new QA1 K Frame

-
I would never use heims on anything other than a race only car. As stated you need tom be lubing them everytime you drive it and you still are not keeping out the dirt...

Poly, Nylon, or even aluminum bushings will do the same thing and not have the same issues...
 
Mad Dart said:
I was browsing Mancini's website and found this so I called them. They are saying that Qa1 has an option for Rack & Pinion steering now. On Qa1's website it says nothing about this. I like the idea of this K frame because you can use torsion bars.
Click to expand...

but where is the swaybar mount? :wack:
 
805moparkid said:
I would never use heims on anything other than a race only car. As stated you need tom be lubing them everytime you drive it and you still are not keeping out the dirt...

Poly, Nylon, or even aluminum bushings will do the same thing and not have the same issues...
Click to expand...

I ended up putting in heim joint seals to keep the joints protected from road debris. Seem like they will work ok.
 
Mad Dart said:
I was browsing Mancini's website and found this so I called them. They are saying that Qa1 has an option for Rack & Pinion steering now. On Qa1's website it says nothing about this. I like the idea of this K frame because you can use torsion bars.
Click to expand...

cant find it on their site, where is it ? ... can you add the link, thanks
 
TShell said:
With?:coffee2:
Click to expand...

I wish I could say it was this or that. I have not seen any of the round tube ones hold up over time. But like I said I may be a little bias due the the fact I have had an Alterkation for about 10 years. Looks nice and clean. I will give you that. Oh and I will bet it cost less than than mine...That is always a good thing for cheap people like me..
 
I have a comment that nobody's addressing, on the QA1 k frame. I peurchased this, and installed it in my gen III duster build. When I went to install the T bars. One was deep in the cross member socket, and the retainer was a cinch to install. The other was too shallow. So the welder at our local stock car track copied it, and we returned it.
The retainer wasn't actually locked in. I had to loosen the bolts on the QA1, strap the k frame to a truck, and carefully put tension on it. The only thing keeping the k member locked in place is the torque on the mounting bolts ( 200 lbs.), and one goes through a 3 inch pipe. The rear most bolts give you no room to torque them if some problem is found after everything is installed. In that case you have to remove everything again, or fight with it. The factory piece has a conical part under the bolt head to lock it in. Although both of my torsion bars were locked in , one bar was still shallower than the other.
U.S. tools, and XV makes a stiffener for the cars frame that goes under the radiator. We saw this, and added that front piece to the QA1 style k member, it locks into two pieces welded to the frame with 5/8 bolts. The idea is it reinforces the cars frame, and locks the k member from being able to be bolted up on any weird angles, or moving by accident. The back of the frame we didn't figure out. After some playing with the damn thing, I finally got a mock up done today. One off piece, that I would never do attempt again. If the alignment guy can't align the car, I'm sort of screwed.
 
garyfish340 said:
I have a comment that nobody's addressing, on the QA1 k frame. I peurchased this, and installed it in my gen III duster build. When I went to install the T bars. One was deep in the cross member socket, and the retainer was a cinch to install. The other was too shallow. So the welder at our local stock car track copied it, and we returned it.
The retainer wasn't actually locked in. I had to loosen the bolts on the QA1, strap the k frame to a truck, and carefully put tension on it. The only thing keeping the k member locked in place is the torque on the mounting bolts ( 200 lbs.), and one goes through a 3 inch pipe. The rear most bolts give you no room to torque them if some problem is found after everything is installed. In that case you have to remove everything again, or fight with it. The factory piece has a conical part under the bolt head to lock it in. Although both of my torsion bars were locked in , one bar was still shallower than the other.
U.S. tools, and XV makes a stiffener for the cars frame that goes under the radiator. We saw this, and added that front piece to the QA1 style k member, it locks into two pieces welded to the frame with 5/8 bolts. The idea is it reinforces the cars frame, and locks the k member from being able to be bolted up on any weird angles, or moving by accident. The back of the frame we didn't figure out. After some playing with the damn thing, I finally got a mock up done today. One off piece, that I would never do attempt again. If the alignment guy can't align the car, I'm sort of screwed.
Click to expand...

