As I am obsessed with handling and the consensus on this forum is that the 1988 fiero is far superior in handling than the previous models, I opted not to go with a bandaid solution and go right for the 88 rear cradle and suspension. As the seller offered me a deal too good to pass up, I ended up purchasing both the front and rear cradle/crossmember and all necessary suspension parts.
I know that the 88 rear cradle fits into a non 88 easily as I've read about and have seen many photo's of the install. My question is regarding the front cross member and suspension. I know there is cutting and welding involved but how much? Do the 84 - 87 cars share any common mounting points for the front crossmember such that an 88 front crossmember can be bolted up making the necessary changes easier to measure.

Please chime in, if you have photo's of the differences in pre 88 and 88, please post. I figure I'm not alone in wanting to add 88 front suspension to my car however info on this swap is hard to come by. Hopefully we can pool all info on this swap here so those interested in this swap can get some answers.

In case anyone is wondering why I don't just get an 88 - sentimental value.

Hey Caesar,

Will has a pretty good writeup of what's involved here:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...010116-2-004275.html

David's writeup is also nice since it has pictures...
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...041015-2-047764.html


Let me know when you start yours, as I've got the same thing on my to-do list.

Ryan

------------------

Indy Northstar-Stretch ~ LT1-NOS Roadster

[This message has been edited by Fiero2m8 (edited 05-25-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Eau_Rouge: As I am obsessed with handling...

I think there was an article somewhere saying the BEST handling combination was a 84-87 front suspension with an 88 rear suspension. Can't find that thread right now.

------------------

World of Wheels Winners
My 3.4L S/C 87 GT
& My SD4 Indy

[This message has been edited by fierosound (edited 05-26-2009).]

quote Originally posted by fierosound: I think there was an article somewhere saying the BEST handling combination was a 84-87 front suspension with an 88 rear suspension. Can't find that thread right now.

I remember reading the same.
It also had the side effect that the '84-'87 front is much beefier, and the wheel bearings are cheeep. (and they exist.. :-p )

I think it was on a thread, where somebody used it as an autox setup.

The main advantage to the full 88 setup is in ride quality. The pre 88 front suspension after performance rebuild works very well with the 88 rear setup. Go with a larger diameter front swaybar, full poly, new ball joints, lowering springsrod ends and install a rack from an 85 - 87 GT for the faster ratio.

One has to ask, will you be using this as a track car or just a street car?

A set up pre 88 will handle as well as an 88 on the street.

I expect to get some flamage from that statement, that's fine, I have several of both 88 and pre 88 cars.

Joe

Thanks for the input everyone. Seems as if the consensus on this issue is that there is no significant benefit from adding 88 front suspension. Myself, having never driven an 88, i wouldn't know. I do prefer a stiffer front end and from what I understand the stock front sway bar on an 88 is 1 1/4 inch thick so that is an attractive feature for me plus the 88 front and rear suspension were designed to work together so one would imagine that this would be the best combination to have.
Currently, I'm just trying to gather info so I can make an informed decision on whether or not I will proceed with the swap.

Personally, I've never been too happy with the feeling of the steering on my car. Feels as if the car gets pulled into every groove on the road. Also, I've been told that the 88 front end controls and reduces dive and squat better. Is this true? Can anyone with experience chime in.
I'm just looking for the best bang for your buck improvement for the car. It's no track car, just my weekend/go out for a drive in country type of car - well it will be when I finish putting the interior back together.

Forgot to say, Ryan thanks for the links - a lot of good info in there.

[This message has been edited by Eau_Rouge (edited 05-26-2009).]

I've driven both and it is better stock for stock. You get better supsension geometry ..turning radius is tighter and easier to turn wheel ..better scrub radius as well as vented discs ..the only downfall I see is the rarity of the 88 suspension and of course the front wheel hubs are harder more expensive to find


oh and getting the correct offset wheel for the front if using aftermarket wheels

[This message has been edited by Erik (edited 05-26-2009).]

'88 front suspension means '88 wheel bearings. So that might make a difference too.
From what I understand '88 wheel bearings (that survive track days/aggressive driving) are made out of unobtanium.
For every replacement '88 wheel bearing an old '88 has to die..

So just to clarify, no one sells replacement wheel bearings for the 88 fiero? if you need one, you have to buy a used bearing from a parted 88 - is that what you're saying?

you can probably still get 88 wheel bearings from NAPA

quote Originally posted by Eau_Rouge: So just to clarify, no one sells replacement wheel bearings for the 88 fiero? if you need one, you have to buy a used bearing from a parted 88 - is that what you're saying?

