|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Jerry]
#774356
08/17/10 11:23 AM
08/17/10 11:23 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
it just sucks that the challenger is still the slowest through everything even after the mods. are there any additional improvements to be had? was the engine underpowered? trans slipping? subframe connectors need to be welded in? that could have helped shave a few more seconds and a few MPH.
It's skid pad numbers were as good as a stock brand new 2010 SS Camaro.  The other Camaro was an SS 3rd gen (300 lbs lighter BTW). Those are very good handling cars to start with. Maybe they should have had an 1988 stock Mustang GT out there.
Subframe connectors were welded in on the front. on the rear they are bolted directly to the leaf spring perch bolts that translate most the loads of the rear through. I think that car runs pretty good at the drags.
Some improvements I can think of...
Tires. Car only had 245/60/15 BFG Radial T/A's. Those other cars had 275 wide low profile Z rated tires. I'd like to see the numbers if 245/60/15 BFG Radial T/A's were put on a stock 2010 SS Camaro or those other cars.
Weight. It has an all steel 440 AND is an air conditioning car just without the compressor. It's heavy with a lot of weight on the front end.
Springs. Front Torsion bars are 1.00". Some 1.06 or 1.13 would be better for a car with that kind of front end weight.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Jerry]
#774358
08/17/10 12:59 PM
08/17/10 12:59 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
ok now with the addictional information it makes more sense. being hotchkis though i think i would have put on the 17 or 18" rims and tires and had at the track before posting comparion type numbers.
I think they were trying to demostrate the change rather than raw numbers. And a before and after of JUST the parts they sell, keeping other variables constant. Rims and tires are another thing that very per customer. Those BFG's and rim size are very common on these cars. So it gives people something to relate to.
They did another test on the green Valiant with rim and tire changes.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: autoxcuda]
#774359
08/17/10 05:05 PM
08/17/10 05:05 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 553
LA & L.A.
MoparPosterChild
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 553
LA & L.A.
|
I love the Hotchkis TVS system on my Duster. It has made an obvious deference in the ride quality and handling of my car. I put it to the test too, by completing a 6,000 mile road trip right after the kit was installed. Every driving condition imaginable, and it performed flawlessly.
There's an article in this months issue of Muscle Car Power magazine detailing the installation on my car. Check it out.
I would certainly recommend this set up to people looking to upgrade their suspension, especially if you don't want to do anything too radically different from the stock set up.
2018 Dodge DEMON #18
1970 Plymouth Duster 406" Stroker
1969 Charger 500" Stroker
1964 Dodge Polara 426 GEN III HEMI
1970 Plymouth Cuda Hellcrate Project car
1974 Dodge Ramcharger Project car
2017 Chrysler Pacifica Limited
2017 Ram 3500
2012 Dodge Caravan R/T
1972 Charger Mopar 392 HEMI Stolen
2008 Challenger SRT-8 Gone
2010 Challenger SRT-8 Gone
2006 Charger SRT-8 Gone
2007 Charger R/T Gone
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: autoxcuda]
#774360
08/18/10 07:56 AM
08/18/10 07:56 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:
...
This car had full poly bushings, Mopar Performance rear springs, large torsion bars, heavy duty shocks and a factory sway bar....
I think this is a key statement. That 440 Challenger was IMHO better off to start than your 72 Charger is now is Pale Roader. It was not really stock as the graph labels it. It had the same stuff you have plus I'm pretty postive it had .99 T-bars in it to start with. Those are 25% stiffer than stock 440, quite significant. And a fairly new set of MP HD leaf springs. Also, KYB shocks. I was out at the track the day they swapped all the before and after stuff on the blue Challenger. I have detailed pictures of it if anyone is interested?
With the factory .92 440 R/T Torsion Bars I guarantee the skid pad numbers would be less than .78 as a baseline.
Quote:
Yes, i noticed that. I'd wager the weight was the same, mine is an even 3600 without me in it, pretty light. Also consider that when i say 'factory HP' T-bars and leafs, i mean the 383/440 Magnum stuff... NOT 6-pack/Hemi stuff. No .92" bars here... i wish. What are mine? .90" i think? One step up from 318 bars, one down from Hemi. Otherwise, the cars probably spec pretty similar. Mine has KYB's as well, plus factory front and rear sway bars with poly everything. That E-body is also smaller all around, a bonus i'm sure.
