DOES THE HDK SUSPENSION K-MEMBER HANDLE BETTER THAN A T-BAR SUSPENSION?
Let me throw this out. Maybe Denny doesn't know geometry. Maybe he's a good guesser. Or maybe he considers the answers to some of these questions proprietary. Maybe. Do all yall really think he just sat back and made a "guess" as to how to build a suspension? I kinda doubt it. Like I said, I don't have a dog in the hunt. I like the stock Mopar stuff, because naturally, it's cheap, but it's also very effective. If all yall think Denny just rolled the dice and "made up" a suspension, I think yall are sadly mistaken.
Frankly, I don't believe any of these aftermarket suspension spent any time looking at geometry beyond making sure it will align. I think they were all built with the idea of maximizing space and using a rack and pinion. Denny even said earlier in this thread that the only reason he went to coil overs in his design was because the LCA pivots had to move to fit the rack and that meant no more torsion bars.
So yes, I think he built the suspension with the intent of making sure it could be aligned, but other than that it was to fit stuff in a small space. Not to make it handle better. He even says that.
Here's is Denny's post:
A often overlooked fact regarding the development of the HDK rack & pinion / coil over conversions is it was originally designed as only a rack and pinion conversion ....for room. However, it quickly became apparent to make a front steer rack and pinion work properly in our original rear steer Mopars, the lower control arm pivot point needed changed negating the torsion bars. I had no choice but to come up an economical and stealthy way to install coil shocks and springs. So....truth be told, coil overs were added not because (at least for me) we were seeking better handling / performance, we needed something other than the torsion bars to hold up the front of the car. The fact that they added even more room almost eliminating exhaust clearance issues was just another benefit.
I think even the later one's that now say "better handling" or "improved geometry" (which Denny does not on his website) added that as a sales pitch, not because they designed it for better handling. So many people buy into a coil over is better mindset, and for a GM and probably a Ford, it probably is. But for a Mopar there isn't (in my opinion) a good benefit to a coil over in the handling department. Not to say there can't be benefits, but for other issues like headers.
There are new COC kit's out there now and one of them has posted "geometry" info which I shared
here. But the info was kind of pointless and didn't tell us anything, so I think it is kind of a "give them info and hope it confuses them" rather than actual info. I read into that info that the geometry really isn't better. Or they compared it to a stock bias ply alignment car and not what someone who is into handling would actually drive. Either way, the posted info isn't useful info and thus, so far, not one of the manufacturers has posted any real info.
If one of them actually had better geometry compared to a properly setup TB suspension, I doubt they would hesitate to plaster it all over the internet. And the argument that there are too many variable is bogus. Set some standards and compare them and remove the variables. Same 17" (or 18") wheels/tires, same ride height, match caster and camber and post the geometry for each.