67 FURY RACK & PINION STEERING

[cantflip]

I totally agree 101%.
Yes, why bother.
Rebuilding the front end would be far superior .
Too many people read Hot Rod Magazine.
Way too many. Like in 90% of them.

That T-bar front suspension had a lot to do with my initial love of the brand. It isn't modern and it may not be comparable to a new car(like anything else about our car's performance is), but it was a big part of the ride and handling combination these cars had when compared to their peers back when new.

The cool factor is having one of these cars that is, for all intents and purposes, as it would have been in it's era. I don't mind minor upgrades (wheels, brakes, etc), but at some point you should really just go test drive a newer car and go with that, if that is what you're shooting for. The old ones are never going to fully compare.

The racer crowd is used to spending money they can't get back... that's what racing is for... bank account size reduction program. Not that it isn't fun or that I don't spend on silliness myself.

Removing the torsion bars is not on my to do list, trying to get better, less expensive steering is. My steering box is shot, and the rest of the steering needs replaced anyway. Getting a rack that will fit and do the job shouldn't be a problem, keeping it from interfering with everything else may be. And if you want power steering you can do an electric setup.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade too hard... and I don't mean to be disrespectful if your ideas differ from mine. I do believe that you can repair what you have for better effect and less work if you're just looking for a cruiser. Heavily modified builds... go nuts... but don't expect to enjoy long trips in it and drift and drag race and turn corners...

 

[1978 NYB]

I would rebuild the T-Bar suspension.

 

[68-300]

Well if you don't mind spending some money

For only $7,445.00

Mopar C-Body Transformer Tubular Frame and Suspension

 

[jct]

it's cheaper to K.I.S.S.

 

[Slantsix]

Just wondering, if that is safer on collision/crash etc because it has dragster style triangle reinforced frames. Tho its still bolted to body...

 

[ItAintJustPaint]

I don't want a "newer" car, I already have a few of those, I did say getting rid of the t-bars wasn't on my to do list. And yes I realize any change to what came from mother Mopar is going to tick someone off, my bad!
I do like how the magnum stub looks, but am good with what I have. As far as it being safer I would think having things crumple up is a better way of dissipating energy.
No I don't want to drift, drag, rally, or dirt race my Polara, just looking to get her back on the road safely and as inexpensive as possible and it needs a lot of work.

And Stan I am having a hard time keeeping up with your avatar, I think the latest is POTUS' saying "oh $hit!"

 

[Big_John]

No I don't want to drift, drag, rally, or dirt race my Polara, just looking to get her back on the road safely and as inexpensive as possible and it needs a lot of work.

IMHO, if that is what you want to do, then your best bet would be to use a rebuilt steering box. Then you aren't going to have to engineer all the mounting and geometry and just get back to getting the car done so you can enjoy it.

If there was a reasonably priced, bolt in solution that worked, I'd say you could go with that, but there really doesn't appear to be.

Believe me, I'm not trying to be negative. I'm just questioning if this makes sense given your goals.

 

[Slantsix]

I would say there is few basic levels.
Stock. Replace all with OEM stuff.
Stock ++ replace bushing with urethane, better shocks or even adjustable shocks, bigger t-bars and bigger sway bars with Firm Feel box or Borgesons steering box, tubular upper arms and reinforced lowers. Maybe some better friction brake pads.
Modified. Custom front stub, custom aluminium spindels etc, big 4-8 piston brakes, 17-18" wheels, 4 link at back, cool air ducting to brakes etc....

 

[commando1]

Well if you don't mind spending some money

For only $7,445.00

Mopar C-Body Transformer Tubular Frame and Suspension

There ya go.
Would I do it? Nope.
Wretched excess to me but if you have more money than. . .
Go for it

 

[cantflip]

Well if you don't mind spending some money

For only $7,445.00

Mopar C-Body Transformer Tubular Frame and Suspension

Whoa... that's a couple of new old cars in my world...

 

[mr. fix it]

Any further progress on this idea?

 

[ItAintJustPaint]

After multiple measurements, it is do-able, but it would take cutting the front of the crossmember and inverting the front lower edge of that, and rebuilding a steering shaft. On the positives it would give you a ton of room for headers.

