|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: Dan@Hotchkis]
#1663827
09/01/14 12:22 PM
09/01/14 12:22 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
brads70
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
|
Quote:
Updated spacers and bolt for the UCA Bracket. Just me tinkering and making things a bit better. Just checked the dates. If the arms were made after July 2013, you should be good. Check your Heim. If the misalignment spacer is Silver, you are good, if it is black, you'll want to replace the misalignment spacer with our updated sleeve adapter.
p.s. Just checked the final design drawing, The spacer may be clear zinc plated.
Mine are 4-5 years old now black spacer. Seems to be OK ? What was the issue? ( ps heim joints are holding up fine too!
  )
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: brads70]
#1663828
09/01/14 08:53 PM
09/01/14 08:53 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
dangina
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,491
Lethbridge, AB, Canada
|
Quote:
Updated spacers and bolt for the UCA Bracket. Just me tinkering and making things a bit better. Just checked the dates. If the arms were made after July 2013, you should be good. Check your Heim. If the misalignment spacer is Silver, you are good, if it is black, you'll want to replace the misalignment spacer with our updated sleeve adapter.
p.s. Just checked the final design drawing, The spacer may be clear zinc plated.
you mean the spacers we put on either side of the heim? Mine i thought were aluminum?
Quote:
Mine are 4-5 years old now black spacer. Seems to be OK ? What was the issue? ( ps heim joints are holding up fine too!
)
hey brad, i noticed in your pic you cut up the hotchkis bracket, was that for clearance?
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: dangina]
#1663829
09/02/14 12:17 AM
09/02/14 12:17 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
brads70
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Updated spacers and bolt for the UCA Bracket. Just me tinkering and making things a bit better. Just checked the dates. If the arms were made after July 2013, you should be good. Check your Heim. If the misalignment spacer is Silver, you are good, if it is black, you'll want to replace the misalignment spacer with our updated sleeve adapter.
p.s. Just checked the final design drawing, The spacer may be clear zinc plated.
you mean the spacers we put on either side of the heim? Mine i thought were aluminum?
Quote:
Mine are 4-5 years old now black spacer. Seems to be OK ? What was the issue? ( ps heim joints are holding up fine too!
)
hey brad, i noticed in your pic you cut up the hotchkis bracket, was that for clearance?
Yes, with C-Body spindles. I also tried taller ball joint pins but went back to stock length.
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: 72Swinger]
#1663833
01/01/15 07:58 PM
01/01/15 07:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,468
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,468
So Cal
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Updated spacers and bolt for the UCA Bracket. Just me tinkering and making things a bit better. Just checked the dates. If the arms were made after July 2013, you should be good. Check your Heim. If the misalignment spacer is Silver, you are good, if it is black, you'll want to replace the misalignment spacer with our updated sleeve adapter.
p.s. Just checked the final design drawing, The spacer may be clear zinc plated.
Mine are 4-5 years old now black spacer. Seems to be OK ? What was the issue? ( ps heim joints are holding up fine too!
)
Man, that just seems like to much anti-dive gone IMO. Was this arm designed like this for less bump steer or more camber gain? Im not hacking on anyone, just wonder what was gained somewhere else to justify throwing that much anti-dive away?
The anti dive caused a lot of bump steer.
Don't need that much anti dive in stiff sprung handing car. The factory used the same geometry in long wheelbase 71 Coronet station wagons with camping trailers as they did on Challenger T/A's.
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: 72Swinger]
#1663834
01/01/15 08:29 PM
01/01/15 08:29 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
I'm thinking its lens distortion we see.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: dangina]
#1663836
01/02/15 10:53 AM
01/02/15 10:53 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
brads70
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
|
Quote:
curious - why did you cut out a big portion of your relocation bracket?
I'm running the 73 C-Body spindle which is taller . It hit that bracket when cycling the suspension .
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: Dan@Hotchkis]
#1663837
01/03/15 08:30 AM
01/03/15 08:30 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
My biggest concern with the big bar argument is the chassis. If the suspension can't move, the body will. Also, impacts will be transmitted to the occupants of the car. My car as well as Mitch's are a lot better preserved than a lot of the cars that are out there, however I still have done a fantastic job of tearing out and blowing up pieces of my car. Your mileage may vary. When we build and design parts and make the tuning suggestions we do, it's not based on "what that one guy was able to get away with with that one car that one time." We have to base line our product over an entire fleet of cars and thousands of customers. Most of which may be starting with less than ideal 40 year old cars. The great thing about what we have brought to market is a truly modular system that allows the end user to have a well balanced car that will meet or exceed the needs of 95% of the market.
Its posts like this that make me so damn happy i bought and stuck with the car i have. Many a time i wondered if there was a point in passing over so many cool cars to find the one i have (including one actual T/A), and then, ov course it being a no-option 6cyl stripper, now i have to buy and upgrade everything... every single system and aspect. BUT... single-owner, not hard-driven and not a brutal amount ov miles... combined with the fact it came with like 5lbs-ft ov torque... This car is straight, and was never abused. Even the original paint on the roof pillar is barely cracked.
Ov course, now i'm paranoid about ruining this blank slate. I'm getting so desperate to just drive my damn hotrod i'm getting close to just jamming in the powertrain and sorting the chassis out as i go... but then i read stuff like this and i want to wait till i get subframes, boxes, all the XV style 'fixes' in there, maybe even a 6pt bar... before i even fire the engine (which is now likely to be a small smallblock.).
Hrmmmm... . . .
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1663838
01/03/15 12:17 PM
01/03/15 12:17 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,696
Bitopia
|
"My biggest concern with the big bar argument is the chassis. If the suspension can't move, the body will. Also, impacts will be transmitted to the occupants of the car."
My biggest concern with the above "arguments" is they may be taken literally. IE, no "bar" stops the suspension from moving, EVERY chassis flexes, ALL "impacts" are transmitted to the occupants in a non active suspension car. And "everything effects everything else". Its a matter of degree and personal preference that we decide on.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: MP torsion bars available again?
[Re: jcc]
#1663840
01/04/15 10:12 AM
01/04/15 10:12 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
Pale_Roader
Swears too much
|
Swears too much
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,862
the frozen wastes...
|
Quote:
"My biggest concern with the big bar argument is the chassis. If the suspension can't move, the body will. Also, impacts will be transmitted to the occupants of the car."
My biggest concern with the above "arguments" is they may be taken literally. IE, no "bar" stops the suspension from moving, EVERY chassis flexes, ALL "impacts" are transmitted to the occupants in a non active suspension car. And "everything effects everything else". Its a matter of degree and personal preference that we decide on.
I dont think anyone is in any danger ov taking that literally. I think the issue is a valid one. We all like different degrees sure, but i'd wager that thick bar in a stock car will create problems down the line. These cars can differ incredibly in stiffness/rigidity/ integrity from one to another, even the same model/year cars. I've driven some very nice and tight E-bodies, which i think most here will agree is a fairly rare thing. On the other hand, my 72 Charger was so well uh... 'broken in', that it felt like a big bag ov ass no matter how i modified it. It was loose and flexy and just... well, beat. Sure, you could weld that sucker up and add some roll bars, but you could also do the same with a tight low-mile car instead and end up with twice the package. I think massive fat T-bars in that car would have been a big waste ov time. I dare say that even rebuilding the front suspension and upgrading half ov it was too.
|
|
|
|
|
