I admit I'm weird...I like my 1960 Valiant drag car because it's different and cool. Problem is there aren't many performance parts available for it. I'm looking to upgrade the front suspension/k member due to the high speeds I am running (120 mph). There are plenty of tubular kits out there but they are all for later model "A" bodies. I have tried to no avail to find manufacturing specs on the K member for my car and see how it compares size-wise to the later model A bodies. Anyone out there know how long (years) this K member went until it was changed in size? Or any ideas, perhaps something I haven't thought about. Thanks
Early A K-member help
- Thread starter chip77
- Start date
-
vitamindart
Well-Known Member
HDK ( Hemi Denny ) makes a kit for the early A bodies 64-66, I think RMS does as well. not sure if those fit the 60 as I'm not familiar with those.
if they are different, maybe one of those guys could help you out?
if they are different, maybe one of those guys could help you out?
A buddy of mine went with a Magnum Force setup in his 64 Valiant. It is a tubular design.
Drawbacks:
WIDER turning radius.
Reduced suspension travel.
All of this because he wanted some header clearance....4 years ago and he is still running exhaust manifolds!
Drawbacks:
WIDER turning radius.
Reduced suspension travel.
All of this because he wanted some header clearance....4 years ago and he is still running exhaust manifolds!
I believe 60-66 A body K members are the same. 64-66 V-8 cars used the same K member as a slant 6,
the engine mounts are different. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me. 67 up K members are wider
but suspension components are pretty much the same except for large and small ball joints in the components.
Bill Crowell
Well-Known Member
'60-'61 K-members are different from later years. In '62 they started using the same K-member as in the full-size Plymouth.
The center to center measurement of the 67-76 A body front frame rails were almost 2 inches wider than the 63-66 models. I was under the impression that the 60-61 A body used the same K member though.
Well, The 1962 DART was an unusual car. It was very similar to the B body cars at that time.
A 62 Dart/Polara is a B body. 61-62 Lancers are A bodies.
Bill Crowell
Well-Known Member
Hi, Lee, how are you?
Yes, you are right, but remember that the Plymouth was produced as a "mid-sized' car in 1962 on the "B" body platform, when it was downsized at the last minute based upon Chrysler executive William Newberg's misunderstanding of what GM was going to do with the Chevrolet. (The full-sized Plymouth was put back on the "C" body platform in 1963.)
"Since they [i.e., the A and the B bodies] had to share body components...[.]" - William Brownlie, retired Chrysler design executive, discussing the last-minute changes necessary to produce the downsized car in '62 in the Collectible Automobile "Plymouth Super Sport" article, December, 1996, page 73.
If I am not mistaken, in 1962 and afterward, the "A" and "B" bodies shared the same K-member.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that is what some old timers and Wildcat Mopars told me when I built my '62 A-body resto rod starting in 2003. The '60-'61 A-body K-members were different.
Here are some pics of different K members. First pic is 62-65 B body V-8 ( to my knowledge, as I got it from a property clean out and was told that's what it is ). Second pic is 62 Dart slant six K member, I parted this car. B body K members
are appox. 33.5" O.C. for frame rail mounting. Last pic is 64 A body at 31.5 O.C. for frame rail mounting.
All this stuff is for sale if anybody is interested.
edit, 30.5 on the 64 K member
what I'm hoping is that my '60 K is the same as the '64 as there are many parts available. I'll do some measuring and see what I come up with. Thanks everyone for your input so far...
From input on this site, 60-73 A body frame rails are the same. If the width of 60-61 frame rails is the same as 62-66
then a 62-66 K member should be the same. As I measured on the 62-65 B body K members they are 3" wider.
67-76 A body K members are wider than the earlier years, as by then, Chrysler had already decided to put big blocks
in A body vehicles.
Hyper_pak
Old School Chrysler Fan
I had a 61 Lancer but never did anything with it. The K frames for 60 and 61 Valiants and Lancers are different. What I don't know is about upper control arms and where they mount. I was told a 62-66 K frame will bolt in your 60. So then you need to change the steering box to go from frame mount to k mount. If you want to post some pictures of your upper arms, we might can tell if they will interchange with later models.
I got ahold of Hemi Denny and here’s of conversation.
Hi Chip,
HDK does not make any components for pre-1964 Mopars and unfortunately, I do not think the early 60s K is shared with any of the later suspensions.
