Quote:

---

Quote:

---

RMS

---

67Autocross:
That picture of the Alterkation setup sorta scares me. The relatively narrow span between the front and rear bolts holding the LCA in place? Wow can that be sturdy? That reminds me of how more stable you are with your feet about a shoulders width apart compared to side by side. The Mopar LCA with the strut rod looks far superior in resisting deflection. Maybe the RMS works better in a perfect world without speed bumps, potholes and the rare event where you drift off the pavement!

---

Quote:

---

All B body arms below, and for the record ctr to ctr on upper arm is approx 9.5", lower RMS Arm is approx 8". I am not sure where spindle ctr is relative upper and lower mounting points, but if its centered or close, both control arms would receive same loading on braking force, not sure on "potholes", my biggest concern is single shear mounting on lca, which upper does have, but if failures don't exist, its an arraigning the deck chairs issue. I trust the RMS, I would buy it again, Bill doesn't shy away from critical comments, has a great track record, and nobody has built anything superior yet.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

All B body arms below, and for the record ctr to ctr on upper arm is approx 9.5", lower RMS Arm is approx 8". I am not sure where spindle ctr is relative upper and lower mounting points, but if its centered or close, both control arms would receive same loading on braking force, not sure on "potholes", my biggest concern is single shear mounting on lca, which upper does have, but if failures don't exist, its an arraigning the deck chairs issue. I trust the RMS, I would buy it again, Bill doesn't shy away from critical comments, has a great track record, and nobody has built anything superior yet.

---

Pix is misleading, you need to compare the stock LCA WITH the tension strut attached, which is really part of the arm.

Also the OEM strut has a large bushing to absorb impacts; the RMS setup has near-zero compliance. That sends instantaneous loads to near infinity.

Rick

---

I disagree, pic is real, but interpretations can be misleading.

So back to reality, anybody broken ANY of the "poorly" designed systems in normal expected use we are picking to death?

Quote:

---

...<snip...and nobody has built anything superior yet.

---

Agreed. Except this...


Rick E.

Quote:

---

Thank you for the pic that indicates 15" on the one side of the LCA suspension triangle. I am not sure what to make of it. It doesn't appear to be broken, it has what appears to be typical rubber compliant strut bushing set-up, which in your earlier post reduces infinite and instantaneous shock loading. The basic pictured concept is time proven and used by millions. I could offer many pluses and minuses about this and other designs, but regardless, few seem to have notable failures in the field. And IMO all can be improved, some more then others.

---

Quote:

---

Rick,

You should investigate more before you jump to conclusions. I expect more from you.
1) The RMS has poly bushings on the LCA, not exactly zero compliance.
2) LCA is not in sheer - it is shaft mounted. The bolts are to hold caps which keep the bushings from sliding. The shaft is supported by a tube welded into the frame.
3) The outer tie rod is mounted to the end of a tube stub - no more in shear than our stock tie rod, just looks like a bolt with a spacer though it is not.

Now... the design of the LCA does not sit well with me, I would have done that a little different. But I think I would need to know more before I make any definitive statements.

You just posted a glowing review of the XV stuff - then bash the RMS stuff because it is not as good a concept as the stock geometry? I know you did an article on XV a few years back. I have not heard a peep out of XV in almost two years when they promised me they were going to build an A-body Level 2 suspension. Are they still in business? It appears they are selling all their vehicles and have not introduced any new products in quite a while. How about you give Bill an equal shot, at least go visit him and evaluate the engineering first hand instead of making assumptions based on pictures. His shop is just South of Scranton, that isn't too far away for you. Then I would be interested in your point of view from an informed perspective.

---

Quote:

---

At the same time Devil all you yourself have done for the past 3 years or so on moparts is continue to say how much a deathtrap the RMS system is and you would never drive one on the street with no support to back it up yet so many of us have had zero issues.

I cant say jack about the XV or Hotchkis others because I dont use there products.

The RMS unit for the F-body is unique as the upper control arm boxes are part of the actual RMS unit and there are 6 mounting points vs 4 on most.

I really dont read your crap posts devil unless I run into them and more RMS bashing, what system do you currently own??

Not the RMS, the XV, or Hotchkis??? Or are you holding out for training wheels for older mopars?

Ive been beating the RMS system for almost 4 years and other then looking it over like the rest of the car, zero issues...hell my grandmas rode in the car, somthing you probably wouldnt do with the RMS death machine under the front.

F-body K....

---

So you don't have anything to actually intelligent to say, so you insult me. Just makes you look like the buffoon, not I.

I actually have used a combination of different pieces on my 71 Challenger, using articles from Mopar Action, Mopar Muscle, etc... and ideas from XV and others. Only thing holding up my project is wiring.

I re-welded the K-frame, I have made my own inner fender braces, lower radiator core support brace brace, bigger torsion bars, HD rear springs, front and rear sway bars, cop car brakes, FF level 3 box with fast ratio pitman arm... (Wanna get that new support setup)

My car will not be a slouch in the corners, even with that big block up front.

Best of luck!

Quote:

---

Hello,

The header clearance and the approximate 100+ pound weight loss are the primary reasons why I have been looking hard at the RMS setup. Of course along with their very good track record/reputation to even consider them. I'd like something light that can handle and drag well. Wishfull?

Damon

---

Quote:

---

What does their business practice have to do with the engineering? You're just trying to find fault with anything XV instead of coming up with facts to back up your ramblings.

---

Quote:

---

Quite to the contrary - I am actually interested in what XV would produce for my A-body. If they offer a better product I WILL buy it. Prior to releasing the B-body suspension they claimed the A-body was next. Now I am concerned this will not happen because XV stopped releasing new products about 20 months ago. I have purchased from XV in the past with no complaints...

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quite to the contrary - I am actually interested in what XV would produce for my A-body. If they offer a better product I WILL buy it. Prior to releasing the B-body suspension they claimed the A-body was next. Now I am concerned this will not happen because XV stopped releasing new products about 20 months ago. I have purchased from XV in the past with no complaints...

---

Replying to my own post... I spoke to someone at XV today. They have a '68 Barracuda on the lift. They are nearing completion of the 3-link rear suspension and plan on moving straight on to the development of the front. Rear would be ready for sale very soon, front could be out by Summer.

What do y'all think?

---