approximate effect of torsion bar adjustment

[Kern Dog]

I remember looking at the charts that Bill Rielley plotted on the two most common disc brake knuckles. The 1973-76 A body and the 1973-89 "B" knuckle....

Look at how the B knuckle has a LOT more toe change during suspension travel:

From .059 toe IN at ride height to .013 toe OUT when the suspension compresses 2 1/4" !
The toe IN about triples when the suspension raises 2 1/4" !

The B knuckle has more camber gain as suspension dives but less caster gain.
In the article where these charts were published, Bill thought that the differences between these two knuckles were so slight, only a seasoned and experienced driver could tell the difference.

 

[Woody500]

I remember looking at the charts that Bill Rielley plotted on the two most common disc brake knuckles. The 1973-76 A body and the 1973-89 "B" knuckle....

View attachment 1716435060

Look at how the B knuckle has a LOT more toe change during suspension travel:

View attachment 1716435061

From .059 toe IN at ride height to .013 toe OUT when the suspension compresses 2 1/4" !
The toe IN about triples when the suspension raises 2 1/4" !

The B knuckle has more camber gain as suspension dives but less caster gain.
In the article where these charts were published, Bill thought that the differences between these two knuckles were so slight, only a seasoned and experienced driver could tell the difference.

B- bodies got a lot of bump steer. I was wondering if anyone had graphed it out the for the A-bodies , as you would end up with a bumpsteer with dial indicators would, it can be easier to see.
I know I'll be looking at this chart multiple times to be sure I understand it. I'm not sure if my earlier post is correct yet, but thanks to all for further posts to help.
Any B body owners ever notice them bumpsteering?

 

[Woody500]

before you go twistin' them bolts to and fro, loosen the lower control arm pivot nut.

failure to do so will absolutely destroy factory/rubber lower control arm bushings.

once you have established your desired ride height, torque back to factory spec.

Others on here have stated that lower bushings not vulcanized to
shells(sleeves). Wouldn't that help lessen that damage?
Uppers ARE( am I right?)vulcanized to shell &should be loosened to avoid the same type of binding, if lowering too far(as I mentioned elsewhere).

 

[Woody500]

Only you. Because you didn’t get the answer you wanted.

Must be a PA thing!

 

[Woody500]

Seems people just aren’t going to get it.

I've been a mechanic almost 50 years & learned a lot by reading before I ever turned a wrench, And I'm still learning.
It's one of the reasons I'm on this site! And hope to pass on a little knowledge!, too!

 

[Woody500]

Maybe we can express our opinions on religion or politics?

Or not.

Now THAT would be a giant CF(Install your definition here)!

 

[Woody500]

Just want to pop in here to say that lowering a car to reduce CG does not equal less body roll. As you lower a car the roll center is changed and may get you the opposite effect. Suspension kinematics is a whole field of vehicle engineering for a reason.

Noticed that on the chart

 

[Kern Dog]

B- bodies got a lot of bump steer. I was wondering if anyone had graphed it out the for the A-bodies , as you would end up with a bumpsteer with dial indicators would, it can be easier to see.
I know I'll be looking at this chart multiple times to be sure I understand it. I'm not sure if my earlier post is correct yet, but thanks to all for further posts to help.
Any B body owners ever notice them bumpsteering?

I have the 1973-76 A body disc knuckles on 2 '70 Chargers, 2 Darts and a 72 Duster. I also have 3 pair of the B knuckles that I'd use on cars I intend to sell. I have not checked them for bump steer.