Visit The Dirt Forum for More Information

Author Topic:   GM Metric or Chevelle?
Pit Bull
Dirt Full Roller

Total posts: 50
posted September 19, 2001 11:08 PM
My brother raced a 1983 olds cutlass in the bomber class this year, and I raced a 1974 chevelle malibu in cruiser. It seemed to us that the chevelle handled a whole lot better than the cutlass, and It didnt even have racing shocks or springs; just junkyard parts. The question I have is what do you guys think I should build for next years bomber car? A chevelle or GM metric? The only real advantage I can see in the metric is the lighter weight. Why did my chevelle handle so much better? More weight on dry slick? Longer wheelbase? Please help!

CUSTOMPERFORMANCE
Dirt Freak

Total posts: 223
posted September 20, 2001 12:05 AM
a little more weight, wider stance, longer wheelbase all helps, also the older frames have better front suspension geometry.

poboy2
Dirt Forum Racer

Total posts: 100
posted September 20, 2001 05:58 PM
I asked the same question some time back, and most seemed to think that the metrics handled better, but I still have my doubts.

Pit Bull
Dirt Full Roller

Total posts: 50
posted September 20, 2001 06:56 PM
If I build a chevelle bomber, do you think I can keep up with the metrics if I get enough ponies to make up for the extra weight?

KWTracer
Dirt Forum Racer

Total posts: 90
posted September 20, 2001 07:18 PM
Maybe you just had it setup better. Maybe the metric car could have used some work on weights and percentages. My opinion is, if your put the same amount of time into each, the metric car should handle better. I think it is more tunable. The front suspension geometry is better, and I like the rear suspension better. But in a bomber class, depending on how rough yours is, the extra weight and stiffer car may come in handy.

Pit Bull
Dirt Full Roller

Total posts: 50
posted September 20, 2001 10:50 PM
What would you suggest for spring rates on the metric car? We had a 1350 on the front right, a 1150 on the left front, a 200 on the inside left, and a 175 on the right rear. One of the problems we encountered was getting the right rear too hot. We had 200 lbs of lead on the left rear of the car. We had it scaled twice by a friend of mine, and it scaled out good both times. We did tons of work and tweaking on the metric, and never scaled or had to do much of any tweaking on the chevelle.

racer17j
Dirt Maniac

Total posts: 170
posted September 21, 2001 12:44 AM UIN: 54865418
your way heavy on the front that could be part of the problem 1100rf and 950 on the lf 250 rr and 200lr thats what i run works good. another thing you might want to consider as to why the chevell handled better is the speed how much faster was the metric car i know the best handleing car i drove was my 74 bonneville cruiser but it also was only gong about 50 mph

Pit Bull
Dirt Full Roller

Total posts: 50
posted September 21, 2001 04:30 PM
On a dry slick track, my cruiser ran faster times than his bomber. But, ive also got a Built 455 with a four barrel Hey, Racer 17j, you say in your message that you have 250 lb spring on the right rear, and 200 on the left rear...I thought that the heavier spring was suppost to be on the left side (driver's side) Is this a typo?

[This message has been edited by Pit Bull (edited September 21, 2001).]

racer17j
Dirt Maniac

Total posts: 170
posted September 21, 2001 11:45 PM UIN: 54865418
no typo i switch them sometimes for track conditions

Pit Bull
Dirt Full Roller

Total posts: 50
posted September 23, 2001 03:19 PM
Im guessing you put the 250 lb spring on the right side (passenger side) of the car when it gets dry slick to help prevent a push?

racer17j
Dirt Maniac

Total posts: 170
posted September 24, 2001 12:43 AM UIN: 54865418
you got it

Back to the Archives