Moparts
QA1 Suspension R & D
Posted By: Viol8r
QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 01:26 AM
Wanted to give you guys s heads up that QA1 Suspension in conjunction with FM3 Marketing has contacted me to help finalize the research and delevopment phase of the front K-Member and associated components of this line of products.
I will be involved in documenting the build of the components and also attending events/ shows/ tracks. We do not have all the details yet as they have not released the product to me yet. But this will include tubluar upper control arms, lower control arms, shocks, K-Member, Sway-bar, etc.
I believe this could be an impressive and affordable option that a lot you guys have been looking for. Hopefully I can help work some kinks out, if there is any, and add this to the top of the list for a must have mod to your car.
http://www.qa1.net/qa1_motorsports/drag-...-k-members.htmlhttp://www.qa1.net/qa1_motorsports/drag-...ntrol-arms.html
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 01:48 AM
Does it use factory torsion bars or it set up for coil overs?
Posted By: amxautox
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 02:23 AM
2nd picture in the 2nd link shows the lowers to be torsion bar sockets.
Posted By: Devil
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 03:49 AM
I'd love to take this stuff, combine it with the Hotchkis setup and go have some fun.
That is my pie in the sky dream for my 71 Challenger.
Ryan
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 04:36 AM
I do not think running a combo of makes is a bad thing, as long as you have a goal and purpose for the car in mind. This QA1 combination should provide some serious competition for Hotchkis and a bit of a cost savings.
There are so many variables to each build, but having a one stop shop for the majority of the suspension parts will be a bonus.
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 05:14 AM
Quote:
2nd picture in the 2nd link shows the lowers to be torsion bar sockets.
Found them! Someone was selling ones like them for drag racing a while back.
I would like to see if that stuff is any lighter than the stock k-member, lower and upper control arms. I would guess that the weight reduction would be the main advantage.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 05:21 AM
Quote:
Quote:
2nd picture in the 2nd link shows the lowers to be torsion bar sockets.
Found them! Someone was selling ones like them for drag racing a while back.
I would like to see if that stuff is any lighter than the stock k-member, lower and upper control arms. I would guduhess that the weight reduction would be the main advantage.
Many advantages over stock. Weight being they first, rigidity second, adjustability third
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 05:29 AM
Keep us posted as you install and test the parts, have you started putting them on the car yet?
Thanks
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/13/13 05:45 AM
No sir. The deal should be finalized in the next few weeks. I will keep you guys posted and list all the vitals once I can put my greasy little fingers on the parts! Should be interesting....
We were the fastest Mopar on the road course at the OUSCI a few years back. So I am hoping for even better results! I had a melting pot of parts on the car at that time so it will be nice to call one place home.......
Posted By: 340duster340
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/14/13 03:19 AM
the tubular lcas look like a knock off of a set a guy on fabo made a while back.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/14/13 04:44 AM
Quote:
the tubular lcas look like a knock off of a set a guy on fabo made a while back.
Knock off or not, this will be a little different situation with a corporation backing the development. I think the tubular lower has been begging for some new ideas....lets see how it looks.
Posted By: Winchester 73
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/15/13 06:50 AM
taking requests?
id like to see a sans motor mount version thats a touch cheeper for engine plate cars,and sphericle strut rod connections.i think both would help sales with drag racers especially strut rod connection.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/15/13 07:21 AM
Quote:
taking requests?
id like to see a sans motor mount version thats a touch cheeper for engine plate cars,and sphericle strut rod connections.i think both would help sales with drag racers especially strut rod connection.
This is a fair point. I believe there answer would be that there K-Member can handle a solid motor mount situation minus the Plate. I think this was most likely developed with a pro-street/ drag racing mentality as it only excepts E-body and 70+ B-body sway bars. They are only 1 1/4", and that is not going to work for me. We are already going to have to talk about how to remedy this.
When I have my initial technical sitdown with QA1, I will raise this point regarding full drag set-ups with plates and see if they are even considering this. As far as the Strut arm is concerned there are several options out there that are much more aggressive then stock. Firm Feel, Hotchkis, etc. Thanks for the input.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/25/13 04:13 PM
well i talked to qa1 at drag expo and they said they lowered the retail price to 700 dollars...
Posted By: ThermoQuad
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/27/13 12:23 PM
I am just a dummy on here so please explain how this is better than a welded/reinforced K frame?
Have you tested it's "flex" against a stock and welded reinforced K frame? How did you test it? Show us some results.
The K frame is a very integral part of a cars ability to resist flex.
Lighter does not necessarily mean better.
It's not about the money, it's about improving the cars.
Is this a real improvement?
Weight saving to induce more flex is not an option.
What are the weight differences?
Since we don't know each other I thought I should share with you the car I built in the pic. Yes it has a welded/reinforced K frame and more but no roll cage. It eats SRT8 Challengers on the road course with ease.
So tell me how this new idea will improve lap times?
Posted By: 72Swinger
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/27/13 01:36 PM
Marty I hope this turns into a good deal. QA1 seems to be a pretty sharp company that puts quality ahead of profit. Their shocks and rod ends are good stuff.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/27/13 04:51 PM
Quote:
I am just a dummy on here so please explain how this is better than a welded/reinforced K frame?
Have you tested it's "flex" against a stock and welded reinforced K frame? How did you test it? Show us some results.
The K frame is a very integral part of a cars ability to resist flex.
Lighter does not necessarily mean better.
It's not about the money, it's about improving the cars.
Is this a real improvement?
Weight saving to induce more flex is not an option.
What are the weight differences?
Since we don't know each other I thought I should share with you the car I built in the pic. Yes it has a welded/reinforced K frame and more but no roll cage. It eats SRT8 Challengers on the road course with ease.
So tell me how this new idea will improve lap times?
Tom- Let me start by saying I have not sat down with QA1 yet to stragetize the final development on this product, nor do I have the unit in front of me. So I am not going to guess on technical information that I just don't have.
I run a fairly quick car myself and have 0 welding done to the K-member so I am quite excited to see what it has to offer over the R & R of a 50 year old unit.
The flex numbers will have to be something that I can test once the old and new are sitting next to each other. How do I test this?....I don't know, how did you test your welded K-member? Science or seat of the pants??
The unit is designed to except Rack and Pinion, tubular lower and upper CA's, so obviously there won't be many similarities between the two but, I agree, the overall strength is an important part of the car. Let's also remember not everyone is out here to race their car, but to be allowed to use some more modern technology on the car to make it drive better in non-performance situations. This unit may take care of both situations, we will see.
There are still a lot of questions I need answered myself, so once I get to that point with QA1, I will share what I know.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/27/13 04:55 PM
Quote:
Marty I hope this turns into a good deal. QA1 seems to be a pretty sharp company that puts quality ahead of profit. Their shocks and rod ends are good stuff.
I agree with this. I believe we have to at least give them a shot at it. If we just assume all companies can't figure this out then our kids will still be welding k-members for there cars in 20 years.....I for one appreciate any company that goes out on limb to develop Mopar parts, its not easy wall to break through.....i.e. see earlier posts.
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/27/13 05:18 PM
So it will be tube k member with rack steering with torsion bars? That could be a nice set up, do you have a time line as to when you will be starting on this?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/27/13 05:24 PM
Quote:
So it will be tube k member with rack steering with torsion bars? That could be a nice set up, do you have a time line as to when you will be starting on this?
Yes that is correct. Rack and pinion with Tubular structure and torsion bars. I was a bit surprised by the torsion bars still in the design, but with a good shock and the right balance, sky is the limit.
I received notification a few weeks ago that they finalizing the contract. I suspect we should hear something this week.
