TheSaint

I have been looking at some different types of coil overs rear

I have looked at Sharkbite, VanSteel and Pro shocks GM coil over conversion shocks from Summit Racing

Thinking of how the Sharkbite coil overs are mounted i wonder if the shock absorbers push the trailing arms outwards since they are placed so "horisontal"?
If they do push the trailing arms outwards i guess that is not a good thing?

The ones from Van Steel have a moves up and down and are placed more like regular shock absorbers

Any tried the ones from Summit that are mounted like the ones from Van Steel?
The pic to the left is of Sharkbite and you can see how much "horisontal" the shocks are mounted, the picture in the middle are the ones from Van Steel and the ones on the pic to the right are the Pro shocks GM coil-over conversion shocks from Summit and they also have a very nice price
Do the Sharkbite coil overs push the trailing arms and which coil overs do you think are the best?

jrm5657

The Pro shock picture you show is for the front only, no way that would work on the back because it is a semi coil over shock. I have them on the front of a 67, and they work great, I like being able to adjust ride height. Sorry, no experience with rear coil overs.

TheSaint

Well. this is embarrassing because I thought they were intended for rear use

427Hotrod

If I was doing it...I'd do the Van Steel version.

JIM

RJ1

I have Van Steel offset trailing arms with the QA-1's in your picture. Works fine and allows room for a wider tire. Probably saves a few pounds as well.

theybot

I wonder if you can run anything other than side pipes with the shark bite set up with out sacrificing a ton of clearance.

65silververt

Shark bite system weighs 40 pds. I just put the system that came with the 66 chassis i purchased from Ben, another forum member, on ebay tonight. I had to weigh the system for shipping calculations, so that is how i know. Ben's chassis had rear exhaust on it. Shark bite claims you can run the spare tire tub as well.

jim lockwood

40 lbs? Geez, isn't that more than the simple, reliable, stock transverse leave spring?

It looks like a lot of complexity for no obvious gain.

JohnZ

Whole lot of rods, joints, and monkey-motion, for what?

Avispa

Well, I would have said the Van Steel setup takes the spring torque stress off the differential cover (supposedly a weak point before the covers were beefed up), but I haven't broken my 48 year old one yet and it does get an occasional snot-beating.

FWIW, the Van Steel setup has a lot fewer joints, rods and monkey motion.

Bill32

I agree with Jim & John, I'd rather use a simpler design and one that weighs less.

There is one advantage to a bellcrank system though. You can set ride height separately from spring preload. But I don't see that as an advantage on a C2, even one that is a "track only" car.

RJ1

FWIW, the Van Steel setup has a lot fewer joints, rods and monkey motion.[/QUOTE]

Van Steel uses an offset trailing arm and assume it weighs the same as the stock piece it replaces all that is left is the weight of the 2 coil overs. There are 2 reinforced mounting brackets for the top attachment to the frame.
No idea what the leaf spring weights but it was heavy.