I'd be surprised if mine skidpadded even close to that Challenger. It just never felt all that hot to be honest. Like i said, there is still tuning to be done, but i never bothered, other issues popped up before i could. Plus, old 295/50/15 BFG Radial T/A's dont exactly handle all that hot...
I'm not concerned with the Charger anymore. Its painted and going on the block soon. This is someone else's dream car. The money will go into my 70 Challenger, particularly the suspension.
Okay edit: Read the posts on this page. That Challenger was likely considerably heavier than my B-body. Mine has zero options, and has been lightened further still. But now i see the tires were the same. I'll say right now those tires are awful. Great for just cruisin' around in a cool muscle car or smokin' them off, but for cornering they blow. Mine are considerably wider though, for what thats worth.
Tires would make a VAST difference. I once took 295 BFG's (all 'round) off a car and put 225/50/Z-15 Yoko's on the same rims. It looked disgusting, but the handling was night and day improved, even with TINY 225's on it. I'd love to see new numbers on that Challenger with some 275/40/17 G-Force KD's or similar tires. My Challenger wont leave the driveway without good tires, and wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide...
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Hotchkis]
#774361
08/18/10 08:19 AM
08/18/10 08:19 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:
The ride height is set on the leaf springs, the lowering is an important part of improving handling. That said, it is still adjustable through torsion bar settings, and we haven't had clearance problems on our R&D cars.
Cool... i forgot that Hotchkis actually posted here...
Just so you know, i understand the sacrifice that a higher car makes on handling. Before all these kits came along i had long conversations with my (very intelligent) suspension guy about this. I'm not concerned with clearance, i just do not like the lowered look. Especially on Challengers. Thats just me.
You say the ride height is adjustable, i assume you mean just the front (turning the T-bars up)? I also assume that a custom ride height (probably talking a good 3-6" higher in the rear than your yellow T/A, its hard to tell by the pics) would involve entirely different leafs (longer and more arched), which either made by you for my particular application might mess with the carefully designed tune ov the suspension? or made by someone else and thrown into your otherwise complete kit would be even worse?
Am i pretty much outta my mind here on this...??? Heh heh... i would totally understand if you or the other kit-makers (XV?) would rather just tell me to go fly...
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#774362
08/18/10 12:01 PM
08/18/10 12:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
The ride height is set on the leaf springs, the lowering is an important part of improving handling. That said, it is still adjustable through torsion bar settings, and we haven't had clearance problems on our R&D cars.
For height reference, the pictures of blue Challenger with the Rallye rims were the "after" shots with the Hotchkis rear leafs. To tell the picture apart, the "before" pictures are with Magnum rims, but with same the tires. So look at the height of that car. It literally has the same leafs the E-Max yellow Challenger has. They swapped the leaf springs between the two cars right there at the track!
The blue Challenger after does not look as low as the Yellow E-Max one. Tire height I would think is the factor.
The "before" leaf springs on the blue challenger where P4452984 with a manuf. date of 5/11/06 (don't know install date). I took a picture of them on the ground after they took them off. I take pictures of all kinds of weird stuff.  I'm nosey.
I know on my car they wanted the rear height difference before and after. They measure from the centerline of the rear end to the top of the fender lip. Every car is different and they are trying to monitor and compile information on that to help customers with question like you have Pale Roader.
So they may have before after ride heights on the Blue Challenger. Call Drew on the Hotchkis tech line and tell him Steve noticed they had some rear ride height before/after numbers. Turns out Drew was also out there bloodied knuckle wrenching on the Challengers. I thought that was pretty cool.
Pale Roader, I think I would attack you rear ride height issue with rear tire height and maybe lower front spring hanger. I think the Hotchkis spring hanger moves the leaf eye up. So maybe you could leave the original ones in check the height.
 Like 275/40/17's in the front and 275-295?/50/17 in rear. Or maybe more rear rim diameter?
Drew on the tech/sale phone line...
