Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*The\s+Ultimate\s+BSP\s+Vette\(The\s+info\s+that\s+u\s+were\s+probably\s+looking\s+4\)\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: Adam Popp <raft321@fuse.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 20:27:07 -0500
A couple of weeks ago a guy on here, he weant by the name of JH, asked what would be the ultimate BSP vette a C3, C4, or C5? Knowbody really answered him, except 4 somebody trying to sell Scotty's ca
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00146.html (8,946 bytes)

2. Re: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: Craig Blome <cblome@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 18:57:55 -0800 (PST)
Good summary, Adam. Wanted to add that major revisions were made to the C4 chassis in '88; the rear suspension geometry was reworked for a lower roll center, and the front for "zero scrub radius" (in
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00152.html (9,337 bytes)

3. RE: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: Rick Brown <rbrown7@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 19:11:48 -0800
I have run my C4 ZR-1 with both the early and late front suspension geometries. The 88 and later zero scrup uses a longer lower control arm and has more camber gain which I believe to be an advantage
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00154.html (10,259 bytes)

4. Re: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Glover" <rob@f-body.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:27:16 -0800
and experience What do you consider to be the best camber setting for the front, particularly on an early C4? Rob
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00155.html (8,622 bytes)

5. Re: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Glover" <rob@f-body.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:28:51 -0800
I was told by someone in the know that a key update part for a pre-88 C4 is to use the 88's lower control arm mounting brackets. These, I'm told, lower the mounting position of the arms to the rear e
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00156.html (8,734 bytes)

6. RE: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: Rick Brown <rbrown7@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 22:01:18 -0800
In SS as much as you can get without squashing the frame rails. Works out to about 0.7 to 1 degree negative. With BSP and the car lowered about 1.5 degrees. More static negative hurts braking so ther
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00164.html (9,066 bytes)

7. RE: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: Rick Brown <rbrown7@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 22:05:20 -0800
This lowers the inboard pick up points of the camber struts, lowers the roll center, and reduces camber gain during roll. I'm not convinced it's the hot setup for the later reason. -- Rick --Original
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00165.html (9,228 bytes)

8. Re: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: "Robert Glover" <rob@f-body.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:17:18 -0800
roll hot What do you suggest for REAR camber then? :) I've been running about -2.75 deg in back and -1 to -1.5 up front (unable to do any better without offset bushings, which will be in this weekend
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00168.html (8,528 bytes)

9. Re: The Ultimate BSP Vette(The info that u were probably looking 4) (score: 1)
Author: "Bruce Wentzel" <greendot@excelonline.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:42:39 -0500
So instead of buying the expensive offset LCA bushings, substituting an 88+ LCA into an 84-87 front suspension gets you the capability for more static negative and more camber gain? Bruce Wentzel Gre
/html/autox/1999-12/msg00177.html (11,659 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu