Tubular K Member with Rack & Pinion

I am hoping you guys who have used or is currently using these tubular k-members can chime in and offer some advice. I have a 72 Dodge Charger and Im trying to make a decision on a tubular K-member with rack and pinion.
The Charger is a street/strip car. I've been looking at QA1, Magnum Force, RMS Suspensions/Alterktion and Tory Shellehamer.

Out of these 4 companies currently making tubular k members with rack and pinion steering who has the best proven reputation in regard to strength/durability, overall fit and performance?

Thank you!

You couldn't pay me to install a Magnum Farce front end on a car...

Does Shellehamer make a K member for B bodies? I know he does A body stuff.

Tory does not make a b-body k. He said he can't keep up with the a-body orders. We put the latest AJE k on Larry Boyd's GTX and its working out great.

Try "Hemi Denny" http://www.moparsuspension.com/

I have a Alterkation on my Valiant wagon , it is a tried and true setup , I aligned the front , its almost ready to hit the track , everyone likes them ..

I think his communication skills lack a lot , and its not a very fancy looking piece. surprised at all he has made, can't get a mandrel tubing bender .


On my 67 I bought one from Gerst , he was great to deal with , its a nice piece, sold out to qa1 , I can't say if anything changed since that or not .. mine is great

I have an AlterKation in my street/strip Challenger. I like it due to some weight savings, I am able to run a flat bottom 10 qt top fuel dragster type pil pan with plenty of ground clearances. It allowed me to weld up my 4 piece Super Comp Headers up as 1 piece units and they go in from underneath with the engine installed in minutes not having torsion bars to deal with. And, in my case it was all free to me. Long story.

IMO two things to look for, coil over shock support and lower control arm strength-support. My buddy was backing up his car in driveway and sheared off a grade 8 3/4” bolt holding on the lcr. I won’t mention the builders name.

Has there ever been a quantifiable before and after handling test preformed on these kits? I have worked on a charger with complete tubular front and rear suspension. Other than the brake upgrade and possible header clearance is there a handling benefit? I would think upper control arms allowing aggressive alignment specs would do the trick.

Upper control arms for aggressive alignment matched with spring rates, shocks and sway bars

Well, at 138mph, its so smooth its not funny...Try that with a 50 year old OEM front end. Yes, they handle better, drive better, steering is more precise.

AJE front suspension with coil overs, Viking shocks, flaming river rack and pinion. Works real well in my 71 Demon. Not having torsion bars is nice. So much room for activities.

I can think of quite a few OEM front-ends used by members on this site that are a good bit faster with no troubles. Dartin, Alguire, Casey, DVW to name a few.

I made my own K member with rack and Pinion. Uses stock ball joints, Upper and lower arms. Even uses stock torsion bars. Car goes 148mph, and isn't a problem at all.

Seems to me some of those named, run strut cars, and nothing remotely OEM.....But go OEM I don't care, I get no deals on any of the units available. I can tell you, they are a very nice alternative to OEM for a lot of reasons. Including, better drivability.

Next go around, I may even switch manufacturer's just because of the way they designed it and it would help for even more for header clearance than my current two setups.

I agree. Plenty go fast with stock front end. I used to go 150-152mph in the 1/4 with stock front end with no issues. I only changed to the AJE because I felt it was an upgrade. My car is no faster with the rack and pinion front end than the stock front end. I just know I have more room under the car to work, more positive caster, and less Chrysler wobble when the car lands. So if you set up the stock front end right, it will work well.

My dart has been almost 135 with a factory front end with no ill effects or surprises, straight as a string.

My 64 Plymouth is 100% stock front end, rebuilt but all factory mother Mopar, other than the strange brakes. It is smooth as butter at 154mph. Even after its 3' wheelies at the hit. I have had three different folks drive it and they all comment how smooth the car is, like driving a caddy. I also have a strut car and a tube front end car. the 64 is the smoothest by far.

My '63 330 has been 133mph. Same with it. Straight and smooth!

Handling isn't the reason to switch. The factory Mopar setup works better for handling than the coil over and rack setups. The coil over and rack conversions are for space and weight. That is why drag racers convert to coil over and rack, or the higher buck ones go with a strut setup. Corner carvers stay with the factory torsion bar suspension since it works fine up to roughly 150 mph.

Matter of one's preference



Everyone is this topic (about once a month) has to badger those that prefer a aftermarket one .


Maybe let people make their own choices

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.

Yes, your picture does indicate Ackerman. However, the topic here has been, how do you get proper Ackerman, not what it is, and as I noted a few replies earlier, the recent pictured DIY pic of a front rack set-up is lacking in proper Ackerman. I described in words a brief description of proper design to achieve Ackerman, I thought it was accurate in how to achieve normal Ackerman. For those seeking a pic in lieu of my 94? words, there are pics online that, mostly show rear rack Ackerman designs, but figuring out front rack designs should not too difficult to sort out also following my description.

The reality is MOST people going to a tube K and rack are looking for more room and less weight.

When I bought that first AJE kit he promised 125# of weight loss. However, that was only if you were taking out factory power steering, and replacing power disc with manual Wilwoods. I had manual steering and manual disc brakes, so my weight savings were mainly out of my wallet..... Coilovers save some weight too IF you get rid of the t-bar mounts from the trans crossmember.

As far as bump steer and Ackerman, it can be figured out if you take the time to work it out.