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: 71rm23]
#774363
08/19/10 01:35 AM
08/19/10 01:35 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,806
San Jose,CA
migsBIG
YouTube is my go-to news source
|
YouTube is my go-to news source
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 21,806
San Jose,CA
|
Quote:
Hotchis-Do you have a kit for a 71 B-Body?
I would be looking to upgrade to rearswat bar kit for my 72' charger as well. Leafs would be nice, but anything helps.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: migsBIG]
#774364
08/19/10 02:08 AM
08/19/10 02:08 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
Quote:
Hotchis-Do you have a kit for a 71 B-Body?
I would be looking to upgrade to rearswat bar kit for my 72' charger as well. Leafs would be nice, but anything helps.
I just checked their web site. They don't list a whole TVS kit but everything but subframe connectors and rear sway bar. I'd call on that rear sway bar, it might be something in the works that isn't listed yet. I'd think it would be just a matter of the width difference on the rear frame rails between a E and 71-74 B-body. Those two body styles have a lot in common.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: autoxcuda]
#774365
08/19/10 07:51 AM
08/19/10 07:51 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:
For height reference, the pictures of blue Challenger with the Rallye rims were the "after" shots with the Hotchkis rear leafs. To tell the picture apart, the "before" pictures are with Magnum rims, but with same the tires. So look at the height of that car. It literally has the same leafs the E-Max yellow Challenger has. They swapped the leaf springs between the two cars right there at the track!
The blue Challenger after does not look as low as the Yellow E-Max one. Tire height I would think is the factor.
Okay, maybe its the glue i've been sniffing, but i dont have these pictures anywhere...
But if you say rallye rims, then its a sure bet there are 60 series tires (or very big 50's) on there, so yes, much taller.
I found the pile o pictures ov the yellow T/A, and from what i can tell from the only angles i have, i'd want that axle centerline to sit a good 6" higher than theirs does. Yes... that is SIX INCHES. Thats about 5" in the front ov the car too (maybe even almost 6", as i like to use the tire height to adjust stance/rake). That sounds really excessive here, but that Hotchkis T/A is LOW... My car sits right about factory T/A height (read: factory rake) and i'd like to keep it that way. My centerline is right around the bottom line ov the car, or a bit lower. I've measured the centerline to lip and its about 14". I have (bald) 305/50/15's sitting on there right now, and theres still 1/2" ov air between tire and lip.
Optimal? no. Possible with good handling? well, thats what i'm asking. Dare to be different, right...???
Quote:
The "before" leaf springs on the blue challenger where P4452984 with a manuf. date of 5/11/06 (don't know install date). I took a picture of them on the ground after they took them off. I take pictures of all kinds of weird stuff. I'm nosey.
I know on my car they wanted the rear height difference before and after. They measure from the centerline of the rear end to the top of the fender lip. Every car is different and they are trying to monitor and compile information on that to help customers with question like you have Pale Roader.
So they may have before after ride heights on the Blue Challenger. Call Drew on the Hotchkis tech line and tell him Steve noticed they had some rear ride height before/after numbers. Turns out Drew was also out there bloodied knuckle wrenching on the Challengers. I thought that was pretty cool.
Pale Roader, I think I would attack you rear ride height issue with rear tire height and maybe lower front spring hanger. I think the Hotchkis spring hanger moves the leaf eye up. So maybe you could leave the original ones in check the height.
Like 275/40/17's in the front and 275-295?/50/17 in rear. Or maybe more rear rim diameter?
Tire height wont work. The ones i want to use are 26.2". To get the rake i want with the ride height on that Hotchkis T/A i'd need some 38" Boggers...
Again, that Hotchkis car is LOW.
The front hanger will be important. Maybe i can even lower it, custom fab something nice and solid? I want to stay away from excessive rear hanger, for obvious reasons. Even excessive spring arch wont be optimal, but i may be out ov choices by that point? I even thought ov gusseting the frame for lower hanger attachment points, front and rear, that would probably be better. Done right, that might just work. Too much ov that would look goofy though. Heh heh... and then ov course i'd have the issue ov what happens to that nicely thought-out kit when i jack up the T-bars like, 5 1/2" higher than they designed it... The (short) shocks they use wouldn't work either. The whole idea is turning into a complete mess. As you can tell i'm guessing here...
