So maybe I'm an idiot. If so the OEM engineers were too. The rubber bushings remained the same and worked just fine for what? 40 year models? Maybe there is a legitimate "curve carving" need for plastic bushings, along with the greasable pins, and adjustable strut rods. Aftermarket will fill most every need one can imagine, fancy shocks, low ratio steering gear, etc.., etc... None of that is for me. My 67 A drives just like a 67 A on the street, and I enjoy it, manual drum brakes and all.
If my memory serves, the Barracuda fender had only one brace, made of flat metal, near top center of the wheel well. Should be simple enough to add a brace from front lower corner toward the bumper brace bolts on frame rail. Oh wait... Does the aftermarket not offer that too? If not, Most any pickup truck in the bone yard will have braces under their rear fenders. Good luck with it.
The OEM engineers were
not idiots. They needed an assembly process that was simple and easy to perform, and parts that were cheap and easy to manufacture. Installing the stock strut rods and bushings takes no time at all and is easy to perform for even the less than average assembly line worker. There are no adjustments, everything gets pressed home and torqued to spec. All the parts can be the same, same length strut rods for everything, no adjustments, no tuning for bind, just install and torque. The play in the OE rubber bushings makes that good enough for most cars to get to the factory alignment specs, and that's all that mattered. "One size fits most". The factory does things for a lot of reasons, but the bottom line is a big factor, so low production costs for the parts and ease of assembly on the line play a big role. Sometimes a much bigger role than performance, which was especially true when these cars were built.
But the play in the OE rubber bushings that allows the suspension to get away with a "one size fits most" non adjustable strut rod is called
SLOP by anyone doing anything that resembles performance driving. That flex allows the LCA to flex forward and backward with the bushings. No, it isn't much, but a little flex adds a lot to the vague handling feedback you get from the stock parts. If you're happy running drum brakes and pizza cutter sized tires you probably won't ever notice it because you don't have enough grip to show it. And you're probably not running a more modern alignment that improves the driving experience with radial tires either. The stock alignment specs will also mask some of that flex. But if you enjoy a crisp handling Mopar, those easy to install, non adjustable parts are contributing to the sloppy handling that a lot of people blame on the suspension design. And really, its
not the design. A few upgraded components can get rid of the majority of that slop. But those components also have to be more accurate, they have to be properly installed, and they need to be tuned to the car because they don't have the wide tolerance range of the rubber parts. You can't just slap them on, you have to make it right.
It's about application, just like anything else. Drive around like grandma mopar with skinnies and drums and tiny little torsion bars and you will probably never see the specific shortcomings of some of the original suspension components beyond the atrocious overall handling of your car. If your happy with the oxymoronic "musclecar handling" performance, that's fine. Upgrade your tire compounds so your car can pull .9g on the skid pad and all of that slop, body roll and flex will be readily apparent. It doesn't mean the factory engineers were idiots, nor does it mean that the additional tuning and adjustment needed to run better parts somehow makes them inferior. I've put tens of thousands of miles on my adjustable strut rods and poly bushings on multiple cars, they hold up just fine.
