Best Coilover IFS for '71 duster?

-
.....at the slightest suggestion one may be considering undertaking a coil over conversion.
LOL, present company excepted and thank God it's not happening here.

Coil over conversion? The heresy you speak! Never mind that modifications you've made to your
vehicle dictate that you eliminate the torsion bars altogether.

It's not like you cast dispersions on torsion bars or even mention them at all. Still, after you they
come, performing a kind of "suspension intervention".

(BTW....I LOVE torsion bars....Just sometimes they are in the way)
 
Need any advice I can get for aftermarket front suspensions out there. I have looked into the HDK setup and it seems solid, but with so many options I just want to hear some reviews and not leave any stones unturned. I know there are plenty of threads out there but "each application is different" is about all that's said so.. here goes: goal is (don't beat me up too bad here) a lowered, slightly cambered, handling machine. I have a built matching 318 (for now) and am going to pick up a ford 8.8 IRS system in the A.M. also looking into the t56 conversion. I have an rx8 as a daily and absolutely love the handling in that car and am looking to match it as closely as I can. PS option is a must for me, quicker steering ratios are a plus, rack and pinion, header clearance for an over-budget exhaust system, and tunabilty is a big aspect as well. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

As has already been mentioned early on, all your goals are easily within reach with the torsion bar suspension at a fraction of the full aftermarket route....and header clearance wont be a issue with dougs or TTI headers on your 318.
 
Can't wait to see pics....I'm still a little confused? is it rear or front steer?

I went to their web-site, but I did not see any kits for Mopars...or big blocks....just Fords

As I mentioned I am leaving in a few days and have around a million or so things that I have to do before I go, (I operate a couple of businesses) so there isn't much chance of getting any undercar shots for you. However, I was rummaging through some archived files and found a whole bunch of pictures of the build. I picked three that show the layout fairly well. Please bear in mind that this was early mock-up and is in no way reflective of the final product. You'll notice the vertical slot milled in the pivot tab. This was to allow quick and easy incremental changes in the height of the inner pivot during the plotting of suspension arcs. The tie rod length was determined ahead of time but the height is a little trickier because you're dealing with not only LCA & UCA arcs but also fore and aft movement of the LCA produced by
the arc of the strut rod. At any rate, everything worked out very well and we were able to achieve nearly zero toe change through the complete travel cycle.
 
As I mentioned I am leaving in a few days and have around a million or so things that I have to do before I go, (I operate a couple of businesses) so there isn't much chance of getting any undercar shots for you. However, I was rummaging through some archived files and found a whole bunch of pictures of the build. I picked three that show the layout fairly well. Please bear in mind that this was early mock-up and is in no way reflective of the final product. You'll notice the vertical slot milled in the pivot tab. This was to allow quick and easy incremental changes in the height of the inner pivot during the plotting of suspension arcs. The tie rod length was determined ahead of time but the height is a little trickier because you're dealing with not only LCA & UCA arcs but also fore and aft movement of the LCA produced but the arc of the strut rod. At any rate, everything worked out very well and we were able to achieve nearly zero toe change through the complete travel cycle.

HMMMM Not sure why the pictures didn't load.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF0194-1.jpg
    39 KB · Views: 320
  • DSCF0195.jpg
    43 KB · Views: 327
  • DSCF0196.jpg
    40.7 KB · Views: 319
Very nice......and thanks for showing.

Was the steering shaft hook-up fairly simple?

How is the ground clearance?

What motor do you have?....any oil pan mods?

What do you suppose the normal builder would have in this setup?
 
Very nice......and thanks for showing.

Was the steering shaft hook-up fairly simple?

How is the ground clearance?

What motor do you have?....any oil pan mods?

What do you suppose the normal builder would have in this setup?

Steering hook up was simple enough, but I build my own headers, so you establish all the
prioritized hardware, and then route the header accordingly. Ground clearance is good; the
body of the r & p is 5/8" above the lower plane of the k member. The engine is a 6.1 Hemi crate motor. I built the oil pan. As I have said a couple of times this is not for your average hot rodder. If the person even had to pay for machine work involved, the cost would be off the page. (kind of like Ross's timing cover) I only mentioned this to prove that a rear steer r & p CAN be done. Not to say that it SHOULD be done. And by that I don't mean to imply that I think that I'm the only one that could do something like this, but there is a great deal of theory and knowledge and equipment involved that, frankly, the average guy simply doesn't have. You could do this, and I'm quite sure there are others who could, but joe average is only going to get himself into a big problem. Anyway, it's unusual right?
 
unusual?....that's why I like it and your approach.