Quote:
Drew on the tech/sale phone line...
I hate to bug a guy when i dont have a handful o cash. I used to do that a lot, then i worked counter at a hothod shop and realized how annoying that is...
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#774366
08/19/10 11:48 AM
08/19/10 11:48 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
Quote:
For height reference, the pictures of blue Challenger with the Rallye rims were the "after" shots with the Hotchkis rear leafs. To tell the picture apart, the "before" pictures are with Magnum rims, but with same the tires. So look at the height of that car. It literally has the same leafs the E-Max yellow Challenger has. They swapped the leaf springs between the two cars right there at the track!
The blue Challenger after does not look as low as the Yellow E-Max one. Tire height I would think is the factor.
Okay, maybe its the glue i've been sniffing, but i dont have these pictures anywhere...
But if you say rallye rims, then its a sure bet there are 60 series tires (or very big 50's) on there, so yes, much taller.
I found the pile o pictures ov the yellow T/A, and from what i can tell from the only angles i have, i'd want that axle centerline to sit a good 6" higher than theirs does. Yes... that is SIX INCHES. Thats about 5" in the front ov the car too (maybe even almost 6", as i like to use the tire height to adjust stance/rake). That sounds really excessive here, but that Hotchkis T/A is LOW... My car sits right about factory T/A height (read: factory rake) and i'd like to keep it that way. My centerline is right around the bottom line ov the car, or a bit lower. I've measured the centerline to lip and its about 14". I have (bald) 305/50/15's sitting on there right now, and theres still 1/2" ov air between tire and lip.
Optimal? no. Possible with good handling? well, thats what i'm asking. Dare to be different, right...???
The blue challenger had 245/60/15 tires before and after. So those picture are with those tires.
Here's a picture of the Challenger. Maybe Elana who owns the Challenger can get you a current side picture with measurements. I might be a little higher than with these rear springs.
It's going to be that big a deal to run some lower or stock rear hangers.
They have the E-Max yellow sitting really low. Way more than someone bolting on one of their kits. It's not real daily driver height friendly from what I heard/saw. I'd pay attention to the blue Challenger for height more so than the yellow one.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: autoxcuda]
#774367
08/20/10 05:56 AM
08/20/10 05:56 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:
Quote:
For height reference, the pictures of blue Challenger with the Rallye rims were the "after" shots with the Hotchkis rear leafs. To tell the picture apart, the "before" pictures are with Magnum rims, but with same the tires. So look at the height of that car. It literally has the same leafs the E-Max yellow Challenger has. They swapped the leaf springs between the two cars right there at the track!
The blue Challenger after does not look as low as the Yellow E-Max one. Tire height I would think is the factor.
Okay, maybe its the glue i've been sniffing, but i dont have these pictures anywhere...
But if you say rallye rims, then its a sure bet there are 60 series tires (or very big 50's) on there, so yes, much taller.
I found the pile o pictures ov the yellow T/A, and from what i can tell from the only angles i have, i'd want that axle centerline to sit a good 6" higher than theirs does. Yes... that is SIX INCHES. Thats about 5" in the front ov the car too (maybe even almost 6", as i like to use the tire height to adjust stance/rake). That sounds really excessive here, but that Hotchkis T/A is LOW... My car sits right about factory T/A height (read: factory rake) and i'd like to keep it that way. My centerline is right around the bottom line ov the car, or a bit lower. I've measured the centerline to lip and its about 14". I have (bald) 305/50/15's sitting on there right now, and theres still 1/2" ov air between tire and lip.
Optimal? no. Possible with good handling? well, thats what i'm asking. Dare to be different, right...???
The blue challenger had 245/60/15 tires before and after. So those picture are with those tires.
Here's a picture of the Challenger. Maybe Elana who owns the Challenger can get you a current side picture with measurements. I might be a little higher than with these rear springs.
It's going to be that big a deal to run some lower or stock rear hangers.
They have the E-Max yellow sitting really low. Way more than someone bolting on one of their kits. It's not real daily driver height friendly from what I heard/saw. I'd pay attention to the blue Challenger for height more so than the yellow one.
