All 4 of us mentioned have current vehicles that run basically stock parts. At least 3 of us have been 150 mph or better. Personally mine runs 145-150 depending on ballast and weather. It has well over 900 passes. Drives perfect at speed. It has a lightened factory K frame, unmodified stock upper and lower control arms. The toe pattern has been zeroed in with heims and spacers replacing the outer tie rods. Though it was pretty close to start. My sons (Dizuster) and several friends all run 135-140 mph with totally stock stuff. As long as the components are in good shape, they drive fine. I can also say I've installed QA 1/Gerst stuff with a rack for customers. The out of the box geometry is not even close. The outer tie rod takes a 2"-3" shim to get it close. Not to mention the steering effort is very high an the turning radius is reduced. No thanks
Doug

Totally agree. I have Alterkation on the race car and could not see myself working on it without the additional room.

Thanks for the input

Are you asking about real handling such as road racing, or drag race handling? Struts work just fine for drag race handling but they don't work so well for road racing. I helped build a Valiant road race car a few years back. It would go 160 mph on the front straight at PIR. It used a factory torsion bar setup. We looked into all of the aftermarket suspension kits available and none of them were designed for that kind of duty. Morrison announced a new kit out that might work for road racing, but I don't think it is available yet.

My Valiant has a rack mounted through the front of a stock k-frame with torsion bars. It took a little dojng to get the bump steer out, but my buddy sho did the work got it very near perfect. Car drives like a Caddy and steers backing up.

See these arguments all the time, kinda pointless really. Like most things with our cars, its primarily driven by application and budget .

I wanted the room and the ability to be able to work on the car easily. More precise steering, double adjustables and a full length, larger capacity oil pan with good ground clearance are a BIG bonus.

I can remove the big 2 1/4" 4-1 headers off the Gen II Hemi in my A body on jackstands in no time. A little less weight too, so lots to like. It's been on the road for 8 years and has been flawless.

Nothing wrong with the OEM parts esp if tweaked but for my application it was a no brainer

INTERESTING COMMENTS, i have been over 160 in the 1/4 and 140+ in the 1/8. Stock and i mean ALL stock front end. Drives great.
I have Tory K frame now and havent raced the car yet. However the room with these aftermarket front ends and the weight reduction is fantastic. All depends on what you are looking to do. IF you are on a budget, the stock stuff works great.

All the Mopars in the late 60s and 70s ran 200 mph with torsion bar front ends with leaf springs in the back.

Comp Chassis in Phoenix built my tube K coil over set up back in 2012. Absolutely ZERO regrets ever. Big EASY button when it comes to working on the car. One engine has custom mid/rear sump pan, other one runs a rear sump truck pan. I also took advantage of the new found space and had custom headers built for the W8 and the old Hedman Hustlers modified for more clearance. Wheels stay true on launch and rock steady down the track. I give it a huge race car thumbs up!

At one point several years ago, I looked at going the tubular/coil over route but the lack of travel was the killer for me. For a street/strip set up is there really much of a weight difference between a stock set up and a tubular? The extra room would be nice though.

No matter what you say on Moparts, somebody will be along to tell you how wrong you are.

No pooping in anyones ice cream here. A statement was made about stock front ends and I as well as Doug have responded. In my case it has nothing to do with budget and I am sure Doug is the same. I just want to keep the car as stock as possible just cause. I have a "real" drag racecar and am very well aware of the advantages of its design over the 64. but in my case the +64 is just something to go have fun and do wheelies with. And it scores highly on both those fronts with a stock front end.

I built a custom front suspension for my 65 Dart and used stock upper and lower control arms. I duplicated the location of the mounting points of factory setup but used modified reversed lower ball joints to come up with a front steer rack to allow a big pan and lighten the car. Twenty six years later, I am very happy with it, and only made custom upper control arms to allow more caster.

But a front steer solution as pictured has sacrificed proper Ackerman greatly, which might be in a very specific application acceptable, but seldom preferred.

ive collect through out the years many pics of rack and pinion put into stock k frames.over the weekend there was a fastback cuda at a car show sunday i liked with a rack put in using stock k frame will copy off this one.he kept the stock upper and lower arms and is using torsion bars.i want to build my own using stock k frame.btw this was a blown 440 big block car

Never had a problem with the ackerman on the 68 Dart, it was done right! Backed up and turned the proper way (no outside wheel turning more than the inside) pinto rack, 74 Dart k-frame, lower ball joints swapped side to side. More info will cost ya.

We agree then, there is a difference between "sacrificed proper Ackerman" and "never had a problem" ?

For those on the sidelines who might be scratching their heads here, normal Ackerman in a front steering two axle vehicle, is defined as the intersection lines drawn thru the outer steering tie rod ends thru the lower balljoints to the center of the rear axle. It is assumed those lines are mirror image on the centerline of the car, when the front wheels are pointed straight ahead.
Those lines need to be same angle whether tie rods are in front or rear of the front axle line.
Meaning, the tie rods are closer on a rear rack IFS, and farther apart on a front rack car.
That can't be changed significantly for proper Ackerman, period.
Ackerman effect becomes more significant the smaller the turning radius.

A picture is worth a thousand words

Maybe, but you don't have the right picture.

That picture is the definition of ackerman, as long as the center line of both front wheels intersect with the center line of the rear axel, out a certain distance from axel, both front tires will not scrub. How it gets to that configuration is a matter of getting all the parts working right.
I couldn’t find my Chrysler book that explained it so I just Googled it.