C3 Dual Mount rear spring question

M

macx

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
37
I'm all for better handling and all, but at my age I'm building my 81 for daily driver street use and longer road trips and don't want to end up with a buckboard or race-car ride, either.

And - the VBP site doesn't specify if their dual mount system for an 81 also works with their 6 link. That 6 link would be a priority for me over a dual mount if push came to shove.

Just looking at it in comparison to the standard mounting system, it would seem that with less spring length to work with it the spring would have less opportunity / length to flex, or have to flex more within the shorter length to equal the ride of a standard mount system.

Make any sense? :confused2:

Along the same vein, I really like what I read about front mono-leaf setups, but (1) don't want to lower the car any - I know it says it's adjustable, but the write-ups also say it lowers the car 1", and (2) I have the same question concerning ride quality -

Thanks!!
 
Last edited:
what 6 link? dragvette? Not a suspension solution, it's a safety system
Also, non of those systems are designed for an 80-82 w/ the alu batwing & diff.

the dual mount spring has several benefits, amongst which is added roll stifness because it acts as a sway bar w. body roll. Look in the articles, there's a snippet from a book I posted about it. It covers the c4 dual mount system
 
http://www.dragvette.com/80__82_6link.htm

IMHO it does improve the suspension in that it holds the wheels
much more vertical during cornering and body roll than the stock
setup.

Also it relieves the side stress from the differential, reducing
wear and prolonging service without rebuilding
 
Yes, making the lower arms parallel with the shafts is a start in that
direction, but it does not relieve any of the stress on the U joints or
the bearings etc inside the diff.

By adding the upper arms the C clips on the axles inside the diff can
be removed to eliminate that stress.

As to the original reason for doing the lower arms as they did?

Only a guess - probly too simple - ground clearance?
And of course the level of engineering sophistication was quite
crude in those days compared to today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top