aftermarket k-member race only

I'm looking at different aftermarket tubular K members for my E-body, but not sure which one will do what I want (if any will). Most appear to change the spindles to a mustang II style, meaning new brake kit. Anyone know of a kit that will use a tubular K member, coil over shocks (no torsion bars), stock spindles, a manual rack and no engine mounts? Drag race only.
I seem to remember someone years ago on here that had what I'm looking for, I think his business was Bondo Bob or something like that.

Thanks, Brian

Pretty tough to do a rack with rear steer. Rack to pan interference is tight. Personally for the work invovled I'd either trim the stock K frame and keep the stock steering. Or go all the way and put a strut front end on it.
Doug

His website is still up Here. But I think he quit a long time ago.

[
His website is still up Here. But I think he quit a long time ago. [/quote]

Thats the one, Thanks!

Not wanting to have a rear steer, want to move the rack up front, to get the steering link out of the oil pan. I hadn't thought of putting strut front end under it. I'll look into that option.

Brian

If you convert to front steer you can't use the the stock steering arms/ball joints. The Ackerman will be backwards causing toe in on turns, not good. So again your back to swapping everything. Not much of a gain. Sure a little extra header clearance would make taking it apart easier. You loose a little weight with the rack. But not enough benefit to come even close to covering the cost. You could almost buy an aluminum block for the cost of the conversion.
Doug

Is Gerst still building his setup?

Gerst sold out to QA1. After installing onef there kits I can make three observations. One; It doesnt save much weight. Two; The outer tie rods take close to 2 " of spacer to correct bumpsteer. Three: It's about $3500
Doug

I did one in a 68 Dart 42 years ago (reversed the spindles, ran the rack thru the x member) had no problem with steering. There’s a secret to it.

And you secret is?
Doug

I have one in my Challenger with a manual rack. Best part is, it was free to me. Just some manual labor that paid for it. Which was the only reason why I went with it. Otherwise, I would still be running all stock parts. I ordered mine with no tow hook, no motor mounts and no powder coating, since I painted it how I wanted everything. I run front and midplates with for/aft bars. It was close to 100 lbs of weight savings and if I remember correctly almost 2" of extra suspension travel. The adjustability of double adjustable coil overs. I drive mine on the street as well. I am able to run a flat bottom 10 quart top fuel/funny car type oil pan with no ground clearance issues. My trans pan and headers hang lower than the oil pan does. I am able to bolt in both headers from underneath with the engine installed on both sides all welded up in one piece. No multiple slip tubes to deal with since no torsion bars. Overall, I have no complaints.

Simple, keep the tie rods from rack straight as possible out to lower ball joint arms. When one moves the rack way out front and tie rods are angled back the problems begin. Same as factory did it, in fact they’re angled forward a little. Factories spent millions figuring this out. It wasn’t perfect but we never had a problem with the outside tire flopping in on a turn.

And you secret is?
Doug
[/quote]
Simple, keep the tie rods from rack straight as possible out to lower ball joint arms. When one moves the rack way out front and tie rods are angled back the problems begin. Same as factory did it, in fact they’re angled forward a little. Factories spent millions figuring this out. It wasn’t perfect but we never had a problem with the outside tire flopping in on a turn. [/quote]

This will not correct the Ackerman issue. The outer tie rod pivot will be way to far inward. Easy check. measure the toe. turn the wheel to full lock, then measure the toe. It will be towed in on a turn.
Drive a car with a 1/2" or more of toe i and let me know how it drives.
Doug

unless the factory tierod arms are a rusted mess, they can be lightly heated and bent outward using a rosebud torch head and a long piece of pipe.
have a sand pile ready with a space dug out that will fit the tierod arm. after being heated and bent, get it in the sand pile as quick as possible, cover it up, and let it cool naturally.
no strength will be lost. if needed, a small spacer can be added between the tierod arm and spindle to gain a little more bend [ackerman] if needed.
this applies to the later style factory tierod arms without the ball joint attached.
like the [easily fabbed] arms used on my "eternal '33 dodge humpback project", only using factory arms on a stock K member and bending them to get the ackerman needed, along with the correct height needed to keep the rack arms parallel with the arm attaching ends.

