12:05 Garage- ’70 Duster build

-
72bluNblu said:
Denny, I'm not "bitching". You made some comments about bump steer on these cars with factory suspension that are in fact not accurate. I know that for a fact because I've literally done the EXACT things you said would cause bump steer. And they don't. And frankly that shouldn't be that surprising because a well engineered suspension system should not be so susceptible to bump steer that changing the static alignment will result in a dramatic change.

Now, if you want to call that "bitching" and compare me to your wife, well, that says more about you than me.



I kinda don't think that was all he was doing. But maybe I'm wrong.

It's fine. I'll stop screwing up Tim's thread, I'm truly interested in his modifications and suspension geometry numbers because no one else that's done a coil over conversion has ever posted them.
Click to expand...
According to the Mopar Performance chassis guide (there is a whole chapter on it) a well engineered system would include likely altering the steering arm / outer tie rod location.

And I am aware there are three arcs to contend with, LCA, UCA and tie rod, and when any one (or more) or those arcs are altered it affects bump steer....FACT. Some more...some less.
I don't know, maybe your suspension doesn't move enough to matter or your changes are in too small of increments to bother with checking, but if you don't think altering the steering curve by a 3 to 6 degree caster change happens, then you are not as informed as I thought you were.

...and OK, maybe that was a little low comparing your nagging with my wifes', If we would have been face to face, I would ask you what size skirt you wear. That's the way we handled it in my garage anyways and in extreme cases, followed by a bottle rocket (no tail) under the bathroom door. :) BTW....I have dodged my share of bottle rockets.
 
Last edited:
72bluNblu
For someone who hardly ever comments and just lurks....um yes you do ***** and you won't quit bitching now...you know there is what's called PM use it.
 
Ozyduster said:
Good to see forums have not changed since i last active on them ten years ago
Click to expand...

Reminds me of our bench racing in the 70s. Hanging around our favorite gas station or uptown parking spot.... BSing, talking about our hot rods latest changes, bragging, complaining and telling each other (with a grin) they are full of it. You know....character building.

Ain't all bad. Can't all be sunshine and lollypops. :)
 
HDK Suspension update. Yesterday was my first autocross since adding the 2" taller than stock upper ball joint. I knew the course would be a good one to test my changes since it had a 5 cone slalom followed by a faster entry 3 cone slalom. Course layout below.

It was 34 degrees when I left my house so I knew going into the day I'd have to take my first run easy so I could get some heat in the tires and brakes. I had a couple friends meet me there, one was my passenger on my first run and when I came back in, the other said people were making comments about how fast my time was. Up until this point I wasn't even paying attention to peoples times because I was working the course and couldn't see the clock. My second run was slightly better and when I returned to grid a couple people came over to comment on how much better the car looked on course. This trend continued as the day went on. I guess if it was catching the eye of people, it had to be good, right?
As previously mentioned in this thread, there's a veteran driver with a 99 mustang in CAMT, 315s square, and rear IRS. I had never beat him and he knew it. Going into our last run of the day, I only had .056 seconds on him. I knew I had to not screw up! Finally on my last run I made a huge improvement moving my lead to .368 seconds. I watch his last run, which looked good, but not good enough. I finally won the CAMT class when a legit driver was present. I'm setting my sights on closing the gap on the guy with the C10 race truck next. Although he doesn't come out as much.

The car is much flatter, I'm not having to brace myself as much in the car and overall feels very predictable. I'm extremely pleased with it right now. Tire wear seems better. I need to get or borrow a tire pyrometer to check it again, but based on the way it looks, it has to be even.

I'm extremely happy with the car right now. I'm going to leave the setup as is and get some more miles and laps on it.

Side note, I just turned over 1000 miles on the HDK and approximately 50 autocross runs. No signs of problems and everything working as it did the day I installed it.

1705330808650.png
 
racerjoe said:
HDK Suspension update. Yesterday was my first autocross since adding the 2" taller than stock upper ball joint. I knew the course would be a good one to test my changes since it had a 5 cone slalom followed by a faster entry 3 cone slalom. Course layout below.

