cal tracs or comp engineering slide a links?


Active Member
Jun 24, 2004
Frankfort, Ky
Is there any differance? I was going to order comps bolt on subframes from summit and figured I would save some on shipping. If there is really a differance and cal tracs are better I'll get those.

Side note, does the comp subframes loose ground clearance...or anymore than any of the others?
  • Sponsors (?)

I run the CE bolt in subs, but I welded them in. I run hooker comps and they hang lower than the subs, so I'd say theres no loss in ground clearance. I've never used the comp slide-a-links, but I do have Cal-tracs and I really like them. Car feels great on the launch, nice and steady/level/straight, the front rises about 5 inches and away I go.
Cool, I was looking at maier's site and was wondering if their subframes is really 120$ better because of the several mounting points and round tube instead of square or if I'll really even need something that stout?
I had heard from a few sources that the Slide-A-Links are better for street and the Cal-Tracs are better for the track. Maybe the Cal-Tracs aren't made for daily driven cars and wear too quickly? :shrug:
As far as a comfort level goes, I believe that the slide-a-links would be better for the street. Both act on the same principle of a cam on the front leaf mounting point rotating under load and pressing down on the flex point on the leaf spring. However, whereas Caltracs uitilize a simple tube with heim joints for direct connection between leaf mounting pad and the front cam, the slide-a-links have an integrated rubber bushing which i believe is supposed to minimize harshness associated with launch. Therefore, it gives you basically the same principle, but with more flex and therefore a 'friendlier' ride....
I have the slide-a-links on my '65. I notice no difference in harshness and of course, I can adjust them for the street or track by shorteninig/widening the gap between the bushings and stops.
Has anybody had both cal tracs and slide a link at one time? I'm leaning more towards the cal tracs as I've just heard more things about them from performance stand point. Is it the same design and principle? Can somebody tell me why one over the other?

I think the cal trac looks beefier. I'm considering going this way on my car as well...

The only thing making me consider the CE version is it looks like it has more adjustment on the front.

It's a big consideration for me since I'm running side exhaust through there...
I don't know about the slide-a-links. But te Caltracs are chrome moly all around. Including the rod ends. And the adjustments up front allow you to change the instant center. Very helpful for changing comditions. I know of 2 people who changed from slide-a-links to caltracs and picked up.
There is no doubt that the Caltracs work and are strong enough for the task. The owner races Fords. Check out some of the pictures on their home web site:

One of my favorites from there and yes it is using Cal Tracs and probably their mono springs.:


The Slide-a-links may be just as good but you don't get the support that the Calverts can give.
steel1212 said:
there is no doubt that cal tracs work. I would just like to see pics or proof from the other side and it looks like there is none. I guess I'll be going with the cal tracs.

I agree. I would also be interested in seeing some pics of the Slide-a-links in action.

I can't say that the Slide-a-links don't work (would be a great comparison article), but I believe that for the $25 or so more you pay for the Caltracs, you also get a team of experienced professionals to confer with. They are very helpful over the phone and can recommend shocks and springs that complement their bars.

Anyone running Slide-a-links at the track that can enlighten us?
I've never seen slide-a-links on a car at the track, but I do see quite few with cal-tracs, FWIW. I was definately surprised at how much the cal-tracs helped my car. I had to cut off the shelby underriders I had put on (not fun to cut thru welds laying on my back under the car), and was thinkning the whole time "these things better be worth the effort", the first test drive confirmed that indeed they were worth it. After going to the track and getting them dialed in, I can say with confidence that they are the hot ticket for traction on leaf spring equipped cars. The slide-a-links shoud be effective also due to their similar design, but the cal-tracs appear to be more 'hardcore' so to speak with stronger contruction and the lack of the rubber cushion. I don't know if the slide-a-links come with a spring eye bushing, but the cal-tracs come with a sturdy chunk of machined aluminum. I leave my cal-tracs set for the track, and the rear is stiff, but plenty driveable for the street. I could back off on the preload and soften the rear for more comfy street duty, but then I'd just have to reset them on my next track outting.
My internet expert's two cents is that both styles work by putting the front half of the leaf spring in bind--that is, they severely limit the compression of the front half of the spring. The difference is that the Caltracs hit this point earlier, because they have no slack in their lateral links. The Slide-a-link can be adjusted down to be exactly the same -- no slack -- but can be backed off, too, for street comfort. That's the main difference.

As far as the strength of moly over plain steel, I would have to see it to believe it that the axle wind-up forces acting on the bracketry is strong enough to break the Slide-A-Links. I think the spring leafs are going to be the fuse; that is, your main leaf is going to get bent at the front spring eye, before you're going to bend the Slide-A-Link bracket. The forces acting on those brackets is lateral, and those brackets' lateral dimensions consist of triangles about 4 inches at the base to about 2 inches at the rod end pivots, and about 3/8" thick. Not gonna bend.