|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: Kern Dog]
#1718729
01/02/15 12:40 AM
01/02/15 12:40 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
If you're considering between the 1.12 and 1.15 that Peter is selling, I would go 1.15's at the drop of a hat on your Charger. If I had my dream car, 70 Cuda, the 1.12's might be a better match. But a B-body? 1.15's and it will go FAST!
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: PHJ426]
#1718733
01/02/15 01:42 AM
01/02/15 01:42 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
What kind of spring rate would you couple with this for the rear leaf spring package/shock as well as sway bar rate for a car that is driven to a local road course event .... a true road and track car. This would be in a RB powered E body that has not been lightened up much so around 3800# wet without driver.
In this situation, it depends on what, if any, rear anti-sway bar is used. With no rear bar, 175#, with a body hung .75" bar 155#, with a 1" axle hug bar, 135#. This should at least get you in the ball park where you can then use tire size, pressure, or rear bar adjustments to dial things in closer.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: Supercuda]
#1718734
01/02/15 01:46 AM
01/02/15 01:46 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
Quote:
I forgot that the A body LCAs are 1/2" longer than the B body LCAs. That sorta negates some of the difference between 37" and 41" t-bars.
Wheel rate is wheel rate. If the wheel rate is given then LCA length has already been taken into account.
Unless you put A body arms under your B/E body. That you got some ciferin' to do.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: PHJ426]
#1718736
01/02/15 03:03 AM
01/02/15 03:03 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,394
Pikes Peak Country
|
Quote:
Need C body Hexes in them E bodiesssssssss
Yeah, then you could step up to 1 3/8" bars and definetly overspring your E body.
Interestingly enough, the earlier B bodies, despite their size, are much lighter than E bodies. I'm always amazed how heavy E bodies really are.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1718737
01/02/15 12:03 PM
01/02/15 12:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
brads70
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 813
Ontario,Canada
|
Quote:
Given the way you like to dial things in, I'd almost wonder if a conversion to a splined tubular sway bar wouldn't be the better choice. Open up the K frame some(its not as strong as you might think) to allow up to 2.5" and pick up the pieces for a splined kit. Odds are you could put on together one for around $200. Swapping out the splined bar for more precise rates could be done for as little as $100, maybe less if you shop for used ones. Plus the options for end links may prevent any potential tire interference issues.
In my next iteration chassis wise I'll be using Schroeder hollow splined sway bars and arms. They are a little more pricey than $200 for a "kit" but....
I have a set of arms and a few different diameters to try and lots more are available.
I currently have A-body LCA's(3/16" longer than E/B-Body's) and 1.120" FF torsion bars. I don't see C-Body sized torsion bars being beneficial to cars that run on the street most of the time. A strictly race car ok, but not a street car. Unless you have a cage and spend a lot of time and effort bracing the entire chassis the whole car becomes a torsion bar when you go too big. How big is too big? I don't know?
I'm think really big torsion bars are a bandaid solution to the poor geometry built into our cars. All your really doing is limiting the suspension travel and making a go cart out of it? Like others have said you will end up breaking spot welds etc... Sure the car will handle better than stock but only because your not letting the suspension travel and that will make for a horrible street car ride I would imagine? If that's what your after why not just make the suspension bump stops taller?
I'm no "expert" but I'd rather work on the geometry , shocks, and sway bars instead of trying to " limit/eliminate" suspension travel.
IMO bigger/biggest is not always better, leave that stuff in Hotrod magazine where it belongs or to the snake oil salesman trying to sell you the latest parts ?
What size you choose has to do with the application. If your building a high banked superspeedway car sure you will need C-Body sized torsion bars. If your occasionally autocrossing and mainly street driving then I'd say Firm Feel has us all covered . Variables such as engine weight etc. will determine what's best .Every car/combo will be different. I get the feeling some people think I'll just bolt in "this" size torsion bar and my car will handle on rails. I've found it's not just one part, it's the combo of parts and again every car combo/weight will be slightly different. I chose a T-Bar that will allow 2-3" of travel.My theory/idea is to control/improve what happens in 2-3" of suspension compression , the rest is secondary. It's always a compromise, there is no free lunch as they say.
Last edited by brads70; 01/02/15 02:00 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1718738
01/02/15 07:01 PM
01/02/15 07:01 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
PHJ426
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,456
Fly Over States
|
Quote:
Quote:
Need C body Hexes in them E bodiesssssssss
Yeah, then you could step up to 1 3/8" bars and definetly overspring your E body.
Interestingly enough, the earlier B bodies, despite their size, are much lighter than E bodies. I'm always amazed how heavy E bodies really are.
All them crash beams in the doors and other federally mandated do dads add up the weight fast over the 8 years from 1962 to 1970.....
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: Dan@Hotchkis]
#1718740
01/02/15 09:02 PM
01/02/15 09:02 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
Kern Dog
OP
Striving for excellence
|
OP
Striving for excellence
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,493
Granite Bay CA
|
Quote:
Its a good thing there is a company out there that sells a balanced package for these cars ! 
