Quote:
Originally Posted by churchx
ZDan: how me not wanting lowering for daily driving makes that i never go to track?
|
Who ever said you never go to the track?
Quote:
Last i checked, lowering is not mandatory requirement for track admitance  .
|
Neither are LCAs.
Quote:
|
Even though most of mileage happens at daily driving, 3/4ths of tire wear for me happens on track. And for that i need at least -3 front and more then 2 rear, or otherwise it's mostly tire outside, that gets worn.
|
Not the end of the world...
But yeah, in your specific case it's useful to get another degree or so of negative rear camber vs. the -1° plus/minus stock. Still less important than getting a lot more than stock 0° camber up front!
Quote:
|
Yes, there is lot of crap in aftermarket too, but it's wrong to put OEM as something best/better then anything else, mixing all aftermarket stuff in one bag.
|
True enough. But 50k load cycles of a test article pales in comparison to the durability testing done by OEM manufacturers...
Anyway, I stand by my point that for most people, adjustable rear LCAs are not necessary. Most people who regularly track these cars are lowered to some degree, and will be in the -2 to -2.5 degree range which is a decent place to be.
Tracked stock-height car, OK, it makes some sense.
Or if a car is as asymmetrical as finch or decep, yeah, I'd wanna correct that...
For me, I don't need it. Neither did my competitor in time trials, he removed his to get rid of a classification point so he can run lighter-weight or do another mod instead. We were tenths apart at NHMS before he got rid of them, tenths apart at Palmer after.
As someone mentioned, YMMV...