I am always asking myself....what if ? heck, I have several shelves full of "what ifs".

Mopar to ya'
Denny
 
Do you have a build thread ?....when the weather breaks and you have a chance....I would love to see more pics....like top (motor) view and such.

Maybe we will bump into each other on that road..... there are quite a few of us here on FABO that use it.
 
Do you have a build thread ?....when the weather breaks and you have a chance....I would love to see more pics....like top (motor) view and such.

Maybe we will bump into each other on that road..... there are quite a few of us here on FABO that use it.

Well, I have a ton of pictures on jump drives somewhere that I could dig up. I'm gone for a couple of months, but I'll maybe see what I actually have when I get back. I did lose a bunch of early pictures due to computer failure, but they were just mainly of moving the rear frame rails and so forth, but everything else I'll have. And yeah, it would be nice to have a bit of a visit sometime, I'd like that.
 
It's hard to tell from the pictures. With that rack's hook up tabs for the
inner tie rod ends, are the tie rod pivots and tie rod length in complete
parallel and equal concert with the lower control arms?
 
It's hard to tell from the pictures. With that rack's hook up tabs for the
inner tie rod ends, are the tie rod pivots and tie rod length in complete
parallel and equal concert with the lower control arms?

On a suspension system using unequal length control arms, the tie rod cannot parallel the lower control arm. The reason is, that as the suspension cycles through it's travel, the kingpin angle of inclination changes, relative to the lower ball joint. That in turn moves the OUTER tie rod pivot either away from, or toward the centerline of the vehicle. That dictates that IF the tie rod followed the lower control arm arc, massive toe change would take place. Instead, the inner tie rod pivot MUST be located on an imaginary line that intersects with the INSTANT CENTER. The instant center is found by drawing a line through the inner and outer pivot points of BOTH LCA and UCA . Where those lines intersect is the instant or instantaneous center.
The inner tie rod pivot must also be located on a line drawn vertically from the inner pivot of the UCA through the inner pivot of the LCA. The inner tie rod pivot MUST locate on that line, but must also line up with the line drawn from the OUTER tie rod pivot, terminating at the aforementioned instant center. If any if these locations are not precisely accommodated, it becomes impossible to eliminate bumpsteer, or toe change through the suspension travel. The location of the inner tie rod pivot and outer tie rod pivot is what dictates the length of the tie rod itself. It's highly advisable before beginning either a complete design, or any significant alteration to suspension or steering, to do a scale or even full size drawing of that system in order to determine these intersecting points, so that when you begin the mock up, you will usually be very close to final position.
The stock style Dodge/Plymouth suspension systems have an additional complicating factor that must be recognized and accommodated, and that is that the LCA is moved fore and aft by the individual arc of the strut rod. This movement does have an influence on the steering pivot points if your goal is to eliminate bump steer. Unfortunately, the adjustable strut rods that are very popular today, aggravate this fore/aft movement of the LCA because they shorten the effective arc of the strut rod which increases the aforementioned fore/aft movement. In the case of this vehicle, total bump steer from ride height is .007" full compression to .009" full droop or rebound. That is measured 12.5" from spindle center, or simulating a 25" tire. To put that in perspective, a piece of writing stationery is .004" thick.
It is possible to achieve zero toe change, but it becomes a case of diminishing returns. The cost and labor to eliminate that last .007" would far outweigh any noticeable benefit. Sorry for the long-winded answer.
 