So your talking about an issue with the lower control arms accepting the torsion bars? You should post some pictures so everyone can understand what you got going on.
 
the k member you link to Louis...is probably the old Cap K member that was available with the rack n pinion steering...dont see those photos on Mancini web site anymore..
 
70aarcuda said:
the k member you link to Louis...is probably the old Cap K member that was available with the rack n pinion steering...dont see those photos on Mancini web site anymore..
Click to expand...

What's funny is the sales guy at Mancini says you can order it still through them.. I called QA1 and they said nope and that they were having geometry problems so they no longer offer the older version. He did say that there will be one in the future once they get it figured out.
 
Mad Dart said:
So your talking about an issue with the lower control arms accepting the torsion bars? You should post some pictures so everyone can understand what you got going on.
Click to expand...
I don't want to get scolded for not agreeing. I think it's an alternative piece that offers mopar guys another option. This is a good deal.
My opinion is: If one bar is deeper in the socket than the other, it could also be because the K is on an angle. The amount mine's off is a hair. The circular clip will clip into most of the cross member groove, but be half popped out within a day. I could take a before, and after photo, but that's sort of useless. I think I fixed it though. I chocked the right front tire, loosened all the bolts but the front left one, and pushed the car really hard, than I choked the fronts of the tires, and tightened it up.
The only thing I see wrong with the piece is if you screw up, ( something I've been making a habit of lately. ) It's a ***** to unscrew up. That said It was pointed out to me that the K member is held in place by 4 bolt. The 2 front bolts go through a 3" long tube before they reach the frame the back mount almost flat to the frame. This type of design relies totally on clamping force. there is no shear protection so the bolts ( especially the front ) can have sideways flex. Whether or not an automobile can actually put that much force on something, I couldn't tell you. I had Dan the welder fix that as a " What if ? " Thing. Which made it pretty tough to fix my screw up. "MY SCREW UP."
If it works in stock configuration on Mustangs, it probably works fine on Mopars too.
 
Maybe Mancini has a couple of the old cap versions sitting on the shelf...lol
 
74DartSwinger360 said:
Exactly the spool mounts are far superior
Would rather use a braced up spool mount k frame than this
It is probably more of an eye candy thing since its tubular
Click to expand...

While this is most likely true I have a 440 with bisciut mounts and it 12 years strong. I do run a torque strap with poly bushings. I'm just saying it isn't a make it or break it part of the deal. One nice this is that the conversion mounts work without performing an abortion on the mount as is the case with the stock K.

805moparkid said:
I would never use heims on anything other than a race only car. As stated you need tom be lubing them everytime you drive it and you still are not keeping out the dirt...

Poly, Nylon, or even aluminum bushings will do the same thing and not have the same issues...
Click to expand...

You should talk with Bill Reilly about this. His upper A arms use them. I'd like to be a fly on the wall with that convo
 
Mad Dart said:
So your talking about an issue with the lower control arms accepting the torsion bars? You should post some pictures so everyone can understand what you got going on.
Click to expand...
As I said, it's a waste of time trying to post photos of what I'm talking about. Nor do I want to fight with anybody. All I know is once again the T bar retainer popped out. I already know that somebody is bound to say, " You should have measured." and they would be correct. Than again, you can measure all you like, and it would be a MOOT POINT. One you measure where you want it to be. What than ? build a jig to hold it while you twist the exceedingly tight machine thread bolts in ? That'll move it a bit. Measure from where ? The trans cross member, provided nobody in the history of the car ever put a jack under the cross member, or put heat into it by welding in frame connectors, the measurement should work. ( I'm exaggerating here, it's not that bad)
I've already tried to lock the tires down, and push the frame back. Thought it work, it didn't. So now I have to support the car, unbolt the transmission, loosen the K member, and try to leverage it into place carefully with the tail shaft. That's with the engine in the car. Or I can pull the engine, and start over. I also noticed that the stock piece in a 1969 Barracuda is further back. With a gen III hemi, I had to drill two holes in the fire wall to bolt up the 2 top transmission bolts. The Qa1, same engine in a 75 duster is just a matter of reaching down, and bolting them in, my hands fit. If all A body frame, and firewalls, are the same. ( I don't know) The one further back has more potential in the street handling department.
It's an okay design that needs a little more thought.
Now granted I messed this up all on my own, but it's too easy to mess up with the QA1 design. I'll use the cruddy photos to make my point.
 

