Re: b body disc. brake conversion kit
[Re: demonH1B]
#920081
02/03/11 01:44 PM
02/03/11 01:44 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,982 Scranton, PA
Montclaire
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,982
Scranton, PA
|
Quote:
Although I have paperwork from the former owner showing alignment being done and a rebuilt steering box from Steer and Gear, the car handles poorly especially on secondary roads. Any input on this system, anyone?
You're really not giving enough information to give any sort of accurate response. So a few words.
Just because there is an aftermarket kit doesn't mean that it's what YOU need, or anyone else for that matter; look at the poor handling characteristics of some of these high dollar front suspension swaps and judge for yourself.
Having a new steering box is a start, but there are a lot of other potential weak links in the chain between the box and the pavement.
A standard alignment only measures a few fields and tells you nothing about what your suspension is doing as it goes through it's range of travel - what about bump steer?
Besides, what numbers are they using for aligning the car? Ones from 1969 that were set by antiquated standards and for bias-ply tires?
If you want the car to handle well, it can happen but you're going to have to do some homework and make a few choices about how it is that YOU would like the car to handle. This will guide what parts you use and how the setup is configured.
I'm tempted to tell you to take the car to a race chassis shop and have them go over the front end but if you don't know a little going in it may just be a waste of money for you.
Last edited by Montclaire; 02/03/11 01:44 PM.
|
|
|
Re: b body disc. brake conversion kit
[Re: Montclaire]
#920082
02/03/11 02:41 PM
02/03/11 02:41 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,848 Memphis
HemiRick
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,848
Memphis
|
I personally dont know why people worry about installing rear disks, Have the rear drums ever proven inadequate? And the front brakes do 70 percent of the stopping anyway.
Take care, Rick 68 Coronet R/T 440 & 68 Charger 528 Hemi,and 5 Challengers! 6 cyl, 318, 360, 383, 451
|
|
|
Re: b body disc. brake conversion kit
[Re: 70RT Charger]
#920086
02/03/11 05:00 PM
02/03/11 05:00 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,982 Scranton, PA
Montclaire
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,982
Scranton, PA
|
The later spindles are a less than ideal option. Why would you use them when you can source the proper ones or buy repops from master power?
Eberg has always cautioned against the later pieces, and Mopar Muscle has, IMO, downplayed the effect of such a swap to save face after recommending they be used.
Using the larger spindles would cause problems with stock/original ball joints. Newer joints have an increased range of motion but they are at their max with these. With all of the manufacturing issues, who is to say that the chinese will continue to add in this extra wiggle room or build a ball joint to the specs required to live with these spindles, specs that have nothing to do with a factory application?
We have had some long, thoughtful, and numbers packed threads about this but moparts mods would never adopt them into the tech section, so they've all be lost to time. Take a look at the camber and roll center figures in the mm link, they say quite a bit.
Get the right parts and be done with it. Who solves a problem with a new one? One major rule that I always try to follow with cars is that anyone off the street should have confidence that the car should operate predictably should they wind up driving it.
Last edited by Montclaire; 02/03/11 05:04 PM.
|
|
|
Re: b body disc. brake conversion kit
[Re: Montclaire]
#920087
02/03/11 05:35 PM
02/03/11 05:35 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,982 Scranton, PA
Montclaire
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,982
Scranton, PA
|
By the way, something that I am not seeing in the MM link, that was in the original article, was that the inital specs were not set to a stock mopar, but rather had two changes. One was ride height, I don't recall the other. The reason I mention this is that is could potentially skew the results in favor of, or minimizing, differences between the spindles. Since the numbers were wrong from the get-go, all the recorded 'data' did was fuel further speculation.
In any event, Chrysler Co engineers didn't just pick a design out of a hat, AND they continued to produce BOTH sets of spindles at the same time. If it were ok to use the later spindles, don't you think they would have simply made them THE spindle on all production cars?
What is laughable is that the MM crew has even gone so far as to suggest that these spindles may be an IMPROVEMENT!
As I have proved beyond doubt in the past on this board, MM will pass on any tech 'article' submitted to them as gospel but will not stand behind what they print. You can't have it both ways, boys. They won't tell you to take their articles with a grain of salt, but I will. FYI
|
|
|
Re: b body disc. brake conversion kit
[Re: zrxkawboy]
#920089
02/03/11 11:21 PM
02/03/11 11:21 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,882 Ontario, Canada
Stanton
Don't question me!
|
Don't question me!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,882
Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
If the spindles are interchangeable, why would Chrysler have gone to the trouble and expense to produce a new design
As often as this topic has come up I can't recall this point ever having been made in the past. Either way, it is absolutely THE best defence ever! Well put!
|
|
|
Re: b body disc. brake conversion kit
[Re: DoctorDiff]
#920094
02/23/11 10:27 PM
02/23/11 10:27 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688 Marlboro, NY, USA
Rick_Ehrenberg
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
|
Quote:
Rear disc brakes:
1. Look cool
2. Lighter than drums
3. Less likely to turn mushy when overheated
Most people will never feel the difference on daily drivers, however.
Guess I'm a bit late to this party, sorry (I'm jammed right now). Another big advantage to 4-wheel discs: You lose the Bendix Duo-Servo rears, which are notoriously hard to modulate under near-lockup conditions. With Duo-Servo drums on the rear -- which have wildly varying, nonlinear, line pressure requirements -- correct F/R proportioning (crucial to short stopping distances) is a constantly-moving target.
On the tall knuckle deal, 2 quick points:
> By actual measure, the bumpsteer is tripled if you use this to replace the standard knuckle. (The longer design was specifically needed on '73-up Bs, and F/J/Ms, because the UCA mount had to move up when the K became rubber isolated.
> Warning: Some repops are CAST IRON. I have heard (from vendors!) of wrecks because of catastrophic failures.
Rick Ehrenberg
|
|
|
|
|