I was just reading this FABO thread about IFS . Sort of a mopar vs aftermarket coilover systems. When will people learn. If you are chiming in on a mopar crowd, Mopar stuff is golden, and everything else is second rate. ( My opinion has been consistent ) Dad had Chryslers, and Buicks, ( You do know BUICK stands for - Poor old white dude thinks it's a Mercedes. ) It's nostalgia. We're growing up, and our parents drive whatever brand, and so we root for that companies models. They were all pretty much crap, but with a 9 lbs hammer, and a bit of luck maybe we change that. ( perfect example ) The viper was designed as a sports car, sort of. It would be a POS too, if somebody hadn't of said, let's grab this motor and make it bigger, send the head to lambo for a redesign, grab those brakes from that, a truck differential from over there, and throw it in the monster sized hamilton beech, for a bit of massaging. Unit-bodies were design for working guys to get from point a to be, they are a chain of compromise, they're CRAP! built with the same physics equation that gave us corrugated card board. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO WIN AN ARGUMENT HERE ! but Jesus would be proud of those who try, for their stick-to-it-ivity, for talking sense into those who are receptive, one by one.
Just like after world war II, when soldier mechanics came home, and started throwing applied technologies at their old T Buckets, there are a few folks here who are brave enough to at least admit that there are issues that need addressing, kudos to you guys.
 

Attachments

  • flo3.jpg
    31.2 KB · Views: 218
Funny thing. I didn't know there was an argument. I took it as more of just discussing the pros and cons of each, and maybe introducing something different.
 
Huh. I'm with Marshalearp on this one. No argument here at all, just one of the more informed discussions on suspension systems and design on this board, with guys that have actually built suspensions commenting on both sides.

As far as mopar stuff being sacred, it really isn't. Yes, I'm a proponent of the "original" torsion bar suspension, but only because it really does have a few advantages over a coil-over conversion. And I say "original" because there isn't a single OE part in my torsion bar suspension other than the spindles. Not to say that coil-over conversions don't have advantages too, they do. And in some cases I think the coilover conversion really is the way to go, it just depends on what your plans are. And I've said as much more than once. It just seems like most people are of the mistaken opinion that the original torsion bar system is somehow inferior because it's an OE system (so is the MII coilover design that everyone uses), or because they really don't understand how it works (they're just springs people).

Were they truly inferior, I wouldn't run torsion bars. Pretty much nothing on else on my car is stock, so why would I bother? I'm the last guy to say that OE is sacred, just take a look at the build thread on my Duster, aka Demon tribute. You know, the one with the '68 340, 4 speed conversion, B body 8 3/4, 13" brakes, 18" wheels, etc, etc. Or look at the Hotchkis Duster build. They could have custom built their own suspension if they thought they couldn't compete with the torsion bars. And that car is intended to compete, not just have fun on the weekend. I seriously doubt they'd be building a car to run Pikes Peak and spending skads of money if they really thought the torsion bars would be a major handicap.

As for all the "saving people from coilovers" comments, that's not at all my intent. If every Mopar owner on the face of the planet wanted to spend $5k on a suspension system they don't really need, more power to them, and I'd send them all to Denny because he's awesome. All I'm doing is trying to tell some folks that have obviously fallen for the advertising, magazine and TV show builds, that there's really nothing inherently wrong with a torsion bar suspension. Torsion bar suspensions are capable of handling just as well, and running just as fast, as any of the coil over conversions out there when properly tuned. And sure, properly tuning a torsion bar set up takes more work. But since members on this board, and in this very thread, have posted faster times with their torsion bar set ups than $150k full chassis-cars with coilovers, I don't see how my opinion is based on "nostalgia", or some kind of OE mopar worship. The fact is that I'm 35, so I was born AFTER all of these cars were on the road. I didn't grow up driving them or even riding around in them. I didn't even start my car hobby working on muscle car era Mopars. My intent is only to help folks understand that there's nothing wrong with torsion bars, your car can be fast and competitive with them, and you'll probably spend less money keeping the original design (but not the original parts ;) )
 
Huh. I'm with Marshalearp on this one. No argument here at all, just one of the more informed discussions on suspension systems and design on this board, with guys that have actually built suspensions commenting on both sides.

