS2-GTO 
#1 · (Edited)
Hey guys.

Have been searching for a while but couldnt find any exact info.

What is a better setup for drag racing?

Run adjustable poly quad eccentric setup on the rear (like Whiteline, for example) and toe link delete vs. oem replacement poly bushings and upgraded toe links.

I want to set rear camber at 0*. Suspension is KW V3.

Some say to have upgraded toe links and others to delete them and run quad eccentrics for even better dynamic performance.

Its mainly for straight acceleration.

Serious drag racers are welcome! :)
 
#3 ·
No easy answer here. There are strong supporters of both, with equally compelling data sets.

I myself have been playing with options, simulating dynamic conditions on the alignment rack. There are limits to what I can measure. The car in squat on the rack wont show the same angles as it would in squat on the track due to lack of real load. For now, this is a form of entertainment, but the toe bars do seem to help maintain toe better, longer, at least with my set up. My bars are unique and have more adjustment than others on the market.

The fast aussies swear by the quads only though. And they have more experience with this chassis than anyone. Miker is our domestic fanboy for quad-only. And again, solid data sets.
 
#4 ·
I've been thinking of switching actually. I am starting to think my current setup would benefit a lot more from the better contact patch a 0* camber setup would provide.

My stocker toe links were never stressed to the point were they were flexing, so I don't think they were even a limiting factor in my launches. I noticed no improvement in launches going to the GForce toe links.
 
#5 ·
I've had problems with stiff toe links and camber eccentrics. Its lessons learned. Im questioning whether I should go to quad or play with the alignment a little more. The sad thing is someone broke my camber adj bolt, resulting in me having to drop the rear craddle. They blamed the stiff toe links. I think I have other problems, who knows. I wont know till I drop it.
 
#6 ·
The thing that gives me pause about eccentrics is the often heard complaints about them not holding their adjustments. These were mostly related to the Pedders and Noltec parts. I haven't heard enough about the Whitelines to have any thoughts on the matter.
 
#11 · (Edited)
This.

I've been eyeballing the SPF-0877K that BMR is now carrying and trying to decide what to do. I'd like to correct my camber and target 0* myself to try to help it hook better. I'm assuming these are the quad essentrics people are talking about and that with these you HAVE to delete your toe-rods? They appear to be the fave over on the aussie sites unless I'm looking at something else.

I would guess SPF-BK038 is the kit to adjust camber only and keep the toe-rods? Maybe that would be the easier route to go as I just can't see the bushings having the strength that the toe-rods would support based on the angles and mounting positions?
 
#7 ·
whiteline>Pedders
 
#8 ·
Im leaning towards a quad Whiteline kit with toe link delete.

Having 0* rear camber with stiff rear springs (KW V3) is more favourable than -X.X* rear camber and little bit better toe control on launch(still no one has prooved that toe link does a better job managing the toe under load).
 
#9 ·
From those of us that have removed stock toe links and found them to be bent, already know g-force or hendrix toe links, is a must upgrade. I would imagine, if a stiff rear end is your goal, then go harrop dif cover, with stronger toe links to be safe, along with your springs. My wheel hop is almost elimated with the setup I have.
 
#12 ·
The Aussie dragracers like the Quad Eccentrics because you are changing the relative pivot location of the control arm. With enough time on an alignment rack with the rear springs removed you can get your car to have almost no dynamic camber; thus when you squat on launch you don't loose any contact patch.

The simple answer is that GM went to a softer rubber bushing when they put on toe-links; if you install ANY poly bushings on the rear control arms while keeping the toe-link installed you risk damage.

Eccentrics have a bad rap due to the shitty Pedders design. I had to replace my rear crossmember due to those Pedders bushings. The Whitelines have nice knurling and a single bolt design and they will never come loose.
 
#13 ·
he hits the reasons why I like the quad eccentrics on the GTO chassis.

Also you have a bit more "tuning" you can do, not sure that is a good thing for all people.

My only real issue, is I feel they need to be checked often as part of a standard MX program.

But I have to say I'm intrigued by kTG's bars and would like to see that setup in person. Meanwhile I've moved to by G8 and its completely different in dynamics. some good, some not so much.
 
#16 ·
Whitelines are the only eccentric on the market with a SINGLE BOLT design.

Superpro, Pedders, Roadsafe, etc all use a shitty 2 bolt design that WILL come loose eventually.
 
#19 · (Edited)
I've been running 0* camber and 0-.05 toe for about 15+k miles now. When you take out all the camber, traction does improve a lot.

With our IRS at this alignment I would definitely say its a DRAG racing setup. The car definetly doesn't dig into the corners like it use to.

With a high spring rate out back, I wouldn't worry about dynamic camber gains.
My spring rate/traction strategy is different with this setup.

If you go quad eccentrics loss the toe link.
 
#20 ·
So if I'm reading this right in other threads on the aussie boards it looks like it's perfectly fine to remove the toe links if you do quad eccenstrics?

