Re: Steeda Watts Link?
First off let me state that I have the Fays2 Watts and it's been installed on my GT500 since last Fall.
Here's my first impression after seeing the picture and reading Steeda's cover:
1) This design is not a true 'center-pivot' design, but nether is the Fays design. What am I saying? A frame mounted center pivot design, like this Steeda and Fays, are only 'correct' (speaking of correct suspension geometry) at the point it is set and leveled when the suspension is static, ie not moving up and down; once in-motion the 'correct' suspension geometry will change as the suspension moves. This is the inherent problem with a frame mounted center pivot design. Fays (Jim) says that their system can be pre-loaded to account for suspension movement, but IMO it can only be 'corrected' so much and at a compromise, when it's pre-loaded for one set of parameters it will be incorrect when a different set of parameters is encountered. This is also one of the reasons why the Fays and Steeda designs allow for adjustment of the center pivot bolt up and down on the frame and the Saleen Watts has a static position for the center pivot bolt on the diff. cover, there is no need for adjustment on the Saleen's center pivot bolt because it's in the correct position all the time because it's able to move up and down with the rear-end as the rear-end moves up and down. The Griggs Watts is different in-that it is a rear-end mounted system (true center pivot) but Griggs provides adjustment, up and down, of the center pivot bolt for adjustment and pre-loading which is what Griggs GR40 system is all about, adjustability...
2) I would question the design of the rear-end mounting arms. The Fays has a full collar that clamps down on the rear-end over apx. 90% of the clamp rings surface area, this Steeda design, as the picture appears, only clamps down upon the rear-end on its sheet metal surfaces, maybe utilizing 15% of it's surface area. I have found that this is a critical area of the Fays design and besides the center pivot bolt, the rear-end clamps are subject to the most stress in this design. These arms have to be held firmly on the rear-end and cannot move at all or the entire systems geometry is jeprodized. Also, by using sheet metal (Steeda) the rear-end axle tubes are subjected to a lot of clamping pressure concentrated in a thin area, I would think (I'm not an engineer) that there could be a possibilty of distorting the axle tubes, probably not bending them, but dimpling them where the arms clamp onto the axle tubes.
I suspect most of us are of the "set-it-and-forget-it" vain, if that describes your needs, the Saleen is the best Watts design/system IMHO; my opinion has been shaped by exhaustive research, talking to the manufactures, less Steeda, and talking to people using the various systems and installing/using the Fays system on my own car..
Just my first impressions on the Steeda Watts above and I'm not a difinitive expert on Watts link systems for our cars and I'm not an engineer. Just so you know the direction I'm headed (if you care?), this Fall I will more than likely be installing the full Griggs GR40 rear-end suspension system. Why the Griggs? Because of the torque arm and the true center-pivot Watts link design/equipment in the Griggs package. But if I wanted something simple to install and a "set-it-and-forget-it" system, I'd go with the Saleen Watts and would 86 the Fays that I have now and install the Saleen... But I want the adjustability and the torque arm.
Hope that helps,
Jay
Last edited by WP64 : 04-30-2008 at 03:07 PM.
Reason: Spelling
|
Linear Mode