It was 34 degrees when I left my house so I knew going into the day I'd have to take my first run easy so I could get some heat in the tires and brakes. I had a couple friends meet me there, one was my passenger on my first run and when I came back in, the other said people were making comments about how fast my time was. Up until this point I wasn't even paying attention to peoples times because I was working the course and couldn't see the clock. My second run was slightly better and when I returned to grid a couple people came over to comment on how much better the car looked on course. This trend continued as the day went on. I guess if it was catching the eye of people, it had to be good, right?
As previously mentioned in this thread, there's a veteran driver with a 99 mustang in CAMT, 315s square, and rear IRS. I had never beat him and he knew it. Going into our last run of the day, I only had .056 seconds on him. I knew I had to not screw up! Finally on my last run I made a huge improvement moving my lead to .368 seconds. I watch his last run, which looked good, but not good enough. I finally won the CAMT class when a legit driver was present. I'm setting my sights on closing the gap on the guy with the C10 race truck next. Although he doesn't come out as much.

The car is much flatter, I'm not having to brace myself as much in the car and overall feels very predictable. I'm extremely pleased with it right now. Tire wear seems better. I need to get or borrow a tire pyrometer to check it again, but based on the way it looks, it has to be even.

I'm extremely happy with the car right now. I'm going to leave the setup as is and get some more miles and laps on it.

Side note, I just turned over 1000 miles on the HDK and approximately 50 autocross runs. No signs of problems and everything working as it did the day I installed it.

View attachment 1716192549
Click to expand...

Very cool. Glad to see you steadily improve the car.
 
racerjoe said:
This is the latest on the G3 Hemi. The engine harness is progressing. I need to go over everything, but I know I need to add at least two more wires to this. I have all the fabric loom for the harness and also got some insulated loom for the wires in the valley. Spaghetti anyone?

I'll share some photos of the throttle body adapter I made next. I have a few more things to wrap up on it before its ready for pics.

View attachment 1716190022
Click to expand...

What’s your method for splicing wires and such?
 
Congratulations, you are certainly exceeding my improvement / feedback curve.
 
DionR said:
What’s your method for splicing wires and such?
Click to expand...
Only a few need to be branched. 5VDC sensor power and sensor return (isolated from engine ground-go all the way back to ECU)(cam, crank, map, tps, oil psi, fuel psi). I also setup the injectors to have separate 12VDC Power per bank. To splice I strip and twist 4 wires into one side of an uninsulated but splice and crimp (same thing on other side of butt splice) then I solder. I insulated with heavy duty heat shrink with the heat activated glue inside to protect it from moisture ingress.
There are no splices anywhere else. I procured new connectors and pins for all sensors. Except the connectors that came from the factory harness, which were all “home runs” anyway.
All grounds are run to one point on the engine and I have the heads tied together with a ground strap. I’ll also add one from the block to the head.
EFI can be finicky with RFI. I always say if you think you have enough grounds, add more.
 
racerjoe said:
Only a few need to be branched. 5VDC sensor power and sensor return (isolated from engine ground-go all the way back to ECU)(cam, crank, map, tps, oil psi, fuel psi). I also setup the injectors to have separate 12VDC Power per bank. To splice I strip and twist 4 wires into one side of an uninsulated but splice and crimp (same thing on other side of butt splice) then I solder. I insulated with heavy duty heat shrink with the heat activated glue inside to protect it from moisture ingress.
There are no splices anywhere else. I procured new connectors and pins for all sensors. Except the connectors that came from the factory harness, which were all “home runs” anyway.
All grounds are run to one point on the engine and I have the heads tied together with a ground strap. I’ll also add one from the block to the head.
EFI can be finicky with RFI. I always say if you think you have enough grounds, add more.
Click to expand...

Thanks. What kind of crimp?

I’m not much for solder, partly because I’ve heard it hardens the wire. But always looking for new and better ways.
 
DionR said:
Thanks. What kind of crimp?

