Thank you for your feedback, I find it to be very valuable. I have a lot of respect for someone able to make the stock equipment perform so well. Clearly you have a good understanding of this system. Initially, I ordered all Hotchkis gear for front and rear. After waiting ~4 months for the parts to arrive, I started to explore the RMS and XV equipment, primarily at the urging of a friend of mine. Ultimately, I went with a combination of RMS front and XV in the rear.

I have no affiliation with any vendor, parts manufacturer nor do I have any business of my own. But I have learned that one of the best ways to get information is to ask. I put a lot of value in the real world experiences of others. There are many factors and variables in play when trying to get a good lap time. I have driven my car in mock-up and its drivability and performance exceeded my expectation. My Challenger will now be blown back apart for body/paint and final assembly. Hopefully, by the end of the year or early next year I can meet you at the track and we can see how things turn out. If something breaks or blows up, I will tow it home and rebuild it.

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the note. It was indeed the Hotchkis E-Max Challenger that inspired my build which started November 2010. I decided to upgrade the car retaining as much of the original appearance and spirit as possible. For suspension I chose to go all Hotchkis.

It seemed that 2011 was not a good year for inventory at many businesses. The wait time for most orders was significant. It took over 8 months for my TKO 5-speed to arrive. If I recall correctly, after ~4 months, the Hotchkis leaf springs had not arrived yet and my attention was being re-directed to the XV equipment and also RMS.

Despite the wait and ultimate change of mind, my opinion of the high quality of Hotchkis parts and my overall respect for your dedication to motorsports has not changed.

Best,
Daniel

Too bad the poster is right...turning into a feud. I never intended that. The older post said "ALTERKATION HATED BY MOPAR ACTION??" - but I never said that! Just to clear the air (again), here's what I published (with drawings, etc.)

**************************************************



SUBSTITUTE SUSPENSION
I have found a couple consecutive negative remarks about RMS products published in recent issues of Mopar Action and I am seeking to understand why. This came as a surprise to me because I can find no negative data on any RMS product no matter where I look. Many builds, including my own, that are pursuing handling related performance upgrades often include RMS.
A much smaller percentage use XV (due to cost and mods) and even less Magnum Force. Bill at RMS really seems to have his heart dedicated to building quality products capable of improving street and road race performance with more than 10 years of product application to support it. If you have experience with RMS quality problems, or
data to support the “questionable” status, please share it with us enthusiasts seeking to get our Mopars onto the tracks. This way we can make the necessary improvements, mods etc. to appropriately benefit from these kinds of upgrades. There should
not be fear, uncertainty and doubt between fellow enthusiasts. I understand how the RMS system distributes cornering forces on our car’s infrastructure differently from the T-bar but is there data of failures resulting from this? I can’t find a single case of failure of any kind. If you know of any please share and help us understand what is “questionable” about these products. Maybe together we can make the perfect solution.
My ’71 Challenger is using XV in the rear and RMS in front with all XV bracing products including rad support, inner fender bracing and connectors.
Thank you for your help and expertise.
—Daniel Niclas, San Jose, CA