Posted By: astjp2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/28/13 03:35 AM
Quote:
Quote:
So it will be tube k member with rack steering with torsion bars? That could be a nice set up, do you have a time line as to when you will be starting on this?
Yes that is correct. Rack and pinion with Tubular structure and torsion bars. I was a bit surprised by the torsion bars still in the design, but with a good shock and the right balance, sky is the limit.
I received notification a few weeks ago that they finalizing the contract. I suspect we should hear something this week.
Does anyone even make a rack with enough throw?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/13 05:38 PM
Quote:
Quote:
So it will be tube k member with rack steering with torsion bars? That could be a nice set up, do you have a time line as to when you will be starting on this?
Yes that is correct. Rack and pinion with Tubular structure and torsion bars. I was a bit surprised by the torsion bars still in the design, but with a good shock and the right balance, sky is the limit.
I received notification a few weeks ago that they finalizing the contract. I suspect we should hear something this week.
UPDATE:
I sat down with QA1 yesterday to go over the product. There is some information that I gave earlier that is going to change. The K-member will NOT have the rack and pinion. It will uitilize stock mounting points and a stock box. One point of contention was they are only designed for manual steering. The engineers are double checking this as we speak and will get back to me ASAP. I told them, this will need to change. They must design this to except a PS box.
The weight currently is 1 lb. lighter then a stock K-member. When they first started reverse engineering this unit it was 30 +/- lbs. The added strength to avoid flex is why they have reached this revised weight.
So essentially what you are getting is much stronger version of a stock K-member, tubular upper and lowers, and the guarentee of quality that a 100,000 sq/ft facility all laser cut and CNC machined product can give you. More to follow.
Posted By: moparAL
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/07/13 09:24 AM
When you sat down with them, Any info to changes on current QA1 E & B body, Upper and Lower control arms?
Posted By: astjp2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/07/13 08:49 PM
I want some more info and feedback on their td901 and td501 double adjustable shocks, before I drop a grand on them. Tim
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/08/13 04:28 PM
Quote:
I want some more info and feedback on their td901 and td501 double adjustable shocks, before I drop a grand on them. Tim
You will hopefully be getting that from me, as I will be provided with a set of double-adjustables to run with the combo. TD507 & TD802(with a Eye/ eye combo)
Currently run adjustable Ridetech shocks, so they understand they will need something to directly replace what we already have.
Posted By: astjp2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/09/13 01:55 AM
Quote:
Quote:
I want some more info and feedback on their td901 and td501 double adjustable shocks, before I drop a grand on them. Tim
You will hopefully be getting that from me, as I will be provided with a set of double-adjustables to run with the combo. TD507 & TD802(with a Eye/ eye combo)
Currently run adjustable Ridetech shocks, so they understand they will need something to directly replace what we already have.
What are you going to do with your old shocks?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/10/13 05:37 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I want some more info and feedback on their td901 and td501 double adjustable shocks, before I drop a grand on them. Tim
You will hopefully be getting that from me, as I will be provided with a set of double-adjustables to run with the combo. TD507 & TD802(with a Eye/ eye combo)
Currently run adjustable Ridetech shocks, so they understand they will need something to directly replace what we already have.
What are you going to do with your old shocks?
Probably go to events with me and serve as backups.
Didn't QA1 buy out Carrera for their shocks and buy out CAP for the K frame parts?
Marty, thanks for reporting on this. However I'm having the same feelings as Tom on this one. I'd like to see a more precisely constructed lower arm that allows more bump clearance at least for the As, but now that we can purchase good quality t bars, shocks, steering boxes, strut rod assemblies upper arms and sway bars, what are we trying to improve? As far as rigity is concerned, unless QA1 is willing to put the cars on a surface plate it all seems to be a guess. Greater oil pan clearance seems to be the only potential benefit.
Posted By: autoxcuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/13 07:55 AM
Quote:
Marty, thanks for reporting on this. However I'm having the same feelings as Tom on this one. I'd like to see a more precisely constructed lower arm that allows more bump clearance at least for the As, but now that we can purchase good quality t bars, shocks, steering boxes, strut rod assemblies upper arms and sway bars, what are we trying to improve? As far as rigity is concerned, unless QA1 is willing to put the cars on a surface plate it all seems to be a guess. Greater oil pan clearance seems to be the only potential benefit.
I agree to some point.
But I've got nice unrusted stock LCA's that are worn between the pivot arm and the LCA stamping holes creating slop. They are 40 years old now. I'd like to see them tight with very little movement.
And I also agree with Peter point to see more bump stop clearance designed into the LCA's for lowered cars. IMHO, that could be nice feature and benefit that's a cost effective alternative to paying for dropped spindles.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/13 03:53 PM
Quote:
Didn't QA1 buy out Carrera for their shocks and buy out CAP for the K frame parts?
Not sure on the Carrera deal, but QA1 has been in the shock business for a while. They did aquire CAP, but these systems have been totally re-engineered.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/13 04:08 PM
Quote:
Marty, thanks for reporting on this. However I'm having the same feelings as Tom on this one. I'd like to see a more precisely constructed lower arm that allows more bump clearance at least for the As, but now that we can purchase good quality t bars, shocks, steering boxes, strut rod assemblies upper arms and sway bars, what are we trying to improve? As far as rigity is concerned, unless QA1 is willing to put the cars on a surface plate it all seems to be a guess. Greater oil pan clearance seems to be the only potential benefit.
I am not going to be the 'A- body' go to guy. There will be another car that will lead that charge. I believe they are still pretty early on in the design for the A-body front. I will relay these statements to them and see if I can get you some answers.
I really think QA1 is just trying to give guys a chance to improve front end feel. It may not be for everyone, but there are plenty of guys that will take a look at this set-up before they go with the heavy costs of the other makes. As far as speed and strength, the proof will be when I hit the track. Will it be worth some extra speed? We will see.
Posted By: 340duster340
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/13 04:52 PM
there may also be a market for the resto mod guys looking for bolt on stuff to replace crusty originals. probably cheaper or at least comparable to paying for restoration rate on stock parts.
Posted By: 74_360_Cuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/13 09:30 PM
Quote:
But I've got nice unrusted stock LCA's that are worn between the pivot arm and the LCA stamping holes creating slop. They are 40 years old now. I'd like to see them tight with very little movement.
That is exactly my situation however I am not tempted to pull the trigger on those arms because I am a technical guy and they look weak. So far I have not seen any proof that these LCA are as good or better than the OEM (other than a non scientific destructive test done in 1 magazine). I have a concern with the torsionnal stiffness when we use big sway bars and also with the durability at the transition from the solid portion to the clevis at the end. If QA1 have re-engineer everything they should be able to state what they have improved and to show proper test / analysis results because I am sure I am not the only guy who is thinking that way.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/13 10:20 PM
Quote:
Quote:
But I've got nice unrusted stock LCA's that are worn between the pivot arm and the LCA stamping holes creating slop. They are 40 years old now. I'd like to see them tight with very little movement.
That is exactly my situation however I am not tempted to pull the trigger on those arms because I am a technical guy and they look weak. So far I have not seen any proof that these LCA are as good or better than the OEM (other than a non scientific destructive test done in 1 magazine). I have a concern with the torsionnal stiffness when we use big sway bars and also with the durability at the transition from the solid portion to the clevis at the end. If QA1 have re-engineer everything they should be able to state what they have improved and to show proper test / analysis results because I am sure I am not the only guy who is thinking that way.
Does every part we buy for cars come with proper test and analysis paperwork?? Not sure, I don't have much in the way of that........I will obviously push for this due to the questions being raised about the constructability of the UCA and LCA's in the past.
