1965 Barracuda Build

[GoneShawn]

The more I look at my drivers side front fender, the more I was counting the hours in my head to fix the dents. Im not any kind of autobody mechanic thats for sure

Im guessing a good autobody guy would make short work of it, but when I really looked at it, I seen some serious deflection in a large area above the wheel. concaved and bent.

Ok, so heres the funny part. I found a drivers front fender all the way across the country, on facebook for $250, marked down to $20. Yes, that correct $20. So I reach out, and we all know Mopar guys are gear heads, so he is game. I venmo $30, a few bucks for boxing, schedule a pickup through pirate ship. He prints the lable, UPS picks it up 2500 miles away and today UPS deliver it. No rot, light surface rust on the backside but, dam near perfect for $20. And it proves there still good people in the world today. Talk about a ride..thats what I call a shipment mint. lol

thanks my barracuda brother!

 

[72bluNblu]

Good morning.
Here's the build sheet. I measured the existing perch center to center and the worksheet they sent seem to match there calculations within1/8" or less.
On the car currently, I measured 43-1/4" center of perch to center of perch.
Inward half an inch on either side was the concept for The BAC slider stuff. The build sheet : dimension L is 42-1/8.
Seems like that will worked.

The Dimensions D should be stock. This is an old sheet. I believe D is now 57-1/8

Thanks for checking it out.

View attachment 1716516834

The c-c measurement on the factory perches is 43", with a 1/2" offset it should be 42" even c-c. 42-1/8" won't likely cause you any real problems, just like the 1/4" on the factory measurement didn't, but that would mean you're adding manufacturing tolerances to an already incorrect measurement.

57-1/8" is the drum to drum measurement on a SBP 8 3/4, an A-body 8 3/4 that's been upgraded to BBP axles is about ~57 13/16, so, almost 3/8" per side wider. That's not an issue, but, when you size your wheels you'd want to listen to guys with SBP axles, or subtract about 3/8" from the backspace recommended by someone that's swapped to BBP axles. Just an FYI.

 

[RustyRatRod]

So are you going to mini tub the car?

 

[GoneShawn]

The c-c measurement on the factory perches is 43", with a 1/2" offset it should be 42" even c-c. 42-1/8" won't likely cause you any real problems, just like the 1/4" on the factory measurement didn't, but that would mean you're adding manufacturing tolerances to an already incorrect measurement.

57-1/8" is the drum to drum measurement on a SBP 8 3/4, an A-body 8 3/4 that's been upgraded to BBP axles is about ~57 13/16, so, almost 3/8" per side wider. That's not an issue, but, when you size your wheels you'd want to listen to guys with SBP axles, or subtract about 3/8" from the backspace recommended by someone that's swapped to BBP axles. Just an FYI.

Thanks for the information.As always that is very helpful. The objective and current goal here is fit a wheel with an 4.5" backset. (Aside from the obvious ford 9" benefits with the extreme duty case)

Measurements taken on the car appear to show that the current rear, would perfectly fit 4.5 backspace... as long as the 1/2" clearance was added by way of the BAC slider. (That why we mimicked the small bolt pattern dimensions in conjunction with the bac slider)

This would also concur with the previous feedback of suggestions that 4.25 seems to be common on the barracuda with the sbp.

In summary the question here is ; how's a 4.5" backspace going to land with the BAC sliders on this rear. From what Ive measured that should fit well.

The goal is to generally get an 8 in wheel with 4.5" backspace in the wheel well.

Moser provided the dimensions of the stock sbp mopar rear. What ever source they use apparently its off 1/8" on the perches, someone has a dimension off by 1/8..Im not sure who, but Im supprised that Mopser is carrying a bad dimension for the mopar A body all theses year.

With the BAC sliders, I should have no issure running 42 1/8 straight as an arrow, laser straight. How would that not be the case if there 1/2 of adjustablility on the slider?

I have read some interesting articles where some set up the leave springs offset for better traction. But thats another conversation all together I suppose..

Were running wilwood discs with drum ebrake, In summary the objective really is to not necessarily match old mopar dimensions. More so, off the shelf wheels and modern brakes.

No Minnie Tubs. 255 tire would be nice, I dont see a need for tubs. Im not opposed to chewing up the outer weel well and rolling a couple quarters if its needed.

Keep the comments coming. And I have a question:

Front suspension;

I'm thinking of using the Q1A. Non adjustable upper control arms with the eccentric bolts, small ball joint. The drum spindles get converted to discs through the wilwood kit. Speaking of backspacing, the beauty of the kit is the track width changes -.20.
Ive seem some horror stories with wider spindle kits pushing the wheel.out over an inch. No thanks.

This kit also seems to help with off the shelf wheels and Mopar wheels for that matter there is the option for 5 on 4.5 or 4.75 bolt patters with this kit (no sbp that Im aware) And all thing considered. 4" backspaing in on the self in a 7" wheels. How does that fit?


here's the question:
'm thinking of the 1.14 torsion bars in keeping thing on a tight budget, I was considering reusing lower control arms and somehow getting a good old-fashioned sway around there. Maybe with weld on tabs? And just dropping the car enought that it sportier looking and handling.