Dan—
On a drag car, the RMS AlterKtion stuff is great—takes out lots of weight, makes more exhaust room. But there’s a laundry list of potential problems with using this on the street and/or road course. In no particular order...
> Heim joints—anybody’s heim joints— just do not last on the street. Even with added boots, they still don’t come anywhere close to OEM tie rod end durability. And, as an artifact of their construction, they are much more prone to total failure than an OEM tie rod end.
> The cantilevered outer tie rod end, spaced up with a stack of shims and spacers (for bumpsteer correction, no doubt out of necessity, because the rack could not be installed correctly due to interference, and a “generic” steering arm is used), is a scary potential catastrophic failure point. The loads on that bolt, should you be in a hard corner and hit a pothole, are astronomical. Some photos I have seen show the spacer tube welded to the steering arm, which may offer partial mitigation.
> The suspension (spring) loads are now taken by the front rails. They were, in the OEM Chrysler design, primarily, imparted to the torsion bar crossmember. On a drag car, where you’ll have a roll cage tube passing thru the firewall and tied into the top of what was the shock tower, the problem is pretty well mitigated. But on a street car, where you seldom see that, you’ll be inducing lots more chassis flex. Just hook up a small video camera and watch how the steering shaft telescopes over bumps. The Chrysler OEM system had a lightweight front structure with springs (T-bars) mounted low and rearward, damn near “Formula One” technology. Why give that up?
> The “K”-member is no longer a “K”, drastically reducing its ability to prevent the front rails from “parallelograming”. This would significantly reduce crashworthiness (especially in an offset frontal crash) as well as reducing overall chassis rigidity.
> I believe that the spindle diameter is smaller than stock. In 1973, Chrysler increased the spindle diameter as weight, tire size, wheel width, etc., were all increasing.
> The frame thru-bolts will crush the frame as the bolts are tightened. There should be tubes welded into the frame, EG: stock transmission crossmember, etc.
> Every pix I have seen shows brake hubs that have no way to pilot the wheel. ESPECIALLY road racing, hub-centricity is paramount.
> There’s near-zero compliance—nothing to replace the OEM tension-strut bushing. Instantaneous impact loads are sky-high, exacerbating the above negatives. And the effective footprint of the LCA, which, in the OEM design, included that tension strut, is greatly reduced (nearly 50%) in the RMS
design, further reducing its ability to safely
handle impacts.
> The steering column’s pot coupling is eliminated. The pot coupling is what compensates for chassis flex; deleting it means that one of two things will occur over time/ abuse: Either the nylon shear pin on ’67-up non-E-bodies will break, or the upper column bearing will fail (possible on any Mopar).
> You’ll note that there is not one weld in the factory suspension components. By design. That’s not to necessarily say that welds are always bad, but, if they can be avoided, you’ve eliminated one area where, unless each weld is X-rayed, you just don’t know what to expect over the long term.
Mr. Reilly has always thought I’ve had it in for him. That’s simply not true, I think he has designed a very good drag-race suspension conversion. It’s just when you take a drag race front end, sell it for street use, with nothing even close to factory durability and stress testing, that I worry. Lack of reported or known failures isn’t proof of anything: Space shuttles made many flights “before,” the Silver Bridge carried tens of millions of cars safely, then one day it simply vanished into the Ohio River, killing hundreds, to cite just two well-known examples. When a fleet of test cars have spent 250,000 miles each being hammered at a PG, then get back to me. This applies to the competitor’s products as well. If I didn’t point these things out, I’d be complacent. Reilly, in fact, does point this out, go read the disclaimer that is in the RMS documentation:

“....By purchasing this product, the buyer/end user assumes all risks associated with its use and agrees to having the proper skills for it’s [sic] installation. Reilly MotorSports Inc. and its suppliers will not be held responsible, liable or accountable for any injury, damage, loss, penalties, or fines that occur from using this product in any manner.”

For my dime, upgrades to the basic T-bar system re the way to go. Firm Feel, XV’s level one, and even Hotchkis have parts and packages that get the job done, although Hotchkis’ swapping (giving up) brake anti-dive* for more camber gain doesn’t thrill me either. If you’re building a straight-line-only drag car, your opinion may vary.
Guys often confuse “race” parts with “durability.” Often the opposite is true. EG: Aluminum con rods and rocker arms, “race” axle shafts and gears, tiny radiators and fans, super high-lift cams, and many more. A lot of guys, of course, do get by with race parts on the street. How? Simple: The car sees 10 cruise-ins or 300 miles a year, smooth roads, 40 MPH, etc.
If I don’t take care to see that there’s some kind of disclaimer in articles featuring cars with these suspension conversions, we could be seen (legally) as endorsing them—which we are not.

To boil this down: Again, I’m sure the RMS setup has good geometry (even has anti-dive)and drives just fine. On a drag car, the extra header and oil pan real estate, and reduced weight, would be the hot ticket. It is the specter of sudden, catastrophic failure in “real street” use that worries me.
*— For more on this, see p. 67.
************************
End paste job...

Does anyone have any actual experience running a mopar with an Alterkation on a road coarse or autocross track out of curiosity?

I would be more then happy to offer up my alterk car for real world testing at High Plains Raceway and would let a qualified person drive it.

