Moparts

A body chassis

Posted By: AndyF

A body chassis - 09/08/18 12:56 AM

I'd have to see it go together to know how well it works but here it is: https://www.hotrod.com/articles/schwartz-performance-introduces-g-machine-chassis-108-mopar-bodies/
Posted By: Supercuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 01:14 AM

Cut and paste from the brochure.
Posted By: Jim_Lusk

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 01:30 AM

When you consider how well the Red Brick and the Green Brick perform, I consider this completely unnecessary...
Posted By: Supercuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 02:29 AM

But, but, our uni-bodies are inherently weak.
Posted By: dangina

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 02:44 AM

I'm all for any company willing to shove money into making our cars better!
Posted By: Supercuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 03:00 AM

The key is better
Posted By: Kern Dog

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 06:09 AM

No.
Posted By: AndyF

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 07:01 AM

Originally Posted By Jim_Lusk
When you consider how well the Red Brick and the Green Brick perform, I consider this completely unnecessary...


Red Brick performed great on the track but wasn't much fun to drive around town. That is the problem with the classic Mopar suspension. You can make them work at the track but you give up a lot. To have a car do both you have to start with a clean sheet of paper. Not sure this chassis does that, but it might. I don't have any plans to test it out though. Looks like a huge project for even a professional shop to tackle. Lots of stuff has to be cut away to fit on there and then everything needs to be lined up and welded back together. I'd never finish a project like that.
Posted By: CKessel

Re: A body chassis - 09/08/18 05:06 PM

One way to salvage a car where the floor and rails are toast. Definitely not a slam dunk project.
Posted By: Jim_Lusk

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 12:30 AM

Originally Posted By AndyF
Originally Posted By Jim_Lusk
When you consider how well the Red Brick and the Green Brick perform, I consider this completely unnecessary...


Red Brick performed great on the track but wasn't much fun to drive around town. That is the problem with the classic Mopar suspension. You can make them work at the track but you give up a lot. To have a car do both you have to start with a clean sheet of paper. Not sure this chassis does that, but it might. I don't have any plans to test it out though. Looks like a huge project for even a professional shop to tackle. Lots of stuff has to be cut away to fit on there and then everything needs to be lined up and welded back together. I'd never finish a project like that.


Larry seems to enjoy driving it...or at least did last time I talked to him. Lee didn't like it much on the street. I don't know how stiff it is, but I know my son's Barracuda was stiff (1.14" torsion bars with KYB shocks) and I did not find it objectionable even on California back roads...
Posted By: Kern Dog

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 07:06 AM

Is the A-Body torsion bar spring rate the same as B-body cars? What I mean is, even though an A-body uses the shorter bar, it also uses a slightly longer lower control arm. Does this in any way mean that a 1.14 T bar in both cars would mean approximately the same ride and spring rate?
I ask because I have 1.15 Bergman Auto Craft torsion bars in my 70 Charger and the car rides great. It is firm but feels solid and capable without feeling like an unloaded dump truck.
Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 10:47 AM

IMO for something to drive good on the street with low speeds AND drive good at a track at high speeds, I think you need digital suspension control that adapts to the car's speed.

Daily street use and full-out racing are 2 different worlds.
Usually a 'suitable' compromise is chosen for the average Joe.
Posted By: Supercuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 03:19 PM

Spring rate is spring rate, it is independent of vehicle. In a coil spring it would be pounds per inch of compression, a torsion bar would be pounds per degree of deflection. So a B body torsion bar and an A body torsion bar with the same spring rate deflect the same.

What you are thinking of is wheel rate. Wheel rate is the rate of deflection at the wheel. Being that our torsion bar suspensions use the inner pivot point as the spring attaching point the ratio, regardless of arm length, is 1. In a coil over type suspension where the spring attached somewhere between the inner pivot and the outer pivot the ratio is less and is a function of those points and the angle of the spring.

https://www.hypercoils.com/spring-rate-calculator/
Posted By: krautrock

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 04:49 PM

do a google image search for "chrysler torsion bar" and some charts will show up that list wheel rate. A-body is stiffer than B-body given the same diameter...
Posted By: Supercuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 05:32 PM

Didn't bother to read a thing did we?

In a Chrysler longitudinal torsion bar suspension the spring rate and the wheel rate are IDENTICAL.

Spring rate is spring rate regardless of diameter. The reason the A body bars are stiffer for a given diameter, which no one asked about, is that they are shorter. So if you want an A body T bar to match the spring rate of a B body T bar the diameter will be smaller, but the spring rate and the wheel rates will be IDENTICAL.
Posted By: Kern Dog

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 07:08 PM

But....The A-body uses a slightly longer lower control arm which must have some effect on the wheel rate.
Posted By: myduster360

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 07:26 PM

Its the closed minded fool to think 1960s tech can't ever be improved upon.