What do you guys think? Lets chat front suspention and we need to discuss rear springs as well. I'm tempted to try the stock Springs because I'd like a soft ride but it will cost handling obviously..If the rear end breaks free a fair amount earlier than the front end. I think I could probably live with that? I would also think that the ford 9 inch is a fair amount heavier , and I don't how that affects the spring rate?

Thanks!

 

[junkyardhero]

i seriously doubt that a 9" is much heavier than an 8.75

re: 1.14 bars. you'll need *good* shocks to control them, so figure that into the budget. your rear spring rate should compliment the front spring rate. but figure you want to shoot for "around" 125~130 for rear leafs that will be mainly street duty.

(the lighter springs, heavier sway bars war discussion can be waged held with respectful tones at a later date)

4" BS with a 7" wheel up front is going to be tight. again, tire size will be critical as well as ride height. the bonus is with the stiff bars you're less likely to bottom the suspension and tag the tire on the fender.

there's many options for sway bars with both weld on and bolt on tabs if your lowers don't have factory tabs. in this situation i'd probably go with hellwig, great product with good hardware.

 

[GoneShawn]

i seriously doubt that a 9" is much heavier than an 8.75

re: 1.14 bars. you'll need *good* shocks to control them, so figure that into the budget. your rear spring rate should compliment the front spring rate. but figure you want to shoot for "around" 125~130 for rear leafs that will be mainly street duty.

(the lighter springs, heavier sway bars war discussion can be waged held with respectful tones at a later date)

4" BS with a 7" wheel up front is going to be tight. again, tire size will be critical as well as ride height. the bonus is with the stiff bars you're less likely to bottom the suspension and tag the tire on the fender.

there's many options for sway bars with both weld on and bolt on tabs if your lowers don't have factory tabs. in this situation i'd probably go with hellwig, great product with good hardware.

Haha. Well said. Here's the funny concept of leaf spring i was talking about.

We keep using the term spring and it reminds me of summer, but it's d*** cold up here and the roads were filled with ice this morning. Unfortunatly I've heard ambulances all day, because everything's a sheet of ice all day. So come on spring, I don't care if it's a coil spring or a leaf spring, the but prefer spring and summer.

Stiffer bar and bit of a lighter spring? That seems like a good argument actually..


A bit more on the subject.. not that I plan on it but interesting topic: here's some copy and paste. Probably half true but either way interesting topic.

Key Performance and Structural Effects:
Increased Lateral Stiffness: Positioning the front eyes slightly inboard of the rear eyes reduces lateral deflection of the leaf springs. This creates a "tighter" feel in the chassis and can prevent suspension bind during hard cornering.
Improved Steering and Cornering: When the car body slides or rolls during cornering, splayed (inboard) leaf springs can produce a "rear steer" effect, which helps the car turn.
Tire Clearance: Moving the front mounts inward (often combined with narrowing the rear mounts) is a common strategy to fit wider rear tires.
Weight Distribution (Corner Exit): Moving the right front spring eye further inboard than the left can reduce the load on the right rear tire during acceleration, helping the car stay "tighter" off the corner.
Drawbacks: If the springs are offset too much, it can make the suspension too stiff laterally, leading to a loss of rear side bite.
Important Technical Considerations:
Splayed Configuration: A common, effective setup is to have the front spring eyes slightly closer together than the rear eyes (splayed).
Mounting Height: Raising the front spring eye 1 1/2 inches can have a significant effect on corner exit handling.
Structural Modification: This process requires fabricating new, stronger, and often higher front mounts, such as using 4-inch square tubing reinforced with 1/8-inch doubler plates to allow for proper geometry and ride height adjustment.
Component Changes: This modification may require replacing fixed rear mounts with sliders or adjustable shackles to prevent the suspension from binding as the spring flattens.

 

[junkyardhero]

i'm aware of positioning the forward spring eyes closer together, i would consider it totally unnecessary in this case for this vehicle and really for anything that's mainly a street driven vehicle.

 

[GoneShawn]

Splayed leaf spring mounting

 

[72bluNblu]

In summary the question here is ; how's a 4.5" backspace going to land with the BAC sliders on this rear. From what Ive measured that should fit well.

The goal is to generally get an 8 in wheel with 4.5" backspace in the wheel well.

With the SBP width and the 1/2” offset kit an 8” wheel with a 4.5” backspace should fit fairly well. Obviously it will depend some on your cars body tolerances

Moser provided the dimensions of the stock sbp mopar rear. What ever source they use apparently its off 1/8" on the perches, someone has a dimension off by 1/8..Im not sure who, but Im supprised that Mopser is carrying a bad dimension for the mopar A body all theses year.

Beats me, but factory C-C on the leaf spring perches is 43” dead.

With the BAC sliders, I should have no issure running 42 1/8 straight as an arrow, laser straight. How would that not be the case if there 1/2 of adjustablility on the slider?

There isn’t a 1/2” of adjustability. It’s a 1/2” offset from stock, the front hangers are offset a 1/2” and the rear slider brackets are offset a 1/2”.