Quote:
If QA1 have re-engineer everything they should be able to state what they have improved and to show proper test / analysis results because I am sure I am not the only guy who is thinking that way.
No, you are not the only one thinking that way, and it's not just Q1A that's being 
. So far it seems the largest investment that most of the latest companies have invested into are their marketing budgets.
Posted By: 74_360_Cuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/13 02:23 AM
If only it was good marketing; IMO, With proper market survey they would find that there is a big potential market for this product (no competitors) and then the next question could be: how come we are not selling more of these?
Maybe they should google it and see what some of the Mopar guys are thinking about this product and find out why they are not pulling the trigger more often...
Posted By: TC@HP2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/13 03:48 AM
Quote:
If only it was good marketing marketing, if they were doing a market survey they would find that there is a big potential market (no competitors) and then they could ask themselve how come we are not selling more of these?
Huh??
Posted By: 74_360_Cuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D *DELETED* - 03/13/13 01:06 AM
Post deleted by 74_360_Cuda
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/13/13 03:38 AM
Not sure if we got off topic here........but they have not released the K- member in conjunction with the upper and lower CA's yet. I am going to get the first one, so I will be giving some honest feedback.
I think you will see that this will be just the beginning of many efforts from Qa1 to make this front end setup top notch.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/13/13 08:05 AM
hopefully they get the steering box angle correct for b and ebodys...here is a picture i found here on moparts....its a e body k frame in a b body notice how jacked steering angle is...i believe its a 2.5 degree angle difference between the two. somebody correct me if im wrong?
Posted By: 74_360_Cuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D *DELETED* - 03/14/13 02:55 AM
Post deleted by 74_360_Cuda
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/14/13 03:14 AM
My 2 cents on it would be if they could make a tube K member with rack steering that used torsion bars they would have something new that may be of interest. I would free up some weight compared to a steering box and give extra header room.
Posted By: 74_360_Cuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/14/13 03:44 AM
Quote:
Does every part we buy for cars come with proper test and analysis paperwork??
Absolutly not, my comment was specific to this product because:
- Perceived to be weak by more than 1 Mopar guy so comparative testing could proove that apperance alone could be deceiving
- Because they are a design made by CAP which rightfully or not, many Mopar guy don't trust due to some contreversy you can read in many Forums (let's not start anything here)
Do I need Hotchkis to show me proof that they have done their Engineering & Manufacturing homework? absolutly not because their parts look right from an Engineering point of view, their manufacturing quality is excellent and I don't think I have read a single complaint about their product.
I personnaly don't have any product from QA1 / Edelbrock but QA1 has a golden opportunity to proove their Engineering value (at least to me) here...
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/14/13 05:54 AM
I think they fully understand the up hill battle they are up against. They need the chance to prove their parts are up to the challenge. This is not just a little operation they run. I would say they have more at stake here then you know.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/14/13 05:57 AM
Quote:
My 2 cents on it would be if they could make a tube K member with rack steering that used torsion bars they would have something new that may be of interest. I would free up some weight compared to a steering box and give extra header room.
This is something they are working towards. They would like correct some of the past geometry issues. It will eventually become an option, like a Stage 2.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/03/13 06:21 PM
well i just checked summit and it looks like the price is 586.99
is this accurate...it better be!
Posted By: savoy64
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/04/13 05:14 AM
i think that if a rack and pinion is used it wants to occupy the same line that the torsion bars are in---the only sanitary thing to do is to run coilovers...bob
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/04/13 02:11 PM
Quote:
i think that if a rack and pinion is used it wants to occupy the same line that the torsion bars are in---the only sanitary thing to do is to run coilovers...bob
unfortunately torsion bars are in the way to optimize bumpsteer.
Posted By: 72Swinger
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/04/13 03:24 PM
Tig welded chromoly K member would sell like crazy.
Posted By: TC@HP2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/04/13 05:44 PM
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/04/13 06:40 PM
They have not officially produced a rack yet. We are getting the first one. I am assuming they have a projected date of release, and you will simply be on B/O until then.
I did not see it online.
Posted By: jcc
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/04/13 08:10 PM
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this ois one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
Posted By: Evil Spirit
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/11/13 07:55 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this ois one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
The problem with using a front steer rack is mostly a packaging issue. Your either have to raise the engine for the rack to go under the oil pan, lower the rack and kill the tie rod (horizontal) angle, or shove the rack too far forward for the outer tie rods to stay parallel to the lower control arms. This is the reason you see the outer tie rods shimmed down at the steering arms - the rack is too low, and they are trying to get the tie rod and LCA parallel. I've also seen the racks shoved so far forwards that the outside tire would over-center and start turning back out at maximum turning.
Ideally, you want the tie rods pivot points the same length as the LCA's, and the tie rods parallel to the LCA's on both planes (looking from front to rear, and from the top down). From there you can do the fine tuning to get the inside tire to turn in slightly more to account for the smaller turning radius of the inside tire during hard turns.
Posted By: jcc
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/12/13 03:53 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this ois one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
The problem with using a front steer rack is mostly a packaging issue. Your either have to raise the engine for the rack to go under the oil pan, lower the rack and kill the tie rod (horizontal) angle, or shove the rack too far forward for the outer tie rods to stay parallel to the lower control arms. This is the reason you see the outer tie rods shimmed down at the steering arms - the rack is too low, and they are trying to get the tie rod and LCA parallel. I've also seen the racks shoved so far forwards that the outside tire would over-center and start turning back out at maximum turning.
Ideally, you want the tie rods pivot points the same length as the LCA's, and the tie rods parallel to the LCA's on both planes (looking from front to rear, and from the top down). From there you can do the fine tuning to get the inside tire to turn in slightly more to account for the smaller turning radius of the inside tire during hard turns.
I am not aware of any easy way to fine tune ackerman, short of bending the steering arms once built, or changing the WB, please explain. Maybe a better discussion is how critical is ackerman in a hp "handling" car, forgetting the grocery getters, and I don't know the answer to that.
Posted By: Evil Spirit
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/12/13 05:44 AM
Quote:
Bumpsteer with a rack is the issue with the stock configuration. If you are revising the K frame, put the rack on the front, install the lower ball joints backwards to retain ackerman, and then you can run t-bars without an issue.
But, if this is still in the R&D mode, how can Summit be selling them already?
If you read this article, you will see it's nowhere near that simple. To get the Ackerman effect, the tie rod ends need to be inside the lower ball joints on rear steer, and outside on front steer cars - this puts the tie rod mount on the spindle into the sidewall of the tire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_steering_geometry
Posted By: Evil Spirit
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/12/13 05:57 AM
Quote:
I am not aware of any easy way to fine tune ackerman, short of bending the steering arms once built, or changing the WB, please explain. Maybe a better discussion is how critical is ackerman in a hp "handling" car, forgetting the grocery getters, and I don't know the answer to that.
JCC - I don't know of an easy way to fix the Ackerman issue either. IMO 90% of the front suspension stuff out there are geared more for the drag race crowd - geared more towards weight reduction and header packaging, not strength and improving handling. And TBO, in a drag car if you have the wheel turned enough for Ackerman loss to be an issue, you usually have bigger problems.
Posted By: autoxcuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/12/13 06:49 AM
Quote:
...And TBO, in a drag car if you have the wheel turned enough for Ackerman loss to be an issue, you usually have bigger problems.
Even on a road race car is not a huge deal. It's biggest purpose is for heavy sedan street cars at low speeds. At higher speeds and pushing the car to it's cornering limits, slip angles change and traditional Ackermann is out the door.
And open wheel Indy car will not have Ackermann.