Front steer control arms need to be made for proper acherman angle.
Many years ago (43?) I shortened a rack enough to work with drum brakes, and the result was zero acherman correction. The front tires on my Dart are always parallel. Why didn't I fix this later on when I went to discs, and could have done so? Because the car recovers so quickly if it ever gets out of shape on the track. On three occasions my Dart has gotten seriously sideways, at speeds of 125, 135, and 153 mph! A snap correction with the steering wheel and the car recovers like it is on rails! The reason is the car never has severe toe out when correcting for a slide, and doesn't want to switch ends! It wants to go straight. The worst was at Rockfalls raceway in 2004, blew a gasket out of a Milodon adapter plate (thanks Milodon for a shat design!)for the oil filter in the traps. Oiled the left rear, instant leftt turn! But it came back instantly without trying to continue to go in the other direction, like you most often see, just before the car in question goes beyond the point of recovery and crashes. So that is why I will always be willing to live with a car that is tough to push around corners. Also the amount of wear from scrub has been virtually zero, since this is a drag only vehicle.

You seem to have an above average understanding of the Ackerman issue. I don't dispute your satisfaction of your current set-up, but I might disagree with how it's being achieved, and it's a discussion we can unlikely get to the bottom of via a keyboard.

But I do want to address one issue, what might appear to be "toe out" when turning with Ackerman at play, is anything but, whereas parallel wheels in a turn is actually increasing virtual toe in as a turn tightens, meaning that part of the front tires "traction/friction circle" is being consumed by the additional toe in caused by the turning. As long as there is sufficient traction/friction available for the motion at hand, the only downside is tire wear, additional rolling resistance, and some additional tire heating.

Thank you all for the comments and sharing your knowledge and experience.
I have it narrowed down to QA1 & RMS/Alterktion.

Here is a link to a MotorTrend article where they use a QA1 kit in an early B body. The kit they used had Corvette uprights so that was interesting. They didn't go into much detail on that swap, I don't think they even mentioned what the bolt pattern was.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/car-craft-video-series-amazon-garage-1965-dodge-coronet-part-2/

In my choice, there is only one situation that becomes important. That is keeping the car going straight, and if it has lost traction and started to slide sideways to any degree, any acherman correction will increase resistance to returning to a straightline, causing the back and forth swerves you see just before the driver can no longer regain control. Watch a video of the winged dirt track cars cornering, and you will note the front tires are virtually parallel. Acherman angle on these cars is obviously set for a slip angle on dirt that far exceeds the turning radius the car follows. So my guess is those cars are set with possibly only 25 percent of acherman correction, or even less to get true desired correction for the turn being negotiated, not the slip angle of about 40 degrees these cars use for a fast lap.
In my case, it was a happy accident, not a choice. But it flat works for the environment in which I want it to. There is a problem though as wheel bases get shorter. At 106 inch, my deal is liveable. With a car like an AMX with a 90 inch wheelbase and a more pronounced need for proper acherman, tire scrub on a turn would be high. Conversely, a top fuel car with a 250 inch wheelbase and a front track that is very narrow, no one would ever now the difference between proper and zero correction.

That is just what my Gerst front looks like before he sold out to qa1

Really depends on how much drag racing and driving, anything will work. If your looking or a cruiser or improved street driving, then all four will still fill the void. I your looking or aggressive driving, road course or something close to off road/specialty racing, then I can say the Magnum Force Transformer assembly would be my only pick. Unlike Reiley, QA1 and other kits that use mild steel tubing, stock style parts, Mustang II design and spindles, the MF Transformer is a stronger design that has great qualities for header/turbo clearance, great handling, multiple options and even dropped spindles if you want to be a bit stanced. 150lbs+ frontend weight savings is pretty nice to. I have been in multiple cars with the top three builders and MF was the best in my opinion. Going by MF shop for the last 25 years and sitting in on conversations, tech upgrades, client calls and such made me really appreciate their products when nobody was making parts for mopars. I have two kits waiting to be installed on my 70' CUDA Project and my ratrod drift car 71' R/T Charger and probably an a-body drag car when I'm done with these projects. To show a comparison, here are the lower control arms. First one is QA1 second RMS, third is Tory kit uses and final one is Magnum Force. Big difference in construction between the last three. The stronger Magnum Force one would take hitting curbs, potholes, objects way better than the other ones, and you could probably still limp home and might be fixable enough instead of being stranded somewhere. Next year, I plan to do a comparison one the tree compared to a stock set up in comparison to cost, parts quality, options and such when my situation improves, so it will be an interesting comparison between the brands.

I wouldn't buy a cold beer from MF , waited over 6 months for a set of upper a arms that he told me were shipped like 5 times and seen too many failures of his stuff in person and on the net

The weight savings should never include the brakes. It should also include the additional weight of the coil over shocks and springs as they are heavier than the stock shocks alone. The actual weight savings vs a manual steering stock set-up with a trimmed K-frame is not much. I doubt if the stock K frame, control arms, linkage, and gear box are much over 150lbs.
Doug

Agreed. That junk looks more like a counterweight, than front suspension.

total weight of all stock componants w manual box is only 123 lbs so no 150 lbs savings, like only 10 lbs

It still amazes me how people will quote a product they never even layed hands on. As for the late shipping, depends who was the counter person at the time. The guy who was in charge has been fired and the owner is looking at finally having a new building done and back in operation hopefully by the end of November, so hope it all works out. Sucks they have to move business building three times in almost six years. Hopefully when everything is situated down the road, I can get them on board to do Mopar truck suspension.

I didn't see you mention HDK K members. If you haven't looked into them, check them out. Denny was great to work with. Car goes straight as an arrow at high speed. Tons of room to work on it, lighter wait, and parts you can buy at the local auto parts store.

HDK piece in mine....excellent piece, and Denny was the best to work with. A class act indeed.

Even from way down here in AUS.

Would never go back to stock.