I opted for a scare bird disc setup, and rebuild the rest of the front suspension. I have the parts sitting next to the stub which is on a set of sawhorses, waiting for some time to get it all together.

 

[Mr Grumpy]

I'm interested in the idea to get rid of that monstrously big power steering box.
(Honestly I've driven big trucks with smaller steering boxes.)
My aim is to provide room for headers on the drivers side.
I've seen mention that inversing the spindles will change the geometry due to an offset on the top swivel, does anyone know how much this offset is?

 

[savoy64]

i dont think the spindle changes geometry------on an A body the factory switched the spindles side to side resulting in some models/yrs with a caliper in front of axle and others with the caliper behind the axle----the geometry is in the position of upper ball joint--thats why they sell off set ball joints and after market upper control arms--------i cant imagine chrysler putting geometry in any spindle....a taller spindle in an F M J car actually gave better numbers than stock (b body) on a chassis machine.....

 

[Mr Grumpy]

Well I have to confess to being a little surprised when I read it, as I'd not come across offset spindles except for camber, which would make no difference.

 

[Big_John]

i dont think the spindle changes geometry------on an A body the factory switched the spindles side to side resulting in some models/yrs with a caliper in front of axle and others with the caliper behind the axle----the geometry is in the position of upper ball joint--thats why they sell off set ball joints and after market upper control arms--------i cant imagine chrysler putting geometry in any spindle....a taller spindle in an F M J car actually gave better numbers than stock (b body) on a chassis machine.....

That may be true, but in a C body, there's no need to swap spindles. Just swap the lower ball joints side to side to get the tie rod in front.

 

[savoy64]

true--but by so doing you have to cut and reweld the tie rod ends (on spindle)------they are too far forward and too narrow across the front----look at the suspension on a 72 d100 truck (front steer)--that is the tie rod end you need---the end of it is very close to the edge of the rim-----or you can look at a dakota pu---front steer tie rod ends almost touch the edge of the rim--------the ackerman angle is a long V centered on the rear diff extended to the front corners of the car--where it crosses the steering arms is where the tie rod end must be---

 

[savoy64]

if you arent too afraid to throw your 73 D100 or your magnum 2wd dakota pickup through some corners and dips---then i think the old C barge will survive just fine--------also there are no perfect suspension system------it is physically impossible------automotive engineers design based of averages of driver responses-----steering is made lazy for those that stab the brakes instead of steering around an obstacle------you guys gotta relax......

 

[Mr Grumpy]

The Ackerman angle is centred on the pivots (that's swivels, ball joints, kingpins, etc) for the front wheels and the centre of the rear axle with the wheels in a straight ahead position. The tie rod ends need to be more or less on the legs of the triangle to avoid excessive tyre scrub. However simple geometry dictates that the same effect is achieved whether the track rod or rack is before or behind the axle. Self steering trailers, like the ones on the little tourist trains, use this principle by having both and linked to each other so that they track the curve of the turn and don't cut the corner.
Reversing the arms or spindles shouldn't affect the Ackerman angle.
What I'm trying to find out (apparently unsuccessfully) is if anyone here has done it or tried to do it, what parts did they use, how and where did they mount the rack, how did they extend the column, what other problems did they run into etc.
I've heard of it being done on a B Body, but yet to see any pictures.

 

[mr. fix it]

The Ackerman angle is centred on the pivots (that's swivels, ball joints, kingpins, etc) for the front wheels and the centre of the rear axle with the wheels in a straight ahead position. The tie rod ends need to be more or less on the legs of the triangle to avoid excessive tyre scrub. However simple geometry dictates that the same effect is achieved whether the track rod or rack is before or behind the axle. Self steering trailers, like the ones on the little tourist trains, use this principle by having both and linked to each other so that they track the curve of the turn and don't cut the corner.
Reversing the arms or spindles shouldn't affect the Ackerman angle.
What I'm trying to find out (apparently unsuccessfully) is if anyone here has done it or tried to do it, what parts did they use, how and where did they mount the rack, how did they extend the column, what other problems did they run into etc.
I've heard of it being done on a B Body, but yet to see any pictures.

I haven't done this yet but very interested in the results.

IMHO. extension of the column will be achieved by custom machine work or going to a hot rodders site to gather parts fro trial & error mock up