245/60/15 tires huh? I think that in itself is a testament to how well that system must work, because those tires aint doing anything good for that car, handling wise. Even a 'good' tire in that size, say, the old 60 series Comp T/A's (H-rated) couldn't hold a candle to a nice modern tire.
But actually, that car looks about the same, as far as suspension height. Ride height is higher obviously, though not much (25.5" tire vs i'm guessing a 26" tire?). In my pictures, that Hotchkis T/A has the axle centerline around level with the first body-line on a Challenger, which is about 5-6" above the bottom line. The blue car, though the picture is fuzzy, looks about the same. My car sits about 6" higher.
Yes, the rear hanger deal will be an issue. Should i assume the kit uses a shorter than stock hanger? I'm thinking the mounting point would have to be lowered, probably a lot. Possibly, with attention to the frame where the front hanger attaches, plus a custom hanger, and the right spring, i could have my cake and eat it too, but then i've still got to figure out the front suspension. Jack up the T-bars an inch and things may be okay. Jack 'em up 5" and everything gets a bit goofy...
As for the 'E-max yellow', again, i think it comes down to tires. The tires they use are very low sidewall. My 71 Fury sat VERY low for a while... i had 225/50/15 Yoko's on it. They changed EVERYTHING. It handled amazingly for an otherwise huge, heavy, bone-stock car with 30 year old suspension. Hated the look though. Now i wouldn't even put tires that tiny on my Pinto...
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#774368
08/20/10 10:36 AM
08/20/10 10:36 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,406
Pikes Peak Country
TC@HP2
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,406
Pikes Peak Country
|
Since retaining stock ride height is of such importance, I'd say you pick up the peices of the kits you want, and put them on, and let the chips fall where they may. The steps up in s-bar roll resistance will be an improvement over stock. Modernize the alignment and there you go. Will it be optimal, hardly, but it will be better. How much better is a debatable point since "good" handling seems to be a somewhat subjective opinion to a lot of posters here anyway. I don't know your background, experience, and expectations, so then you will have to decide is it good enough.
If, once you are done with that, you're still dis-statisfied, then you need to explore how far you can go with wheel rates to reduce the roll resistance of the vehicle. My guess is ultimately you will be limited by available t-bar sizes in how far you can go. It also is entirely possible to get springs custom made to whatever arch you want in whatever rate you want, and I'm not talking about Espos here, but real competitionbased spring manufacturers. They aren't cheap, expect to spend in the $500-1000 range, but they are out there.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#774369
08/20/10 12:56 PM
08/20/10 12:56 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
Okay, maybe its the glue i've been sniffing, but i dont have these pictures anywhere...
But if you say rallye rims, then its a sure bet there are 60 series tires (or very big 50's) on there, so yes, much taller.
I found the pile o pictures ov the yellow T/A, and from what i can tell from the only angles i have, i'd want that axle centerline to sit a good 6" higher than theirs does. Yes... that is SIX INCHES. Thats about 5" in the front ov the car too (maybe even almost 6", as i like to use the tire height to adjust stance/rake). That sounds really excessive here, but that Hotchkis T/A is LOW... My car sits right about factory T/A height (read: factory rake) and i'd like to keep it that way. My centerline is right around the bottom line ov the car, or a bit lower. I've measured the centerline to lip and its about 14". I have (bald) 305/50/15's sitting on there right now, and theres still 1/2" ov air between tire and lip.
Here is a T/A with facorty correct sized tires and only 40K mile original born with T/A rear leaf springs. This picture is straight on with the camera about 6 inches from the ground.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: autoxcuda]
#774370
08/20/10 01:09 PM
08/20/10 01:09 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,826
NY usa
540challenger
master
|
master
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,826
NY usa
|
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, maybe its the glue i've been sniffing, but i dont have these pictures anywhere...
But if you say rallye rims, then its a sure bet there are 60 series tires (or very big 50's) on there, so yes, much taller.
