Loosing the torsion bars and replacing the shocks with coil overs?

Good stuff. Thank you guys for the opinions. One thing that I did not consider is power rack and pinion steering. I will have a look at that this weekend and give you guys my opinion on doing that. That would be cool.
It is not an ego thing, I just like to do things a little different. If this was a high dollar car, I would not consider doing anything to it other than stock. But, it is not, so why not make it a little different. I am no stranger to doing these type of conversions. Pictured is my 67 Barracuda that I did a chrome moly coil over front end on and installed a power Pinto rack and pinion set up. I used the power steering pump that came on the 5.7 Hemi and just made up the hoses to suit. It works great and I did this in 2003. I will get back here once I have a look at putting a rack and pinion on the Fury.
Thanks Guys.
67 Cuda power steering & coilovers (1).JPG
67 Cuda power steering & coilovers (2).JPG
67 Cuda power steering & coilovers (3).JPG
67 Cuda power steering & coilovers (3).JPG
 
Okay, I did not sleep a wink last night thinking about the power rack and pinion on the Fury. So, first thing this morning I went down to the shop and removed the drag link and power steering gear box off the Fury. I have an old manual rack and pinion that I had used on the Cuda in years past before going to the power unit. So, I dug it out and mocked it up. I think this is a winner idea. The power unit is a tad bigger than the manual unit, but is much easier to fab mounts for. You can keep the torsion bars for those who want to, but getting rid of that huge steering box has to be a win - win.
Your thoughts please.

Rack & Pinion Mock up (1).JPG


Rack & Pinion Mock up (2).JPG


Rack & Pinion Mock up (3).JPG


Rack & Pinion Mock up (4).JPG
 
There's a company called QA-1 that make a pre-fabricated front suspension for A, B & E-bodies that are tubular and use coil overs. Maybe give them a call?
I think I might have discovered the reason for the pre-fab front suspension for the A,B,E-body cars, which includes coil-overs on the front. NOTHING about the common issues of "torsion bars getting the way of headers" or anything like that.

The smaller platforms for which the front structure is designed for gets rid of the torsion bars, NOT because they are different or because Ford or others use coil springs instead, but so the super-tourers can have more accurate steering. It seems that in order to reduce/eliminate "bump steer", the steering linkage needs to be higher in the chassis than torsion bars will allow. Any oil pan issues can be easily addressed with alterations to the oil pan, even a welded-in tube, if needed.

I happened across a YouTuibe video where a guy was seeking to modify his '68-'69 Charger front end to reduce bump steer. He talked about how horrible it was on the B-body torsion bar front end (which is very similar to the C-body set-up). He then did an illustration of what it would take to get rid of or diminish it on a Chrysler front suspension.

When a front wheel rolls over a bump, the tire rolls up and over it, but at the same time, the toe-in can change a bit when this happens due to the change of location of the front wheel. As in a slight bit of toe-in or toe-out, from specs sitting still. Which can also affect the direction the car might desire to travel in. Hence, a slight change of direction. The YT person than goes on to bad-mouth the "bad design" Chrysler torsion bar front end, at least for the purposes he desires to use his Charger for.

In the super-touring cars I've seen in magazines and in person at car shows, they typically sit lower, with very wide tires, and larger rim diameters to use the latest tires on. AND, they all have a different front crossmember with coil over shocks. Probably even rack-and-pinion steering, too.

He also talks about "rear steer" (steering linkage behind the front wheels, with "front steer" being like Gen II Camaros/Firebirds which have everything in front of the front wheels) being "bad". THAT part I would disagree with due to the accuracy of the Ackerman angles between the two different systems. Which a friend in the alignment business, 2nd generation, who was also a great dirt track driver, related in a discussion of the differences of the two designs.

In the later 1960s, when we'd take the Chrysler to the dealer, the floor in the shop was sealed, but not slick. When the cars turned into the stalls, little tire squeal was heard. By contrast, at the local Chevy dealer, in a similar situation, the tires squalled much more. I figured it was due to the GM's tendency toward understeer, which Chrysler did much less of. That was then, before I knew what was going on. When the main vehicles which were rear steer were Chrysler Products and Corvettes. An interesting combination

As Randy explained it, which made sense, on a rear steer system (which includes the bulk of rack-and-pinion systems, too), the Ackerman Angles were more perfect. Hence, better handling and steering precision AND slippage. On a front steer car, the Ackerman Angles are not quite so good, so each front wheel slips a bit in a turn.