Posted By: TC@HP2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/12/13 05:26 PM
Quote:
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this is one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
Yup, you missed it. You're thinking of swapping ball joints side to side, like the spindle/caliper relocation trick. I'm talking about leaving the ball joint installed on their correct side, but rotating the tie rod end forward, thus putting it outboard of the ball joint, retaining the ackerman triangle. However, this is speculation on my part because of the relative location of the tie rod mount. I have not graphed it to see how accurate it is.
Quote:
The problem with using a front steer rack is mostly a packaging issue. Your either have to raise the engine for the rack to go under the oil pan, lower the rack and kill the tie rod (horizontal) angle, or shove the rack too far forward for the outer tie rods to stay parallel to the lower control arms.
This actually is a good solution, IMO. You raise the engine, fit the rack. So now you raised the center of gravity, right, so how is that good? Well, you drop the car lower around the engine. An engine is, lets say, 500#. A car is 3400#. So you raised 500# up two inches, now lets drop 2900# 2 inches since you have increases oil pan and header clearance with the lifted engine. Which will have a greater impact on the COG, 500# or 2900#?
Quote:
If you read this article, you will see it's nowhere near that simple. To get the Ackerman effect, the tie rod ends need to be inside the lower ball joints on rear steer, and outside on front steer cars - this puts the tie rod mount on the spindle into the sidewall of the tire.
Not necessarily. It depends on rim diameter and the relationship of the tie rod end location to the rim location. With my suggestiosn above, there is no reason to think it wouldn't fit simply from rotating the end forward a similar amount forward compared to how far it is set back stock. With differing set ups, that may have some impact, but with the increasing rim diameters we see on many performance cars, it may become even less of an issue.
Quote:
Maybe a better discussion is how critical is ackerman in a hp "handling" car, forgetting the grocery getters, and I don't know the answer to that.
Quote:
Even on a road race car is not a huge deal. It's biggest purpose is for heavy sedan street cars at low speeds. At higher speeds and pushing the car to it's cornering limits, slip angles change and traditional Ackermann is out the door.
And open wheel Indy car will not have Ackermann.
Bingo! Competition cars typically do not even bother with ackerman.
Posted By: jcc
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/12/13 05:52 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Are sure about that ackerman solution, I thought the steering arms have to form an imaginary intersection towards the rear, if i understand your suggestion the intersection would be in front with stock ball joints and this is one of the big hurdles with front steer on a mopar. Did i miss something?
Yup, you missed it. You're thinking of swapping ball joints side to side, like the spindle/caliper relocation trick. I'm talking about leaving the ball joint installed on their correct side, but rotating the tie rod end forward, thus putting it outboard of the ball joint, retaining the ackerman triangle. However, this is speculation on my part because of the relative location of the tie rod mount. I have not graphed it to see how accurate it is.
I think you tricked me, and I fell for it.
, but TC, weren't you the one that brought up Ackerman in the first place, and now we decide its no big deal anyway, oh well, I get to learn something anyway, big thumbs up goes here.
Anyway its an interesting idea, has this been done before? I wouldn't think it was easy to mount a lower ball joint/arm assembly from the back, but I'll have to find one and see for myself.
Regarding Evil's comment on the front rack interfering with motor height, that isn't much of an issue on my year/model of mopars because the motor seems far enough back that oil pan interference is not an issue, which is I thought the main reason for front steer rack anyway.
Posted By: Evil Spirit
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/12/13 09:36 PM
Quote:
This actually is a good solution, IMO. You raise the engine, fit the rack. So now you raised the center of gravity, right, so how is that good? Well, you drop the car lower around the engine. An engine is, lets say, 500#. A car is 3400#. So you raised 500# up two inches, now lets drop 2900# 2 inches since you have increases oil pan and header clearance with the lifted engine. Which will have a greater impact on the COG, 500# or 2900#?
Factory suspensions are designed around the frame to be at a given height - at that height the UCA's + LCA's are at angles that minimize unwanted caster/camber gain/loss, etc. - their "sweet spot". Dropping the frame - and those suspension points - can't have a positive effect on that. 
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/13/13 01:16 AM
What we really need is a lower ball joint/steering arm that uses screw in or press in ball joint and bolt on steering arms so we can put them where we want them! Then move the motor back enough to fit a rack in there.
Moving 500-600 pounds as far back and low as possible is always a good thing!
Posted By: TC@HP2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 04/16/13 03:11 PM
Quote:
I think you tricked me, and I fell for it, but TC, weren't you the one that brought up Ackerman in the first place, and now we decide its no big deal anyway, oh well, I get to learn something anyway, big thumbs up goes here.
Anyway its an interesting idea, has this been done before? I wouldn't think it was easy to mount a lower ball joint/arm assembly from the back, but I'll have to find one and see for myself.
Nah, I'm not usually that calculating to be able to pull off a manipulative thread witha preduicated outcome like that. Besides, I think we could all count the number of dedicated road race style competition cars on this site on one hand. That means ackerman in QA1 designs would be germain for the vast majority of cars out there who may be buying their product.
Quote:
Factory suspensions are designed around the frame to be at a given height - at that height the UCA's + LCA's are at angles that minimize unwanted caster/camber gain/loss, etc. - their "sweet spot". Dropping the frame - and those suspension points - can't have a positive effect on that.
True, but those can be manipulated to some degree to overcome the changes involved. People who are insistent about optimization will take those steps, those who aren't wont and they won't be as fast as the former. I just said it was possible, not that it was necessarily easy.
Quote:
What we really need is a lower ball joint/steering arm that uses screw in or press in ball joint and bolt on steering arms so we can put them where we want them! Then move the motor back enough to fit a rack in there. Moving 500-600 pounds as far back and low as possible is always a good thing!
Agreed. That is additional adjustability that can only help. Aren't the guys up at Firm Feel mocking up some set ups similar to this using post '72 B body parts?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:38 AM
Hey guys. I just received the last big box today from QA1. This happens to be the 1st K-member which will be slated to be installed on the car in the next few weeks. Also going on the car will be:
-UCA's
-LCA's
-Adj Strut arms
-(4) double adj shocks
-Torson bar adjusters
-Misc shims and spacers for proper shock fitment
Everything looks very professional as expected. Going to need to wait a few weeks as the car has a few appearances to make, but then we will be moving forward. Hopefully next month we will be on the track for some real feedback.
Keep you guys updated with the progress.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:44 AM
more pics
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:45 AM
...
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:46 AM
....
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:47 AM
.......
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:47 AM
.....
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:48 AM
.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/18/13 06:49 AM
..
Posted By: 1fastabody
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 02:23 PM
Why didn't they make the UCA adjustable?
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 02:29 PM
I'm wondering if the tall "gusset" around the ball joint on the UCA would limit rim offsets and diameters?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 04:24 PM
Quote:
Why didn't they make the UCA adjustable?
The arm has caster built into it plus you can use get new mounting bolts and cams with them. There should be no reason you can't get a 3 to 6 degrees out of them.
I run right around 4 currently.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 04:33 PM
Quote:
I'm wondering if the tall "gusset" around the ball joint on the UCA would limit rim offsets and diameters?
I do not think this will be an issue. It is not designed with only large diameter wheels in mind. Have to remember this set-up is intended to cross over between street, drag and Pro-touring applications. Obviously wheels sizes wheel vary.
I can get some visual clearances posted here once I can get to that point in the install.
Posted By: autoxcuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 05:03 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I'm wondering if the tall "gusset" around the ball joint on the UCA would limit rim offsets and diameters?
I do not think this will be an issue. It is not designed with only large diameter wheels in mind. Have to remember this set-up is intended to cross over between street, drag and Pro-touring applications. Obviously wheels sizes wheel vary.
I can get some visual clearances posted here once I can get to that point in the install.
