Did BBody suspension change much over the years?
Specifically if you wanted to set them up to handle decently?
I was thinking about looking for a LT1 BBody, but I like the looks of the earlier more square looking cars a little bit better.
I realize not the best platform to start with for a great handling car but I like the way they look.
Is there a recipe so to speak of things to change to get a decent handling BBody on a tight budget?
Best handling ones would have been the 9C1 Caprice.
Yes, they changed a lot.
1958 rear suspension is an oddball three-link system.
I think the spindles and steering changed in the mid-sixties and again the late 70s.
Curtis knows more than I do about the B-Body chassis.
My Son is a B-Body fan and said this is a good place to start. https://bbodyforum.com . I can't say myself never looked at it. There is tons of stuff for the G-Body. From drag racing to circle track, some of it may relate and cross over, same basic suspension design, just different dimensions.
Subtle changes, but primarily the same since 1968 on chevy, 1964 on BOP. When I redid the suspension on my Impala SS, most of the cast-offs made their way into my 66 Bonneville. Prior to those years, B-bodies used a lower I-arm and a strut rod. Just be aware of little configuration changes across different applications. By about 1972 they were pretty much the same, but before that you might run into front/rear steer spindles, ball joints pointing up/down, etc.
Stock geometry doesn't suck. Lowering it will get you a little quicker camber change. There is a combo of front/rear sway bars that seems to work. If you do Hotchkiss and both ends you get oversteer, and if you do Herb Adams at both ends you get understeer. There is some combo of Hotchkiss/Adams front and rear bars that makes it pretty neutral.
Even though the rear is a 4-link, the trailing arms are super wimpy. As in, even when they're installed you can flex them by hand. Box them, fab new ones, or get aftermarket. Surprisingly, a panhard bar/watts link I've heard does wonders for B bodies.
If you get a disc/disc car, you'll be pleasantly surprised at how good the brakes are. They don't look like anything special, but they're actually pretty capable in spirited driving.
Make sure (especially if you get a boxy version) of what axle you have under there. Most of them will have the 8.5", but some came with the 7.5". 7.5" will last forever behind a 140-hp 305, but if you turn up the volume it has a significant risk of ejecting the entire carrier out through the cover. I know the interwebs will say that all of the HD cars had the 8.5" but it isn't true. I had a 94 LT1 station wagon and it had a 7.5" You also can't use wheel bolt pattern to determine axles. Some of them up through the 80s/early 90s had 5x4.75 and the HD ones had 5x5, but that doesn't indicate 7.5" vs 8.5". If you go back to the 70s, there was a 12-bolt option on wagons and it was a weird one. 10 bolts on the cover, 12 bolts on the ring gear, and a gasket that looks more like a 14-bolt but smaller.
I suggest against urethane bushings. The rubber is pretty compliant but not awful. Something about the geometry seems to eat urethane bushings pretty quickly.... at least on the front. If you get a bubble (last generation), check the body bushings. On many of these cars, GM opted to reduce NVH by just not installing all the body bushings. You'll see a bolt and a washer and you might think it just rotted and fell off, but it was omitted by the factory. A good way to firm up the whole thing is to install those biscuits. I believe you can still get Global West Delrin bushings for these. Factory A-arms are strong but heavy. Aftermarket arms don't really change the geometry. They are a stock replacement in tubular steel. Their only real benefit is reduced weight.
My Impala SS had bilsteins, Intrax springs, urethane bushings (until they wore out and then back to rubber), and I stopped at that point because the car handled way better than the seats. I wouldn't say it was competitive, but last year at the challenge it won our CAM class... mostly because we were one of only two cars in the class.
TL;DR... the geometry is surprisingly good and easy to upgrade. Parts are a slam dunk. Rear arms wimpy. Make sure it's an 8.5" axle. Hard to get around the weight, but you can make it handle quite well.
Everything from the 96 down will bolt into a 77 and up. Find a 94-96 9C1 and rob everything. It will net you a disc brake rear, 12" disk front, 440 lb. springs, a 10.5 compression LT1, and a PCM without a speed limiter.
