[strictlypersonl]

"Because independant rear suspension systems do not have as much anti-squat, they are not as good as a live axle in getting the power to the ground on high performance cars. This problem is not too bad with a rear engined car because of the rear weight bias. On front engined cars however, it is a distinct disadvantage"

No matter what kind of suspension you use, anti-squat is achieved by making the instaneous trailing arm axis be as high as possible. If it passes through the center of gravity (side projection), you acheive 100% anti-squat. The problem is that the wheel must follow a up-and-to-the-rear path as it moves under bump. It decreases basic braking and accelleration stability - it is essentially in a state of unstable equilibrium.

There is no way to change essential weight transfer under accelleration. The net force vector (weight+accelleration) will always create a moment that transfers weight. The front will always rise up, the only limitation being the front spring rate.

Drag cars, with their extreme (more than 100%) anti-squat, raise the center-of-gravity because both the front and rear rise, raising the CG, and therefore have more weight transfer under extreme accelleration. In addition, since the weight transfer occurs because of geometry rather that spring compression, it's nearly instaneous, avoiding the short delay that would occur waiting for the spring to load.

For a road-racing vehicle, you almost always want the lowest CG for cornering (and springs are very stiff), so anti-squat is not especially desirable.

Street cars are a little different. Their springs are much softer and their CG is usually higher. Sometimes some anti-squat comes in handy to maximize available wheel travel under accelleration and/or keep the camber from going too negative.