s-10 or Camaro clip for handling

[jbclassix]

I want to start getting some parts together to start working on my Wife's 49 until I can get back to work on my Suburban. I have been looking at a lot of the builds on here that used S-10 frames, and some that used Camaro clips. I don't really like the looks of the track width of the S-10 suspension, and the handling concerns me. So, What are your guy's opinion on an S-10 frame vs. a Camaro clip?

The rear will be 3-link, I am pushing for a BB so there will be some weight up front, and we really want this thing to handle!

I am open to suggestions!

Here is what we are starting with

[Lextech]

It depends on what Gen Camaro you are referring to. Typically, Very well handling vehicles have a low ride height. I don't think you can get the low ride height with a 2nd Gen Camaro front clip under an AD truck. I do agree that the S10s seem a little bit on the narrow side. You could always widen the S10 a couple of inches. You will probably need to rework the front crossmember anyway for the BB pan clearance. There are plenty of suspension/handling upgrades for either application.

Jeff

[mknittle]

YOU open a can of worm every time you ask that.I used a camaro but mine isn't finished.
My dad put a Caprice clip under my sisters about 20 years ago and it handled and rode real nice but it isn't as low as a camaro would be.there are ad trucks around with camaro front clips that drag the front bumper it all depends on what you want To me the s10 brackets look like they would put the center of gravity a bit higher just my 2cents

[mknittle]

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=484117

[booger1949]

i used a 81 malibu clip under my 49 an it handles real good, no regrets at all

[Wheelie]

Camaro was designed for performance/handling. S10 Designed for hauling crap and being a "truck". Both have available aftermarket performance stuff but camaro is the way to go IMO.

[flatbed51]

I am going with 1980 Malibu clip on my truck.

[jbclassix]

Originally Posted by mknittle

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=484117

That was a very good link! Got me re-thinking the Camaro clip!

Originally Posted by booger1949

i used a 81 malibu clip under my 49 an it handles real good, no regrets at all

Is the G-body a sub-frame or full frame car?

Originally Posted by Lextech

It depends on what Gen Camaro you are referring to. Typically, Very well handling vehicles have a low ride height. I don't think you can get the low ride height with a 2nd Gen Camaro front clip under an AD truck. I do agree that the S10s seem a little bit on the narrow side. You could always widen the S10 a couple of inches. You will probably need to rework the front crossmember anyway for the BB pan clearance. There are plenty of suspension/handling upgrades for either application.

Jeff

HMMMMM..... good points. Thoughts on second gen or maybe G-body?

Originally Posted by Wheelie

Camaro was designed for performance/handling. S10 Designed for hauling crap and being a "truck". Both have available aftermarket performance stuff but camaro is the way to go IMO.

I think the S10 would be a great base for tucking big wheels... that's not really what I plan to do. I really want something I don't have to change track width. We will use shallow wheels with a deeper back-spacing for a "faux-skinny" wheel look.

Originally Posted by flatbed51

I am going with 1980 Malibu clip on my truck.

Leaning this way or B-body frame

[blitz'd]

Originally Posted by Wheelie

Camaro was designed for performance/handling. S10 Designed for hauling crap and being a "truck". Both have available aftermarket performance stuff but camaro is the way to go IMO.

S10s can handle incredibly well with the right setup! Back when they were new the trucks with the ZQ8 sport suspension package pulled higher Gs on a slalom than a vette of that era. Its all in the ride height on those trucks.

[mknittle]

Funny some guys say the camaros are too wide then bolt 3" spacers on each side of a s10 to add a total of 6"

[BlueJeep]

Originally Posted by mknittle

Funny some guys say the camaros are too wide then bolt 3" spacers on each side of a s10 to add a total of 6"

I can't speak to the camaro clip as I have an s10 swap. I do know that I have stock s10 15 x7 wheels on mine and they look and work fine. I could benefit from a 1" spacer in the front, but wouldn't use any thicker than 1 1/2" because then the tires would be closer to the fenders than I'd like. 3"spacers per side and they'd be outside the fenders.

As for handling.....it handles like a stock s10.
Posted via Mobile Device

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by BlueJeep

I can't speak to the camaro clip as I have an s10 swap. I do know that I have stock s10 15 x7 wheels on mine and they look and work fine. I could benefit from a 1" spacer in the front, but wouldn't use any thicker than 1 1/2" because then the tires would be closer to the fenders than I'd like. 3"spacers per side and they'd be outside the fenders.

As for handling.....it handles like a stock s10.
Posted via Mobile Device

Really I didn't make that up, I was doing some research and fond a build on some website. I personalty think a 3" spacer would be unsafe. especially on the front!

[Kabwe]

If I were clipping a AD truck I would use a early 70's Nova or a G-body clip, they are not as wide as a Camaro the Camaro is great for the 55-59 in imo.
I did this 1972 Nova Clip on a buddy's ride and it rides and handles great.



Check out this build its has a nicely done clips on AD trucks
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...light=low+buck
This is Kid's build it's slit between two threads, its a very nice build
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=154951
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=219902

[Houston54]

If your primary objective is handling then discard the 2nd gen camaro and the S10 options. The camaro IS TOO WIDE unless you keep the ride height closer to stock OR get special back spacing on the front rims OR buy narrowed control arms. The narrowed control arms would put your cost at or above the cost of a good IFS kit from either Fatman or Heidts.
I have done the G-body clip on my 54 and am very happy with it but it is fab intensive and the radiator core support and radiator mounting must be modified which WILL complicate your sheet metal alignment.
The Malibu frame clips mentioned earlier are G-bodies.
The ONLY subframe I would use for an AD truck that was going to lowered would be the 1st gen F-body or Nova subframes. In stock form they suck performance wise but can easily be upgraded in the brake, spring and sway bar departments.
The BEST option is to use an IFS kit - period. In the end the costs are comparable, you get more for your money in terms of resale value, peace of mind to any future buyer that it was done properly, faster installation, no sheet metal alignment issues, and better overall performance. Of course if the handling you are wanting it for autocrossing primarily you would want to go with a coil over or air bag config but then your costs are getting even higher.

