Vintage racing suspension Options

[BillJ]

So contemplating doing the suspension next year and want to accumulate parts. Knowing that vintage wants you to stay true to period what is the max we can do for suspension goodies? Lets call it SVRA rules as they seem to be the strictest....

Bushings, strut inserts, sways, torsion bars, etc. What are you guys willing to.share on setup? I will be running a 2.4 ltr.

[Charles Freeborn]

Rears are coil over already, so I'd go with a decent set of Konis. Don't know what rules are on sway bar choices. My front has been converted to C/O's and through-the-body sway, so can't help there.
I'd look for someone running in your same class and see what they did. There's the rules and then there's what everyone actually does...
I'd give Chuck at Elephant Racing a shout. He'll have good intel on bushings and other components. He's probably built a bunch to rules so he may be able to give you good info.

[vintage914racer]

I’ve run vintage for years in my car, although it’s been awhile since I’ve run with SVRA.

I’m running Bilstein sport non adjustable all around. I have ground control threaded collars in back with 250 or 300 lb springs best I can remember. 23mm torsion bars with a Tarett adjustable sway bar up front. Rebel Racing bushings up from and Elephant polybronze bushings out back. Tarett top mounts front and rear. I have a Guard LSD and no rear bar.

I’ve looking to have my Bilsteins revalued but haven’t got around d to it. As noted Chuck at Elephant would be a good resource. I know they have their own custom valves shocks.

[BillJ]

Thats great info guys. Reading the current svra specs they say that sways, torsion ratings and bushings all free. I have bilstein non adjustables all around, sway in front, torsion bars as stock and required (no coilovers in front allowed), and also have the slip on collars for the rear springs. Anecdotal lore says svra doesnt like those but the rules dont explicitly take a position. They also dont weigh in on front upper strut mounts.

My goal would be not to get ultra fancy about it but refresh with polybroze all around and perhaps new sway bar. Car handles well so not wanting to mess too much but i also want to get ahead of failures based on what are certainly old equipment.

[Charles Freeborn]

Another thing - probably a forgone conclusion - Definitely box / reinforce the trailing arms and tie as much of the cage to the suspension key points as the rules will allow. In stock form, the 914 chassis is pretty soft - making it harder to tune. Like I said, I'm sure you've done at least part if not all of that already.

[BillJ]

gt stiffening kit and boxed arms for sure with a full cage of course. Tying to the suspension points however was never done. At some point plan to address as well.

[brant]

got to be careful about suspension points...

the 1972 SCCA PCS rules do not allow that
most of the vintage clubs base their rules off of the 1972 scca rules...
so most of the clubs don't allow...

newer rules will..
IT classes in the SCCA

but so many clubs are based off of the 1967, and 1972 rules frozen... that the majority will not

[BillJ]

Likely why this car doesnt have that. Been a vintage racing car since 84...

[sixaddict]

Good way to get more front camber is to stretch a arms. …….Almost impossible to detect (IMG:style_emoticons/default/evilgrin.gif)

[brant]

Lots of ways to get negative camber

For zero $
I’ve modified the strut top mount
With zero modification to the chassis pick up point
(Legal)

And Can get up to almost 3 degrees negative

But the braking in a straight line does not love that

Offset lower ball joints are another legal way

A-arms would be difficult in comparison


We found too much Negative camber was not always a good thing
And like most things there is a compromise needed

In this case it’s a compromise between braking and cornering

[BillJ]

How much negative will the offset ball joints get me? That sounds like a good compromise. I think 2 degrres is plenty?

[brant]

We’ve been running -2.25 front and -2.5 rear

I can’t remember what the ball joints come in
Vaguely want to say -1degrees

I never put these in as they were not needed

[gms]

Tying to the suspension points however was never done.

That is incorrect, below are 2 examples of car in 1971 FIA events (LeMans and Targa Florio) where the the roll bar is tied into the rear suspension.

[BillJ]

Well interesting! Does that mean i can then show these pics and get a pass? Would love to do it...

[brant]

FIA rules... versus SCCA

my motor runs a twin plug.
I attended the old Coronado Island races 2-3 times...
one year because of the twin plug... they made me run in the FIA class.

Just saying those 906 porsches were alot faster than the datsun 240Z cars that run in scca rules...

[GregAmy]

...and all this rules blah blah blah is why I run with vintage/historics groups that don't give a damn. This is supposed to be a fun demonstration activity, not a re-enactment of the 24 hours of Daytona from 1973!

Arguing over whether a tie-bar is compliant to half-a-century-old rulesset? Seriously? I get enough of that rules argumentatation with SCCA stuff.

This is supposed to be fun, dammit!

[gms]

...and all this rules blah blah blah is why I run with vintage/historics groups that don't give a damn. This is supposed to be a fun demonstration activity, not a re-enactment of the 24 hours of Daytona from 1973!

Arguing over whether a tie-bar is compliant to half-a-century-old rulesset? Seriously? I get enough of that rules argumentatation with SCCA stuff.

This is supposed to be fun, dammit!

@GregAmy I agree with you BUT there are scrutineers that will ruin your day over the shape of a fender flare. Personally I think you should be able to build your car to the highest standard of the vintage period which is usually IMSA. Twin plug was an option on Porsches of the time and the 914-6 GT was legal in SCCA B-Production in 1971.

[GregAmy]

...there are scrutineers that will ruin your day over the shape of a fender flare...

Oh, being an SCCA scrutineer and steward myself, as well as a long-time driver, I totally get it. We have a lot of those people in that org, too.

But that attitude comes from the culture of the clubs themselves, and thus from the club's membership. The scrutineers are very likely being...jerks...about stuff like this because the participants are demanding that scrutiny.

Which means the participants, and the club, are taking this sh....shtuff WAY too seriously.

This reminds me a lot of the Civil War re-enactors that have the same super-serial attitudes about minute details. Well, except for actually using bullets, mind you...sometimes I wonder if that's a good thing or a bad thing...

Change comes from within. - GA

[gms]

motor section of option M491
sports clutch and transistor double ignition
performance approx: 210 DIN PS at 8000 rpm

[brant]

motor section of option M491
sports clutch and transistor double ignition
performance approx: 210 DIN PS at 8000 rpm

The factory built the GT cars to run in the FIA

I “think” from memory it’s appendix J in the FIA papers

I believe when they quickly became out gunned in the FIA
The factory came up with the idea of dealer sold kits (fender flares/Gt parts) to attempt to shift the car over to the SCCA rules

I believe that’s why there were originally 200 of those kits as a homologation minimum