AT the time, the 1979 WS-6/7 Firebird TransAms were right behind the Corvettes as the acknowledged best handling cars made in the USA. Yet they were front steer! This was explained in an article on such in an issue of CAR AND DRIVER, about how a front steer car could have such good transient handeling but possibly not the highest skidpad G readings. With the more mis-matched Ackerman Angles, ANYTIME the tires turned to make a change of direction, they were in "slip mode", which means that each tire was quickly developing "grip" due to the fact they were already in "slip mode". By contract the rear steer car's front tires went from "no-slip" to "making the corner", when the front steer car's tires were already in that mode. So, more responsive handling.

Personally, I feel a rear steer car will always be the most-neutral handling car (which is validated by the 1970s Corvettes), even with more weight on the front end. Tire wear can be better, too.

I'm sure there is a "window" of how much the front wheel can move up/down before toe-in changes enough to affect directional stability. Just that that was NOT mentioned in the video! More research needed on that point. Still, bump or extension of the suspension sends the wheel in different directions. Just as when doing a front end alignment, the LAST thing to finalize is the toe-in, for this reason.

In a super-touring vehicle, which might be capable of running 160+mph, with its stiff suspension calibrations to tolerate such, having toe-in change on a small bump is not very desirable. Hence the concern with bump steer. Which then generated the front frame structures needed to get rid of it as much as possible for safe and easy "super-touring".

Now, our '66 Newport Town Sedan w/factory a/c (this is important as the factory a/c cars got the same torsion bars as the HD suspension cars did, but not the law enforcement cars, as I recall), with normal shocks (later upgraded to Chrysler parts HD Monroe Supper 500 equivalents) had a normal "feels good" cruising speed range of 75-95mph. It liked that on any smooth highway that it was on, that was reasonably straight, for hours on end. Slower, it was bored. Faster, not quite as enjoyable, more throttle to increase speed a few mph and the shocks were getting out of their "good" range. But otherwise, it was happy. Front end alignment was set to factory specs and tires were inflated to 30frt/28rr and "normal load". By comparison, my '70 Monaco Brougham 383 "N" car felt a bit softer, as did our '72 Newport Royal 400 2bbl. All were at factory ride height, too. Still, NO direction stability issues, even on bumpy roads, that better shocks would not have fixed.

As I said, I always questioned the alleged "need" for a different front suspension, torsion bar-less on the A,B,E-body super-touring cars. I felt it was because "Chryslers were different" more than anything else, which might also still be operative. The "headers" issue did not make sense, for the same reason, to me. BUT the issue of "bump steer" CAN make sense, in those vehicle uses.

NOW to discover at what wheel movement change levels bump steer can become an issue with the stock suspension.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Okay, I did not sleep a wink last night thinking about the power rack and pinion on the Fury. So, first thing this morning I went down to the shop and removed the drag link and power steering gear box off the Fury. I have an old manual rack and pinion that I had used on the Cuda in years past before going to the power unit. So, I dug it out and mocked it up. I think this is a winner idea. The power unit is a tad bigger than the manual unit, but is much easier to fab mounts for. You can keep the torsion bars for those who want to, but getting rid of that huge steering box has to be a win - win.
Your thoughts please.

View attachment 666259

View attachment 666260

View attachment 666261

View attachment 666262
This can be a good upgrade! If it is a non-power unit, you might also consider an under-dash addition of electric power steering, IF there is enough space for such under there. Might not affect bump steer that much, BUT the stiffer components have to account for greater steering accuracy, I suspect. Not sure if the charging system might need some upgrades for that?

CBODY67
 
Another reason people often what to get rid of not just the torsion bars but all the front suspension is lowering.
When lowering factory suspension you often introduce more bump steer.


Alan
 
Another reason people often what to get rid of not just the torsion bars but all the front suspension is lowering.
When lowering factory suspension you often introduce more bump steer.