Do what you want but I would strongly suggest you GO OUT and talk to someone who has done the 2nd gen camaro subframe and see if they would recommend it or do it again. The ones I talked to when starting my project ALL answered NO.

If you are planning to use your truck on a regular or daily basis do not cheap out on the chassis elements. That is where spending some extra time and money will pay the most dividends down the road.

[mknittle]

well...I don't think a clip will cost $1500
plus I don't like the pinto a arms and a fancy fatman or Hidits is about $2500

[jbclassix]

One reason I don't want to use a nova clip is the steering box location.

This is definitely good information guys. I have been reading and reading build after build, and looking for as many options as possible.

Like I said earlier, I want to run a wider track width so I can use shallow steelies with more back-spacing, so I get the appearance of a narrow wheel, with the benefits of a wider wheel. This will also put my turning axis inside my wheel for improved handling (see, I'm learning).

Right now I am researching the possibility of an El Camino frame. I am also thinking about looking into a 'yota T-100 frame to see if it is a possibility.

[Kabwe]

Originally Posted by jbclassix

One reason I don't want to use a nova clip is the steering box location.

What problem do you have with the steering box location. He is running a 383 stroker with headers and plenty of room. Here is a pic of the engine compartment. Well we did shorten his column but hey this is hotrodding.lol

[sirwilliam]

Im doing a long box s10 chassis. Front with 2" drop spindles, stock V6 coils, and a zq8 sway bar. rear end is a s10 blazer disc brake setup bolted to blazer zq8 leafs (1.5" drop) and 2" block. it will sit low and level. you can get factory rear sway bars too, and the
2dr blazer gas tanks mount behind the rearend with very little fab work. You can use the s10 brake booster, and up to a 94 steering column. and as for the width of the s10, cant do anything quick fix for the front end other than spacers, but for the rearend swap it for a 4x4 one, 2wd is 54.5" and 4x4 are 60". hope this helps. there are tons of options for s10s. they have 4 link setups, bolt on bag setups.... Have a good day man!

[MrDude_1]

define "handling" and I think you can get a better answer.

Honestly, and this is just my odd opinion I know.... but if you want it to handle well enough for autocross or trackdays, you will want to ditch the big block.

if your idea of handling is just "sporty feeling".. then it doesnt matter. ANY of the IFS mentioned above, with proper shocks, springs and swaybars will FEEL that way.

So are you just saying you want it to feel sporty and stable driving around a hwy off ramp?
Or are you planning on aggressively using the truck in some kind of performance competition? because my answer to you will change greatly depending on that.

[jbclassix]

Thread resurrection! So I was at the junk yard the other day (without my tape measure) and found a nice 78 Skylark sub-frame. Has anyone seen or run a Chevelle/skylark/cutlass/GTO clip?

[Warrens69GMC]

78 Skylark = 75-79 Nova


Skylark like this one

Buick Skylark 1978 Classic Buick - SOLD -...

[jbclassix]

Ha! Yeah, just not that classy... Looks like I found my clip then!

[not2oldchevy]

I am trying a flat out engineering C4 front kit on my 53. Cheaper than a mustangII and should be a lot better. I guess I will find out!

[mr48chev]

Originally Posted by mknittle

Funny some guys say the camaros are too wide then bolt 3" spacers on each side of a s10 to add a total of 6"

It's three inches total not three inches on each side unless they are running the large diameter wheels that need to be spaced out more.

This is my truck with the first series Camaro stub an 14x7 wheels on the front.


The photo was taken in 1982 right after a 2500 mile road trip from Washington state to Texas.
The big rub on this setup is that the steering column doesn't want to line up with the steering box when the wheel is in the stock position. If I were to do another one with that subframe I'd use a column out of a later model front wheel drive car that had the Ujoints under the dash to move the shaft over where it needed to be.

I don't get the statement that you can't get the truck low enough with a second generation subframe. I don't see any reason that a guy can't get it as low as he wants it with full suspension travel.

If handling is the big concern pick a Trans Am subframe with the hd sway bar and get the matrching rearend and sway bar setup to use on the back.

The big battle is still with getting the sheet metal lined up right when you are done. It isn't rocket science but a guy can expect to spend as much time getting that right as the actual subframe job took.

[mknittle]

Originally Posted by mr48chev

It's three inches total not three inches on each side unless they are running the large diameter wheels that need to be spaced out more.

This is my truck with the first series Camaro stub an 14x7 wheels on the front.


The photo was taken in 1982 right after a 2500 mile road trip from Washington state to Texas.
The big rub on this setup is that the steering column doesn't want to line up with the steering box when the wheel is in the stock position. If I were to do another one with that subframe I'd use a column out of a later model front wheel drive car that had the Ujoints under the dash to move the shaft over where it needed to be.

I don't get the statement that you can't get the truck low enough with a second generation subframe. I don't see any reason that a guy can't get it as low as he wants it with full suspension travel.

If handling is the big concern pick a Trans Am subframe with the hd sway bar and get the matrching rearend and sway bar setup to use on the back.

The big battle is still with getting the sheet metal lined up right when you are done. It isn't rocket science but a guy can expect to spend as much time getting that right as the actual subframe job took.

i guess somebody was confused because i read it twice to make sure that was what i read.lol