XV had plenty of testing and documentation from their 4 post rig showing that "stock" unibody needs plenty of help to bring it up modern standards in terms of rigidity. Torque boxes, Frame connectors, Radiator core support, Fender Braces, Cowl braces ect all proven effective time and again.

Even brand new, our cars had beefed chassis with torque boxes and double Rocker rails. DC from DAY 1 stressed the need for Frame connectors. Even DC Kit cars had you stiffen up the stock Rocker rail even though it had a Full cage.

Considering ~$10K base price isn't far off from what it costs for a pile of parts of the currently available, individual "Front" and "Rear" Suspension kits.

Not sure to what extent this means "This full chassis is designed to bolt under your Mopar uni-body with minimum alterations to the floor while increasing the rigidity and strength"
Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: A body chassis - 09/09/18 11:13 PM

This is not 'improving', this is just "Grind off every suspension part from your Mopar, discard it like a cheap hooker and replace it with our generic stuff we use on every other chassis regardless of car-brand its used on".

Going by the one, single image in the article, and unless it's some generic image, I would think you need to fab your own body mounts as I see hardly any points on the chassis where the body could mount to.

EDIT:
No sign of the A-body chassis on their site, but the E-body section has a number of actual photos of the frame.

http://www.schwartzperformance.com/mopar-e-body-cuda-challenger-chassis-full-frame/

Don't see many mount-points between frame and chassis. The frame/chassis alone doesn't appear all that sturdy, so the chassis would need the unibody and vv to both become stiff together, as mentioned on their webpage. But I'm not sure if just 'bolting' both together will accomplish that.
Posted By: krautrock

Re: A body chassis - 09/10/18 12:37 AM

Originally Posted By Supercuda
Didn't bother to read a thing did we?

In a Chrysler longitudinal torsion bar suspension the spring rate and the wheel rate are IDENTICAL.

Spring rate is spring rate regardless of diameter. The reason the A body bars are stiffer for a given diameter, which no one asked about, is that they are shorter. So if you want an A body T bar to match the spring rate of a B body T bar the diameter will be smaller, but the spring rate and the wheel rates will be IDENTICAL.



settle down there keyboard cowboy.
i was just posting for this other guy to check out...

Originally Posted By Frankenduster
Does this in any way mean that a 1.14 T bar in both cars would mean approximately the same ride and spring rate?


anyway, just GIS for the chrysler torsion bar charts and see what the spring rates (wheel rate) are...
Posted By: jcc

Re: A body chassis - 09/10/18 03:49 AM

"Its the closed minded fool to think 1960s tech can't ever be improved upon."

I don't see any fools here yet, but a couple of things, I suspect a lot of the OEM engineering today is not directed at building a stiffer chassis for 9/10ths handling as much as it is building crash test needed crush zones, and i bet the crush zones take a lot higher priority, KV was trying to sell a product, marketing was a factor in their presented result., I fail to see how bolting on a ladder frame style chassis will offer much bang for buck in more then a single axis stiffness, if nothing else, the increase in chassis stiffness/loads will be from carrying a lot less weight in your wallet.

This member is not wasting time with bolt on stuff.

https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbt...tml#Post2532180
Posted By: lilcuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/10/18 04:45 AM

Originally Posted By Jim_Lusk
Originally Posted By AndyF
Originally Posted By Jim_Lusk
When you consider how well the Red Brick and the Green Brick perform, I consider this completely unnecessary...


Red Brick performed great on the track but wasn't much fun to drive around town. That is the problem with the classic Mopar suspension. You can make them work at the track but you give up a lot. To have a car do both you have to start with a clean sheet of paper. Not sure this chassis does that, but it might. I don't have any plans to test it out though. Looks like a huge project for even a professional shop to tackle. Lots of stuff has to be cut away to fit on there and then everything needs to be lined up and welded back together. I'd never finish a project like that.


Larry seems to enjoy driving it...or at least did last time I talked to him. Lee didn't like it much on the street. I don't know how stiff it is, but I know my son's Barracuda was stiff (1.14" torsion bars with KYB shocks) and I did not find it objectionable even on California back roads...


Honestly, the ride wasn't that bad. The rattles, squeaks and clunks were annoying. But the worst part was the heat and resonance from having no carpet and headliner. On a cool day with earplugs, it was a blast!
Posted By: AndyF

Re: A body chassis - 09/10/18 06:17 AM

Yep, no carpet, no headliner, all sound deadening removed, lots of bracing removed, etc. Earplugs were mandatory and with the way Tim drove it, so were motion sickness pills!

Best time to drive a car like that is on a cool night after a hot day. Pop some ear plugs in, pull on a helmet, open up the windows and let it fly.