I’m not sure why the slider brackets appear to be slotted, maybe @BergmanAutoCraft can comment. But if you want the sliders to line up with the hangers it’s a 1/2” offset.

I have read some interesting articles where some set up the leave springs offset for better traction. But thats another conversation all together I suppose..

Splayed springs have advantages and disadvantages, which your material covered. E-bodies actually have splayed rear springs, and I can’t say I noticed any dramatic difference because of it.

Regardless on an A-body it would require new front and rear spring mounts. If you don’t want to kill your tire clearance you’d have to move the front spring hangers into the frame rails, 3” relocation style, because after a 1/2” you’re into the frame rail. In the back if you were going to run sliders you’d then have to make your own slider mounts to get the amount of front to rear offset you want, and angle the slider to match the spring to prevent binding.

Were running wilwood discs with drum ebrake, In summary the objective really is to not necessarily match old mopar dimensions. More so, off the shelf wheels and modern brakes.

No Minnie Tubs. 255 tire would be nice, I dont see a need for tubs. Im not opposed to chewing up the outer weel well and rolling a couple quarters if its needed.

I’d avoid Wilwood like the plague. They’re overly expensive and relatively high maintenance on a street car. And they’re not exactly “off the shelf”, obviously you can order anything you want but finding parts locally is often a different story.

They made a big name for themselves as a brand, but there’s far better performing brakes if you’re going spend that kind of money.

Keep the comments coming. And I have a question:

Front suspension;

I'm thinking of using the Q1A. Non adjustable upper control arms with the eccentric bolts, small ball joint. The drum spindles get converted to discs through the wilwood kit. Speaking of backspacing, the beauty of the kit is the track width changes -.20.
Ive seem some horror stories with wider spindle kits pushing the wheel.out over an inch. No thanks.

This kit also seems to help with off the shelf wheels and Mopar wheels for that matter there is the option for 5 on 4.5 or 4.75 bolt patters with this kit (no sbp that Im aware) And all thing considered. 4" backspaing in on the self in a 7" wheels. How does that fit?

I have no idea why anyone would want to buy aftermarket control arms with the small ball joint or re-use the early drum spindles. Even Ma Mopar decided they weren’t good enough and redesigned them.

18” wheels, if that’s what your still using, are readily available off the shelf in higher backspacing. It’s honestly easier to find them in higher offsets. So problems with the wider track of the later spindles isn’t really a thing with 18” wheels. If you want to stay 15” wheels, it can be an issue. But even then it’s not that big of a deal because you can’t run enough backspace on a 15” wheel to run a very wide tire up front anyway.

here's the question:
'm thinking of the 1.14 torsion bars in keeping thing on a tight budget, I was considering reusing lower control arms and somehow getting a good old-fashioned sway around there. Maybe with weld on tabs? And just dropping the car enought that it sportier looking and handling.

If you aren’t planning on running at least 245’s or 255’s up front there’s not much reason to run 1.14” torsion bars. There are two reasons that larger torsion bars become necessary- lowered height and improved traction. If you run wide, modern performance tires you need more spring rate to control the substantially higher suspension loads that those tires can generate.

If you’re going to run 7” wide wheels up front, you won’t need 1.14’s. I run 18x9’s with 275/35/18’s in a 200 treadwear compound with 1.12” bars. I can likely upgrade my torsion bars further, but for a street car they’re more than enough and that’s on a heavier ‘74 Duster.

The other thing is 1.14’s will need really good shocks. Even with 1.12’s I noticed an improvement going from Bilstein RCD’s (which are a good shock!) to Hotchkis Fox shocks.

If you’re going to run 7” wheels up front with 225’s then you’d likely be better off with a 1.03”-1.09” bar, and that would work better with a Bilstein RCD vs an even more expensive high performance shock you’d want going 1.12” or bigger

What do you guys think? Let’s chat front suspention and we need to discuss rear springs as well. I'm tempted to try the stock Springs because I'd like a soft ride but it will cost handling obviously..If the rear end breaks free a fair amount earlier than the front end. I think I could probably live with that? I would also think that the ford 9 inch is a fair amount heavier , and I don't how that affects the spring rate?

Thanks!

If you’re going run large front torsion bars you need to run higher rate rear springs too. If you go over 1” bars in the front you should be looking at 110-130 lb/in springs in the rear. The factory XHD springs are 110 lb/in and I’d say those would be the minimum if you’re going with torsion bars over 1” in the front.

 

[GoneShawn]

With the SBP width and the 1/2” offset kit an 8” wheel with a 4.5” backspace should fit fairly well. Obviously it will depend some on your cars body tolerances



Beats me, but factory C-C on the leaf spring perches is 43” dead.


There isn’t a 1/2” of adjustability. It’s a 1/2” offset from stock, the front hangers are offset a 1/2” and the rear slider brackets are offset a 1/2”.

I’m not sure why the slider brackets appear to be slotted, maybe @BergmanAutoCraft can comment. But if you want the sliders to line up with the hangers it’s a 1/2” offset.