But on a side note, I lowered my front and rear spring rates on the Road Runner, from a 1.18 front to the 1.10 while the shock program was in development. really like the dynamic feel of the car when we went to the lower rate and better shocks. I'm not a super fan of a car used for daily driving that feels like a rollerskate with a big block. Gets a little hairy to drive in adverse conditions too.
I do appreciate the efforts made by the Hotchkis company. They apparantly do take a lot of guesswork out of the equation.
Before the Charger, I spent years in a 70s Camaro. That car ingrained in me a frugal nature of picking up stuff cheap. If something didn't work, I tried something else and still came out dollars ahead.
I bought my Charger in March 2000. Back then we had limited choices, at least I thought we did. I thought the 1.0 bars were a good pick since I didn't have a Moparts Cornering/Handling forum to consult. I'm in the minority of the Mopar crowd, a guy that prefers a good handling classic instead of a straight line drag car.
If I were to start from scratch, the Hotchkis TVS would be a great way to go. I have no real complaints about the car as it sits except that I have to be careful to avoid entering a corner too hot for the risk of oversteer. Drifting is fun when nobody else is around but I surely do not want to slide into someone because the car gets tail happy.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: TC@HP2]
#1718742
01/03/15 08:08 AM
01/03/15 08:08 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:
Quote:
Need C body Hexes in them E bodiesssssssss
Yeah, then you could step up to 1 3/8" bars and definetly overspring your E body.
Interestingly enough, the earlier B bodies, despite their size, are much lighter than E bodies. I'm always amazed how heavy E bodies really are.
Although right now my favorite site is down so i cant link actual proof, i'll still have to disagree with you. Unless you are talking pre-65 B-bodies, the E platform is still lighter. I am (always) talking on a base to base model comparison. The B's you saw driving down the road in the mid to late 60's generally were lighter than the E's you saw driving around in the early 70's, but this is misleading. The average options checked off/ordered was certainly less in the late 60's, just the same in the 70's everyone was wanting to look the part and play the part (even if in fact they weren't) and more options got checked. Early B's were more likely to have smaller engines, and there was less to those engines, and really, to every part ov the car. Safety mandates were only half the story.
The reality is, that if you took a bone-stock and ZERO-optioned 70 E-body and compared it to the same 65-68 B-body, it WILL be lighter. But no one wants to drive around in a 6cyl 3speed, 7 1/4" Challenger with no power options, 14x5" wheels and no sway bars (trust me, i have exactly this... its no fun). They want Hemi-everything (save the actual Hemi, but lets jam a 700lb 440 and a Dana 60 in there anyways) and every option.
For a starting point, weight-wise a 70 E-body (preferably a Barracuda) is the best starting point for a mid-sized Mopar race car. They get noticeably heavier with every single year, just like the B-bodies did. A 65 is going to be way lighter than a 70 B, everything else being equal.
I am always amazed at how heavy people let their E-bodies get. A 3800lb Challenger is goddamn ridiculous. Worse, is that the heavier they get the more that weight seems to find itself over the front end. My stock 3000lb 70 still has an appalling frt/rr bias, but it just seems to get worse from there for most builders (not all). Hard for it not to... most ov the fun stuff goes up front.
Another question is, do you really want to 'fix' the handling ov a way front-heavy E-body with stronger T-bars? Before jacking that front rate further, i'd do everything in my power to equal out the frt-rr bias, or get it as close as possible. When you get the bias as good as you can, THEN spring the hell out ov it.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1718743
01/03/15 02:11 PM
01/03/15 02:11 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,432
NorCal
RylisPro
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,432
NorCal
|
Quote:
Before jacking that front rate further, i'd do everything in my power to equal out the frt-rr bias, or get it as close as possible. When you get the bias as good as you can, THEN spring the hell out ov it.
This is why I added 200 lbs. of roll cage to the middle of my car and going with aluminum up front. I have 1.12 TB's and subjectively feel it's undersprung when compared to a typical modern track dedicated car.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: astjp2]
#1718744
01/03/15 11:55 PM
01/03/15 11:55 PM
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
Dan@Hotchkis
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 841
Santa Fe Springs, CA
|
Quote:
OK Dan, how does the corner weights of the front affect the handling, I have a world block (read: real heavy!) 4 core brass radiator, etc...would the extra weight prefer a higher torsion bar rate than a small block with aluminum heads, all things being equal? Tim
It can, but it turns into a balancing act. I'd have to do some digging around at the shop to pull up our corner weights of the cars across the spectrum when the Mopar program first launched. If you wanted to get super specific, yes the rate would help by shifting it a bit. I'd probably suggest a 1.18 front t-bar to someone running an all iron front end RB or HEMI for instance. For what it's worth, my engine was/is a B with aluminum everything except block and water pump. Everything on the chassis is steel except for the hood. A lot of the weight gap could be closed by a composite front end (with sufficient chassis bracing) and shifting the battery to the rear. The bumper and battery make a far greater weight bias difference than the sum weight at the engine and significantly affect yaw and roll centers. Weight has to be factored like a pendulum. The further away from the calculated center of the car, the more it affects the chassis dynamically.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: Kern Dog]
#1805273
04/16/15 10:29 PM
04/16/15 10:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,482
Lake Orion, MI
goldduster318
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,482
Lake Orion, MI
|
FWIW, My 70 Duster has the 1.06 FFI Torsion bars and the non-adjustable Hotchkis/Fox shocks on it now. It basically rides like a 2011 Mustang GT. Very tolerable. It's actually better than it ever was before in my opinion. It was always way too bouncy before.
