Advantages and disadvantages of stretching the C4 wheelbase?

[55 Rescue Dog]

So from what I have seen so far is, the C4 tri-5 has a turning circle of 47.8 feet, which is the same as a 1/2 ton crew cab pick-up. That doesn't sound good at all.

[NickP]

So from what I have seen so far is, the C4 tri-5 has a turning circle of 47.8 feet, which is the same as a 1/2 ton crew cab pick-up. That doesn't sound good at all.

Maybe your frame guy will give you a refund and you can build a VW.

[chevynut]

So from what I have seen so far is, the C4 tri-5 has a turning circle of 47.8 feet, which is the same as a 1/2 ton crew cab pick-up.

How often are you going to be at full lock while driving anyhow?

That doesn't sound good at all.

So sell it or fix it so it's the way you want it. I already told you how you can fix it if you want more steering angle. Out of the hundreds or perhaps thousands of these cars built with C4 conversions, I've not heard anyone complain about steering radius.

When you purchased your new C4 chassis, I assume you asked these questions of the builder and the multitudes of customers he has that you mentioned, yes or no?

What escapes me with regards to your continual hypothesizes, is are you now questioning your path/purchase?

Exactly.

[chevynut]

Maybe your frame guy will give you a refund and you can build a VW.

[55 Rescue Dog]

When the ass end of the car starts to come around, you need all the opposite lock you can get to try and save It !!! I first got sold as to how awesome the C4 conversion chassis is, right here on this site. I'm still hoping to figure out how the make it work, now that I see it has some inherent problems, that I have also learned from this site, and many others. No free lunch...
My original 96 B-body chassis plan I should have tried to make work, instead of the C4 that I will have to try and make work. duh. A couple more ways I've learned the hard way again. There is no fn way to make a try-5 handle like a Corvette, but if it drove like a 96 Impala SS that would be great.

[markm]

As long as you have posi-traction, a little 'right foot' action during the turn can reduce the turning radius...

You got that right as long as you have a Posi-Track, Sure-Grip or Powerlock, one of Henrys dysfunctional 9 inch Traction-Loks good luck.

[chevynut]

Here's your solution. Cut down your frame to 96.2" wheelbase and make the body fit :

[rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017]

Cnut is that the French made 55 CIAT lol.

[BamaNomad]

Bama that's the old school way before cars could grip and steer into a corner lol. With the C4 setup you got now best to jerk steer hard right to unweight it then throw it back to the left or vise verse and get all 4 tires drifting if you lack the steering radius you need then line her out and pour the coal to it lol.

I'm as 'old school' as one can get... When I owned my '70 Roadrunner -F60-15 Polyglas tires - with NO power Steering, but I had posi.. I even used this technique when parallel parking..

[chevynut]

I first got sold as to how awesome the C4 conversion chassis is, right here on this site.

You asked for and got feedback on the other site too, and I offered to have you to talk to some of my customers but you refused to do so. I assume you talked to Rick who your bought your frame from and some of his "hundreds" of customers you claimed he had about all those "issues" you had with the conversion before you bought it. There's a ton of information out there and lots of guys driving them. If you think you got sold a bill of goods, it's nobody's fault but your own.

The slight steering angle reduction has been mentioned and discussed here on several threads before. You were too obsessed about my horrible single shear dogbone mounts and how a torque arm is so much better than a pinion bracket and how bad coilovers are, and other BS to pay attention to those "details", I guess.

I'm still hoping to figure out how the make it work, now that I see it has some inherent problems, that I have also learned from this site, and many others. No free lunch...

I don't understand what you keep agonizing about how to "make it work". It works just the way it is. The C4 suspensions work a helluva lot better than the tri5 suspensions, and probably a lot better than your "Camaro" that you hacked up...to "make it work". There are thousands of Tri5's out there with C4 suspensions and nobody complains but you, and you haven't even driven one yet. Guys who have them say they love them, and nobody I've ever heard about regrets doing it. I personally think you're just looking for an excuse to dump it and to justify it to yourself after spending so much on it because it's too big of a project for you to handle. That's probably what you should do so you can quit complaining and looking for "issues" and "problems".

My original 96 B-body chassis plan I should have tried to make work, instead of the C4 that I will have to try and make work.

LMAO! You were going to try to put a 55 Chevy body on a 96 Impala frame? Turning Diameter - Curb to Curb (ft): 43.6 And you think a 1996 Impala drives better than a 1996 Corvette? It has a perimeter frame with no body mounts matching up so an entire custom floor would have to be built. The engine probably isn't in the right location, bumpers don't bolt up, no radiator support, nothing matches a tri5 body. What are you smokin' RD?

There is no fn way to make a try-5 handle like a Corvette, but if it drove like a 96 Impala SS that would be great.

It's a Corvette with a lengthened wheelbase that doesn't change much but the steering radius and with a slightly higher CG....of course yours is WAY higher . The suspension geometry is the same whether under a Corvette body or a Tri5 body. It has an IRS and unspring weight is lower than the Impala. It's just a better performance platform made the same year. If you can't understand that, nobody can help you.