Splayed springs have advantages and disadvantages, which your material covered. E-bodies actually have splayed rear springs, and I can’t say I noticed any dramatic difference because of it.

Regardless on an A-body it would require new front and rear spring mounts. If you don’t want to kill your tire clearance you’d have to move the front spring hangers into the frame rails, 3” relocation style, because after a 1/2” you’re into the frame rail. In the back if you were going to run sliders you’d then have to make your own slider mounts to get the amount of front to rear offset you want, and angle the slider to match the spring to prevent binding.



I’d avoid Wilwood like the plague. They’re overly expensive and relatively high maintenance on a street car. And they’re not exactly “off the shelf”, obviously you can order anything you want but finding parts locally is often a different story.

They made a big name for themselves as a brand, but there’s far better performing brakes if you’re going spend that kind of money.


I have no idea why anyone would want to buy aftermarket control arms with the small ball joint or re-use the early drum spindles. Even Ma Mopar decided they weren’t good enough and redesigned them.

18” wheels, if that’s what your still using, are readily available off the shelf in higher backspacing. It’s honestly easier to find them in higher offsets. So problems with the wider track of the later spindles isn’t really a thing with 18” wheels. If you want to stay 15” wheels, it can be an issue. But even then it’s not that big of a deal because you can’t run enough backspace on a 15” wheel to run a very wide tire up front anyway.


If you aren’t planning on running at least 245’s or 255’s up front there’s not much reason to run 1.14” torsion bars. There are two reasons that larger torsion bars become necessary- lowered height and improved traction. If you run wide, modern performance tires you need more spring rate to control the substantially higher suspension loads that those tires can generate.

If you’re going to run 7” wide wheels up front, you won’t need 1.14’s. I run 18x9’s with 275/35/18’s in a 200 treadwear compound with 1.12” bars. I can likely upgrade my torsion bars further, but for a street car they’re more than enough and that’s on a heavier ‘74 Duster.

The other thing is 1.14’s will need really good shocks. Even with 1.12’s I noticed an improvement going from Bilstein RCD’s (which are a good shock!) to Hotchkis Fox shocks.

If you’re going to run 7” wheels up front with 225’s then you’d likely be better off with a 1.03”-1.09” bar, and that would work better with a Bilstein RCD vs an even more expensive high performance shock you’d want going 1.12” or bigger


If you’re going run large front torsion bars you need to run higher rate rear springs too. If you go over 1” bars in the front you should be looking at 110-130 lb/in springs in the rear. The factory XHD springs are 110 lb/in and I’d say those would be the minimum if you’re going with torsion bars over 1” in the front.

Thank you, good points and I appreciate the experienced information. Im not interested in the splayed set up for this car, but It does come across as an interesting topic. Looks to me like those BAC slots are there for some adjustability, but I dont know that for a fact.
I appreciate the advice on the 1.03s and Im up for that. Sounds like a good balance I had my eyes on those at one point and XDH rear springs? Someone was talking about 300lb spring rate in a dart and caught my ear, but a good sway bars and a 1.03 sounds like a good city car on bumpy roads.Is there a good source for the rear springs? I see PTS has the 1.03? I wouldnt really know the difference between the newer spindles and the older ones, other than some are forged and some cast, but they look the same to me. Im curious to learn more about that aspect. I know the lack of sway bars was common issue that I find sort of comical. Ive notice cars in the past, add a sway bars and some nice coils and it was a world of difference better. Im obviously a newbie and it really is a fun to learn from you guys that know these cars. Im really looking foward to gathering parts and gathering some knowlage and just having fun trying not to bust too many knuckles. Over the pary 20 years, Ive driven a mopar once, but I have to say, it was a blast. I do really like these little cars lol

 

[RustyRatRod]

i seriously doubt that a 9" is much heavier than an 8.75

Speaking from very recent experience, I can say 100% that there is very little difference. I've been moving around one of each in my shop now for several years. I FINALLY got rid of the 8 3/4 just the other day. Oh happy day! I stored it here several years and got zero for storage, so I'm glad it's gone. I probably should have said something, because I've literally fallen over it several times, once hitting my head on the corner of the shop table. I'm glad I didn't end up any stupider than I already am. I know. That's debatable.

 

[GoneShawn]

Speaking from very recent experience, I can say 100% that there is very little difference. I've been moving around one of each in my shop nor for several years. I FINALLY got rid of the 8 3/4 just the other day. Oh happy day! I stored it here several years and got zero for storage, so I'm glad it's gone. I probably should have said something, because I've literally fallen over it several times, once hitting my head on the corner of the shop table. I'm glad I didn't end up any stupider than I already am. I know. That's debatable.

Haha, Good to hear your fine....

Not entirely sure of the difference when its a tall spindle, but theres the shorter and taller forged and cast. I think?

 

[RustyRatRod]

Haha, Good to hear your fine....

Not entirely sure of the difference when its a tall spindle, but theres the shorter and taller forged and cast. I think?