Rodney Dickman sells replacements as well as the Fiero Store look them up at the top of the forum page in the "Fiero Parts Vendors" link

quote Originally posted by Eau_Rouge: So just to clarify, no one sells replacement wheel bearings for the 88 fiero? if you need one, you have to buy a used bearing from a parted 88 - is that what you're saying?

They are available but the "word" on the forum is that they are not up to autocrossing and hard use like the OEM units. And they aren't cheap either. As menioned, Fiero Store and Rodney Dickman should have them.

Fanatic13, I agree with everything you said. My modded 86 handles much better than my fairly stock (suspension-wise) Formula, but on a rough road, well, let's just say I'm glad I have no fillings in my teeth. But man, it sure does stick! I am looking forward to getting the 88 cradle into the 86 to see the difference that it makes to the car, I will be changing the the rear strut towers to 88 as well for spring clearance.

Joe

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Fanatic13, I agree with everything you said. My modded 86 handles much better than my fairly stock (suspension-wise) Formula, but on a rough road, well, let's just say I'm glad I have no fillings in my teeth. But man, it sure does stick! I am looking forward to getting the 88 cradle into the 86 to see the difference that it makes to the car, I will be changing the the rear strut towers to 88 as well for spring clearance. Joe

Make sure you report on how it handles compared to a full '88 set up!

quote Originally posted by fierosound: I think there was an article somewhere saying the BEST handling combination was a 84-87 front suspension with an 88 rear suspension. Can't find that thread right now.

i would love to see this thread

------------------
First LX9 Fiero GT, 1987 | My Fiero Fuel Economy | MPG Display for OBD I
Youtube Videos of My GT | 87 GT Inside Test Run | 3500 Fiero GT Test Run 01
3500 Fiero GT Test Run 02 | 3500 Fiero GT Test Run 03 | 3500 Fiero GT Test Run 04
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you've got an electrical problem
Fiero's are people too. We pay just as much attention to them, if not more than our loved ones
screw paying those bastards. im not going to become rich by paying for things.....

^^^ttt^^^

I think if you want the best handling and practicality (available replacement parts?) then the best solution would be a custom subframe. You could utilize the pre-88 uprights, or C4/5/6 parts or whatever just so long as good parts are readily available. But put it all together with better geometry (the non-Ackerman design of the '88 irritates me) and really improve the overall package.

------------------
'88 Formula. 2800/automatic. Finally on the road!

The rest of the garage:
'92 LeBaron sedan: 3.0V6/5sp
'77 Camaro: 350/4sp
'71 Fiat Spider: 1800/5sp
'71 Mercedes 220D: 2.2L/4sp
'70 DeVille: 472ci/TH400
'62 DeVille: 390ci/Hydramatic Jetaway

Anyone ever put any thought into using front spindles from a solstice/sky and modifying arms to fit the subframe or just build a custom front subframe to use with the solstice/sky spindles. It makes sense - I mean the solstice/sky also uses double wishbone front suspension and the solstice/sky is also a front steer (steering rack) car. If this is possible, it would resolve the front bearing issue the 88 guys have...just have to find a solution for the rear as the solstice uses a 5 x 110 mm wheel bolt pattern.
Let me know what you guys think about this.

quote Originally posted by FieroFanatic13: The front and back need to work together- and the pre-88 fronts are pro-dive and harder to turn, neither of which is a good thing.

Pro-dive?

I don't buy this.
84-87 front suspension is based on front suspension from a Chevette - it was always a front suspension design.

I would also add that the scrub radius problem can be improved with higher offset wheels. Of course, this doesn't happen often, as people are more concerned about aesthetics (alignment with the fender) than function. But since the OP seems to be after handling, I offered this suggestion...

Take a look at the upper wishbone. Granted, photos can be deceptive...
Courtesy of the polyurethane bushing writeup thread:

[This message has been edited by pmbrunelle (edited 12-22-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Austrian Import: I remember reading the same. It also had the side effect that the '84-'87 front is much beefier, .

I'm not sure your definition of "beefier" but the 84-87 is made of much lighter weight components compared to the 88. Some handling enthusiast prefer that because of the lower unsprung weight. But the caliper bridges alone are cast iron on the 88 compared to the aluminum calipers on the 84-87.

Here is a pic of the pre 88 on top and 88 on the bottom.... I will keep focusing on the 88's.

quote Originally posted by pmbrunelle: Pro-dive? I don't buy this. 84-87 front suspension is based on front suspension from a Chevette - it was always a front suspension design. I would also add that the scrub radius problem can be improved with higher offset wheels. Of course, this doesn't happen often, as people are more concerned about aesthetics (alignment with the fender) than function. But since the OP seems to be after handling, I offered this suggestion... Take a look at the upper wishbone. Granted, photos can be deceptive...

