unequal four link for super stocker

[Dragsinger]

I appreciate everyone's feedback.

The reason for my question, I am looking at a 3rd gen Camaro that is fitted with the Ed Quay style link. That design is from the days when NHRA rules did not allow the floor to be cut for suspension install.

The upper bar is considerably shorter than the lower bar per the Quay design.

My research shows the Quay design is in service with successful racers.

Given this updated information, do y'all have any additional feedback?

Is the Quay design acceptable for a small block powered package running in the 9.30 ET range?

A trans brake launch with engine of about 650 - 670 horse?

[Aaron Allison]

My SS/BM Cavalier has a short top bar style four link and we have never had any issues with it and it is very tune-able. We have run the car with a 500 HP GT motor all the way up to the 865 HP modified motor that we have in it today. I know a number of years ago a lot of guys were changing them out, but I think it was a little bit monkey see monkey do.
I know there are a ton of cars out there like mine. I wouldn't be scare of that set-up one bit. If building a car from scratch I'm not sure I would do it, but definitely not worth changing.

[Rich Biebel]

Ed Quay told me Via Facebook just recently why he favored those short top bars and it made sense.

He felt equal length bars could get into a bind easier.

His dragsters used the same shorter top bar style 4 link.

My good friend has one and I know of others and they work well.


I had a short wheelbase Vega and it was originally a 3 link

It had extreme body roll using a trans brake and I cut it out and installed an Art Morrison 4 link with short top bars due to limited space.

Car worked fine and I ran as quick as 9.30 footbraking.....and used a trans brake for S/G .....

The next owner ran some 8.80's with it and added an anti roll bar and a strut front end to replace the a-arms that it was built with.....

[CMcAllister]

With hole spacing being the same on the chassis bracket, the shorter bar will be a much more drastic change when moving the front up or down a hole. It can go from too much angle to not enough, (too much change in IC location), with no way to split the difference other than a ride height change.

Also, the IC change throughout the normal rear housing movement will be much greater, depending on how much the rear moves. Even if you've found the sweet spot, this can still cause problems.

IMO, the short bars were a compromise for the situation at the time. The trend now is to make the adjustments finer, with smaller holes in brackets, tighter center-to centers, multi piece brackets allowing for 1/8" changes in location, and/or longer bars making this so.

[bert powell]

While I agree the adjustment is more drastic with the short top bar, if you move the mounting location on the rear housing to one of the other holes you can find a middle ground. First thing you need to do is draw out and plot the IC of all combinations. This will tell you what next closest move is.

I built two Camaros with Quay kits. I put what Ed wanted for the initial bar and shock settings on the first car. Worked great, just made changes to front shocks/limiters for track changes.

Second car didn't work out so good during shakedown, had convertor/gearing issues. During this time I changed bar settings, ride height and shock settings. Dug out my notes from Ed, put back to his initial settings. Went looking elsewhere and found the issues. Rear is still at these settings, just adjust the Santhuff struts extention 1/4 turn max either way depending on track.

[Dragsinger]

Thanks to all who replied, I appreciate the information.

I did buy the car and will post updates later.

[L79racer]

Originally Posted by bert powell

While I agree the adjustment is more drastic with the short top bar, if you move the mounting location on the rear housing to one of the other holes you can find a middle ground. First thing you need to do is draw out and plot the IC of all combinations. This will tell you what next closest move is.

I built two Camaros with Quay kits. I put what Ed wanted for the initial bar and shock settings on the first car. Worked great, just made changes to front shocks/limiters for track changes.

Second car didn't work out so good during shakedown, had convertor/gearing issues. During this time I changed bar settings, ride height and shock settings. Dug out my notes from Ed, put back to his initial settings. Went looking elsewhere and found the issues. Rear is still at these settings, just adjust the Santhuff struts extention 1/4 turn max either way depending on track.

I run unequal length bars on my 4 link. I am always looking for new info. Could you elaborate on how Ed wanted the bars set up?

[Dragsinger]

it begins! I will and an anti-roll bar kit

[bert powell]

Bottom bar 2 degrees down towards front of car. Notice in the pic provided the bottom bar is in the upper hole on rear. Both rear housing mounts should be in outer holes. When lower bar moved to outer housing hole, the rear will need to go up into chassis. This will increase downward angle of top bar. I believe the top bar in pic is in preferred initial location. Shock settings should provide minimal chassis separation or squat.

Originally Posted by L79racer

I run unequal length bars on my 4 link. I am always looking for new info. Could you elaborate on how Ed wanted the bars set up?