Now I need to first wait til the GW lowers arrive to see them in the flesh before I decide what to do. What a range of choices, all the way from boxed stock to GW's, with Edelbrock in between.
I'm not sure how my front end relates to GW's Neg Roll concept. I am using Hotchkis tubular uppers, tall (Camaro) spindles, and stock lowers, with QA1 coilover conversion shocks/springs. Don't know if the Hotchkis upper arms result in Neg Roll, though they do say "improved geometry".
BTW what size is your front sway bar?
Thanks,
Fred
On Apr 2, 2004, at 5:46 PM, Herb Lumpp wrote:
Hi Fred,
If I were you I would reuse the stock upper arms. I have the same GW lower
arms on my Elky with a pair of boxed stock upper arms with the original
rubber bushings and no rear sway bar. That combined with the GW Negative
Roll front suspension and my Elky handles like a dream. In fact, I'd go so
far as to say it handles better than my Vette, which isn't stock either.
Save your money by using the stock uppers and keep the GW lowers. Just my
opinion.
Herb Lumpp http://users.adelphia.net/~hlump/index.htm
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Fred Dowaliby Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:45 AM To: The Chevelle Mailing List Subject: [Chevelle-list] rear control arms
I just bought a set of lower rear control arms from Global West, the ones with the spherical bearing and Del-a-lum bushings.
I am now considering those offered by Edelbrock as a cost cutting alternative for the uppers. They are about $90(Jeg's) less than GW and also use a spherical bearing on the frame side, although poly on the axle side.
I would appreciate any advice/opinions on this, particularly from anyone who has purchased those from Global. This is for a cruiser, so out and out performance is not the issue, but I still want to do it right.
Thanks,
Fred