View attachment 1716517884

View attachment 1716517885

View attachment 1716517886

View attachment 1716517897

View attachment 1716517898

As far as I know, all the factory steering knuckles are forged.

 

[junkyardhero]

Haha, Good to hear your fine....

Not entirely sure of the difference when its a tall spindle, but theres the shorter and taller forged and cast. I think?

View attachment 1716517884

^^ 10" drum brake spindle

View attachment 1716517885

^^ same 10" drum spindle

View attachment 1716517886

73~76 disc spindle

View attachment 1716517897

that same 10" drum spindle with an adapter plate for a disc brake conversion with what appears to be a QA1 lower control arm

View attachment 1716517898

SSBC disc conversion on that 10" spindle

 

[72bluNblu]

Looks to me like those BAC slots are there for some adjustability, but I dont know that for a fact.

Just ask Peter. My suspicion is that they’re there because the mounting bolts are mirrored left and right, so, if you wanted to make a single mount for both sides you’d either need slots or multiple holes.

I appreciate the advice on the 1.03s and Im up for that. Sounds like a good balance I had my eyes on those at one point and XDH rear springs? Someone was talking about 300lb spring rate in a dart and caught my ear, but a good sway bars and a 1.03 sounds like a good city car on bumpy roads.Is there a good source for the rear springs? I see PTS has the 1.03?

I bash my car on backroads every time I drive it, the 1.12” torsion bars I have are 300 lb/in on the wheel rate. The right wheel rate is the right wheel rate to match the forces being transmitted from the wheels to the suspension. Suspension has to match grip. So tire and wheel choice dictates the wheel rate. As well as the ride height and amount of travel.

PST sells 1.03’s. BAC sells 1.08’s. Firm feel sells 1”, 1.06”, 1.12” and 1.18”.

I wouldnt really know the difference between the newer spindles and the older ones, other than some are forged and some cast, but they look the same to me. Im curious to learn more about that aspect. I know the lack of sway bars was common issue that I find sort of comical. Ive notice cars in the past, add a sway bars and some nice coils and it was a world of difference better. Im obviously a newbie and it really is a fun to learn from you guys that know these cars. Im really looking foward to gathering parts and gathering some knowlage and just having fun trying not to bust too many knuckles. Over the pary 20 years, Ive driven a mopar once, but I have to say, it was a blast. I do really like these little cars lol

Haha, Good to hear your fine....

Not entirely sure of the difference when its a tall spindle, but theres the shorter and taller forged and cast. I think?

View attachment 1716517884

View attachment 1716517885

View attachment 1716517886

View attachment 1716517897

View attachment 1716517898

All the spindles are forged. All A-body spindles are the same height, there’s no “tall and short”. The drum spindles have a longer neck because they have a shorter body. The distance from upper to lower ball joint is the same for the drum spindles, disk spindles and ‘73+ disk spindles. B and F/M/J/R body spindles are taller by like 3/8”, but can also be used for a 73+ BBP disk swap. But the A/E body spindles are all the same height.

The pre-‘73 spindles use the smaller upper ball joint and have smaller diameter wheel bearings. The smaller diameter wheel bearings are more likely to overheat or seize, and commonly do so. The earlier drum spindles use smaller diameter bolts to attach the lower ball joint, which is another weak point.

The smaller wheel bearings alone are a good reason not to use an early drum spindle brake conversion in my opinion. If handling and longevity are important the larger ball joints, wheel bearings and lower ball joint mounting bolts are all more robust on the ‘73+ spindles.

 

[GoneShawn]

Just ask Peter. My suspicion is that they’re there because the mounting bolts are mirrored left and right, so, if you wanted to make a single mount for both sides you’d either need slots or multiple holes.



I bash my car on backroads every time I drive it, the 1.12” torsion bars I have are 300 lb/in on the wheel rate. The right wheel rate is the right wheel rate to match the forces being transmitted from the wheels to the suspension. Suspension has to match grip. So tire and wheel choice dictates the wheel rate. As well as the ride height and amount of travel.

PST sells 1.03’s. BAC sells 1.08’s. Firm feel sells 1”, 1.06”, 1.12” and 1.18”.




All the spindles are forged. All A-body spindles are the same height, there’s no “tall and short”. The drum spindles have a longer neck because they have a shorter body. The distance from upper to lower ball joint is the same for the drum spindles, disk spindles and ‘73+ disk spindles. B and F/M/J/R body spindles are taller by like 3/8”, but can also be used for a 73+ BBP disk swap. But the A/E body spindles are all the same height.

The pre-‘73 spindles use the smaller upper ball joint and have smaller diameter wheel bearings. The smaller diameter wheel bearings are more likely to overheat or seize, and commonly do so. The earlier drum spindles use smaller diameter bolts to attach the lower ball joint, which is another weak point.

The smaller wheel bearings alone are a good reason not to use an early drum spindle brake conversion in my opinion. If handling and longevity are important the larger ball joints, wheel bearings and lower ball joint mounting bolts are all more robust on the ‘73+ spindles.

Thank you for the honest recommendations. Ill definatly go with the 1.03. this would more of a daily driver. grocery getter haha.

