Was browsing through some sites the other day and come across this.


Art Morrison Enterprises is taking pre-orders for June shipments of their new B/E body K frame assembly. Its a coil over system with a front steer rack and what appears to be correct geometry ackerman utilizing C6 spindles. Because of the height of the spindle, it requires a minimum of 18" diameter wheel.

Link to the page if you want more info or to get a quote (no prices published yet): https://artmorrison.com/chassis/mopar-k-member/

Im up that looks bad ass

You sure that is fully E body applicable?
Wonder if those are 4.5" BC or 4.75" BC hubs?

Very interesting. I need more tire to make it an worthwhile upgrade.
I 'll contact Monday.
Thanks.

I like that the steering arms are not like the BS modified RMS setups with the cantilevered and spaced outer tie rod connection. Strange how the upper ball joint attaches upside down compared to our classics. The welds seem to look nice. It looks sturdy. does it weigh more than stock? It looks like it would.

I'm curious what their definition of correct geometry is, ie road course capable or drive straight for 1/4 mile and make the return road.

For those wanting turn and stop, Vette spindles would open up a huge assortment of big brake options and the coil overs would open up some real estate for headers to occupy. Does it use a Vette sway bar too?

Kevin

My impression was requiring an 18" wheel, they can get enough wheel back spacing to reduce tire scrub and maybe lengthen all the suspension linkage which normally is considered a plus. I can't see the pictured UCA being any longer though, the angled upper coil over mount seems to be rather unbraced, as bolting it the OEM Sheetmetal isn't worth much regarding rigidity, especially with road course springs, and the sway bar mounted so close to the inside pivot point really reduces the SB motion ratio. ie requiring a rather beefy/heavy bar. I do like the effort though.
One of my first questions is what wheel offset was this designed for and what is the max wheel width possible in any sizes over 17".
I see nothing leaning towards light weight 1/4 mile intentions other than better header clearance.

The crappy pictures don't clearly show the lower control arms. Could they be as shiddy as the RMS designs?

I personally never considered the decade plus old RMS IFS a handling improvement solution, which others inferred because of the replacing of the time honored TB's, It was more a weight reduction/header clearance improvement IMO. Nowadays for the money, handing/improved kinematics/better wheel combos must also be in the cards for the dollar ranges at play.

This was my upgrade for the RMS LCA Pic #7 https://board.moparts.org/ubbthread...rktion-on-steroids-long.html#Post1665054

Before I called this morning, I rethought my SB motion ration concern, being the SB has a relatively short arm acting on the LCA, it may not be much of a concern, it's all about the numbers anyway.
Take everything here with a grain of salt in that its still a work in progress it seems.
SB is maybe 1.375"D hollow, Wheel BC is 4.5" Not sure if hubs will allow for 14mm studs, needs large dia wheels to fit tall spindles, Not sure if hub/bearing packages are the SKF Tracker series (the HP vette bearings), the robustness of the upper coil over mount has been rethought I am told, it might come powder coated or bare, they are taking names/refundable deposits for orders, will gather wheel combos/widths, they have not yet test fitted it to an E body.

I am on the list.

Might ask about the oil pan too. Looks like maybe a rear sump is needed?

Let see, cut the front sub frame off and weld the new one on, are you comfortable doing that and getting it installed correctly without your car being on a chassis jig?
I'm not

Cab...that one looks like it bolts in place of the stock K member.

Yes,bolt on, steering column connection looks to be the only real custom fit that I see at this time with the project.

[I'm watching a new Heidts one being built into car now. Also getting the Independent rear setup.

SEMA type build.

Looks like a nicely thought out and executed design. The details always matter of course so I'd like to see how they handle the oil pan issue, header fitment, steering column integration, wheel size and backspacing, etc.

Troy is working out the bugs on a new Heidts front and independent rear during install.


The front IIRC is a wide track like most of these deals. So you end up with high backspacing front rims.

The rear will have a separate part numbers developed for 68-70 B-body Plymouth wheelbase and 68-70 Dodge wheelbase.

Yeah, all the modern stuff I've worked on is high offset. The OEM guys figured out that they could stuff a lot things inside the wheel so they moved the hub way out and use basically a flat faced wheel with a ton of offset. It seems to work but it is a big change from the way muscle cars were designed.

I agree.

And I don’t like the looks of it. Deep dish rims look racey to me.

Moon discs look racy to me and no one will see the rim

LIke this?

i agree, but tire scrub is the price we pay for those looks.

So this is a prototype effort going into a build that will turn in to an off the shelf, semi-custom offering. Hmmmm, sounds cool. I do wonder what the track width will end up at in the "as delivered" product? It wouldn't think it would be too difficult to build (if they aren't already available off the shelf) longer control arms to create even more offset if desired.

Match that high offset front with a 70-73 C body or B body station wagon rear end housing and you got a big step up in track width.

Sounds like that would result in a look similar to this abortion:

Oh for crying out loud. It would look nothing like that.

If your increase your track width 3-4 inches, you are only extending each side out 1.5-2 inches. That is still within the fender lip of our old cars and with in increased positive offset wheel, could potentially provide reduced fender lip interference on the leading and trailing edge of the arc of a turn compared to the large negative offsets we're familiar with.

Exactly my thoughts, a big step towards achieving a modern engineered wide body on an E body I hope.