My daughter is 16 and I took her for a ride in my '65 Coronet the other day. She thought it smelled bad and was too loud. Her daily driver is an electric car (Leaf) so an old musclecar is a bit of a rude shock! My car has carpet, headliner, seat cushions, hood bracing, etc. so I can't imagine what she would've thought of Tim's Valiant.
Posted By: NV69B7RR

Re: A body chassis - 09/11/18 01:42 AM

The Dynamat i put in really made a huge difference in the drivability of the Red Brick. It was worth the extra weight in my opinion. The ride is very smooth and not harsh, which was surprising. I had a basically stock 89 Saleen Mustang that had a much harsher ride, but did not handle as well as the Brick. That car with fuel injection, some gears, and 5/6 speed would make for a really impressive all around car.
Posted By: MuuMuu101

Re: A body chassis - 09/12/18 03:48 AM

Originally Posted By NV69B7RR
The Dynamat i put in really made a huge difference in the drivability of the Red Brick. It was worth the extra weight in my opinion. The ride is very smooth and not harsh, which was surprising. I had a basically stock 89 Saleen Mustang that had a much harsher ride, but did not handle as well as the Brick. That car with fuel injection, some gears, and 5/6 speed would make for a really impressive all around car.


Ironically, I had Dynamat added in my car and I didn't notice much of a difference in noise or heat. The heat that's coming out of the trans tunnel is the worst on the freeway. But otherwise, my car is almost what you described.
Posted By: BigBlockMopar

Re: A body chassis - 09/12/18 08:28 PM

Heatreflection should really be done on the side of the heatsource.
Take a look at new cars, they have aluminium shields on the underside of the car.
Posted By: DemonDuster

Re: A body chassis - 09/14/18 04:37 PM

ALL I GOTTA SAY IS " 4 TOUCHDOWNS IN ONE GAME, NO MA'AM, AND 340'S RULE ! ! ! A BODIES FOREVER ! MOD EM HOW YA WANT ! ( I own and drive one ) Let the snob have the resto, ZZZZZ.....
Posted By: Kern Dog

Re: A body chassis - 09/15/18 05:38 AM

Uhhh...Posting while intoxicated is not recommended.
Posted By: DemonDuster

Re: A body chassis - 09/15/18 04:14 PM

I think Schwartz sees $$$ in the 'cuda-A body, and not the "Bundy mobiles" and "Lady drives a Scamp" / "Grand parents choice specials" us commoners (poor dunks,err drunkz, (burp), and stoners, peaked in High school types etc.. ya know, the non pretentious low income losers) drive. I better sell some more shoes, Amazon don't fail me .....
Posted By: MRGTX

Re: A body chassis - 09/17/18 06:10 PM

Originally Posted By DD3
I think Schwartz sees $$$ in the 'cuda-A body, and not the "Bundy mobiles" and "Lady drives a Scamp" / "Grand parents choice specials" us commoners (poor dunks,err drunkz, (burp), and stoners, peaked in High school types etc.. ya know, the non pretentious low income losers) drive. I better sell some more shoes, Amazon don't fail me .....


You may have peaked in high school but your grammar and communication skills seem to have peaked some time around the third grade.

What the hell are you trying to say?

laugh
Posted By: Supercuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/17/18 09:19 PM

I think he's trying to say Schwartz is looking for a few high rolling name droppers and not Joe Sixpack to bankroll them.
Posted By: jcc

Re: A body chassis - 09/17/18 09:58 PM

Originally Posted By MRGTX
Originally Posted By DD3
I think Schwartz sees $$$ in the 'cuda-A body, and not the "Bundy mobiles" and "Lady drives a Scamp" / "Grand parents choice specials" us commoners (poor dunks,err drunkz, (burp), and stoners, peaked in High school types etc.. ya know, the non pretentious low income losers) drive. I better sell some more shoes, Amazon don't fail me .....


You may have peaked in high school but your grammar and communication skills seem to have peaked some time around the third grade.

What the hell are you trying to say?

laugh


Al Bundy has nothing on him?

Just teasing, all in good fun.

Not everybody got past the second laugh2 grade.
Posted By: moparpollack

Re: A body chassis - 09/18/18 05:31 AM

Says bolt on chassis but to what? What ever it is you would need to cut a lot before bolting on anything.
Posted By: DemonDuster

Re: A body chassis - 09/18/18 04:41 PM

"The longest shock travel of any chassis manufacturer" ! Can spin out like a 911. Ride like an Oldsmobuick.
Posted By: Supercuda

Re: A body chassis - 09/18/18 10:46 PM

Originally Posted By DD3
Ride like an Oldsmobuick.



Reason GM went to 4 link is that leafs rode too harsh for the pillow like ride they were going after.

And somehow a 4 link is now a "performance" suspension.

With a crap ton of help it can handle, never met one OEM 4 link setup that I like how it handled and oddly enough GM's handling cars weren't 4 links either.
© 2024 Moparts Forums