Not only that but it looks like another benefit of removing the toe links and doing quads over just doing the 2 point stuff with the toe links is that when it squats it doesn't increase the toe? I mean if it didn't have that benefit I wouldn't see any reason to do the quads over the 2 points.
 
#22 ·
So if I'm reading this right in other threads on the aussie boards it looks like it's perfectly fine to remove the toe links if you do quad eccenstrics?
All of the our cars sold to the Aussies had no toe-links from the factory but stiffer control arm bushings.

For the US market they switched to softer bushings and toe-links for the Cadillac Catera and for what ever reason the GTO got this same suspension setup.
 
#29 ·
static isn't the issue, when the suspension compresses the axle needs to straighten out and thus become shorter.
Again, very easy to check by compressing the suspension and giving the tug test.

not sure i follow what you are talking about with
I asked about running the adjustable poly bushings in the "camber" location and running just regular non-adjustable poly bushings in the "toe" location while running toe-rods. Does that cause it to bind up? Somebody had mentioned when running poly bushings for all four that you shouldn't use toe-rods because it will bind.
 
#30 ·
I have ran Pedders eccentric kit for 6 years, and had little issues as far as aligning. For some reason, when I swapped over to a stronger toe link, my eccentrics would not adjust. Come to find out it takes a little more TLC to adjust, not just going from one to the other. My alignment guy broke my camber adj. bolt on the driver’s side because it wouldn’t turn. Afterwards, he adjusted the toe and it popped into place resulting on -1.3 camber on both sides. That told me my problem right there. I believe I still have other issues, but since this is an extensive project I’m trying to exhaust options. I do agree the hardware configuration is wrong with Pedders eccentrics, but they do back it up with an experienced, professional tech support.
 
#35 ·
It seems to me that a beefier adjustable toe link can help within a narrow range of conditions that might suit what you are trying to do with the car. I have the camber correction eccentrics but have been toying with getting another set and running the quad eccentrics and ditching the toe links as it seems like the way to set up a car to get rid of the dynamic gain with some tuning on the rack.
 
#37 ·
Our Monaro is from the first production run in 2001.
All Monaro's run the toe adjuster.

I think the toe toe adjuster first appeared on the HSV GTS sedan either in 2000 or 2001 and then worked it's way down the rest of the models by 2002.

Our Monaro which is not a drag only car, just a fairly quick street car, uses the original toe adjusters, Nolathane diff mount, Nolathane cradle to chassis mounts and Super Pro single camber kit.
This is good enough for 1.5xx on 18" drag radials.
 
#38 ·
Good to know. Say, what's Daniel Collins up to these days? I understand he's no longer at his shop in Perth. I haven't spoken to him in years.
 
#43 ·
This is probably the route that I will go. I know for a fact I don't have the patience for them from the sounds of it and I really don't see a problem with just using the eccentrics to correct for the camber and using a good toe-bar. I would have to think the toe-bars are going to be the stronger solution to keeping toe in check vs just a bushing on the arm. I'm all about simplicity and not fucking with something if I don't have to.
 
#40 ·
#44 ·
subscribing
 
#47 ·
Quad eccentrics here, no toe links, and everything has held up just fine for drag racing as well as an autocross event, and around 5k hard street miles.
 
#48 ·
Back in post #10, I asked a question that no one has addressed....namely
the LCA bushings being on different centerlines.

This situation causes stress on the control arms, cradle and bushings during
normal suspension travel, and the stress is magnified when the soft rubber
bushings are replaced with stiffer, urethane bushings.

I cannot believe that this is a mistake, but I have not be able to rationalize
that this would create any benefit.

I would like to hear what others think of this. I can't believe that I am the only
member that has noticed this condition.
 
#49 ·
I am 100% in agreement with you We've seen LCA breakage from combinations of aftermarket bushings and increased power. One thing that has always bugged me was the looseness of the whole setup. On the dyno you can see the rear wheels pinch forward and inward lumping the stress to the upper bushing arm of the LCA. Looking at some other videos of the rear wheels on cars with our suspension it is obvious there is forward, backward and angular movement of the wheel under torque. We never get past the IRS worship in discussion and this seems to be the single area no one has made better. It never was an argument about IRS being a good approach, just the specific implementation we are stuck with.

I did a stretch as a test analyst in operations research for the Army. Looking at the setup there are two things that become painfully apparent. The setup is loose on purpose as that is one of the cushions that effectively cuts down road noise and vibrations, much as the coupler on the "propellershaft." Additionally, at power levels much lower than you are putting down the cushioning effect also promotes a better MTBF. As we have beefed up the transmissions, clutches, driveshafts, stubs, and CVS over time it is only natural for the stress to go into the LCA. JMHO :dunno: Watch the rear wheel jump forward on this one.

 
#50 ·
:popcorn2:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top