Alan
Yes, that can be an issue there, too. Only thing is that I dealt with about 5" of ground clearance between the mufflers on my '77 Camaro, them dragging on almost any entry ramp to a parking lot or business, so I suspect a lowered C-body with all of the front and (especially) rear overhangs would be much worse of a "lifestyle" situation. A lowered car might look neat when parked, but a whole 'nuther set of dynamics happen when you drive it. My '70 Monaco would barely scrape the rear pipes on some normal approaches, when I got it. When I put the air shocks on the back to level it up (at 60psi), that helped a lot.

Ever notice (in the 1980s) that when "ground effects" were popular, the 3-Series BMWs' rocker panel pieces had a high spot in the middle of them, for clearance? That was for just-clearning parking lot entries and such. If you watch modern fwd cars, their front bumper air dams, center of the rocker panels, and such just barely clear many such approach "high spots".

Having seen and experienced these things, NO way I'll ever have a car that low. I got the exhaust on the Camaro raised to stock clearances.

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
Gonna be really extreme shaft angles to get from the steering column to a rear-steer rack.
Going to eat up that header clearance you're after.
That will likely be an issue with any rear-steer R&P setup?
And - steering 'gearboxes' have a designed weight capacity, and that data likely won't be readily findable.
Best to find an R&P from a front-heavy car.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the feedback. I am just brainstorming on this car at the moment and wanted to reach out to all of for your opinion. The weight of the car and the rack and pinion chosen is a good point and well taken. I am going to pitch out a few more of my ideas for this car to you guys for your thoughts. Here is the first one. Now that we have discussed the front steering, suspension ideas, what about the rear suspension? The car came with an 8 3/4 rear with 323 gears. Not positive traction. I have a center that is if I choose to use this rear end. But, what about grafting a late model Challenger independent rear suspension to this car. I just happen to have one from a 2016 Challenger. Rough measurements are very close and workable for sure. Your thoughts please?
 
Should have just bought the GM product to start with. Took a excellent design load spread and low center of gravity, and less unsprung weight. Put the spring load far out on the rails all the spring weight is unsprung and high up.
For what some header clearance? Better selection of shocks for front end? I would surely not toss a well engineered front suspension for those reasons.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know the status of this project?
I'd put my money that it is in the same condition as shown.
Seller describes it as almost finished except for the details - and the details very often kill you.
With all the grafting in that car, I wonder how well it will receive an initial 4-wheel alignment.
The front inner fender aprons appear to be welded to the fenders, whereas in the original car they would be part of a unibody structure that fenders bolt onto.
There's nothing I can see to keep them from flexing toward each other (except maybe the radiator support?).
I wonder how well this car will hold its alignment specs as it travels down a rough road.
Heaven help you if that configuration happens to now have a low-frequency resonance, those are very destructive.

@Mr. Nitro
If you can find a rear-steer R&P that mounts with a minimum of fab work (meaning only some mtg brackets and no oilpan mods) I will proclaim you a Hero of FCBO.
 
Last edited:
I'd put my money that it is in the same condition as shown.
Seller describes it as almost finished except for the details - and the details very often kill you.
With all the grafting in that car, I wonder how well it will receive an initial 4-wheel alignment.
The front inner fender aprons appear to be welded to the fenders, whereas in the original car they would be part of a unibody structure that fenders bolt onto.
There's nothing I can see to keep them from flexing toward each other (except maybe the radiator support?).
I wonder how well this car will hold its alignment specs as it travels down a rough road.
Heaven help you if that configuration happens to now have a low-frequency resonance, those are very destructive.

@Mr. Nitro
If you can find a rear-steer R&P that mounts with a minimum of fab work (meaning only some mtg brackets and no oilpan mods) I will proclaim you a Hero of FCBO.
Thanks for the info. I was just wondering if that car had been finished and how the rear end worked out. I have no interest in purchasing that car, LOL. My plate is full. I am going to look into that myself as I have both, A Fury and a Challenger rear end. As far as the R&P goes, I have some pretty good resources being here in NASCAR country, so I will see what I can turn up. But, I definitely think that it is doable with minimal fab work.
 
I am going to pursue the rack and pinion idea. Now I have another question for you guys concerning the Fury. All of the trim is on the car, but some of it is pitted especially the pot metal parts like the trim around the tail lights and places like that. In leu of re-chroming, has anyone tried to chrome powder coat these parts? I would think that could be done and clear added over it and that would make a decent looking part for way less money and time. Your thoughts please.
 
Back
Top