Attachments

  • lock1.jpg
    34.6 KB · Views: 455
  • lock2.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 463
  • lock3.jpg
    50.4 KB · Views: 463
garyfish340 said:
I'm far from being the brightest bulb on the tree, but if it's all the same, I'd rather sort it out the right way.
Click to expand...

There is a right way to do wrong **** and I just explained one of them to you!

Nobody, not even you would ever notice it was sanded on and it is a mechanically safe and sound fix. You could probably sand 1/16 off of the end of that torsion bar and that clip will pop in right where it is supposed to go, done over and on the road. :burnout:
 
Mad Dart said:
There is a right way to do wrong **** and I just explained one of them to you!

Nobody, not even you would ever notice it was sanded on and it is a mechanically safe and sound fix. You could probably sand 1/16 off of the end of that torsion bar and that clip will pop in right where it is supposed to go, done over and on the road. :burnout:
Click to expand...


To be perfectly Frank, you could probably cut it off in a band saw, and I wouldn't know the difference. Half the time I get so freaking confused, I don't know my *** from a hole in the ground. I'm going to agree with you also, because I'm always reading about the guy, who knows the guy who broke a T Bar. The freaking things are used in off road trucks, getting banged up on rocks all day, and in the backs of outlaw cars that are on two wheels, climbing over another going into mad turns. They probably don't car if you damage them, as much as folks think.
But you still have a T bar that isn't in it's socket correctly, and god knows what else. A drive train that is out of alignment with the rear axle, a LCA that further forward on one side, than the other. An UCA that throws more camber than it should to one side, and less on the other. All this geometry doesn't matter to some people. Read how many posts there are of strange vibrations, harmonics that appear at one speed, and not another. Even people who have said, " My torque converter bolts keep backing out, despite the use of lock-tight. ( That's extreme, but it's up here every few months.) Vibrations are the worst thing to introduce to a car.Just watch any film of a ford SOHC 427 at high rpm, when a rocker guide goes, and that 6 foot chain makes minced meat of a dyno.
[ame]http://youtu.be/FOnachbSjno[/ame]
Besides the fact that if you put all that money, and bloody knuckles into it, don't you want people to say, " He really put some thought into engineering that. " I would be out in 28 degree weather, getting my *** kicked by a 3300 lbs mass produced piece of crap, unless I thought, " I can build something from this."
 
How hard would it be to modify one of these to fit an early A (65) Dart?
 

Attachments

  • Dart (Custom) (2).JPG
    87.6 KB · Views: 437
easyrider said:
How hard would it be to modify one of these to fit an early A (65) Dart?
Click to expand...
Let me be clear on this " I don't claim to actually know what I'm talking about, unless I'm drunk. Than I claim it, but it's just not true.

Look up HemiDenny, and write this off. I made enough mistakes for everybody on the forum. You car is narrower that the 1967, and up A body. I think if you narrowed it in the center, you be narrowing your oil pan clearance. If you narrow it on the bend, you could change the height, and you still need your strut rods to align. Look up HemiDenny, and ask him if he has something for you, it'll cost a lot less money than cutting stuff up, and praying you don't make mach up scrap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top