Okay, I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on this topic, and maybe it's for a good reason, i.e. it wouldn't work, or is just a dumb idea, but bear with me..
We know that GD ALK's will fit GC's. And we know that stock GD transverse links provide more caster than stock GC bits. We also know that the poly bushings in ALK's tend to increase the NVH a pretty substantial amount in the GC chassis. So, what I'm wondering is, why don't more people use stock or Group N GD transverse links? It seems like it would be a great alternative to an ALK.. my theory is that it would provide more caster over stock, and be a more comfortable ride compared to an ALK.
I also have a few more questions sort of on this topic..
-How much more caster do stock GD links provide over stock GC links?
-If an ALK increases the caster 0.5* over stock on both GC and GD models, and GD models have more caster stock to begin with, does that mean that a GD ALK installed on a GC would add more caster than a GC ALK installed on a GC.
-Corey
We know that GD ALK's will fit GC's. And we know that stock GD transverse links provide more caster than stock GC bits. We also know that the poly bushings in ALK's tend to increase the NVH a pretty substantial amount in the GC chassis. So, what I'm wondering is, why don't more people use stock or Group N GD transverse links? It seems like it would be a great alternative to an ALK.. my theory is that it would provide more caster over stock, and be a more comfortable ride compared to an ALK.
I also have a few more questions sort of on this topic..
-How much more caster do stock GD links provide over stock GC links?
-If an ALK increases the caster 0.5* over stock on both GC and GD models, and GD models have more caster stock to begin with, does that mean that a GD ALK installed on a GC would add more caster than a GC ALK installed on a GC.
-Corey