Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Less bump steer with '73+ suspension? [Re: autoxcuda] #2479200
04/08/18 01:33 AM
04/08/18 01:33 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
R
Rick_Ehrenberg Offline
top fuel
Rick_Ehrenberg  Offline
top fuel
R

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,688
Marlboro, NY, USA
If you take the time to blueprint it, usually by shimming the box and/or ovaling the idler arm holes (weld washers when done), it is amazing how low you can get the bump steer.

I was online with a British-Midlands F1 engineer during some 4-post tests on a B-body a while back. He was amazed to learn that this "near ideal' (his words) suspension geometry was on a stock '60s US sedan!

Incidentally, it is well known that the '73-up A-Body K's has incredibly lousy quality control, as stated, they were all over the map! I could tell you a story...

Rick

Re: Less bump steer with '73+ suspension? [Re: Rick_Ehrenberg] #2479367
04/08/18 01:07 PM
04/08/18 01:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
C
CKessel Offline
mopar
CKessel  Offline
mopar
C

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 667
Los Osos, Ca
Originally Posted By Rick_Ehrenberg
If you take the time to blueprint it, usually by shimming the box and/or ovaling the idler arm holes (weld washers when done), it is amazing how low you can get the bump steer.

I was online with a British-Midlands F1 engineer during some 4-post tests on a B-body a while back. He was amazed to learn that this "near ideal' (his words) suspension geometry was on a stock '60s US sedan!

Incidentally, it is well known that the '73-up A-Body K's has incredibly lousy quality control, as stated, they were all over the map! I could tell you a story...

Rick
Speaking of suspensions, 3-5 years ago you started an article on suspensions and mods. You talked about the various spindles and control arm availabilities, bump steer etc. You never finished the article after teasing about a sequel. Now that you are gainfully employed again, how about that sequel?


Carl Kessel
Re: Less bump steer with '73+ suspension? [Re: AndyF] #2579419
11/17/18 02:07 AM
11/17/18 02:07 AM
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,005
Reno, Nevada
NV69B7RR Offline
master
NV69B7RR  Offline
master

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,005
Reno, Nevada
Can you use a 71 (340, reinforced) A body K frame with the 73+ center link, ball joints etc? Or would it be better to stick with the 73+ K frame?

I just got the 340 K frame and already have the 73+ spool style, so I can use either one. I plan to add the steering box reinforcements to whichever would work best. I have 11/16 tie rods and the 73 spindles & ball joints.

Re: Less bump steer with '73+ suspension? [Re: NV69B7RR] #2579442
11/17/18 03:50 AM
11/17/18 03:50 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,444
So Cal
autoxcuda Offline
Too Many Posts
autoxcuda  Offline
Too Many Posts

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,444
So Cal
Originally Posted By NV69B7RR
Can you use a 71 (340, reinforced) A body K frame with the 73+ center link, ball joints etc?


Yes. But you have to use the 67-72 sway bar that does not go through the K-member.


Quote:
Or would it be better to stick with the 73+ K frame?


To me the advantage of the 73+ is narrower sway bar to allow high backspace rims and the safety and durability of the spool motor mounts. They do make locking biscuit motor mounts so that negates much of that benefit. If you are only running 4.25” backspace rims with 245 wide or less tires, the backspace deal might not be an issue.

Disadvantage of 73+ is it fits much tighter around the Milodon Road Race oil pan.


I just got the 340 K frame and already have the 73+ spool style, so I can use either one. I plan to add the steering box reinforcements to whichever would work best. I have 11/16 tie rods and the 73 spindles & ball joints.

Last edited by autoxcuda; 11/17/18 03:51 AM.
Page 2 of 2 1 2






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1