Why did they run the gusset? I thought the common UBJ inserts the circle track guys use are just as tall as the UBJ screw shoulder.
Here is 5.6" backspace 17" rim. I don't think the QA1 UCA's with that shoulder would be an issue with this particular setup.
Posted By: autoxcuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 05:18 PM
If they just ran paralell brackets for the front strut rods, they could eliminate the expensive custom one-off machined front strut adapter. That piece has to add a retail of $100+.
They could just sell strut rods without that piece and a little longer rod for their custom K-member cars. But I realize there will be no interchangablity with stock pieces or people that would slowly upgrade into a custom K-member.
Posted By: ntstlgl1970
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 09:38 PM
Regarding your shocks, can you post the part number for the rear shocks? I have double adjustable rears from QA1 (on an E body) and the shock body is too long. With the firm feel road race springs, there is only about 2.5" of compression travel at ride height. Hopefully you will not have the same problems....
Posted By: Fastback67
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/19/13 11:51 PM
Aren't these the systems once sold by CAP? Has QA1 modified/updated them or something? Sorry, but I'm new to this thread, and it's been a while since I saw my last CAP system.
Not that it does me any good, I have a 67 B-Body.
Posted By: autoxcuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/20/13 04:28 AM
Quote:
Aren't these the systems once sold by CAP? Has QA1 modified/updated them or something? Sorry, but I'm new to this thread, and it's been a while since I saw my last CAP system.
Not that it does me any good, I have a 67 B-Body.
QA1 is building/welding them. The welds were the major complaint. They may have added a cross bar?
If there are differences I think it would be a good idea for MS68EFI or QA1 to point out the improved features and benefits. IMHO, that would give the Mopar potential customers a much needed warm and fuzzy about this product line.
This K-member for 68-70 B-bodies will fit your 67 B-body (and '66). It just takes the better (and less $$) 68-70 idler and ?centerlink I believe? And takes 70-72 B-body and 70-74 E-body front sway bars.
I'm not to fond of the way it mounts. Slotted in back pair of holes? Really? I'll keep my stock K.
Posted By: cogen80
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/20/13 12:00 PM
Quote:
I'm not to fond of the way it mounts. Slotted in back pair of holes? Really? I'll keep my stock K.
didn't notice that at first. that just doesn't seem right. a slotted hole for a k-frame mount?
seems like a lot of money to only save 1 pound and still have a stock suspension.
glad they beefed it up though. that cap stuff was scary.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/22/13 10:56 PM
Quote:
Hey guys. I just received the last big box today from QA1. This happens to be the 1st K-member which will be slated to be installed on the car in the next few weeks. Also going on the car will be:
-UCA's
-LCA's
-Adj Strut arms
-(4) double adj shocks
-Torson bar adjusters
-Misc shims and spacers for proper shock fitment
Everything looks very professional as expected. Going to need to wait a few weeks as the car has a few appearances to make, but then we will be moving forward. Hopefully next month we will be on the track for some real feedback.
Keep you guys updated with the progress.
is this a specific 68-70 b body or is this their current ebody version? the e and b bodys have a specific angle difference on the idler mount and the steering box mount....im assuming this is their ebody version....can you please post pics of the steering shaft angle into the box...thanks for sharing looks great...i will order one if it fits well???
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/23/13 09:23 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not to fond of the way it mounts. Slotted in back pair of holes? Really? I'll keep my stock K.
didn't notice that at first. that just doesn't seem right. a slotted hole for a k-frame mount?
seems like a lot of money to only save 1 pound and still have a stock suspension.
glad they beefed it up though. that cap stuff was scary.
Let's not all jump on the slotted hole bandwagon and give up on this quite yet! Some reasoning behind that opinion would be great. I will also see if can get an explanation for the slotted holes from QA1. Although I think I already know the answer!
Also remember they are still in the semi-developmental phase, so we can still push for some changes.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/23/13 09:28 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not to fond of the way it mounts. Slotted in back pair of holes? Really? I'll keep my stock K.
didn't notice that at first. that just doesn't seem right. a slotted hole for a k-frame mount?
seems like a lot of money to only save 1 pound and still have a stock suspension.
glad they beefed it up though. that cap stuff was scary.
When they originally started working with the CAP design it was 20lbs lighter. So I think they have done their homework making sure this is a sound unit. I agree, right off, 1 lb of savings might seem questionable. But when you really dig in and look at the whole package, it makes sense. You would have to do a lot of work to an already 40 year k-member to make it similar in strength. Even then, you can't be positive they are comparable. Some welding, gussets, etc, IMHO, not comparable to a tubular engineered design.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/23/13 09:36 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Hey guys. I just received the last big box today from QA1. This happens to be the 1st K-member which will be slated to be installed on the car in the next few weeks. Also going on the car will be:
-UCA's
-LCA's
-Adj Strut arms
-(4) double adj shocks
-Torson bar adjusters
-Misc shims and spacers for proper shock fitment
Everything looks very professional as expected. Going to need to wait a few weeks as the car has a few appearances to make, but then we will be moving forward. Hopefully next month we will be on the track for some real feedback.
Keep you guys updated with the progress.
is this a specific 68-70 b body or is this their current ebody version? the e and b bodys have a specific angle difference on the idler mount and the steering box mount....im assuming this is their ebody version....can you please post pics of the steering shaft angle into the box...thanks for sharing looks great...i will order one if it fits well???
#52314
This is the E-body part Number. Currently available. You are correct on the angle difference. Same angle as the 71-72 b-body. This is why they had a slight delay on the 68-70 B-body version, the angles needed some work.
My version I am working with is for the 68-70 B-body.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/23/13 09:42 PM
Quote:
Regarding your shocks, can you post the part number for the rear shocks? I have double adjustable rears from QA1 (on an E body) and the shock body is too long. With the firm feel road race springs, there is only about 2.5" of compression travel at ride height. Hopefully you will not have the same problems....
I ordered the shocks lengths specifically for what I needed. The ones they list for the front of my car would have been too long. Best thing to do is measure compressed length and then go to their chart and pick the version that best fits your ride height. They can just change the ends to meet your requirements.
Posted By: ntstlgl1970
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/25/13 05:59 AM
ok, thanks for the info
Posted By: ThermoQuad
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/28/13 12:43 PM
I do not like this design. There are no triangles in the geometry or structure -a triangle is the strongest geometric shape. Look at a stock k frame...now look at the latest so called improvement.
The K frame is an integral part of a car's suspension and is a major component the overall rigidity of the chassis.
Can you say twist???
Having slotted holes on 2/4 mounts is just poor design and the new design looks like it will flex nicely under duress esp with an iron head 440 sitting on it. I would not try this product even if it were free for an A body road course car, let alone a big fat B body
Where are the mounts for the right and left side torque rods which experience has shown are required to hold the engine in the correct geometric position at all times??? Do i need to post the photos of the right side collector being pushed to the ground, the compressed engine isolators and the torn exhaust hangers before we figured out the problem??
Back to the million dollar question-how many seconds will this product cut from the current lap times which are btw quite good for a large fat car.
This product is in the wrong forum...and i reluctantly post, but it's tough to be spectator when i see products that don't measure up.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/29/13 03:51 AM
dont knock it till its tested...the stock k frame needs to be reinforced in the steering box area cause of flexing when you just turn it at rest...and sector shaft support added...and welded up fully cause of factory spot welds...i think its a great start so far and stronger all around...i would like to see no slots but they are working out the bugs...maybe they will...great price though at 587.00 per summit...by the time you spend shipping back and forth a stock k to firm feel and powdercoating it will be much more.