I’m not much for solder, partly because I’ve heard it hardens the wire. But always looking for new and better ways.
Click to expand...
Standard non-insulated connector crimper. Nothing special.
I worked for Cummins years ago and their engine harness branches were done in the same manner. In fact, the factory 5.7 harness had a few in it as well.
I’ve seen plenty of people bash soldering of harnesses over the years. I chalk it up to them not knowing how to solder properly. Solder can most certainly wick up the conductor under the jacket, but you would have to be heating the **** out of the wire. I put heat on the buttsplice and the solder draws into the voids. Kinda like soldering copper pipe. The heat shrink supports the wire where it exits the buttsplice so there isn’t a hard spot for the wires to bend and break.
I’ve done this method for splicing and branching wires on cars since I played with car audio systems in high school 30 years ago. I’ve never had a solder joint fail. You know what I have seen fail, butt splices. Although those are usually from people not using the correct tool to crimp.
Being an electrical engineer and having worked in the marine market, I’ve seen my fair share of wiring failures in both AC and DC systems. I’m particularly anal when it comes to wiring.
 
racerjoe said:
Standard non-insulated connector crimper. Nothing special.
I worked for Cummins years ago and their engine harness branches were done in the same manner. In fact, the factory 5.7 harness had a few in it as well.
I’ve seen plenty of people bash soldering of harnesses over the years. I chalk it up to them not knowing how to solder properly. Solder can most certainly wick up the conductor under the jacket, but you would have to be heating the **** out of the wire. I put heat on the buttsplice and the solder draws into the voids. Kinda like soldering copper pipe. The heat shrink supports the wire where it exits the buttsplice so there isn’t a hard spot for the wires to bend and break.
I’ve done this method for splicing and branching wires on cars since I played with car audio systems in high school 30 years ago. I’ve never had a solder joint fail. You know what I have seen fail, butt splices. Although those are usually from people not using the correct tool to crimp.
Being an electrical engineer and having worked in the marine market, I’ve seen my fair share of wiring failures in both AC and DC systems. I’m particularly anal when it comes to wiring.
Click to expand...

I’m a huge fan of open barrel crimps. Doesn’t work for everything but seemed to be good enough for the factory for most situations.

I know the factory has specs for splining a wire into a harness (like adding a backup camera to a 200) and it includes an open barrel splice and solder. So maybe I need to be less hesitant about soldering.
 
I see you did away way with the wiper motor in the engine bay. I want to do the same with my 70 Dart. What kit did you use for the under the dash wipers?
 
jdsdart said:
I see you did away way with the wiper motor in the engine bay. I want to do the same with my 70 Dart. What kit did you use for the under the dash wipers?
Click to expand...
No kit. I used a motor from a 90s era Dodge Dakota and made a bracket to hold it on this inside. It was surprisingly easy to make the linkage adapt. I'm even using a stock wiper switch, which took some figuring out.
 
racerjoe said:
No kit. I used a motor from a 90s era Dodge Dakota and made a bracket to hold it on this inside. It was surprisingly easy to make the linkage adapt. I'm even using a stock wiper switch, which took some figuring out.
Click to expand...
thanks
 
340sFastback said:
I used these recently they are easy just need a heat gun. I also slid a black heat shrink sleeve over top for double seal and better look:

SolderStick Waterproof Solder Wire Connector Kit
Click to expand...
I’ve seen those before but have always been skeptical of how well the solder actually penetrates the conductor. Sure a heat gun will make the solder melt because it’s low temperature, but that doesn’t change the amount of time it takes to heat copper. It does look like a neat product if it really works. It just isn’t for me.
 
racerjoe said:
I’ve seen those before but have always been skeptical of how well the solder actually penetrates the conductor. Sure a heat gun will make the solder melt because it’s low temperature, but that doesn’t change the amount of time it takes to heat copper. It does look like a neat product if it really works. It just isn’t for me.
Click to expand...
Yeah I dont think it penetrates more like squeezes. But sealed squeezed its not gonna fail and current is gonna flow without resistance and its sealed. But you gotta go with what you like and what works for you.
 
just watched the video and they (solderstick) look like what i've used here in the uk. i crimp them first then use the heat gun to both melt the solder and heat shrink the sleeve.
neil.
while replying can i ask why in general people in the usa say 'sodder' not 'solder'? no offence meant, i was just curious.
 
mygasser said:
just watched the video and they (solderstick) look like what i've used here in the uk. i crimp them first then use the heat gun to both melt the solder and heat shrink the sleeve.
neil.
while replying can i ask why in general people in the usa say 'sodder' not 'solder'? no offence meant, i was just curious.
Click to expand...
Pronunciation of many words vary based on geographic location in the US. Being from the south, I’m sure many would think I talk funny. We all do a pretty good job of screwing up the Queens English…. LOL
 
