DOES THE HDK SUSPENSION K-MEMBER HANDLE BETTER THAN A T-BAR SUSPENSION?
That is the number one reason Tim was picked for the HDK. I had been following Tim for years and gathered he is one of the last guys I would expect to leave anything "out of the box". His performance resume and his Duster including the evolution of it..... speak for themselves.
...
The point of my handing a HDK to Tim and this thread is simply to shed light on the never ending question....with data to back it. And it was important to me that the data came from someone as independent as possible and preferably one of us (FABO).
Completely agree. Absolutely he was the right choice. He certainly isn't going to leave things as "out of the box" and he is going to be honest about his assessments as well. I think you picked a winner and found someone that will help you make your product better.
And what did Tim change from out of the box HDK other than alignment specs? ....I made him a different sway bar (same material / size) bent for tire clearance and he added an additional 1" to the upper ball joint stud. The long list of changes appear to be what he did to his OEM suspension BEFORE the HDK install.
Big thing was calculating the roll center and adding an even longer ball joint. You shipped it with the 1" longer than stock ball joints, that's "out of the box". Out of the box with the known and "traditional" parts for your kit put the roll center underground and had a less than favorable camber gain.
No one that I know of has spent the time to find and validate a 2" longer ball joint which had a significant improvement on at least the roll center if not the camber gain. I don't see how you can call that out of the box, best I can tell it wasn't even on your radar to suggest it.
I'm not suggesting it is in the same league as having to cut and reweld stuff, but it's not out of the box either. If it is, then aftermarket control arms, strut rods and stiffer torsion bars are "out of the box" as well.
And lastly, could you provide me with any evidence of your claims????....otherwise (to quote you) the claim is made up.......
How about staring with these two dandy's....."I will add though, that if Joe hadn’t put the time and effort to further refine your kit I don’t think he would have made an improvement to the handling of his car. I am sure it would have worked fine, it certainly will make the G3 swap easier. But at its initial baseline install I am of the opinion that handling was probably worse.
Let me start by saying I am reading between the lines and forming an opinion. So not a hill I am going to die on but let me give some idea of why I feel that way.
To further clarify the above comment, I think if Joe had put your suspension in with non-adjustable shocks and the 400# springs, I think he would have found it was less than what he had before because the roll center would cause him issues. The rest of the suspension would have been close to an apples to apples (about the same wheel rate and style shock) but the roll center being under ground would be a fair negative.
https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopa...0-duster-build.297088/page-22#post-1974476360
In this post Joe was about even with the Cobra he couldn't beat before. That's after upping his wheel rate with the 450# springs and adding adjustable shocks but before fixing the roll center. Hard to say but I lean in the direction that the stiffer springs and adjustable shocks were the source of the increase and had little to do with the new suspension. And the degradation of the suspension geometry cost him some of that increase (see below).
And I think that his current setup probably isn’t significantly better than his old one with a set of 1.12 TB’s and a set of adjustable shocks. But just my gut feel."
https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopa...0-duster-build.297088/page-26#post-1974569128
And then in this post, he beat the guy in the Cobra (same guy? not certain) after fixing the geometry issue. I think the only real improvement was the geometry and more seat time.
So now he has a suspension with double adjustable shocks and stiffener springs along with a roll center that is at least close to the TB suspension. Unfortunately, that isn't an apples to apples comparison and makes it harder to say which made the most difference. So now we have to make guesses and my guess is that the springs and shocks make a good difference and the same change to the TB suspension would have resulted to at least the same if not a little more improvement. Maybe a little better only because I don't think the modified roll center is yet as good as the TB setup was.
The other thing I noticed is the attitude the car has in the corners from this years Moparty. I tried to go back and compare them to pictures with the TB suspension and couldn't find anything definitive as it was hard to find pictures in the same place in a corner and such. But it sure looks to me that the car has a good more roll in the corner with the COC verses the TB suspension. Note that this is before the geometry fix from the taller UBJ.
Did you see the list of things he did to his OEM suspension BEFORE the HDK install?????....lets refresh from page 1 of this thread
My t-bar setup consisted of the following parts.
- Sway a way 1.08 bars
- Hotchkis front and rear sway bar, non-adjustable shocks, and leaf springs
- SPC gen 1 upper control arms
- FMJ Spindles
- Aluminum tie rod sleeves
- QA1 adjustable strut rods
- Fully welded biscuit type K-member and LCAs
- Borgeson steering box
- 14” front discs and 12” rear discs
- Falken Azenis 200TW 235/40-18 front tires, 275/35-18 rear tires
- Alignment- 6.25 degrees caster, 1.5 degrees camber
Confused, I've never said the TB suspension didn't need mods. Straw man?
BTW, I hope you do not confuse claiming better handling claims in the context of adding a sway bar as false.
Nope.