Posted By: CKessel
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/29/13 04:46 AM
I have some questions on the new k-frame. How will it hold up to having a floor jack raising the car like you would with a stock unit? Will there be sway bar mounting provisions for the different types of bar[ in front of or through the center]? Can you add on a skid plate? What is the material that is being used? Is it chrome moly 4k series or mild steel 1k series?
Posted By: 72Swinger
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/29/13 08:02 AM
If they kick it up a notch and allow for a splined swaybar, that would put it in its own category.
Posted By: Supercuda
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/29/13 02:29 PM
Quote:
I do not like this design. There are no triangles in the geometry or structure -a triangle is the strongest geometric shape. Look at a stock k frame...now look at the latest so called improvement.
Actually, a circle is the strongest geometric shape.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/29/13 03:12 PM
Quote:
I do not like this design. There are no triangles in the geometry or structure -a triangle is the strongest geometric shape. Look at a stock k frame...now look at the latest so called improvement.
The K frame is an integral part of a car's suspension and is a major component the overall rigidity of the chassis.
Can you say twist???
Having slotted holes on 2/4 mounts is just poor design and the new design looks like it will flex nicely under duress esp with an iron head 440 sitting on it. I would not try this product even if it were free for an A body road course car, let alone a big fat B body
Where are the mounts for the right and left side torque rods which experience has shown are required to hold the engine in the correct geometric position at all times??? Do i need to post the photos of the right side collector being pushed to the ground, the compressed engine isolators and the torn exhaust hangers before we figured out the problem??
Back to the million dollar question-how many seconds will this product cut from the current lap times which are btw quite good for a large fat car.
This product is in the wrong forum...and i reluctantly post, but it's tough to be spectator when i see products that don't measure up.
Thanks Tom again for your positive and useful input! I do not think you can look at something and throw it under the bus with '0' factual basis for the criticism, but I have passed these comments onto QA1. I am sure there Engineers at there fully CNC'd, 125,000sq/ft facility will be attempting to cover all these basis.
So you know we are already talking about the torque resolution. I am going to be working on that during the mock up phase.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwhpIkmi5LE
Here is little video of how they make a K-Member.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/29/13 03:51 PM
Quote:
If they kick it up a notch and allow for a splined swaybar, that would put it in its own category.
Swinger,
Check this link out.
http://www.1speedway.com/608_175bars.htm
This is roughly what we will be using. Once the mock is complete, we will be ordering a bar that suits our needs. On this K, the bar mounts are easily accessible in the center area. All you need to do is get the proper roll risistence and order the spline arms to correct cut and you are off and running. To make it really easy for me, I will be ordering the 1½" bar and simply using a 1½" poly mount to secure it to the K. So all you really need are these components:
-1½" Spline bar (around 900-1000 lbs of roll resistence)
-1½" poly mount
-Custom order 1¾ spline arm (or smaller diameter, your decision)
-Hiem/ bolt combination to attach to LCA.
I am pushing QA1 to offer some information in this area because I knew this what going to be a point of contention.
If you are not into adding any extra thought into the bar, then you simply order an 1¼" bar for '70 E-body, bolt it on and go.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 07/29/13 04:33 PM
As a quick follow up to the talk on the Sway bars. I attached a sheet showing the roll rates. I suggest using the 1¼" or 1½" spline bars because the POLY mounts for these sizes are the most common on the market. If you go bigger you may to re-think the mounting procedure.
UPDATE:
Hellwig has agreed to supply a bar for this build. It will be an 1 1/4" hollow tube. Makes 690 lb/". This still may be a bit light for what I need, but it will work perfect for most applications.
Posted By: wegner426
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/03/13 03:35 AM
I think the slotted rear K member holes are fine. The tolerances and consistency on these cars are pure crap to be honest and this may help some people that have a car with less than perfectly located frame rails etc.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/03/13 04:18 AM
Amen to that. QA1 actually did some research on this and there was up to a 1/2" of variance on many cars. Gives the common guy a fighting chance to get this to bolt up.
Posted By: TC@HP2
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/04/13 04:05 PM
This set up will not be for everyone, but it will probably be a popular conversion for a lot of poeple. Looking at my recently received Mancini flyer, the K is being offered at $594, lower arms are $395, upper arms are $304. Add some "dynamic struts for $192, Bilstein shocks for $400, a new Delphi box set up for $1000, and some new t-bars for $300 and you have a tubular K set up for a hair under $3200, or about $1200 less than an AlterK.
Mx and match parts you already have and you can save a few bucks off of that. I predict these will be pretty popular.
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/22/13 12:33 AM
when will the b body version be available? (68-70)
Posted By: cogen80
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/22/13 02:20 AM
Quote:
and you have a tubular K set up for a hair under $3200, or about $1200 less than an AlterK.
WOW! that close in price.. kinda be nuts not to go with the alter-k at that point.
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/22/13 02:56 AM
Quote:
This set up will not be for everyone, but it will probably be a popular conversion for a lot of poeple. Looking at my recently received Mancini flyer, the K is being offered at $594, lower arms are $395, upper arms are $304. Add some "dynamic struts for $192, Bilstein shocks for $400, a new Delphi box set up for $1000, and some new t-bars for $300 and you have a tubular K set up for a hair under $3200, or about $1200 less than an AlterK.
Mx and match parts you already have and you can save a few
bucks off of that. I predict these will be pretty popular.
mixing and matching is key to that comparison... alterk cant exactly be done a piece at a time while still driving the car. a firm feel box and stock boxed lower arms are acceptable for lots of folks and dont forget 700 for a brake kit for altrk. point being that 1200 disparity could double pretty easy.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/22/13 06:04 PM
Quote:
when will the b body version be available? (68-70) [/quhipote]
We just mocked it up a few days ago and did a tech article photoshoot for Popular Hot Rodding. Everything went on very nice. We have some revisions that need to be made to the Lower Control Arms, so I think this will delay the availability of the unit for a short while.
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/22/13 11:19 PM
Quote:
Quote:
when will the b body version be available? (68-70) [/quhipote]
We just mocked it up a few days ago and did a tech article photoshoot for Popular Hot Rodding. Everything went on very nice. We have some revisions that need to be made to the Lower Control Arms, so I think this will delay the availability of the unit for a short while.
do you have to use their lower arms?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/23/13 09:24 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
when will the b body version be available? (68-70) [/quhipote]
We just mocked it up a few days ago and did a tech article photoshoot for Popular Hot Rodding. Everything went on very nice. We have some revisions that need to be made to the Lower Control Arms, so I think this will delay the availability of the unit for a short while.
do you have to use their lower arms?
Not necessarily. But to the common buyer I would suggest it, because they have relocated the sway bar mounts to accept a '70 E or B body type bar.
If you were willing to do a little homework you could easily adapt a spline bar to the supplied mounts and have a bit more stability in the front end if need be. This would give you to option to run whatever LCA you desire.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 08/26/13 03:53 AM
looks like pretty good quality control at qa1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwhpIkmi5LE
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/27/13 04:46 AM
any sort of timeframe for the release of the B body K member?
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/27/13 06:29 AM
Its out... part number at summit is 52315...I bought one a few weeks ago a d love
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/27/13 02:32 PM
Quote:
Its out... part number at summit is 52315...I bought one a few weeks ago a d love
summit and mancini still only list A and E body.
Posted By: Skeptic
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/27/13 03:29 PM
Quote:
Its out... part number at summit is 52315...I bought one a few weeks ago a d love
That part # doesn't come up as a QA1 part on the Summit website 
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/28/13 03:54 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Its out... part number at summit is 52315...I bought one a few weeks ago a d love
That part # doesn't come up as a QA1 part on the Summit website
I suggest you call QA1 direct and make sure you are getting the correct information. The K-Member we R&D'd for them went on without any issues. There were a few adjustments needed for the LCA's which, to my knowledge, were being taken care of. We made the adjustments in house and have not received the new pieces yet so I can't comment on their availability. All the more reason to call and make sure that you get their blessing if you are looking for the complete set-up.