As far as mopar stuff being sacred, it really isn't. Yes, I'm a proponent of the "original" torsion bar suspension, but only because it really does have a few advantages over a coil-over conversion. And I say "original" because there isn't a single OE part in my torsion bar suspension other than the spindles. Not to say that coil-over conversions don't have advantages too, they do. And in some cases I think the coilover conversion really is the way to go, it just depends on what your plans are. And I've said as much more than once. It just seems like most people are of the mistaken opinion that the original torsion bar system is somehow inferior because it's an OE system (so is the MII coilover design that everyone uses), or because they really don't understand how it works (they're just springs people).

Were they truly inferior, I wouldn't run torsion bars. Pretty much nothing on else on my car is stock, so why would I bother? I'm the last guy to say that OE is sacred, just take a look at the build thread on my Duster, aka Demon tribute. You know, the one with the '68 340, 4 speed conversion, B body 8 3/4, 13" brakes, 18" wheels, etc, etc. Or look at the Hotchkis Duster build. They could have custom built their own suspension if they thought they couldn't compete with the torsion bars. And that car is intended to compete, not just have fun on the weekend. I seriously doubt they'd be building a car to run Pikes Peak and spending skads of money if they really thought the torsion bars would be a major handicap.

As for all the "saving people from coilovers" comments, that's not at all my intent. If every Mopar owner on the face of the planet wanted to spend $5k on a suspension system they don't really need, more power to them, and I'd send them all to Denny because he's awesome. All I'm doing is trying to tell some folks that have obviously fallen for the advertising, magazine and TV show builds, that there's really nothing inherently wrong with a torsion bar suspension. Torsion bar suspensions are capable of handling just as well, and running just as fast, as any of the coil over conversions out there when properly tuned. And sure, properly tuning a torsion bar set up takes more work. But since members on this board, and in this very thread, have posted faster times with their torsion bar set ups than $150k full chassis-cars with coilovers, I don't see how my opinion is based on "nostalgia", or some kind of OE mopar worship. The fact is that I'm 35, so I was born AFTER all of these cars were on the road. I didn't grow up driving them or even riding around in them. I didn't even start my car hobby working on muscle car era Mopars. My intent is only to help folks understand that there's nothing wrong with torsion bars, your car can be fast and competitive with them, and you'll probably spend less money keeping the original design (but not the original parts ;) )
Everything said here I can agree with! And I also didn't see where there was a argument at all..... it seems there are people who just think anything that isn't aftermarket, is somehow inferior, and that's just not the case. Like the statement "unibodys are junk" now, that's just a stupid thing to say, and shows the person making the statement isn't very smart.
 
Really great to hear some balanced, sensible, non-extreme/biased comments on this subject, and I agree 100% with 72bluNblu and replicaracer43. As for the "unibodies are junk" comment; I owned several A bodies brand new, all 340 powered, and for the day they were awesome. With just headers and some intake work they would run mid 13s all day long. Change oil once in a while, put gas in 'em and drive the wheels off of them. Reliable as the sunrise, and not tempermental in anyway. You could drop a big surprise on 95% of the big guns out of Detroit for very little money, even back then. $ 3300.00 got you a 340, four speed, 3.91 gears and sure grip with bucket seats and carpet. At 20 years of age you thought you had died and went to heaven! LOL Most bang for the buck ever built. They weren't "great" cars. Quality control was non-existent, and they sometimes had leaks and rattles, but they definitely were not junk. With the stuff that's available for these cars now, and the knowlege that's available to anyone who's interested they are still really great little cars.
 
Than right now in the USCA, there are 2 mopars that have proven themselves competitive, and one is a Mitsubishi, and the other had a GM suspension, and LS engine. What I'm trying to say is if we want to compete, we need to be more ambitious, innovative, and live in reality. ( Which is not based on some fable of the green brick, or an exhibition car.)
It doesn't really matter how you spring the suspensions, the simple facts are, the brand that we joined FABO to support, just doesn't represent in reality, and we can change that starting now.
We're not very competitive in anything right now, except maybe pro stock, funny car, and top fuel drag racing.
 

Attachments

  • Cumulative-Points-All-Inclusive-post-POIR-Release-POIR1.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 192
Than right now in the USCA, there are 2 mopars that have proven themselves competitive, and one is a Mitsubishi, and the other had a GM suspension, and LS engine. What I'm trying to say is if we want to compete, we need to be more ambitious, innovative, and live in reality. ( Which is not based on some fable of the green brick, or an exhibition car.)
It doesn't really matter how you spring the suspensions, the simple facts are, the brand that we joined FABO to support, just doesn't represent in reality, and we can change that starting now.
We're not very competitive in anything right now, except maybe pro stock, funny car, and top fuel drag racing.