Simple, keep the tie rods from rack straight as possible out to lower ball joint arms. When one moves the rack way out front and tie rods are angled back the problems begin. Same as factory did it, in fact they’re angled forward a little. Factories spent millions figuring this out. It wasn’t perfect but we never had a problem with the outside tire flopping in on a turn. [/quote]

This will not correct the Ackerman issue. The outer tie rod pivot will be way to far inward. Easy check. measure the toe. turn the wheel to full lock, then measure the toe. It will be towed in on a turn.
Drive a car with a 1/2" or more of toe i and let me know how it drives.
Doug
[/quote]
Sorry dude you have no clue

You should read up on Ackeeman angle before you go giving any more bad advice to people about flipping the tie rods to the front with stock parts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry

It creates a major toe problem with very little steering wheel input.

My car has the rack in the front of the k-frame. When I got it the tie rods were basically a "Z" shape. Bump steer and Ackerman sucked.

I gave it to a buddy of mine for a makeover and now the tie rods are straight. It has fabricated steering arms on it and spacers lowering the tie rods. We slso put stops on to limit the flopping of the tire crap.

I made my own K memeber. Uses stock lower ball joints with the arms cut off. I then welded an arm onto the spindle. Also uses stock spindles, lower control arms, and upper A arms.

Are you still using the torsion bars ?

Yes.

Nice job.Yours gives a good picture of how far out the tie rod pivot locations have been moved from the stock rear steer location.
Doug

I know exactly what Ackerman is, Maybe You should actually make one up like I DID that had NO problem steering at rest or at speed. Stay in the kitchen if..
I haven’t looked at everyone of these aftermarket K frames but the few I’ve looked at have severe problems and wouldn’t have under my car at any speed. A friends car backed up in the driveway and sheared off a 3/4 #8 bolt in the lower control arm because of the binding.

Looks nice but do me one favor, go to the junk yard or parking lot, look under all cars and trucks at the racks and it’s relationship to the spindle steering arms. Let us know what you find out.

Then how did it "magically" have correct Ackerman with the outer tie rod pivots located over a few inches to far inboard in the stock location? If the wheels are straight, it won't have any issue. The problem occurs when the wheel is turned. The further it is turned, the greater the toe-in change. So on a normal pass, no big deal. Get it out of shape going at speed and you would've found out. One thing we do agree on. Many of the aftermarket K frame and steering systems are not anywhere close in correct geometry. When I questioned QA1 reps last year about bump steer correction, I got the deer the headlamps look. We had also previosly contacted them about the issue. I was told that I didn't understand bump steer. Then a month or so later they printed a bulliten with the same fix I came up with. Not a pissing match here. Just trying to give the original poster a good working knowledge of what's correct.
Doug

Basically, you should be able to draw a line from the outer tie rod point, through the lower ball joint, and it should aim to the center of the rear end housing.

Is what I made ideal? Of course not. The rack has to be forward enough to clear the oil pan. Make the arms long enough, and turning radius would be nothing. I know for sure, with 5* of caster, I can drive the car with one finger. Zero issues so far to 138mph.

when i fabricated the front suspension on my "eternal project", i knew virtually nothing about independent suspensions, other than correct geometry was needed if it were to work properly.
i then bought many books and studied design and theory to get somewhat of an idea what i was in for. this took approximately three years, until i felt comfortable i could design and fabricate a suspension system that would work.
i then built a full size mock-up on a sheet of 1/4" paneling, just to visualize how my design would work in real life, before any metal was cut.
the mock-up showed less than 1/8" total toe change from full bump to total rebound in approximately 7" of total travel, so i felt comfortable with that.
i used the paneling mock-up to figure out the proper placement of the control arm pivot points, as well as the proper placement of the rack i was going to use.
i fabbed the attachment cross member first, making it a little thicker than it really needed to be, as well as making the lower control arm mounting point[s] way more robust than necessary, because i don't want this thing to break in use.
that added a little unnecessary extra weight, but i think that will prove to be extra durability in use, so i can put up with that.
i wished i had weighed the individual components, but i did not do that. i will weigh them when i get to disassemble everything for paint, and write that info down for future reference.