Sorry......but thanks for your interest,
Denny
HDK
slantsixdan
=..=
The '60-'61 Valiant-Lancer K-frame is not the same as the '62-'66 Valiant-Dart-Barracuda item. I'm not sure how hard it would be to swap a '62-'66 K-frame into a '60-'61 car, but the main dimensions didn't change. It would surely involve other swaps to make it work. Example: the '60-'61 steering box mounts totally differently than the '62-up box, the engine mounts are different, you'd need '62-'66 steering arms and linkage, the torsion bar adjusting setup is different, etc.
But I can't think how the '62-'66 K-frame setup, in stock form, would be any giant improvement over the '60-'61 K-frame. The high-spec aftermarket options for '67-up (wide) A-bodies are a total no-go.
Looks like four kilodollars will get you this, which is described as fitting 1960-'66 A-bodies. You'd sure as hell want to mount the engine with a set of these.
Also: The '62 B-body cars do not use the same K-frame as any A-body cars. There are no body parts or panels shared between '62 A-bodies and '62 B-bodies. The '63 Plymouths (and the '64s) were B-bodies, not C-bodies; the first year for a C-body Plymouth was 1965. And that thing about how the '62 B-bodies were emergency-downsized because of an overheard garden party GM exec comment about the upcoming '62 Chev is a silly myth.
But I can't think how the '62-'66 K-frame setup, in stock form, would be any giant improvement over the '60-'61 K-frame. The high-spec aftermarket options for '67-up (wide) A-bodies are a total no-go.
Looks like four kilodollars will get you this, which is described as fitting 1960-'66 A-bodies. You'd sure as hell want to mount the engine with a set of these.
Also: The '62 B-body cars do not use the same K-frame as any A-body cars. There are no body parts or panels shared between '62 A-bodies and '62 B-bodies. The '63 Plymouths (and the '64s) were B-bodies, not C-bodies; the first year for a C-body Plymouth was 1965. And that thing about how the '62 B-bodies were emergency-downsized because of an overheard garden party GM exec comment about the upcoming '62 Chev is a silly myth.
Last edited:
Bill Crowell
Well-Known Member
slantsixdan wrote: "The '62 B-body cars do not use the same K-frame as any A-body cars. There are no shared body panels between '62 A-bodies and '62 B-bodies. The '63 Plymouths (and the '64s) were B-bodies, not C-bodies; the first year for a C-body Plymouth was 1965."
Thanks for correcting me, Dan!
"And that thing about how the '62 B-bodies were emergency-downsized because of an overheard garden party GM exec comment about the upcoming '62 Chev is a silly myth."
Myth or not, it is persistent. Even Collectible Automobile states in its December, 1996 article about the aborted Plymouth Super Sport that William Newberg of Chrysler heard it from Ed Cole of GM when they played golf together, and even names the specific golf course where they played. The source that Collectible Auto relied upon was William Brownlie, a retired Chrysler styling and production executive.
Dan, now you've got me curious: Why, in the absence of the claimed misinformation that Newberg thought he heard from Ed Cole, do you think Chrysler decided against producing the Super Sport in favor of the smaller '62 Plymouth?
The "misunderstanding" scenario makes sense to me: Newberg didn't understand that Cole was saying GM was going to come out with the Chevelle as a new model, and would continue to produce the Bel Air/Impala. Newberg's misunderstanding was in thinking GM was going to drop the Bel Air/Impala entirely in favor of the Chevelle.
I do note that the 2018 article by Paul Niedermeyer, referred to in your link, says Chrysler decided to make the '62 Plymouth smaller merely as a cost-cutting measure, because the Plymouth was too expensive to produce, and that the Super Sport essentially became the 1961 Plymouth.
The Niedermeyer article seems rather long-winded, even bloviated, as it endlessly discusses irrelevant matters, as if he was being paid by the word or something. This is the first time I've ever heard about any "garden party". The CA article said it happened when they played golf. And although Niedermeyer names William Brownlie as a stylist who was directly involved with the Plymouth styling team, his article seems to ignore everything that Brownlie said in the Collectible Automobile article, nor does Niedermeyer even acknowledge the Collectible Automobile article's existence. I therefore submit that perhaps the Niedermeyer article represents revisionist history.
One more item: The Schumacher A-body LA engine mount kits (even their engine hold-down turnbuckle kit), which are advertised as fitting only '63-'66 A-body K-frames, also fit a '62 just fine.
Thanks for correcting me, Dan!
"And that thing about how the '62 B-bodies were emergency-downsized because of an overheard garden party GM exec comment about the upcoming '62 Chev is a silly myth."
Myth or not, it is persistent. Even Collectible Automobile states in its December, 1996 article about the aborted Plymouth Super Sport that William Newberg of Chrysler heard it from Ed Cole of GM when they played golf together, and even names the specific golf course where they played. The source that Collectible Auto relied upon was William Brownlie, a retired Chrysler styling and production executive.