The shocks make a big difference.
'70 Duster 470hp 340/T56 Magnum/8 3/4 3.23 Sure-Grip
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: brads70]
#1805644
04/17/15 02:56 PM
04/17/15 02:56 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,732
Bitopia
jcc
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
|
If you can't dazzle em with diamonds..
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 22,732
Bitopia
|
Given the way you like to dial things in, I'd almost wonder if a conversion to a splined tubular sway bar wouldn't be the better choice. Open up the K frame some(its not as strong as you might think) to allow up to 2.5" and pick up the pieces for a splined kit. Odds are you could put on together one for around $200. Swapping out the splined bar for more precise rates could be done for as little as $100, maybe less if you shop for used ones. Plus the options for end links may prevent any potential tire interference issues. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/iagree.gif" alt="" /> In my next iteration chassis wise I'll be using Schroeder hollow splined sway bars and arms. They are a little more pricey than $200 for a "kit" but.... I have a set of arms and a few different diameters to try and lots more are available. I currently have A-body LCA's(3/16" longer than E/B-Body's) and 1.120" FF torsion bars. I don't see C-Body sized torsion bars being beneficial to cars that run on the street most of the time. A strictly race car ok, but not a street car. Unless you have a cage and spend a lot of time and effort bracing the entire chassis the whole car becomes a torsion bar when you go too big. How big is too big? I don't know? I'm think really big torsion bars are a bandaid solution to the poor geometry built into our cars. All your really doing is limiting the suspension travel and making a go cart out of it? Like others have said you will end up breaking spot welds etc... Sure the car will handle better than stock but only because your not letting the suspension travel and that will make for a horrible street car ride I would imagine? If that's what your after why not just make the suspension bump stops taller? I'm no "expert" but I'd rather work on the geometry , shocks, and sway bars instead of trying to " limit/eliminate" suspension travel. IMO bigger/biggest is not always better, leave that stuff in Hotrod magazine where it belongs or to the snake oil salesman trying to sell you the latest parts ? What size you choose has to do with the application. If your building a high banked superspeedway car sure you will need C-Body sized torsion bars. If your occasionally autocrossing and mainly street driving then I'd say Firm Feel has us all covered . Variables such as engine weight etc. will determine what's best .Every car/combo will be different. I get the feeling some people think I'll just bolt in "this" size torsion bar and my car will handle on rails. I've found it's not just one part, it's the combo of parts and again every car combo/weight will be slightly different. I chose a T-Bar that will allow 2-3" of travel.My theory/idea is to control/improve what happens in 2-3" of suspension compression , the rest is secondary. It's always a compromise, there is no free lunch as they say. Well the only suspension travel needed is enough to not bottom out, any more allows weight transfer and roll, but must keep tires in contact with pavement tires in contact Lowering a car decreases the force that causes the weight transfer mainly by lower COG, but at the price of less suspension travel normally, hence the needed for higher rate TB's to prevent bottoming, and the approach to go kart handing, which IMO, is pretty respectable. Weight transfer laterally is seldom a good thing. Weight transfer under acceleration may have certain benefits, weight transfer under braking serves little purpose on a "square" set-up car. Somebody explain to me the need for us for the Nascar reference on this topic, if there is one. Suspension travel is a factor in ride comfort, but that is a differenyt forum.
Last edited by jcc; 04/17/15 03:04 PM.
Reality check, that half the population is smarter then 50% of the people and it's a constantly contested fact.
|
|
|
Re: Torsion bar size: How big is TOO big?
[Re: Kern Dog]
#1805687
04/17/15 04:03 PM
04/17/15 04:03 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074
Manitoba Canada
67autocross
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,074
Manitoba Canada
|
Seeing the extremely reasonable prices of the BAC torsion bars, I've decided to order a set of the 1.15s and some Bilstien shocks. I'm about to put some 1.14 bars in one of my A body cars and have started looking into shocks, do you think the Bilstien shocks have enough rebound damping for bars that large? I have considered the Viking double adjustable shocks but have not heard any feed back on these.
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
|
|
|
|
|