Bare in mind the bolt pattern increases to 5x5. No more Camaro rims will fit, but truck rims will.
Make sure to pay attention to axle width. Wagon axles are narrower, which isn't a big deal, but the trailing arm mounts are moved inward as well. Not a direct bolt-up.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Also impala ss rears are wider than a standard sedan rear
Important to note... when GM went to the rear disc in B-bodies, they didn't change the prop valve. This skews way too much brake torque to the front. You'll never notice it in daily driving, but it can make for some frustration on a track.
If you get that far, hit me up. I have a 5 minute fix for it.
In reply to Patrick (Forum Supporter) :
Forgot about that.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
Great info. Thanks. Is there a easy way to ID a 8.5 vs a 7.5 if you can't go by lug pattern?
Also when did they transition to the rear discs?
In reply to Appleseed :
Is there a easy way to ID the 9C1 if someone is junkyard shopping?
In reply to Somebeach (Forum Supporter) :
if it looks like a cop car, check the codes in the door jamb or glovebox and look for rpo code 9c1.
In reply to Somebeach (Forum Supporter) :
Curtis has dibs, but let me know if you would consider an Impala SS. Its not officially for sale, but I am trying to clear space and time for other projects.
Are "wimpy" rear trailing arms actually an issue? Does this apply to just the top arms or all four? The reason I ask is coming from a small amount of time with an SN95 Mustang, the top rear arms are pretty flexible, but it's a bit of a bonus as it helps slightly with giving the rear suspension some compliance to deal with the inherent bind in the design. Seeing as how GM B's are largely similar in rear suspension design, is boxing the arms really something that needs or should be done? I could definitely imagine a rear panhard bar improving things without having to change other hardware around it.
Box the bottoms. There is a bit of bind in the geometry. I think this ends up being a problem with urethane bushings, too.
9C1s had a trunk sticker too. Be careful if you are taking the LT1. The baby LT, the L99, the 4.3, is nearly identical on the outside. Dual factory exhaust is a dead giveaway that you have a 350. The babies all had singles.
Replacing the sway bar bushings, adding thicker end links and putting in Monroe severe duty shocks made a stupendous difference in mine
In reply to eastsideTim :
How soon are you looking to sell it?
I was mostly looking for a wagon. I also am about 3-4months out from looking more seriously.
Is there a build thread or anything on it?
found it. I will give it a read through.
https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/build-projects-and-project-cars/1996-impala-ss-team-lopreps-challenge-entry/172522/page1/
In reply to Somebeach (Forum Supporter) :
My plan had been to wait until it warms up in Ohio, so March-April at the earliest.
If I remember right, 2nd gen F-body front sways bolt right up with a bushing change.
Appleseed said:If I remember right, 2nd gen F-body front sways bolt right up with a bushing change.
You're correct but the only bar worth bothering with is the WS6 swaybar. The rest are all wimpy.
Also good to know if you stumble on an aftermarket 2nd gen bar.
Appleseed said:Also good to know if you stumble on an aftermarket 2nd gen bar.
Don't be mislead if you stumble upon a Hotchkis 1 3/8" aftermarket front bar for 2nd gen F body. They're hollow and not as stiff as the 1 1/4" factory bars or other 1 1/4" solid aftermarket bars
Can confirm a lot of what is said here to make them handle. Rear sway bar and Monroe Severes at a minimum. Also responds well to lowering springs, or in my case, a chopped coil or two.
The 9C1s all got rear disks in 94. Not sure if any had before, but guaranteed by 94. The front calipers are iron, the the rear got aluminum PBR calipers.
eastsideTim said:In reply to Somebeach (Forum Supporter) :
Curtis has dibs, but let me know if you would consider an Impala SS. Its not officially for sale, but I am trying to clear space and time for other projects.
I think Curtis is passing on Dibs. I just blew a wad of cash on a van, and it will take a significant amount of money to turn it into a babe magnet.
You'll need to log in to post.