However, the rear suspension in Pre-88s, is pro-squat.

So the whole '84-'87 suspension just loads up under braking? Excellent That is going to make any bumps you hit while braking feel that much worse. Of course that could be changed. A little bit of welding, move some pivots...
The offset issue could be resolved as well with tubular a-arms, just make them longer (this was done for '88 anyways) to put the higher offset wheels where they "should" be.

I do see how the pre-88 front subframe would be alot lighter. Geez, it looks weak! I think I would like the '88 subframe in this case, or reinforce the earlier one - flex in the suspension mounts is not a good thing.

quote Originally posted by fieroguru: Here is a pic of the pre 88 on top and 88 on the bottom.... I will keep focusing on the 88's.

I don't want it to sound like I'm questioning your expertise, because I consider you a real Fiero Guru, but one does have to keep in mind that the pre-88 front suspension may look lighter side by side with the 88, but the tie in points to the chassis are different. Where the 88 is pretty much self sufficient in that the upper arms are tied only to the crossmember, the pre-88 ties the uppers to the chassis and the front panel of the trunk acts as an affective brace between the upper mounts.

My research into the exchange is more from the upright replacement perspective. I know the hub/bearing is getting rarer, is there a similar upright that can be used with a bigger bearing? I was looking at 2wd Jimmys/blazers as an option for the pre-88.

Bob

quote Originally posted by RCR: I don't want it to sound like I'm questioning your expertise, because I consider you a real Fiero Guru, but one does have to keep in mind that the pre-88 front suspension may look lighter side by side with the 88, but the tie in points to the chassis are different. Where the 88 is pretty much self sufficient in that the upper arms are tied only to the crossmember, the pre-88 ties the uppers to the chassis and the front panel of the trunk acts as an affective brace between the upper mounts. My research into the exchange is more from the upright replacement perspective. I know the hub/bearing is getting rarer, is there a similar upright that can be used with a bigger bearing? I was looking at 2wd Jimmys/blazers as an option for the pre-88. Bob

The picture is mostly to illustrate the significant design and material differences between the 88's and non-88's front suspensions.
I am biased and favor the 88's for multiple reasons, one of which is the 100% self contained design/mounting. It is a bolt-in unit and lends itself to a bolt-in replacement... like a custom crossmember that accepts C5 upper/lower a-arms and uprights.

quote Originally posted by fieroguru: The picture is mostly to illustrate the significant design and material differences between the 88's and non-88's front suspensions. I am biased and favor the 88's for multiple reasons, one of which is the 100% self contained design/mounting. It is a bolt-in unit and lends itself to a bolt-in replacement... like a custom crossmember that accepts C5 upper/lower a-arms and uprights.

Now you're talking...Let's see the build

Bob

quote Originally posted by fieroguru: like a custom crossmember that accepts C5 upper/lower a-arms and uprights.

Absolutely a great idea. I asked the same question some time ago in the tech forum, but got little response.

Does anyone have a good schematic of the '88 front suspension so the starting point is known? Things like pivot locations, kingpin angle, etc?

If just looking for a great bearing replacement, I think the future for '88's is to modify the upright to take the rear hub, put a bolt through it to keep tension on the bearings and then use Subaru rotors like the $2009 GRM guy did. It's not a direct replacement, but probably the closest we will find.

quote Originally posted by BluEyes: Absolutely a great idea. I asked the same question some time ago in the tech forum, but got little response. Does anyone have a good schematic of the '88 front suspension so the starting point is known? Things like pivot locations, kingpin angle, etc? If just looking for a great bearing replacement, I think the future for '88's is to modify the upright to take the rear hub, put a bolt through it to keep tension on the bearings and then use Subaru rotors like the $2009 GRM guy did. It's not a direct replacement, but probably the closest we will find.

Here is a good thread to read:
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...0811-1-048235-6.html

Here is a mockup of the C5 a-arms and uprights around the front fiero frame from gushotrod:


When I get around to it (couple of years away), I will take one of my spare 88 front suspensions and mock it up on my cradle fixture for the 8 chassis attachment locations, then locate the suspension pivots and rack locations from the C5 stuff and build a tubular crossmemeber to connect them.

I need to let all of that thread digest...

Bob

quote Originally posted by fieroguru: Here is a good thread to read: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/A...0811-1-048235-6.html Here is a mockup of the C5 a-arms and uprights around the front fiero frame from gushotrod: When I get around to it (couple of years away), I will take one of my spare 88 front suspensions and mock it up on my cradle fixture for the 8 chassis attachment locations, then locate the suspension pivots and rack locations from the C5 stuff and build a tubular crossmemeber to connect them.

