Quote:
Also, would anyone here have any idea how much total weight one ov these full systems would add to an otherwise bone stock car? Say, a car with the R/T level stock suspension?
I'm thinking there is an overall weight penalty for all this wonderful handling, but how much...??? Bad enough that mounting some REAL wheels and tires and stiffening the chassis bumps the scale a bunch...
Quote:Quote:
Also, would anyone here have any idea how much total weight one ov these full systems would add to an otherwise bone stock car? Say, a car with the R/T level stock suspension?
I'm thinking there is an overall weight penalty for all this wonderful handling, but how much...??? Bad enough that mounting some REAL wheels and tires and stiffening the chassis bumps the scale a bunch...
The front and rear sway bar are tubular and don't weight any more than stock. Upper control arms won't add anything either. Their rear leafs do weigh less than stock. On mine just lifting them I'd say 5-10 pounds each. Only real weight adder is the subframe connectors.
When you net that out with the rear spring savings I'd bet you'd only be adding 20 lbs. Maybe less. And that's all low weight in the center of the car.
I'd bet an aluminum 17x9 with 275/40/17 tires it would be no more than a steel 15x7 ralley with trim rings and center caps.
Quote:
When it comes time, i'll be replacing 15x8 steelies (just caps) and 295/50/15 radial TA's with 17x9 and wider rear, with as much tire as i can stuff in there. If you dont spend the money, those rims are heavy, The tires are 30+ each. Thats the worst weight possible too, unsprung and rotating. Ov course, its not optional, but its still heavy. Drag racers have it so easy...
Quote:
...
This car had full poly bushings, Mopar Performance rear springs, large torsion bars, heavy duty shocks and a factory sway bar....
Quote:
Quote:
...
This car had full poly bushings, Mopar Performance rear springs, large torsion bars, heavy duty shocks and a factory sway bar....
Quote:
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.
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. 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.
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:
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.
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.
I'm nosey. Like 275/40/17's in the front and 275-295?/50/17 in rear. Or maybe more rear rim diameter?
Quote:
Hotchis-Do you have a kit for a 71 B-Body?
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.
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.
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 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.
Quote:
Drew on the tech/sale phone line...
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...???
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.
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.
Quote: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.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.
Quote:Quote: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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote: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?
Quote:
I've seen the test data from the hotchkis cars, i would like to find the same info for their max performance g series 70 challenger. does this info exist?
Quote:
I've seen the test data from the hotchkis cars, i would like to find the same info for their max performance g series 70 challenger. does this info exist?
Quote:
Jacquot is legit, he is one of the best test editors around. When he worked the Ultimate Street Car Challenge, he drove ALL the cars for the skidpad test.
I cant be certain what he has in his own stable, but I think he had a 70 Charger at some point, cant confirm nor deny.
Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
Quote:
I am thinking about getting the setup for my Challenger but I have b-body Dana in my car. So I would imagine the rear spring relocation brackets could not be used?
How does the rear bracket correct geometry?
Quote:Everything else will work then? I'm planning on putting frame connectors on. Is there anyone that makes a front and rear sway bar kit?Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
The only thing different about a 71/72 B-body kit from a E-body is the frame connectors and the rear sway bar.
Quote:Quote:Everything else will work then? I'm planning on putting frame connectors on. Is there anyone that makes a front and rear sway bar kit?Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
The only thing different about a 71/72 B-body kit from a E-body is the frame connectors and the rear sway bar.
Quote:Quote:
I am thinking about getting the setup for my Challenger but I have b-body Dana in my car. So I would imagine the rear spring relocation brackets could not be used?
How does the rear bracket correct geometry?
You are using offset hangers instead as oppossed to moveing the axle tube mounts?
Front spring eye height is different for anti squat characteristics.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
I am thinking about getting the setup for my Challenger but I have b-body Dana in my car. So I would imagine the rear spring relocation brackets could not be used?
How does the rear bracket correct geometry?
You are using offset hangers instead as oppossed to moveing the axle tube mounts?
Front spring eye height is different for anti squat characteristics.
I am using DrDiff offset hangers. If I moved the springs out they will interfere with my current wheel setup.
Was also thinking maybe I could use the Hotchkis front setup and for the rear use the XV or Street-lynx. Looking at the Street-lynx and it would be about $800 more than a Hotchkis rear suspension components.
Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
Quote:Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
+1
also hotchkis are you guys working on a 4 or 5 link setup for the rear? looking for more improvement over leaf springs but not to happy about some of the 4 link design concepts that are available now through other companies..
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
+1
also hotchkis are you guys working on a 4 or 5 link setup for the rear? looking for more improvement over leaf springs but not to happy about some of the 4 link design concepts that are available now through other companies..
So you've run your car with leaf springs made for handling at the track and you have found it lacking?
The Hotchkis Challenger at the Optima Challenge in Detroit was like 4th fast road course and 1st or 2nd autocross. Over like 50 cars. Most with fabricated front suspension and most with 4 links.
Quote:
Thats great if u have a challenger - but they have nothing for the rear of a 71-72 roadrunner
Quote:
wow, you guys are smart and resourceful!
Pale Roader, I'll just answer your big question...if you want to use stock leaf springs, you can still use all the rest of the Hotchkis parts, and set your ride height with the torsion bars.
Later, if you want to optimize the performance, you can always swap and lower the car.
Elana wouldn't let us put good tires on her car. She likes the stock look.
We have lots of photos on our facebook page.
<a href="Facebook" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/hotchkis1?ref=ts</a>
Quote:Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
The only thing different about a 71/72 B-body kit from a E-body is the frame connectors and the rear sway bar.
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Hotchkis- PLEASE see about making a kit for 71B-Bodies
The only thing different about a 71/72 B-body kit from a E-body is the frame connectors and the rear sway bar.
B-body leafs have a 1" longer rear segment than E-body ones. They'd bolt up and work, but optimally for handling you dont want a rear hanger with a severe angle, one direction or the other.
Also, you would want to factor in the extra weight ov the bigger B-body (generally speaking at least 200 extra pounds). The 71-72's were the heaviest ov the lot. Most modified ones get even heavier with most Mopar guys going for all the fun options too...