Quote:

---

Does anyone have any actual experience running a mopar with an Alterkation on a road coarse or autocross track out of curiosity?

---

What exactly would running it on the road course prove? Well balanced suspension systems are those that produce linear and predicatable feel for the driver while utilizing wheel rates that compliment each other and work in conjunction with the shock valving. The grip of the tires and the resulting lap times could care less about the type of springs and suspension system applying the force.

JH-C ya cant win here on this board no matter what one does, yes I have a oem front end that could be swapped out in approx 2 hours, 4 bolts and 2 column bolts and 2 brake lines.

My "Modified Street" alterk car is currently setup for that type track. Putting an oem front end under the same car would be back stepping 10x over a factory car with the way the rest of the car is setup.

With all the alterk bashing going on fact or fiction I simply offered up a well balanced car that ive alot of blood sweat and tears in and alot of money for some laps.

Maybe a factory oem (street) kit car vs a modified would be nice.

I run the alterk on twisty mountain roads on a reg bassis, on the 8 mile drive down the mountain there is one 1/4 mile straight and the rest are just several hundred feet between corners but yet in reading some would consider it a death trap/death trip doing so.

Id still offer the car up for testing, but it seems if ones not willing to offer up an alterk system for a full out fail crash testing type deal to show unproven faults in the system the alterk bashing will just continue with comments and speculation.


It is the specter of sudden, catastrophic failure in “real street” use that worries me.


So us alterk owners have a death wish, so it seems.....I offered it up for track testing due to the safer environment that would put more loads and stress then any street drive time would.


As for....Heim joints—anybody’s heim joints— just do not last on the street. Even with added boots, they still don’t come anywhere close to OEM tie rod end durability.

Average tie rod end replacement for the 2006 dodge charger right at 40k, average tie rod end replacement on a 2004 dodge neon 49k....

From the RMS site...We build heavy-duty parts that are durable enough to last for tens of thousands of miles - some of our first systems from 1999 have seen over 60,000 miles and counting - on the original bushings and rod ends they were shipped with.

The neg comments and references to the space shuttle and bridges falling into a river is loooong stretch, might as well put earthquakes and the sun dying in the mix as well.

I wonder how Bill R deals with all the deaths hes caused...NOT.

I don't know about the not winning situation. But back OT, I am not sure what the set-up would be in a 2 hr swap, does that include a guess alignment? And the most important question I guess is performance, and just the weight difference would likely be a plus, lots of variables, that give almost anybody the results they hold dear. For instance, take the same car are you running as many laps as needed. Let car sit for 2? hrs, and see what the new lap times are, any difference would have to explained and accounted for.

FWIW, I own an Alter K, and for what it is, I think it is proper solution and improvement. I am however trying to be open minded and fair.

Keep trying to win

Maybe the win was a bad choice of words, no worse then the space shuttle or bridges falling but back on topic, the front t bar setup is an easy install if its the same one that came off the car is used and when solid bushings are used its really not a hard setup to get back on a car, and would be more accurate then the rubber bushings.

Ive had the oem front end on the rack, set it up pull it off drive around the block, put it back on the rack and its way off due to the poor design.

http://www.race-cardrivers.com/Chrysler%...0Trans%20Am.htm

It appears that consideration of a transverse mounted T bar setup was always considered more of a pedestrian / commuter type application and when a more spirited or racing application of the T bar was considered with the F body Mopars the return to the E body setup was done.

Would comparing a car that is optimized with a complete set of parts that say include an alterkation and then the swap out is performed to install the factory transverse T bar K member with XX,XXXX miles compared to an AlterK with only maybe a few thousand miles and not many years of service?

It would be like putting a Used set of these shoes from 1975 onto a top NBA player today inplace of the shoes he currently wears:
http://www.zappos.com/converse-kids-chuck-taylor-all-star-core-hi-toddler-youth-black

Again, what would running an AlterK around a road track really prove? Like I said before, the road feel a suspension produces is the combination of components. Whether those components are torsion, coil, leaf, or air, so long as they are balanced to the right frequencies and dampened to match, they will perform well.

