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!