I do want to lower the car but not anything much more than a even profile, a fair bit lower than stock. I learned to refrain from saying 2" lower and such. I have another car I throught 2" lower would be better, it was terribly to low and that car, I think I went through 3 set of springs before it was good. Hotchkis upper and lower arms, hellwig sway bars and I belive Hotchkis coils springs(GM car) I wasted plenty of money before I was happy with that suspension. Hopefully this one is close enough to enjoy the first time.

ford 9 inch showed up today!

 

[GoneShawn]

Just ask Peter. My suspicion is that they’re there because the mounting bolts are mirrored left and right, so, if you wanted to make a single mount for both sides you’d either need slots or multiple holes.



I bash my car on backroads every time I drive it, the 1.12” torsion bars I have are 300 lb/in on the wheel rate. The right wheel rate is the right wheel rate to match the forces being transmitted from the wheels to the suspension. Suspension has to match grip. So tire and wheel choice dictates the wheel rate. As well as the ride height and amount of travel.

PST sells 1.03’s. BAC sells 1.08’s. Firm feel sells 1”, 1.06”, 1.12” and 1.18”.




All the spindles are forged. All A-body spindles are the same height, there’s no “tall and short”. The drum spindles have a longer neck because they have a shorter body. The distance from upper to lower ball joint is the same for the drum spindles, disk spindles and ‘73+ disk spindles. B and F/M/J/R body spindles are taller by like 3/8”, but can also be used for a 73+ BBP disk swap. But the A/E body spindles are all the same height.

The pre-‘73 spindles use the smaller upper ball joint and have smaller diameter wheel bearings. The smaller diameter wheel bearings are more likely to overheat or seize, and commonly do so. The earlier drum spindles use smaller diameter bolts to attach the lower ball joint, which is another weak point.

The smaller wheel bearings alone are a good reason not to use an early drum spindle brake conversion in my opinion. If handling and longevity are important the larger ball joints, wheel bearings and lower ball joint mounting bolts are all more robust on the ‘73+ spindles.

I do have an update, Summit was kind enough to honor there 90 day return window. And I have to say, there really good about it, but I do give them a fair amout of buisness.. now the update

Due to popular demand, (and a sleepless night last week)

I'll do the later spindles. Ive heard it like 50 percent more bearing space, or something in conjunction with the fine advice from 72 blue N blue. While not entierly taking all the advice, I did go from the 11" wilwood drilled and slotted rotors up to the 12". Got more bearing, mind as well get more rotor.

As for the additional maintinance associated wilwood, they say its a pro and con situation.

Cons: more maintance being : need to thoughouly clean the caliper at pad changes, because there no dust boot. Spend good money on these parts, should keep them clean anyway? Plus they look nice clean and with the wheel selection Im going with, they will be visible.

Pro: No dust boot to burn up and melt under harsh conditions.

Factory and some others: Under daily driver conditions you never need to worry about cleaning your calipers before compressing the cylinders. However, Im told under extream and heavy use the boots melt and that is the reasoning wilwood dosent use them, according to the guy I spoke with.

Im now in the market for a upper control arm with a large ball joint, maybe QA1?

And a decent set of later spindles? any recommendations?

And 1.03 Torsions, although I think we discussed PST as a good source.

What else did I screw up? haha

 

[72bluNblu]

I do have an update, Summit was kind enough to honor there 90 day return window. And I have to say, there really good about it, but I do give them a fair amout of buisness.. now the update

Due to popular demand, (and a sleepless night last week)

I'll do the later spindles. Ive heard it like 50 percent more bearing space, or something in conjunction with the fine advice from 72 blue N blue. While not entierly taking all the advice, I did go from the 11" wilwood drilled and slotted rotors up to the 12". Got more bearing, mind as well get more rotor.

As for the additional maintinance associated wilwood, they say its a pro and con situation.

Cons: more maintance being : need to thoughouly clean the caliper at pad changes, because there no dust boot. Spend good money on these parts, should keep them clean anyway? Plus they look nice clean and with the wheel selection Im going with, they will be visible.

Pro: No dust boot to burn up and melt under harsh conditions.

Factory and some others: Under daily driver conditions you never need to worry about cleaning your calipers before compressing the cylinders. However, Im told under extream and heavy use the boots melt and that is the reasoning wilwood dosent use them, according to the guy I spoke with.

Im now in the market for a upper control arm with a large ball joint, maybe QA1?

And a decent set of later spindles? any recommendations?

And 1.03 Torsions, although I think we discussed PST as a good source.

What else did I screw up? haha

So few things on the disk brakes. I put 70k+ street miles on the factory Mopar 2.75" piston calipers on my Challenger, running 275/40/17's up front most of that time, lots of spirited driving. Never had an issue with the seals. Not saying it's impossible, but, I haven't seen it with the Mopar 73+ disk brake calipers. If you get the brakes hot enough that you ruin the caliper seals I would bet you've ruined more than just the caliper seals in the process.