I will see if I can talk to the guys in engineering and see where things are at.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/29/13 02:53 AM
i used hotchkis sway for 70 ebody and worked perfect with qa1 tube lowers...hope this helps
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/29/13 03:51 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Its out... part number at summit is 52315...I bought one a few weeks ago a d love
That part # doesn't come up as a QA1 part on the Summit website
I suggest you call QA1 direct and make sure you are getting the correct information. The K-Member we R&D'd for them went on without any issues. There were a few adjustments needed for the LCA's which, to my knowledge, were being taken care of. We made the adjustments in house and have not received the new pieces yet so I can't comment on their availability. All the more reason to call and make sure that you get their blessing if you are looking for the complete set-up.
I will see if I can talk to the guys in engineering and see where things are at.
I spoke with Engineering. They are still finalizing the B-body LCA for production. They did let me know that they sent me the the first 1 3/8" Sway bar (70 E-body for the application) to test out. Great news for us B-body guys! I believe they are ramping up to supply bars with the set-up, so you can have a complete front end.
Posted By: Skeptic
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/30/13 01:36 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Its out... part number at summit is 52315...I bought one a few weeks ago a d love
That part # doesn't come up as a QA1 part on the Summit website
I suggest you call QA1 direct and make sure you are getting the correct information. The K-Member we R&D'd for them went on without any issues. There were a few adjustments needed for the LCA's which, to my knowledge, were being taken care of. We made the adjustments in house and have not received the new pieces yet so I can't comment on their availability. All the more reason to call and make sure that you get their blessing if you are looking for the complete set-up.
I will see if I can talk to the guys in engineering and see where things are at.
I'd guess that the issue is with the Summit website. I've got an A body, so I was just commenting on the availability/PN @ Summit. Regardless it's good to see new options for our old cars. Keep up the good work.
Posted By: moparAL
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 10/30/13 02:44 AM
MS68EFTI please post a picture of that 1 3/8 bar when you receive it.
Thanks,
MoparAL
Posted By: CKessel
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/11/13 10:43 PM
I went to SEMA last week and recieved some good information on the k-frames and lower arms. Both are being made with 1020 mild steel which I like as you won't have the cracking and work hardening issues down the road like you do with moly. 2nd thing was what happens if you put a floor jack to it like you do with the stock frame to jack the front of the car up. The gent I talked to said just make sure you catch both tubes with the jack and you will be fine. I would not like one that is too lite weight to be of use on a car for normal maintenance and useage. When I can swing it, they will be on my list of buys.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/11/13 10:55 PM
Quote:
MS68EFTI please post a picture of that 1 3/8 bar when you receive it.
Thanks,
MoparAL
I have the new QA1 1 3/8" R&D bar in my shop now. This is a 70 B/E body version that fits the K-Members. I have been asking for the heavier bar for track applications and so they made me one. Only one in existence now, but I imagine if all goes well it will be an afforable option with the K-member.
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/12/13 12:18 AM
Quote:
Quote:
MS68EFTI please post a picture of that 1 3/8 bar when you receive it.
Thanks,
MoparAL
I have the new QA1 1 3/8" R&D bar in my shop now. This is a 70 B/E body version that fits the K-Members. I have been asking for the heavier bar for track applications and so they made me one. Only one in existence now, but I imagine if all goes well it will be an afforable option with the K-member.
Nice , is it solid or hollow?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/12/13 06:22 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
MS68EFTI please post a picture of that 1 3/8 bar when you receive it.
Thanks,
Hi
MoparAL
I have the new QA1 1 3/8" R&D bar in my shop now. This is a 70 B/E body version that fits the K-Members. I have been asking for the heavier bar for track applications and so they made me one. Only one in existence now, but I imagine if all goes well it will be an afforable option with the K-member.
Nice , is it solid or hollow?
This is hollow.
Posted By: Mopar Mitch
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/12/13 07:09 AM
When you get a chance, can you weigh the new bar? Looks like a quality piece!
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/12/13 01:47 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
MS68EFTI please post a picture of that 1 3/8 bar when you receive it.
Thanks,
Hi
MoparAL
I have the new QA1 1 3/8" R&D bar in my shop now. This is a 70 B/E body version that fits the K-Members. I have been asking for the heavier bar for track applications and so they made me one. Only one in existence now, but I imagine if all goes well it will be an afforable option with the K-member.
Nice , is it solid or hollow?
This is hollow.
NICE!
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/14/13 12:12 AM
any idea when the B body K member will come out?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/14/13 12:40 AM
I would say that the K-member is ready along with the UCA, Strut Arms, etc. We had a bit of tweaking to do on the LCA's, and that was simply to be able to obtain proper ride height for a more aggressive set-up.
If you are serious, just give QA1 a call and make sure your questions are answered.
I am running the complete set-up now (with in house mods to the LCA's) and it was a massive improvement in feel. We were just waiting for the factory LCA's to get here and we are also testing an 1 3/8" bar.
Posted By: 72Swinger
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/14/13 04:22 AM
Marty how much total travel do you have and much from ride height to bump?
Posted By: pro451bee
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 11/30/13 07:36 PM
Any updates? This is a very interesting set up. Can I order that sway bar now? Does your steering feel more precise ? I would like to see a mounting flange similar to the XV piece with more surface area contact to the front sub . A couple more bolting points and a flat bar along the bottom of the front sub would really stiffen up the front end of the car up.
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 12/06/13 03:52 AM
now im confused. jegs lists 52314. as
Tubular K-Member
1966-72 Mopar B-Body
1970-74 Mopar E-Body
i thought ebody K was different in the steering box angle.
Posted By: sublimehemi
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 12/06/13 05:07 AM
thats when qa1 thought e and b was the same...52315 is at summit thats what you need..
Posted By: Devil
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 12/17/13 02:29 AM
It was really cool to see the stuff in person.
Ryan
Posted By: jcc
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 12/17/13 08:00 PM
As nice as that mock up was and informative, it would helped from a marketing standpoint IMo if they would have added an installed pair of cut off stub TB's to the mix. I was more impressed by the set-up then I would have expected.
I respected the posted "rule" of no cameras, and the reason for that escapes me. Am I naive?
Posted By: Devil
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 12/17/13 09:57 PM
Quote:
As nice as that mock up was and informative, it would helped from a marketing standpoint IMo if they would have added an installed pair of cut off stub TB's to the mix. I was more impressed by the set-up then I would have expected.
I respected the posted "rule" of no cameras, and the reason for that escapes me. Am I naive?
Do you mean at PRI? I had a press pass that allowed me to photo and document items. I understand them not wanting exhibitors taking pictures of competitors products.
Looks nice on display but it would be interesting to see a motor and steering box there.
Posted By: peabodyracing
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 12/18/13 09:40 PM
No wish to hijack this thread, but if you're interested you can see a few photos of a QA1 front suspension installation in a running/driving b body done at QA1's shop. It's in the members project section. Titled 69 Coronet QA1 front suspension fit up.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 01/16/14 10:58 PM
Here is few shots of the front end with the 1 3/8" bar installed along with some additional brake cooling.
We also built an engine Tie Down to work with the QA1 K-Member. All needed for the upcoming season. March 7-9 Laguna Seca- Ultimate Street Car Association Event.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 01/16/14 10:58 PM
more _-
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 01/16/14 10:59 PM
Tie down
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 01/17/14 12:42 AM
Looks good! When do you get some test and tune or are you just going to wing it at Laguna?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 01/17/14 01:17 AM
Quote:
Looks good! When do you get some test and tune or are you just going to wing it at Laguna?