I found the pile o pictures ov the yellow T/A, and from what i can tell from the only angles i have, i'd want that axle centerline to sit a good 6" higher than theirs does. Yes... that is SIX INCHES. Thats about 5" in the front ov the car too (maybe even almost 6", as i like to use the tire height to adjust stance/rake). That sounds really excessive here, but that Hotchkis T/A is LOW... My car sits right about factory T/A height (read: factory rake) and i'd like to keep it that way. My centerline is right around the bottom line ov the car, or a bit lower. I've measured the centerline to lip and its about 14". I have (bald) 305/50/15's sitting on there right now, and theres still 1/2" ov air between tire and lip.
Here is a T/A with facorty correct sized tires and only 40K mile original born with T/A rear leaf springs. This picture is straight on with the camera about 6 inches from the ground.
Are the Spring "new or NOS" I would imagine even if it is only 30k on the car after 40 years the orginal springs would be sagging some.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: 540challenger]
#774371
08/20/10 01:29 PM
08/20/10 01:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, maybe its the glue i've been sniffing, but i dont have these pictures anywhere...
But if you say rallye rims, then its a sure bet there are 60 series tires (or very big 50's) on there, so yes, much taller.
I found the pile o pictures ov the yellow T/A, and from what i can tell from the only angles i have, i'd want that axle centerline to sit a good 6" higher than theirs does. Yes... that is SIX INCHES. Thats about 5" in the front ov the car too (maybe even almost 6", as i like to use the tire height to adjust stance/rake). That sounds really excessive here, but that Hotchkis T/A is LOW... My car sits right about factory T/A height (read: factory rake) and i'd like to keep it that way. My centerline is right around the bottom line ov the car, or a bit lower. I've measured the centerline to lip and its about 14". I have (bald) 305/50/15's sitting on there right now, and theres still 1/2" ov air between tire and lip.
Here is a T/A with facorty correct sized tires and only 40K mile original born with T/A rear leaf springs. This picture is straight on with the camera about 6 inches from the ground.
Are the Spring "new or NOS" I would imagine even if it is only 30k on the car after 40 years the orginal springs would be sagging some.
True. But I think it's about a true to original as one can get short of someone with a broken-in/settled pair of true NOS T/A leaf springs. Replacement springs are all over the place.
The angle of the picture has something to do with the rake you see. I used that previous picture because you could scale off of it. Here is the same picture with the camera at eye level.
Last edited by autoxcuda; 08/20/10 01:39 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: autoxcuda]
#774373
08/21/10 07:58 AM
08/21/10 07:58 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:
Okay, maybe its the glue i've been sniffing, but i dont have these pictures anywhere...
But if you say rallye rims, then its a sure bet there are 60 series tires (or very big 50's) on there, so yes, much taller.
I found the pile o pictures ov the yellow T/A, and from what i can tell from the only angles i have, i'd want that axle centerline to sit a good 6" higher than theirs does. Yes... that is SIX INCHES. Thats about 5" in the front ov the car too (maybe even almost 6", as i like to use the tire height to adjust stance/rake). That sounds really excessive here, but that Hotchkis T/A is LOW... My car sits right about factory T/A height (read: factory rake) and i'd like to keep it that way. My centerline is right around the bottom line ov the car, or a bit lower. I've measured the centerline to lip and its about 14". I have (bald) 305/50/15's sitting on there right now, and theres still 1/2" ov air between tire and lip.
Here is a T/A with facorty correct sized tires and only 40K mile original born with T/A rear leaf springs. This picture is straight on with the camera about 6 inches from the ground.
Now... i wasn't there 40 years ago... but i doubt thats how they came. If they did then the factory hype was just that, hype. That looks about normal for a non-TA. I have seen, and these are rare... at least a couple old pictures and ads/articles (i forget, i dont have them now) ov original T/A's, and the rake was there. You NEVER see this on restored T/A's. Either its an oversight ov the builder, or perhaps a too-trusting builder buying from a manufacturer with bad specs, or preference ov the builder not wanting a raked car (though i would think that these 'gold-standard' resto's would build how they came, despite what the builder likes), or as i've seen too many times, sheer laziness ov the builder. I'm obsessed with these cars, and have looked at hundreds in person, and any picture i can find online. I've only seen a few pics with what looks like a decent rake. Many ov those have aftermarket suspension aids (read: saggy leafs). Maybe these cars sagged quicker than non-T/A's?
