Search results for query: *

Hmm…I should add that this is for a ‘73-76 style front sway bar. I suspect that the earlier bar uses a different length spacer. Sorry, didn’t think of that until just now.

I measure the spacer length as 2.75”.

I can get some info at lunch. I have one I haven’t installed it yet so it will simple to do.

The Hotchkis bar mounts just like the stock one, so other than the bigger diameter and lack of a hump in the middle for the core support bracket, can’t see that it would be much lower. But I haven’t messed with one either so I’m not going say I am right. But since you have and are ok swapping...

Just pointing out an option. Hellwig doesn’t have a bar that uses the later LCA tabs, but Hotchkis does. Yours and the other comment sounded like you didn’t think there was an option at all.

HOTCHKIS SPORT SUSPENSION SYSTEMS, PARTS, AND COMPLETE BOLT-IN PACKAGES » Blog Archive » 1967-1972 Dodge A-Body Front Sport Sway Bar from Hotchkis Sport Suspension

Hotchkis sells a bar that mounts to the early k-frame and uses the later LCA mount. Perfect for this situation. But the OP started another thread about that situation and said he thought he was going to use that bar but now he is asking about Hellwig bars. So either he can’t get the Hotchkis...

Cool! I get the impression this project is less about the easy way and more about using what comes available. Little surprised to hear an F-Body front end is wider than a Dakota, too. I would have guessed the Datoka would be wider.

The Hotchkis 22385F bar fits a ‘72 down A-Body and appears to use the ‘73+ mount on the LCA. I am pretty sure the bar was designed to fit cars with wider wheels and more back spacing and I think this changed the mount location on the LCA. The instructions appear to say to weld the included...

Hey Denny, any idea if the below is a 1" extended ball joint, or a 2" one? Clipped it from the QA1 instructions. Just curious.

That makes complete sense. The suspension is working for you right now so if it was me, not sure it would be high on my list. I’d probably try it at some point just to see but certainly not before the G3 swap.

The article Blu posted makes it appear that there is a “J” bar welded to the inner fender in about the same area. And looks like there is a fair amount of plating that was added to shock mount area, too? Now that doesn’t mean the car you saw didn’t just have the Monte Carlo bar kit added and...

Glad you are still present.

Thanks!

In someways, they are kind of the big dog in the market with enough company funds to do some actual testing. No argument that they probably haven’t, just don’t want to assume.

QA1. I haven’t been actively investigating, but have wondered while glancing at stuff if QA1 is supplying the longer balljoint as well. Or if maybe QA1 had done some homework and were supplying the 2” extended balljoint. It all just a visual comparison, which I haven’t done yet.

I just wonder as I have looked over several QA1 pictures and instructions over last month or so and wasn’t sure which balljoint they were using. At some point I will look again and verify, but best guess is they are using a 1” extended length balljoint. Thanks.

See below. And then in post #233 you snidely responded to Blu’s comment that it was steel tubing with “if you say so”, as if it wasn’t steel. Technically, you didn’t say it was welded to the frame, but seeing as how easy it was to see in the article I must have assumed you did your homework...

That’s pretty cool how they welded that aluminum lower radiator support to the steel frame rails and sheet metal. You can actually see the welds in the pictures of the Cuda build. :rofl:

Is that the 1" extended ball joint?

Funny, I would have said you were the one on the high horse...

You're right, I guess they were. I had forgotten about that. I would guess though that in the beginning they were looking to build kits. But just based on the article. I wonder if the parts were something that came along later. Either way, good point.

Ha! I figured out how to quote you! Sort of. https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/does-the-hdk-suspension-k-member-handle-better-than-a-t-bar-suspension.555536/page-10#post-1974587237 You can look at the article just like anyone else and see how they braced the cars. J-bars inside...

Interesting article, thanks. I like how their k-frame was triangulated and no huge cantilever on the lower control arm mounts. And look how wide the spread is on those Vette lower control arms at the pivot. Should be nice and stiff.

Because that's all they offered? Forgetting what XV offered maybe?

You must be assuming they were selling kits. They were selling cars and I would expect that generally they wouldn’t spend money on something they didn’t need. They had the data, they could have even fudged them or lied and said the lower radiator support wasn’t needed and saved some money on...

DIYHemi (Sublime) has 2 videos on reducing the pressure on YT and they say the stock Hemi pump is like 1600psi, but an Avalon or Camry valve is about 1140psi. I thought there was a chart someplace with the markings on the valves and associated pressures but couldn’t find it.

Sticks in head that XV found that a stiffer lower core support made a significant difference in how rigid the frame rails were. Don’t remember if they had a k-frame in it but kind of seems like it did? Been a lot of years, I would have to dig out the magazine articles to verify. And can’t do...

My point was that from viewpoint of a GM journalist, you must not have cared about handling. If you did, you would have bought aftermarket parts, not stock parts.

Exactly. Plus the same sucky motion ratio also made the shocks pretty unresponsive to tuning and cost a fortune to get to work. And this is what the magazine guys saw and assumed was the case with Mopars as well, because the mighty Camaro couldn’t be inferior to a Mopar. This is what the...