Oh NO! We are going to The Ridge track over here do some testing as soon as we get the go ahead on a date. Just finisihing up the new oil cooler set up on the car, then we are good to go.
Posted By: gdonovan
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 01/29/14 01:24 PM
Quote:
Looks nice on display but it would be interesting to see a motor and steering box there.
I wonder if they would be interested in making one with the later mounts, I really hate the biscuit mounts.
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/02/14 02:08 PM
Is the 1 3/8 sway bar for sale yet? Just looking on QA1's web site and maybe I missed it?
Posted By: peabodyracing
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/02/14 02:59 PM
http://youtu.be/ydy-I62cnj8FYI, recent video done by QA1
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/02/14 11:04 PM
Quote:
Is the 1 3/8 sway bar for sale yet? Just looking on QA1's web site and maybe I missed it?
I do not believe these are currently available to the public. If you are interested in one, I can see what I can do.
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/03/14 12:38 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Is the 1 3/8 sway bar for sale yet? Just looking on QA1's web site and maybe I missed it?
I do not believe these are currently available to the public. If you are interested in one, I can see what I can do.
That would be great thanks! Let me know how much? I'll pm you.
Posted By: redmist
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/04/14 06:01 AM
I think I am going to go ahead and pull the trigger on one of these K-members.
If I do, I will document the install. I plan on doing a steering box upgrade at the same time.
Posted By: dangina
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 02/04/14 06:02 AM
Quote:
I think I am going to go ahead and pull the trigger on one of these K-members.
If I do, I will document the install. I plan on doing a steering box upgrade at the same time.
cool! keep us posted!
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/14 04:33 AM
Arrived home from work and the brown truck had stopped by....and yes, I was so excited I ripped it open right there on the stoop despite it being 25 degrees out lol
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/14 04:34 AM
close up of welds
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/14 04:34 AM
steering box
Posted By: Pool Fixer
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/14 04:36 AM
Borgeson box arrived last week along with QA1 tubular LCA's. I'm going to use fast ratio idler and pitman, we will see how that goes. My stock length idler and pitman are not worn so I can swap back if it's too "fast"
Posted By: brads70
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/14 05:18 AM
Quote:
Borgeson box arrived last week along with QA1 tubular LCA's. I'm going to use fast ratio idler and pitman, we will see how that goes. My stock length idler and pitman are not worn so I can swap back if it's too "fast"
Real curious to hear how that works/feels?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/14 02:43 PM
On our way to Laguna Seca right now to see how this whole setup works.
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/06/14 05:04 PM
Are you entering the Ultimate Street Car Association event this week ?
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/07/14 06:15 PM
Quote:
Are you entering the Ultimate Street Car Association event this week ?
Yes. We are entered.
Posted By: 67autocross
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/08/14 03:02 AM
Keep us posted on how you are doing...and good luck!
Posted By: dangina
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/09/14 05:02 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Borgeson box arrived last week along with QA1 tubular LCA's. I'm going to use fast ratio idler and pitman, we will see how that goes. My stock length idler and pitman are not worn so I can swap back if it's too "fast"
Real curious to hear how that works/feels?
I bought a set of fast ratio pitman and idler with roller bearing upgrade with the borgeson box, hoping to have it driving this summer
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/10/14 06:27 PM
Quote:
Keep us posted on how you are doing...and good luck!
We survived the weekend. Officially it says we ended up 16th in the autocross, 17th in the speed stop and 7th in the design challenge. For a 15th overall finish. Not sure about road course yet. There were roughly 65 cars competing.
All in all, car was fast. We were only older Mopar minus the LS powered Challenger. New front end felt great. We are now faster then our Viper brake package can handle.... So if anyone is interested in a complete front set up, let me know. Very fresh.
Posted By: Consulier
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/10/14 06:45 PM
Quote:
There were roughly 65 cars competing.
Is that 65 across all the classes, or the 3,000 lb and up that the Charger would be in?
I never did see an entry list to see a total car count for the weekend. Curious if it met their attendance goal.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/10/14 10:51 PM
Quote:
Quote:
There were roughly 65 cars competing.
Is that 65 across all the classes, or the 3,000 lb and up that the Charger would be in?
I never did see an entry list to see a total car count for the weekend. Curious if it met their attendance goal.
There were 3 or 4 AWD and 3 or 4 under 3k lb cars. That car count was a rough number as I saw them hand out a 060 car number. They except 100 total. I don't think they got to the goal.
We were just happy to get a good finish out of it.
They had a total of 882 runs between the autocross and stop challenge. The hot lap session on the the big track had attotal of around 1800 laps. Moneys worth.
Posted By: 72Swinger
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/14 04:38 AM
Jealous, running Laguna Seca would be a bucket list deal for me. Really need to get my car back together.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/14 04:55 AM
Quote:
Jealous, running Laguna Seca would be a bucket list deal for me. Really need to get my car back together.
It was definitely an adventure which included driving down from Seattle (trailer of course).
After that many runs you really have to have your car prepared. We did not have any issues except wrestling the toe moving on us a bit. That track is brutal on brakes and your bravery! We are going to run Portland and most likely retire the car. I would like to build something that I won't feel as bad beating up on!
Posted By: Mopar Mitch
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/14 04:57 PM
Posted By: ntstlgl1970
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/11/14 10:00 PM
there are more pictures of your car on the g-machines facebook page (just google ousci laguna seca)looks like it was a good time
Posted By: 72Swinger
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/14 05:18 AM
Posted By: Consulier
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/14 03:49 PM
I just watched this video of the event in the
LS Challenger...
WTF were they thinking with that chicane? Ok, a left right and done to slow you down, but that was ridiculous.
Posted By: Dan@Hotchkis
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/14 03:54 PM
Quote:
I just watched this video of the event in the LS Challenger...
WTF were they thinking with that chicane? Ok, a left right and done to slow you down, but that was ridiculous.
Was that for all groups? If that is what I have to look forward to at these events, I'll humbly decline to attend.
Posted By: Consulier
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/14 04:22 PM
Quote:
Was that for all groups? If that is what I have to look forward to at these events, I'll humbly decline to attend.
Had to be for any group that was being timed and that group was definitely scored/timed.
I thought the laps looked awfully slow compared to a typical Laguna lap. Now I see why... Not sure of the reasoning or why it was required.
If they do something this drastic in Texas, I will be rethinking my trip to Daytona and probably only run Road America and MIS. Not traveling very far to run that bs.
Posted By: 72Swinger
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/14 04:33 PM
Well since it was in Commifornia I think the chicane was to keep noise down. They were sound testing and one of the USCA guys decided a chicane was the answer.
Posted By: Viol8r
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/14 06:06 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I just watched this video of the event in the LS Challenger...
WTF were they thinking with that chicane? Ok, a left right and done to slow you down, but that was ridiculous.
Was that for all groups? If that is what I have to look forward to at these events, I'll humbly decline to attend.
Let's take it easy. It really was not that big of a deal. This was their first event so I am sure there are something's to look at. Easily the best run event I have ever been too. I believe this situation will only be at Laguna .
Posted By: Consulier
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/12/14 08:23 PM
Nice shot in the press release...
Charger
Posted By: Clair_Davis
Re: QA1 Suspension R & D - 03/25/14 03:29 AM
Quote:
I just watched this video of the event in the LS Challenger...
WTF were they thinking with that chicane? Ok, a left right and done to slow you down, but that was ridiculous.
Maybe they wanted it to look/feel like one of the Bondurant "autocross" events in Forza5... If so, I think they pulled it off...
Clair