I don't want to speak for Morrisson, but this solution is likely aimed at those with deep pockets and are seeking bragging rights, or those that will be seeing track time.

I have an appointment at Morrison on 5/18 with their engineers to see a mockup offering, and I'll have my checkbook.

Relax man....I was kidding around.
I don't like the flat face look of modern wheels with huge backspacing. They may be great for aerodynamics but I don't like the look of them.

Drunkle Tony's Garage.

Just don't ask to see a time slip...

Interesting cutout for the sway bar.

Seems....excessive.

Interesting competitor:

https://speedtechperformance.com/product/70-74-challenger-and-cuda-subframe/

I don't know why they didn't design (bend) the sway bar so it turns down faster and under the k-frame???

Got home last night, on 5/18 I visited Morrison and got the full impressive shop tour and put hands on the prototype Mopar IFS pictured.
Met with "TR" and this I took away: they expect to be at Mopar Carlisle with a finished product, 4.5" BC will be an option, its design purpose is primarily improved suspension geometry for modern tire/brake set-ups, they will delete motor mount options for motor plate applications, brake options with C6 spindles are nearly unlimited, I'm pushing for a 14" mm x 4.5" wheel stud option, but nobody knows yet if the hub package will allow it, it's well built and robust, the hollow SB is offered with 3 optional settings, SB wall thickness changes would be next step for different rates, and not yet offered, have asked about different steering rates, only two currently offered.
I own a Reily K member set-up, this is a big step up in this area both in performance capability and price, IMO.

PS Olympic Park, North Cascades, (both bucket list) and Boeing Museum of Flight (2nd time) sure made for a wonderful visit to Washington for this Florida boy.

Nice pics Jcc!!

wonder if it's for racing only? The control arms look to be of smaller diameter tan most I've seen.

That Constellation is a beauty!

Are the still using the ford mustang/pinto steering rack on that Morrison?? wish they would pick a faster ratio rack

That request has already been submitted. They use a pretty visibly short steering arm already, so it might be faster than we are assuming.

did anyone ever get one of these?
price range?

I was and still interested in that item.
Lots of options, North of $6K.
Was it showcased/displayed at Carlisle? If not, that was a missed opportunity.
It got moved back in priority as my 448 Sb Block came up with terminal issues at the machine shop.

Looks interesting. Thoughts on LCA design?

Any shots of how the lower control arms attach to the frame and the structure in that area?

Who owns that, ie what are we looking at, a press release, or a buyer's new IFS?
That is 4.75" BC?

Found it on In the garage media.. more pics here..

https://inthegaragemedia.com/1966-t...-enterprises-front-crossmember-with-ifs/

In The Garage set of pictures show a nice range of pictures of the system and it's installation.

Looks like the lower control arm angles were all built to compliment the upper arm mounting angles, which is a good. I assume they created an upper control arm length for camber gain that is compatible for street/flat track use. Still uses the OEM eccentrics for upper arm caster/camber adjustment, so a good percentage of the 6.25* of caster they recommend of must be built into the system. The lower arm mounts to the new frame through gusseted tubes that pass through the main cradle.

The cut out for the sway bar seems like a non issue since this all bolts into the existing K frame location and utilizes the OEM frame horns for structural support. Three adjustable points on sway bar attachment is a nice addition for some tunability.

Spindle height requires 18" wheels minimum. There are likely plenty of brake choices compatible with this unit.

I still think this is a nice unit that will make some users very happy.

I agree, except with the non-concern of the SB cut out. I can't see it being that difficult in just downsizing the size of the cut out and making it the holder of the SB with a poly? bearing and closing off the bottom of that member with a structural cap.
That would also allow for an upgraded splined SB, especially nice if a straight one would miss the engine damper which is in that area I suspect. The unibody for track use can always be more robust IMO.
I thought there were new anti-dive considerations with this set-up to explain the control arm angles vs say a RMS set up. That is only a guess though.

I would have preferred instead of cutting out the notch that they added an equal amount of the cut-out below the frame line, used a bearing, and a straight, splined bar instead of what they have done. Purchasing this in bare metal, one could certainly perform this modification to the unit and open up a huge selection of sway bars. But, it all depends what is in that area that compelled them to use a drop bar.

Hard to say what changes to anti-dive are in this unit without getting some mounting points measured. With the stock upper arm mounting location being preserved, any modification to anti-dive instant centers would need to be in the angles of the lower arm compared to the triangle created by the OEM lower control arm and strut arm. .

My guess is there must have been some travel 3d space conflict between the SB and the front steering links to explain the notch solution chosen and/or wanted to maybe use an existing Morrison off the shelf SB from another application. Your idea would have been the most straight forward if doable.
I asked if they would share the suspension measurements for strictly my own use if I purchased and took delivery of one AND signed a NDA, and that was a no go.

Sweet. Make one for an A-Body. A lighter platform.

So, If I understand correctly, by the time you add brakes your around 10k? Ouch! Looks pretty though. It will be interesting to see some real world installation's and feedback from people that use this on roads and autocrossing not just 1:1 scale diecasts at the shows?

I don't do much autocross, but seeing it with my own eyes design wise, it's a bit overtkill and pricey at first glance for autocross IMO. It's one beefy piece of hardware. Its a brake when you see God item.

I have never rode in or driven a Mopar with one of those expensive coil-over conversion kits. I've watched videos of guys disliking them, but if smoking hot chicks dig it, that's all that matters!