Keep in mind thats only 40K, but its also 40 years. Time is as big an enemy as miles.
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: TC@HP2]
#774374
08/21/10 08:17 AM
08/21/10 08:17 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:
Since retaining stock ride height is of such importance, I'd say you pick up the peices of the kits you want, and put them on, and let the chips fall where they may. The steps up in s-bar roll resistance will be an improvement over stock. Modernize the alignment and there you go. Will it be optimal, hardly, but it will be better. How much better is a debatable point since "good" handling seems to be a somewhat subjective opinion to a lot of posters here anyway. I don't know your background, experience, and expectations, so then you will have to decide is it good enough.
If, once you are done with that, you're still dis-statisfied, then you need to explore how far you can go with wheel rates to reduce the roll resistance of the vehicle. My guess is ultimately you will be limited by available t-bar sizes in how far you can go. It also is entirely possible to get springs custom made to whatever arch you want in whatever rate you want, and I'm not talking about Espos here, but real competitionbased spring manufacturers. They aren't cheap, expect to spend in the $500-1000 range, but they are out there.
My suspension guy recommended a local spring guy, who builds custom springs for all manner ov HP 4x4's. I've brought him my dilemma and he wasn't worried. There were a ton ov options, and it wasn't expensive, but again, thats still only the rear end, and again, the whole draw ov this thread and idea is having a pre-designed and tested KIT, that is balanced and well thought out.
Unless Hotchkis chimes in here and has a better idea, i think i'm gonna be winging it and hoping for the best. I'll start with getting my ride-height/stance where i want it, with a bunch more spring rate, TRY and match the front rate to the rear, probably buy at least a matched set ov sway bars and (longer) shocks, poly everything and then hope to make up for the extra height/mismatched parts with some serious tire size and technology. If i can get the thing sitting how i want it, but stiffer, essentially a stock T/A, then the tires should be able to make up for some ov the MickeyMouse. Another bonus is that my car will be light... around 3200lbs empty.
Roll resistance should be tamable, there are trucks that handle pretty flat, and might actually do okay in the curves without the tall tires (always wanted to put racing rollers on a truck and see what happens...). Stiffness, swaybars and shocks might go a long way, as do tires. And even a Challenger sitting high is a pretty wide, flat car. Also keep in mind that without having to have my tires fit inside the wheelwells i gain an extra few inches ov track, and that is a big deal.
My suspension guy said the whole thing could work better than you might think, with the main problem being transitioning from side to side. Then again, he loves a challenge...
Is Hotchkis reading this...???
|
|
|
Re: Hotchkis Suspension Kits?
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#774375
08/21/10 11:58 AM
08/21/10 11:58 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
autoxcuda
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 27,596
So Cal
|
Quote:
Now... i wasn't there 40 years ago... but i doubt thats how they came. If they did then the factory hype was just that, hype. That looks about normal for a non-TA. I have seen, and these are rare... at least a couple old pictures and ads/articles (i forget, i dont have them now) ov original T/A's, and the rake was there. You NEVER see this on restored T/A's. Either its an oversight ov the builder, or perhaps a too-trusting builder buying from a manufacturer with bad specs, or preference ov the builder not wanting a raked car (though i would think that these 'gold-standard' resto's would build how they came, despite what the builder likes), or as i've seen too many times, sheer laziness ov the builder. I'm obsessed with these cars, and have looked at hundreds in person, and any picture i can find online. I've only seen a few pics with what looks like a decent rake. Many ov those have aftermarket suspension aids (read: saggy leafs). Maybe these cars sagged quicker than non-T/A's?
Keep in mind thats only 40K, but its also 40 years. Time is as big an enemy as miles.
Not a lazy builder. That's Troy's T/A he had about 2000 hours into. One of the most documented and thorough T/A restos out there. Those are original date coded leaf springs the car was born with. Different angles of picture give it different looks. I have pictures of that same car that look like even more rake. Non T/A cars almost look to be sagging in the rear from the factory.
Nevermind trying to figure out what the suspension height were originally. It really is about the height and rake you want or want to maintain. Any side view pictures and measurements of your car right now?
|
|
|
|
|
