a few vids of my car. this is for your aaron :P

[MstangsBware]

225-250lb best for drag racing, 375-400lb for autox with the 3800/auto combo. my guess anyways.

I was thinking 10 inch 255# springs and see how they workout. I am also running KYBs and plan on making my own coilovers.

[The Dark Side of Will]

When I had Gabriels in the N* car, I was cutting 1.92 shorts with a CenterFarce clutch. I was limited first by wheel hop and then by the clutch. That was with 325# springs.

I think that stiff springs in a Fiero are the right answer for launching, as long as you can damp them well enough to avoid wheel hop. The time it takes to compress softer springs is time that the car could be moving forward instead of compressing springs.

If you seat the threaded sleeve on top of the taco clamp at the bottom of the strut, then a 12" spring is the perfect length.

[THE PUNISHER]

Yes I have driven an 88...many an 88 actually. I don't think it would be hard modify an older cradle to work a lot better then it does. 88 cradles aren't exactly common place here in canada.

As for the AC compressor..boo urns!!! Oh well , back to the drawing board.


As for SCCA update and backdate...trying to make a fiero competitive at a national level is a waste of time.

[The Dark Side of Will]

'88 rear is WAY better than early rear.
It can be upgraded further by moving the pivot points.

There was some controversy on the Fiero Racing List, but the end result, I believe, was that it is NOT legal under the SP update/backdate rule due to the hole which has to be cut the strut tower in order to locate the struts properly.

Will, I know I've seen you mention relocating the rear suspension pivot points a few times in the past. Did you ever actually document/lay out what you thought would work anywhere? In the not-so-distant future I might be able to put this to use and will probably be running some numbers of my own. I'm not building to any class rules, FWIW, this would be an "anything goes" build. I'd gladly start a new thread if you guys want to bounce some ideas around.

Bryce

The stock toe link inner pivot is slightly outboard of the stock lateral link inner pivot. The to are co-elevation. This difference results in slight "good" bump steer in which the suspension toes in under compression to increase slip angle and lateral G on the outside rear tire. This tends toward understeer and makes the car predictable. However, as implemented in production, the suspension also toes in on droop.

The '88 rear has a fairly low roll center. This is not what a car with a centroid axis that's high in the rear needs. The rear roll center needs to be raised to make the roll axis closer to parallel with the centroid axis and more evenly distribute the roll moments front-rear.

Raising the roll center is accomplished by raising the inner pivots of the lateral and toe links.

The left inner toe link pivot is the limiting factor in how high the links can be raised because of interference with the transmission. My only example involves a 282, so I don't know if this will work with other transmissions or not.
I'd move the toe links forward and inward until they are the same distance from vehicle CL as the lateral link pivots (so that the toe and lateral links would be the same length). I'd raise them as much as I could without interference with the transmission.
I would then raise the lateral link pivots MORE than the toe link pivots. I'd select the difference in height so that it would put at most the stock amount bump steer back into suspension. Implementing bump-steer via height difference would make the suspension toe OUT on droop. I think this would have a beneficial effect on handling and predictability via the inside tire for the same reason that toe in on compression works with the outside tire.