On the Wilwoods, I have seen the caliper pistons get stuck in the calipers because of corrosion. Like, frozen solid, caliper toast. Just from sitting, and not all that long really (couple years maybe). The lack of seals also means more frequent brake fluid changes, the brake fluid will absorb dust and water at a much faster rate than OE brakes that have seals. That I have seen as well. The other thing is that the Wilwoods have a multi-part hub and rotor system, so you need to assemble the hub and rotor assembly. It gets bolted together, and those bolts need to be safety wired. If those bolts back out (which I have also seen), it can damage the hub, rotor, spindle, etc...

My personal opinion is that the Wilwood calipers that don't have seals aren't really meant to be street-use items. Same for the assembled hub/rotor assembly. Looks cool, costs a lot, weighs a bit less, and is a whole bunch of different things to go wrong on a street car. Race car stuff sounds cool, but when you're scrubbing brake dust out of your calipers, making sure the safety wired bolts are tight and flushing your brake system when you just want to go for a drive it gets old fast. Plus, they cost A LOT more than the 11.75" disk set up you can run on a set of 73+ spindles.

On that note, @DoctorDiff sells everything you need for spindles, brakes etc. You could buy his stage II kit, which would have everything you need (the wilwood kits don't include their caliper hoses, which are required!). Using his website you can select all the parts for the brake kit and then some, including spindles, ball joints, master cylinder, etc. Mopar 11.75" Front Disc Brake Kit (Stage 2)

I have also run his stage III kit (13" rotors with cobra calipers) and his stage IV kit (13" rotors with Viper calipers), and can say that the stage II kit, 11.75" rotors and 2.75" Mopar calipers, is the best bang for the buck. Yeah the Viper brakes kick ***, but they also cost A LOT more. If you really are set on the Wilwood calipers, doctordiff even offers a "stage II plus" kit that uses Mopar 11.75" rotors but with Wilwood 4 piston calipers. Personally I'm not sure that's a "plus", but you'd get fancy looking wilwood calipers without the multi-part hub and rotor assembly, and save hundreds of dollars in the process.

The QA1 UCA's are a good part and have enough built in caster for most folks, if you're not going crazy with the front wheel widths they should be fine. I run SPC GenI UCA's on my Duster, but they cost a lot more and because of how they adjust a lot of alignment shops won't go anywhere near them. But that's true of a lot of shops regarding any aftermarket parts they didn't install.

DoctorDiff sells the reproduction 73+ spindles, they probably all come from the same place. The only other thing you could do is look for a set of used originals, but there's pretty much nothing left in the wrecking yards even for the later FMJ spindles (slightly taller).

PST, which is now Kanter, is the only source for the 1.03's I know of. Firm Feel and BergmanAutocraft also sell torsion bars in various sizes.

 

[Woody500]

The more I look at my drivers side front fender, the more I was counting the hours in my head to fix the dents. Im not any kind of autobody mechanic thats for sure

Im guessing a good autobody guy would make short work of it, but when I really looked at it, I seen some serious deflection in a large area above the wheel. concaved and bent.

Ok, so heres the funny part. I found a drivers front fender all the way across the country, on facebook for $250, marked down to $20. Yes, that correct $20. So I reach out, and we all know Mopar guys are gear heads, so he is game. I venmo $30, a few bucks for boxing, schedule a pickup through pirate ship. He prints the lable, UPS picks it up 2500 miles away and today UPS deliver it. No rot, light surface rust on the backside but, dam near perfect for $20. And it proves there still good people in the world today. Talk about a ride..thats what I call a shipment mint. lol

thanks my barracuda brother!

View attachment 1716517139

View attachment 1716517160

View attachment 1716517161

You got a once in a lifetime deal on that fender! My '65 had the left front pushed in like that.
I was able to put a 2x6 from floor up into fender, with another 2x6 to the footing of my garage and putting other lumber across the 13" wheel, pushing against it and the hub and pushed most of it out without creasing it, by using a piece of Hard Blue Foam Panel(modelers foam) , curved & shaped like the inside of the fender.
Didn't get it all out, so with shims & pressure held, a little tapping with a leather faced mallet, on the wheelwell opening lip, I got the rest out. Was easier than screwing with my port-a-power.
So don't pitch that old one, it's not that hard to straighten.
There's almost always another way.
And you can use that Blue Foam to make any shape dolly you need.

 

[GoneShawn]

So few things on the disk brakes. I put 70k+ street miles on the factory Mopar 2.75" piston calipers on my Challenger, running 275/40/17's up front most of that time, lots of spirited driving. Never had an issue with the seals. Not saying it's impossible, but, I haven't seen it with the Mopar 73+ disk brake calipers. If you get the brakes hot enough that you ruin the caliper seals I would bet you've ruined more than just the caliper seals in the process.

On the Wilwoods, I have seen the caliper pistons get stuck in the calipers because of corrosion. Like, frozen solid, caliper toast. Just from sitting, and not all that long really (couple years maybe). The lack of seals also means more frequent brake fluid changes, the brake fluid will absorb dust and water at a much faster rate than OE brakes that have seals. That I have seen as well. The other thing is that the Wilwoods have a multi-part hub and rotor system, so you need to assemble the hub and rotor assembly. It gets bolted together, and those bolts need to be safety wired. If those bolts back out (which I have also seen), it can damage the hub, rotor, spindle, etc...