OR Solstice in front AND rear



12"+ brakes all around with HUGE wheel bearings and power steering. All aluminum A arm suspension.

This one was mocked up on a 4.9 and an LS4 but will actually be used on an LS6 or LS3 6 speed.

This is the strut tower brace for the Solstice. I plan to cut out a front Solstice section like this and graft it into the 88 front suspension.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 12-23-2009).]

[[/QUOTE]

Resembles the 84 - 87 front crossmember.

I like the Solstice suspension (any front suspension pics?) but I don't think the rear is the right place for it. There just isn't the structure there to mount the upper arms to. The structure is all higher up, made for struts and it is pretty well tied into the rest of the chassis already. I would rather use a tall SLA setup like Honda and Chrysler have used. Put the upper balljoint above the tire and mount the UCA to the strut mount up top. Direct use of Honda or Chrysler uprights are a possibility, but I would rather use a solution very common on locostusa.com - keep the existing knuckle (I'm thinking '88) and modify the strut damper assembly into a something that the UBJ would bolt to, effectively turning the strut into an upright for the SLA setup. Some sort of coilover would have to be adapted to provide springing of course.

quote Originally posted by BluEyes: I like the Solstice suspension (any front suspension pics?) but I don't think the rear is the right place for it. There just isn't the structure there to mount the upper arms to. The structure is all higher up, made for struts and it is pretty well tied into the rest of the chassis already. I would rather use a tall SLA setup like Honda and Chrysler have used. Put the upper balljoint above the tire and mount the UCA to the strut mount up top. Direct use of Honda or Chrysler uprights are a possibility, but I would rather use a solution very common on locostusa.com - keep the existing knuckle (I'm thinking '88) and modify the strut damper assembly into a something that the UBJ would bolt to, effectively turning the strut into an upright for the SLA setup. Some sort of coilover would have to be adapted to provide springing of course.

The problem I see with the Fiero suspension components are the very small bearings. They have worked well, and no doubt they are fine. But the Solstice is the same weight and has bearings that look to be 1/3 larger than the Fiero. So I think GM must have seen a short fall in the bearing size for this size car and adresed it in the Solstice.

NM, found a front suspension pic here: (it's massive so I won't embed it) http://www.solsticeforum.co...front_suspension.jpg

Can't tell what the Ackerman would be like (GM seems to love building cars with parallel axis steering or even anti-Ackerman ) The track widths of the Fiero and Solstice are very close as well, that might make a great subframe with the proper reinforcement. I would really want to see what some of the geometry is though and if it would work well without the power steering. No way do I want power steering on the car...

I have mocked up the front and rear, but cant find the front pics;(

The two main reasons I prefer the C5 setup, is for parts availability in 20+ years and its aftermarket support. The C5 suspension is very plentiful and has already been adapted to hotrods, street rods, custom built cars and the aftermarket support is very strong with brake, shock, spring, hardware and cosmetic upgrades. The C5's are already plentiful with dedicated salvage yards and since they are Vette's, they have a much greater chance than most of being saved for future parts supply vs. crushed for the scrap value.

The problem with the 88 Fiero suspension is it was a limited application and only about 25000 total built. Over time the suspension parts will/have become obsolete. So if I go to the effort to adapt a replacement suspension, it will be of a much more mainstream application that will be plentiful for years to come.

Found this interesting over at www.locastusa.com:

