A body K member

[RedFish]

What I was told by a old school Chrysler service tech...
The issue with the single bolt ear at the 67 idler arm was back when these old girls were daily drivers. Slide into a curb on icy pavement and bend that ear. Back to the alignment shop for toe reset.

 

[AJ/FormS]

"But pretending it’s just as good as later, improved designs just shows your lack of knowledge,"

That's like telling Christians, the so-called rapture is not for them....

 

[cudamark]

IMO, the actual design of the early idler isn't as good as the later one. It's just a matter of physics, leverage, and the actual idler arm materials used. Now, when it comes to the metal thickness and alloy involved, plus the quality of the welding.......that might be a different story. The later design is better, but, the actual strength might not be. For the street, it's mostly a non-issue except for cost.

 

[66fs]

Lol! “Agree to disagree” and then try and big league me. Ok pal.

The “race car stuff” on my Mopars has done well over 100,000+ miles of street driving. My Challenger and my Duster have both done daily driver duty, my Challenger for over 8 years straight as my only car and my Duster since then. I drive my Duster a minimum of 120 miles a week as long as there aren’t chain restrictions up for snow. Heck up until 2 years ago my Duster was the newest car I owned.

I’ve worked on classics for over 30 years, and have used them as my daily’s pretty much the entire time I’ve had a license, over 28 years now. Heck I daily drove a ‘56 Austin Healey for years.

If after all of your time and experience you can’t understand why a single shear idler mount is inferior when compared to a double shear mount, clearly there’s no point in trying to explain it. Chrysler engineers decided it was a poor design over 50 years ago. If you want to run obsolete stuff that’s fine, that’s part of driving classics. But pretending it’s just as good as later, improved designs just shows your lack of knowledge, in spite of all your experience.

Ethan Santin has politely said he has heard enough. If you want to continue this "discussion" I suggest you start another thread where you and I can give our opinions on the relative merits and so called shortcomings of a 67 K frame.

 

[hawaiiandart]

Wealth of information here. Thanks everybody!

 

[nckennyb]

I vote using a conversion mount with the K-member you have.

 

[72bluNblu]

What I was told by a old school Chrysler service tech...
The issue with the single bolt ear at the 67 idler arm was back when these old girls were daily drivers. Slide into a curb on icy pavement and bend that ear. Back to the alignment shop for toe reset.

Given the road quality in most places these days it wouldn't be hard to replicate that with a large pothole, and bending an idler mount at speed with a pothole wouldn't be the greatest experience to have.

You can get away with a lot on a car that rarely gets driven, but what's the fun in that?

Ethan Santin has politely said he has heard enough.

Well, I hope Ethan hasn't chosen to buy a cheap K frame and then spend a fortune on buying an obsolete idler. But hey, that's his choice.

And on that note @ethan santin is more than welcome to contact me by PM if he wants, I converted my Duster from a /6 to a small block and am familiar with all the other things that come up too. It's been a /6 auto, a 318/auto, a 340/833 and a 340/T56 at this point. Heck we're not all that far apart, I don't get down to the Bay Area much at all but I'm in the Sacramento area at least once a week. I'm more than happy to bring my Duster, grab a coffee and talk cars if my work schedule allows.

If you want to continue this "discussion" I suggest you start another thread where you and I can give our opinions on the relative merits and so called shortcomings of a 67 K frame.

Of course there's no point in continuing this discussion, you're not going to change your mind regardless of the facts. The '67 K is a one year only deal that was immediately upgraded. Like many of the '67 only features, it was determined to be lacking and replaced for the rest of the A-body run. I'm sure it was no coincidence that after the size and weight of the A-body platform was increased with the new design in '67 that the idler mount was changed to mirror the double shear mount that had already been started on the larger C-bodies in '65.