Quote:

...Personally, I don't think a 1.22 is that radical for a performance handling application. By comparison, the 300# wheel rate these produce would be along the lines of a 600# coil spring in a GM. There are a lot of Camaros out there running 600# springs in the G-machine genre. When I was running oval track, we routinly used 800 and 1000 pound springs up front with 160 to 200 pounders out back. I also liked the car plenty loose and this got it there...



This may well be true. But on a stock Camaro with a bolt-on subframe, there's typically such a lack of torsional rigidity in the platform that, once a certain point (in spring rate) is reached, it really doesn't matter how stiff you make the springs! That, in my experience, is not true for full-unibody Mopars.

Of course, as you mentioned, weight distribution / bias is a key factor in setting this up. I've always tried to keep the weight as close to 50/50 as possible, which, of course, is a common goal.

I've never been a fan of large rear swaybars (mind you, I'm not talking race car, I'm talking canyon carver / street driver). Unless extreme care is taken to reduce or eliminate their progressiveness (solid frame mounts, ball joint or heim joint "ends"), the car may transition from understeer to oversteer at the most inopportune moment. While you'd think that multi-leaf rear springs would also be quite progressive, in reality it doesn't seem to be so. Probably this because, unlike truck leafs, all leafs are already in contact with each other at normal ride height.

I think we all agree, however, that this is still a black trial-and-error art!

Rick