I'm not here to bash the AlterK, it is a really nice set up, albeit more than I'm willing to pay, but still a very nice set up. However, when compared to a longitudal torsion bar set, its biggest advantage is simply lighter weight and more available spring rates that are easy to change. Because of the the radical difference in layout, there is no doubting the advantage of the AlterK over the stock FJM suspension. But very few guys on here are dyed in the wool FJM fans and I'm sure even then, most of them will admit the bent bar suspension leaves a lot to be desired.

The Kit Car Racing Program is a whole nuther animal and is not in any way related to the street cars of the time at all, except they used production sheet metal. On top of that, it began several years before the F body was even introduced and was rooted in development with Petty Enterprises. No way at all was it even going to consider a transverse set up, but they would certainly be willing to reskin the cars in whatever sheetmetal the factory was producing. If Chrysler wasn't so broke and in bankruptcy in the 80s, I don't doubt you would have seen the kit cars continue with Laser and Daytona bodies.

TC I do understand where your coming from, I owned a very nice low mile Petty Street version and other then the 8 inch rims and the rear sway bar and a little bit different steering box only the 360-4 made it a better car on a marginal level.

Soon I will have some contrast as the current project oem K is all firm feel parts including there new t bars and will be about as maxed out as an oem trans/tor K can get.

Why I get a bit bothered by the so called issues with the alterk is since I preped the unit as best as I could when new, epoxy primed, sealer, then alot of top coat then cleared, it cleans up like new.

So many are under the inpression that people with the alterk front end do not really drive or push there cars hard on the street with no issues.

You know my environment here at 8400 ft, on a dirt road but yet ive driven/beat the system from -26 below (When the roads are dry) to 90 plus above,and snow and mud inbetween those times. With proper care the unit looks as new as it did when installed with the exception of the blue rotors from hard driving.

I can honestly say that there has been a couple of times if it were not for the well balanced setup of the RMS, the heavy oem front end would of wrecked me.

Now back to the oem K with all firm feel products I feel will be a good setup with all the iso parts removed from the car and I really look forward to some hard driving with that as well because in its own way I feel it will be leaps and bounds over the oem parts, which your fully correct as they were not meant to be a real performance setup however If I reacall the iso setups started in 73??? on most mopars, however I may be wrong.

The RMS is marketed in two forms, street/strip and short of wrecking the car I feel ive pushed mine as hard as anyone could without issue.

Dirt roads, potholes, severe temp changes, mine has seen it all and I do inspect it very very often due to these factors.

If my wife was to read RE-s opinion of how unsafe the system is on the street and in addition to the adverse conditions in which I thrash it on a regular basis she would probably try to get me to park the car and thats just mis-info in my opinion and very much unproven other then speculation.

When the quality of even the welds on the unit are questioned id look to the factory welds that look like they were done with a non gassed wire feed welder, well they are wire feed welds and very poor, id be worried more about the 70s welding many times over a modern welder used by real fab guy, not a line worker doing floor pan seam welds on the unibody.

Also although not directly adressed the fmj-s were designed to take the loads not put on the older long t bar setups.

Ive seen many rusted out lower front frames on the fmj-s but never any cracked, or distorted ones that were not weak from rust.

My offering up a car with the RMS street system was to try to help put down some of the stigma that the system is not safe on the streets.

Id not offer it up to go off roading just to see how much abuse it wouldnt see under hard but practicle use.

But I can say if id treid to do what ive done with an oem front end over the past 4 years or so id have a wrecked car.

Even with there problems at least the F body cars got sold and to the point where some dealerships were adding the superpack parts at the dealership to fill the needs of the public where other older mopars sat on lots for long periods of time begging to be bought.

And other older mopars rusted at a fair rate as well, we bought f body cars to drive for winter cars beacuse they were cheap and not as rusted out as most equally priced dusters just a few years older.

Did I say adverse conditions???? Look at pic...the cars going on a 15 year old paint job and one rear quarter replaced then as well and still does well at the local shows and rust is not an issue as most would think.

But here again the car does have an 8 point and connectors, 4 wheel disc,QA1 doubles and alot of other junk that might factor into my good results vs just an oem car with the unit bolted on....who knows.