Dan, now you've got me curious: Why, in the absence of the claimed misinformation that Newberg thought he heard from Ed Cole, do you think Chrysler decided against producing the Super Sport in favor of the smaller '62 Plymouth?
The "misunderstanding" scenario makes sense to me: Newberg didn't understand that Cole was saying GM was going to come out with the Chevelle as a new model, and would continue to produce the Bel Air/Impala. Newberg's misunderstanding was in thinking GM was going to drop the Bel Air/Impala entirely in favor of the Chevelle.
I do note that the 2018 article by Paul Niedermeyer, referred to in your link, says Chrysler decided to make the '62 Plymouth smaller merely as a cost-cutting measure, because the Plymouth was too expensive to produce, and that the Super Sport essentially became the 1961 Plymouth.
The Niedermeyer article seems rather long-winded, even bloviated, as it endlessly discusses irrelevant matters, as if he was being paid by the word or something. This is the first time I've ever heard about any "garden party". The CA article said it happened when they played golf. And although Niedermeyer names William Brownlie as a stylist who was directly involved with the Plymouth styling team, his article seems to ignore everything that Brownlie said in the Collectible Automobile article, nor does Niedermeyer even acknowledge the Collectible Automobile article's existence. I therefore submit that perhaps the Niedermeyer article represents revisionist history.
One more item: The Schumacher A-body LA engine mount kits (even their engine hold-down turnbuckle kit), which are advertised as fitting only '63-'66 A-body K-frames, also fit a '62 just fine.
Last edited:
slantsixdan
=..=
That is true—there's all kinds of nonsense and made-up bulk wrap that's very persistent as "common knowledge".
Collectible Automobile is generally one of the better mags in terms of checking their damn facts, but they're still like an engine running a points-condenser ignition system: even when it's perfectly tuned, with brand-new points and everything, if you go listen at the back you're going to hear misfires, chuffs and splutters mixed in with the exhaust note.
As for their source being a retired Chrysler styling and production executive: yeah, he's the same guy who wrongly said the '62 A- and B-body cars share body parts. There are errors like this all over Allpar, too, with retired Chrysler engineers telling stories and talking about stuff that never actually happened. There is a reason people retire, and there is a thing that happens to our minds and memories with advancing age. Even at its best, the human memory is nothing like the camcorder we like to think it is—and remember, we're talking about people who were just doing their damn job. There wouldn't have been a sense of making history; no where-were-you-when-the-'62-Plymouth-launched, nothing like that. Bent metal, motors and wheels, different than last year and next year, engineered and built to tight cost constraints, handed off to the marketers to do their thing, then focus on the next one. Lather-rinse-repeat for however many years.
I wasn't there; all I can do is speculate: it was probably a plain old return-on-investment calculation. Was it rightly or wrongly decided? We'll never know and it doesn't matter; the SS didn't get built. For detailed analysis, I think the article I linked probably comes as close as anyone is likely to.
Yes, because '62-'66 A-body K-frames are the same. People who don't quite know what they're talking about sometimes guess wrong, and people who do know what they're talking about sometimes make errors.
A great amount of information...many thanks. If money were no issue I'd pop for the 4K solution and be done. However, looks like a complete rebuild for the stock K-member/front end is more likely. That being said, who might offer the best/most complete 'kit'? I've seen some on e-bay but for all the reasons listed above I'd rather go with a company that knows early A bodys for sure.
I know that PST is a sponsor at FBBO, are they here too? If so, I would personally go with a company that supports the site.
Hyper_pak
Old School Chrysler Fan
Man this thread went sideways!
I hear you about rebuilding your 60 parts, and I know new stuff should be better than the worn parts. But those parts are small, if you compare ball joints and tie rod ends. I don't know of a kit. I would beware of the china knockoff stuff. If it was my car, I would roll a 62 - 66 k under it with the better steering box, lower control arms, ball joints, etc. Mounts are easy.
I hear you about rebuilding your 60 parts, and I know new stuff should be better than the worn parts. But those parts are small, if you compare ball joints and tie rod ends. I don't know of a kit. I would beware of the china knockoff stuff. If it was my car, I would roll a 62 - 66 k under it with the better steering box, lower control arms, ball joints, etc. Mounts are easy.
273commando
Well-Known Member
273commando
Well-Known Member
Hi Slant6 Dan- new to this site but long time early valiant car nut. Have several questions for you not sure how to get ahold of you or how to do a pm. if this works please pm me and if possible supply an e mail address. thanks! Chris
slantsixdan
=..=
@273commando pm sent
-