The Green Brick is not a fable, and the Hotchkis Challenger is quite real. There are members here who do quite well with the torsion bar suspension, just ask Tomswheels. He's used his torsion bar suspended cars to post faster times than full Art Morrison chassied cars at Goodguys events.

Simply posting a horribly outdated USCA roster isn't exactly the end-all-be-all of Mopar handling. I really don't think it says anything about "being realistic". Would it be realistic to assume that every Mopar that showed up at every event would be competitive?

I was pretty close to heading to Thunderhill for the USCA event there last weekend, especially since I'm familiar with the track from doing track days there with my motorcycle. My Duster is pretty close to where I want it to be, but at the time of registration I wasn't ready to spend that kind of money to register, book a hotel, and buy a helmet and driving suit on the hopes I would be ready to go for the event. Good thing, as my old man ended up having surgery last week and I wouldn't have made it out regardless. Being competitive at those events is a lot more than just having a capable car, its also about having the time and money to be there frequently enough to make an impact.

I don't see your car on the roster anywhere? Maybe I missed it?
 
I just ordered a RMS Alterkation for mine. The biggest reason was for header clearance and ease of engine mounting. Twice now I've had issues with the biscuit style conversion mounts. The T-bars are a nightmare with any performance header.

Originally I began to upgrade the T-bar setup with tube uppers, tube lowers and willwood brakes, big bolt pattern and QA1 shocks. It was livable once I could get some geometry into the stock setup and get the slop out of it. Then my headers went bad. I had schumachers. When I went to TTI the fitment and engine mount issues began. So I sold all my stock stuff and bought the RMS. 3500$ net cost.

Magnumforce has geometry problems. They put the rack to far forward which at the strip isn't that big of a deal but on the street it is, especially around town.

The RMS alterk is proven to work in all applications. The only complaint I've ever seen is cost.

Hemmydenny's seems to get good reviews.. It wasn't for me.
 
The Green Brick is not a fable, and the Hotchkis Challenger is quite real. There are members here who do quite well with the torsion bar suspension, just ask Tomswheels. He's used his torsion bar suspended cars to post faster times than full Art Morrison chassied cars at Goodguys events.

Simply posting a horribly outdated USCA roster isn't exactly the end-all-be-all of Mopar handling. I really don't think it says anything about "being realistic". Would it be realistic to assume that every Mopar that showed up at every event would be competitive?

I was pretty close to heading to Thunderhill for the USCA event there last weekend, especially since I'm familiar with the track from doing track days there with my motorcycle. My Duster is pretty close to where I want it to be, but at the time of registration I wasn't ready to spend that kind of money to register, book a hotel, and buy a helmet and driving suit on the hopes I would be ready to go for the event. Good thing, as my old man ended up having surgery last week and I wouldn't have made it out regardless. Being competitive at those events is a lot more than just having a capable car, its also about having the time and money to be there frequently enough to make an impact.

I don't see your car on the roster anywhere? Maybe I missed it?
I apologize if I offened you. You are 100% correct. Results were posted after the last meet in December.
 

Attachments

  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR8.jpg
    69.9 KB · Views: 149
  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR7.jpg
    60.1 KB · Views: 154
  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR6.jpg
    78.2 KB · Views: 161
  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR4.jpg
    87.8 KB · Views: 159
  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR3.jpg
    87.8 KB · Views: 165
  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR2.jpg
    89.6 KB · Views: 159
  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR.jpg
    78.7 KB · Views: 160
  • Cumulative-Points-All-Inclusive-post-POIR-Release-POIR1.jpg
    63.9 KB · Views: 161
  • Cumulative-Points-post-PIIR9.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 155
Ok, garyfish, the question was asked, where is your car? You seem to be a expert on why unibodies are junk, and why a coilover suspension swap is needed to have a great handling mopar, so what are your credentials?
 
-
Back
Top