My personal opinion is that the Wilwood calipers that don't have seals aren't really meant to be street-use items. Same for the assembled hub/rotor assembly. Looks cool, costs a lot, weighs a bit less, and is a whole bunch of different things to go wrong on a street car. Race car stuff sounds cool, but when you're scrubbing brake dust out of your calipers, making sure the safety wired bolts are tight and flushing your brake system when you just want to go for a drive it gets old fast. Plus, they cost A LOT more than the 11.75" disk set up you can run on a set of 73+ spindles.

On that note, @DoctorDiff sells everything you need for spindles, brakes etc. You could buy his stage II kit, which would have everything you need (the wilwood kits don't include their caliper hoses, which are required!). Using his website you can select all the parts for the brake kit and then some, including spindles, ball joints, master cylinder, etc. Mopar 11.75" Front Disc Brake Kit (Stage 2)

I have also run his stage III kit (13" rotors with cobra calipers) and his stage IV kit (13" rotors with Viper calipers), and can say that the stage II kit, 11.75" rotors and 2.75" Mopar calipers, is the best bang for the buck. Yeah the Viper brakes kick ***, but they also cost A LOT more. If you really are set on the Wilwood calipers, doctordiff even offers a "stage II plus" kit that uses Mopar 11.75" rotors but with Wilwood 4 piston calipers. Personally I'm not sure that's a "plus", but you'd get fancy looking wilwood calipers without the multi-part hub and rotor assembly, and save hundreds of dollars in the process.

The QA1 UCA's are a good part and have enough built in caster for most folks, if you're not going crazy with the front wheel widths they should be fine. I run SPC GenI UCA's on my Duster, but they cost a lot more and because of how they adjust a lot of alignment shops won't go anywhere near them. But that's true of a lot of shops regarding any aftermarket parts they didn't install.

DoctorDiff sells the reproduction 73+ spindles, they probably all come from the same place. The only other thing you could do is look for a set of used originals, but there's pretty much nothing left in the wrecking yards even for the later FMJ spindles (slightly taller).

PST, which is now Kanter, is the only source for the 1.03's I know of. Firm Feel and BergmanAutocraft also sell torsion bars in various sizes.

Good Advice once again, this is going to really helpful in the future as well

Update, ordered Q1A upper control arms 52301 and eccentric bolt kit 52361. I think thats the large upper..

Do I need to also by the lowers, there pricey but, I dont have a sway bar on that lower arm and the hardware for the stock lower arm seem less than ideal?

 

[72bluNblu]

Good Advice once again, this is going to really helpful in the future as well

Update, ordered Q1A upper control arms 52301 and eccentric bolt kit 52361. I think thats the large upper..

Do I need to also by the lowers, there pricey but, I dont have a sway bar on that lower arm and the hardware for the stock lower arm seem less than ideal?

The lowers aren’t necessary unless you’re planning on being significantly lowered.

They’re a little bit lighter, and of course you don’t have to plate them or anything like you’d want to do with the stockers (bolt on lol). The sway bar tab isn’t always helpful, I don’t know that there’s a sway bar for an early A that would use that tab. QA1 will tell you those sway bar tabs will only work with a QA1 sway bar, which only works with their K frame. On a 67-76 A body I can tell you that the QA1 LCA tab location will work with 73+ sway bars that use the stock 73+ sway bar tab location and the Hotchkis and the Hellwig pro-touring sway bar for 67-72 cars. For the early cars I just don’t know.

The only big advantage to the QA1 LCA’s is that they have a lower profile than the factory LCA’s. That adds suspension travel into the system, about 1” actually. If you’re lowering the car, that’s awesome, because you have to trade suspension travel for ride height. So the QA1 LCA’s let you maintain the same suspension travel and still run lowered. Their old design did this with no modifications, their new design with the bump stop included takes a little modification to take advantage of that design difference.

Regardless, if you’re lowering the car an inch or less you don’t really need them. They save like 8 lbs and look cool, but they’re expensive and if you don’t need the suspension travel they’re not necessary.

 

[GoneShawn]

I do enjoy a good story from time to time. Hansel and Gretel, a good one.... Rapunzel is great. Rumplestiskin is my favorite. Only 2nd to this story. 620 HP small block on pump gas. Lol. Anyone buy it?
How To Build A Pump-Gas 620hp Small-Block Mopar - Car Craft Magazine

 

[mosleyme]

I do enjoy a good story from time to time. Hansel and Gretel, a good one.... Rapunzel is great. Rumplestiskin is my favorite. Only 2nd to this story. 620 HP small block on pump gas. Lol. Anyone buy it?
How To Build A Pump-Gas 620hp Small-Block Mopar - Car Craft Magazine

I see a lot of high dollar parts. Jesel belt drive, TD rockers, 1000 cfm carb, roller cam, 400+ CID. If the heads flow 300+ cfm on intake at the lift they are running, then it is feasible.