quote Chevette spindle extended interchange/brakes/trivia First, I love your web site/forums. I own 6 Lotus (Elan’s/Europa’s/Esprit). I’ve been looking for a spindle to use on my Elan’s/Europa’s to get away from trunnions. I also want to convert to 4X100 bolt circles. I thought Miata was the answer, then I saw your posted Chevette spindle dimensions and had two thoughts, first it does look to be the right size for our Lotus uses and wait, it looks just like my Esprit!!!. 1976 to 1980 Esprit’s used Opel Manta/1900 front suspension. The Chevette being a “world car” borrowed much from existing European GM design. I bought some Chevette spindles to compare to the Esprit/Manta/1900. All critical dimensions are the same. Minor detail differences are a bolt-on verses cast-in steering arm and the ball joint tapers are slightly larger on the Opel. The Opel spindle uses a separate hub/rotor design making swaps to big brakes easier (more on that). I decided that I wanted to make a post on this forum reporting the Lotus/Chevette connection, so I did more research and made an additional discovery. Chevettes were marketed around the world using several different model names (there was even a Chevette based pickup truck). In Japan, Chevettes were marketed as Isuzu I-Marks. An I-Mark is a Chevette? I looked at exploded suspension diagrams and Isuzu I-Marks use the same suspension design as a Chevette. As they say in infomercials; But wait there’s more! All rear wheel drive Isuzu sedans use the Chevette spindle. So here is a list of years/models that I believe use the Chevette spindle design: 1971 to 1975 Opel Manta and 1900 (great autocross cars in their day) 1976 to 1980 Lotus Esprit 1976 to 1979 Buick Opel (which is an Isuzu I-Mark) 1976 to 1987 Chevrolet Chevette (Vette for short) 1981 to 1985 Isuzu I-Mark 1983 to 1989 Isuzu Impulse 1976 to 1987 Pontiac Acadian (for those from the great white north) 1984 to 1987 Pontiac Fiero 1981 to 1987 Pontiac T1000 All of the above use the same Set 1/Set 4 wheel bearings. The Isuzu Impulse, intrigues me because it has a separate rotor/hub design similar to the Manta/1900. I need to find one and compare it to the Opel hub. Now for brakes. The Opel owners group has worked out an inexpensive big brake option for 13 inch wheels. They use 1977 BMW 320i vented rotors (only year in U.S. with vented) which bolt directly onto the Opel hub (which fit Chevette spindles). For calipers, they use either the BMW (rare) or early 80’s Volvo. Caliper to hub clearance is tight, but they fit inside 13 inch wheels! I considered this for my Esprit, but I have upgraded to 17X8 on the front and wanted something more visually substantial. I’m now using Volkswagen Corrado 4 bolt rotors (11 inch vented) re-drilled to bolt-on Opel style. For calipers, I’m using Mazda RX7 4-piston Aluminium. Rotors can be bought for as little as $22 each (not drilled or slotted, hubbearing.com) and junk-yard calipers for $15 each. The Aluminium caliper adapter is easy, all 4 holes are in a straight line (AN washers to shim the spacing). My mock-up was a Chevette spindle, Manta hub, Corrado rotor and RX7 caliper. On the car I retained the Manta spindles. I haven’t tried smaller wheels yet, but 15 inch may clear this combination. There are bigger 4-bolt rotors. Lotus Exige is 11.3 inch. A 2005 Mini Cooper JCW is 11.57 inch. Both in 4X100 bolt circle, easily modified to fit the back side of an Opel hub, and maybe a direct fit from the front of an Impulse hub. But wait, even more! Because Fiero’s are popular kit car platforms, bigger brakes and drop spindles are offered. Streetdreamsbyross.com has 2-inch drop 84-87 Fiero spindles with Aluminium hubs drilled in any bolt pattern (you want Lambo wheels on your replica, they drill to fit). For Locost builders who can mount suspension pickups wherever they want, a drop doesn’t matter, but for my Vintage Race Europa it does. Vintage rules require original suspension mcontrol arms are free. By having the option of standard and drop spindles and using AFCO standard and extended ball joints, I’ll have 8 different combinations of roll centers and swing arm lengths. It’s worth the cost of the drop spindles to get those options. By the way, drop spindles are not offered for Miata. Vic

Here's the whole thread: http://www.locostusa.com/fo...topic.php?f=5&t=1292

Bob

[This message has been edited by RCR (edited 12-24-2009).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fieroguru:

The two main reasons I prefer the C5 setup, is for parts availability in 20+ years and its aftermarket support. [QUOTE]

Do you mean the C4? The C5 has not been around that long and has no common parts with the C4.

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 12-24-2009).]

He was referring to 20+ years from NOW.

In truth, either C4 or C5 shares both those good points. C4 parts are much more available right now, but C5 has better geometry, especially a smaller kingpin inclination angle and stock zero scrub radius (although I would change rims for 10mm or so scrub radius and road feel)

I totally agree that eventually all driving '88 Fieros will go one of two ways: stock/resto with people paying top dollar for replacement parts for trailer queens or cars with some sort of replacement subframe that has available parts. I read the thread Fieroguru linked and a similar idea was discussed there. Ideally, if a standard aftermarket subframe were made, it would have mounting locations for all Fieros and be an improvement on the '88 suspension. Trouble is, the cost of a total front subframe is alot (look at the street rod vendors) and with the low market value of the Fiero at this point you just won't draw many people to it.

That Locost thread is great and I have it bookmarked over there. Seriously, anyone interested in building a custom Fiero suspension should read that forum some. Building a custom front subframe is nothing when the forum is dedicated to people building an entire car from scratch