Frame or chassis options for A bodies
$1350 with out powder coat or $1450 with powder coat. That includes viking d/a shocks and springs, adjustable upper control arms, tubular lower control arms, adjustable strut rods, new upper ball joints, shock hoops to support factory shock towers and all the hardware needed.
I'm not here to argue or debate about which is better. I just seen everyone comparing the two but using the absolute highest price point product for the debate. You can switch to coil overs for a lot less than what was being stated with the RMS system. That is all.
You still haven't addressed everything in your cost though, everything has to be new in the front for the comparison to be accurate. Otherwise you can drop the cost of the torsion bar set up significantly.
You still need to include a steering box, so now your cost is $1,960 (w/o powdercoating). You haven't included new pitman and idler arms, tie rods, or tie rod sleeves. Now you're at $2,150. You haven't included a sway bar at all, you use the 67-72 version so with a Hellwig #5906 that's another $215, so now you're at $2,365. Oh, and lower ball joints. Now you're at
$2,445.
And there are still component differences, you can get cheaper tubular UCA's than what I quoted, cheaper ball joints, etc. I should also note here that the UCA's you've included in your kit will not support a 9" wide rim. I've been there, and done that. The "U" shaped UCA design limits your rim backspacing and width, just FYI. To clear 9" wide rims you need a "V" shaped UCA.
Well, as this thread clearly shows, that's up for debate and personal opinion. My preference is the coil over. I'm not here to get sucked into the debate that will never end.
Yes, uses stock steering and spindles.
Viking makes some awesome products and they are a great company to do business with.
Yeah, that was all i was trying to point out. It is possible to convert for similar prices.
So, you lose the single largest advantage to switching to coilovers IMO, which is the rack and pinion steering. Yes, getting rid of the torsion bars makes room for headers, but there are already headers out that fit torsion bar cars for most engine combinations. Spending $1,350 to run cheap headers seems counterproductive.
You use the stock shock mount (which was never designed to support the car) to support the car. Yes, I see that you have reinforced the shock towers. Regardless of this, you're still loading the chassis in a way it was never intended to be loaded. This is fundamentally different than reinforcing the shock towers on a torsion bar car, because of the size of the loads involved. On a torsion bar car the loads on the shock mounts are just from the shock, not the entire weight of the car and all of the suspension loads.
You have used the stock suspension geometry to run coilovers. This is not ideal for the coilovers. Other conversions use MII geometry, which was at least designed for the coilover type set up.
Is the rear of the LCA unsupported? If it is, that's a problem. The strut rods were designed to prevent fore/aft movement only, they do not control the rear of the LCA. Same for the pivot pin and mount, it was not designed to be unsupported on the back side. The torsion bar significantly restricts movement of the LCA in the vertical plane, and carries load as well.
This is why I used the RMS system as my comparison. Like the factory suspension set up, it was designed to be all inclusive, mounting the coilovers to it's own mounting points which allows the coilover size, angle, and compression lengths to be tailored to the suspension geometry. It also takes the load from the coilovers and places it back onto the K member. While it still changes the direction of the load compared to the torsion bars, it at least loads the K member instead of the shock mounts. The RMS is a track proven design, and while I have certainly suggested that it's probably not any faster than a torsion bar/leaf suspension, I definitely think it has some advantages that are worthwhile depending on the application and use of the car.
Simply converting to coilovers is not the point of the discussion here. The discussion concerns the handling capabilities of coilover conversions and the torsion bar/leaf spring set up. Sure, your system is cheaper and gets rid of the torsion bars. But there's no information on how it will perform when used in a handling application, or what it's longevity will be when used on the street. That information is out there for the RMS and torsion bar systems, and the HDK for that matter. Your system is different enough from all of those systems that you can't assume it will perform the same as any of them.
I'm not here to bash your conversion. Every conversion has its pros and cons, that is absolutely true. Even modifying the "stock" system with larger torsion bars has consequences that must be addressed. But it has been done and it's advantages and disadvantages have been demonstrated on the track. Same for the RMS, and I think the RMS system is more capable than the Hot Rod article suggests. But as far as it being better/faster, I still think that's a complete toss up. It's down to owner/driver preference.
The point has always been that you don't need a full chassis replacement to compete on the track. You don't even need a full coilover conversion. If you want one and can afford it, more power to you. But you don't need it.