I think I upset the applecart enough on my post in the suspension section regarding my geometry improvements to my HDK setup, so lets move to something less conflicting, leaf springs.
Hotchkis advertised their leaf springs as "geometry correcting". The leaf is bent in a manner that it lands in approximately the center of the front spring eye. I think their front hanger hole is in a different location from stock also. Someone will have to educate me on this because I've never run a stock hanger and its been decades since I've even seen one. Mounting location and the arch of the spring is what lowers the car enough that some don't like them. I started reading about rear roll center on leaf spring cars and found this:
LEAF_5-1.gif

This made me start thinking about my change to sliders. While I don't think the roll center height will change in relation to the ground because the arc of the spring and the wheel are the same, what changes is the distance from the roll center to the center of gravity. So this got me thinking that perhaps my change to sliders made my leaf springs have incorrect geometry as compared to what Hotchkis had in mind when they designed them. The rear leaf spring eye is now approximately 1-1.5" closer the frame rail now. (I didn't measure the height different between slider and shackle.) In my mind, now the front eye needed to be raised to get correct geometry back. Lucky for me when I modified my front hangers I incorporated some options, as seen previously in this thread. The middle hole is the Hotchkis location and that's where I had the springs for a while. The top hole is 1" higher.

1708354147855.png


I figured why not see what happens if I moved to the top hole. I did some geometry calculations and determined it would drop the car about 3/8". My calculations were correct and here are the results. As a side benefit, it looks much better! I have to imagine the rear roll center being closer to the rear center of gravity will help. Who knows? At this point, all the keyboard commandos think a CoC car can't handle and will fall apart from chassis instability anyway, so whatever I say is irrelevant. I'll be over here making constant improvements to my suspension education and my car while all those guys walk past their junk on jackstands everyday.

lower.jpg
 
Last edited:
I for one really enjoyed and appreciated your post on your quest for geometry improvement! (Well, up until the doom n gloomers came in with all the hate, anyway) I’ll likely follow your lead on the taller balljoints in the future (unfortunately I JUST put new QA1 balljoints in this last fall)

I look forward to see more improvements!
 
racerjoe said:
I think I upset the applecart enough on my post in the suspension section regarding my geometry improvements to my HDK setup, so lets move to something less conflicting, leaf springs.
Hotchkis advertised their leaf springs as "geometry correcting". The leaf is bent in a manner that it lands in approximately the center of the front spring eye. I think their front hanger hole is in a different location from stock also. Someone will have to educate me on this because I've never run a stock hanger and its been decades since I've even seen one. Mounting location and the arch of the spring is what lowers the car enough that some don't like them. I started reading about rear roll center on leaf spring cars and found this:
View attachment 1716209145
This made me start thinking about my change to sliders. While I don't think the roll center height will change in relation to the ground because the arc of the spring and the wheel are the same, what changes is the distance from the roll center to the center of gravity. So this got me thinking that perhaps my change to sliders made my leaf springs have incorrect geometry as compared to what Hotchkis had in mind when they designed them. The rear leaf spring eye is now approximately 1-1.5" closer the frame rail now. (I didn't measure the height different between slider and shackle.) In my mind, now the front eye needed to be raised to get correct geometry back. Lucky for me when I modified my front hangers I incorporated some options, as seen previously in this thread. The middle hole is the Hotchkis location and that's where I had the springs for a while. The top hole is 1" higher.

View attachment 1716209163

I figured why not see what happens if I moved to the top hole. I did some geometry calculations and determined it would drop the car about 3/8". My calculations were correct and here are the results.
Click to expand...

I expect I will be doing sliders on my '73 when I replace the rear axle. Plenty to do before then but it's been in the back of my mind recently. Curious to hear if you notice a difference in the handling.

racerjoe said:
At this point, all the keyboard commandos think a CoC car can't handle and will fall apart from chassis instability anyway, so whatever I say is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I don't remember anyone saying they can't handle. I know I said that at the very least your car seems to handle better now than it did with the TB's. But I understand your frustration.

racerjoe said:
As a side benefit, it looks much better!

View attachment 1716209140
Click to expand...

Looks great!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top