DOES THE HDK SUSPENSION K-MEMBER HANDLE BETTER THAN A T-BAR SUSPENSION?

-
DionR said:
Hey Denny, any idea if the below is a 1" extended ball joint, or a 2" one? Clipped it from the QA1 instructions.

View attachment 1716201740

Just curious.
Click to expand...

It appears to have an extended stud but the ball joint is not the Qa1 over the counter 1" extended ball joint (#1210-238S) HDK has used since around 2012. BTW....long before Gerst or Qa1 even thought about building a Mopar suspension package.

QA1 1210-238S QA1 Ultimate Ball Joints | Summit Racing

just for you, once I pick them up from the machinist, I will post a picture of the 1" and 2" studs side by side
 
72bluNblu said:
I think you’ve answered this before, but how much can the track width be changed? The widest track is pretty close to the later 73+ disk track right? Is the narrow track similar to the SBP drum track?
Click to expand...

The HDK can install from 1/2" narrower (per side) than a 67-72 drum brake model to slightly wider than the 73 and up disc brake model. The beauty of dealing with small Mopar only business, HDK can...and has built what is needed at the drop of the hat.

The 1/2" narrower track width is where the silver Duster is at with 5" wide rims / 2-1/2 backspacing.

Joes track width is the opposite, even substituting the 1" wider per side B/E body LCA's to accommodate his desired, wider track width along with the CPP spindles and the negative offset rims he already owned.

dsc_0124c.jpg
 
Last edited:
72bluNblu said:
Any rim clearance issues?
Click to expand...
Lots of space at the UBJ. Currently the limit of steering stops the tire about 1/2-3/4" away from contacting the frame rail. The next closest interference is the tie rod to the wheel. Once I have a wider wheel, the tie rod would likely contact the wheel, but the tire will contact the frame rail and pre-maturely limit steering before the limit of the rack. This would prevent the tie rod from ever contacting the wheel. Almost a happy coincidence. This has absolutely zero to do with the HDK, it's a result of my high offset wheels. Had I started with an HDK before purchasing wheels, I would have set it up with a narrower track width and sourced a set with less offset. It certainly would have opened up the available off the shelf wheels that would fit. As you know, finding +35 wheels with matching rears isn't easy.
Doesn't your tire contact the frame rail at full lock? I don't remember how close the tie rods were to the wheel on the t-bar setup.
 
racerjoe said:
Lots of space at the UBJ. Currently the limit of steering stops the tire about 1/2-3/4" away from contacting the frame rail. The next closest interference is the tie rod to the wheel. Once I have a wider wheel, the tie rod would likely contact the wheel, but the tire will contact the frame rail and pre-maturely limit steering before the limit of the rack. This would prevent the tie rod from ever contacting the wheel. Almost a happy coincidence. This has absolutely zero to do with the HDK, it's a result of my high offset wheels. Had I started with an HDK before purchasing wheels, I would have set it up with a narrower track width and sourced a set with less offset. It certainly would have opened up the available off the shelf wheels that would fit. As you know, finding +35 wheels with matching rears isn't easy.
Doesn't your tire contact the frame rail at full lock? I don't remember how close the tie rods were to the wheel on the t-bar setup.
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah I was curious about the clearance at the UBJ just because of the extended height. I know when I was running 2” drop spindles on my Challenger I definitely lost clearance to the outer tie rod, one of many reasons those aren’t a great idea with torsion bars.

My steering stops when the tire hits the frame, but I don’t have any proper steering stops. The QA1 LCA’s don’t have any and their narrow width means the lower ball joints never hit them like the factory set up. So I actually get more steering angle than factory.

The tie rod ends are fairly close to the rim, but with 18” wheels they actually fit inside the lip of the rim so with 18’s there’s really no backspace limit other than the frame rail/steering angle.

IMG_5522.jpeg


I don’t know that I’d narrow the track width if it meant shortening the control arms. Obviously it depends on how much, but that tighter the arc the wheel moves in the more potential you’ve got for bump steer, even if it increases camber gain. But even camber gain has its limits, if you’re gaining too much compared to the body angle you’re losing contact patch too. Ideally the camber gain would track with the lean angle of the car during cornering.
 
72bluNblu said:
Ok, yeah I was curious about the clearance at the UBJ just because of the extended height. I know when I was running 2” drop spindles on my Challenger I definitely lost clearance to the outer tie rod, one of many reasons those aren’t a great idea with torsion bars.

My steering stops when the tire hits the frame, but I don’t have any proper steering stops. The QA1 LCA’s don’t have any and their narrow width means the lower ball joints never hit them like the factory set up. So I actually get more steering angle than factory.

The tie rod ends are fairly close to the rim, but with 18” wheels they actually fit inside the lip of the rim so with 18’s there’s really no backspace limit other than the frame rail/steering angle.

View attachment 1716202628

I don’t know that I’d narrow the track width if it meant shortening the control arms. Obviously it depends on how much, but that tighter the arc the wheel moves in the more potential you’ve got for bump steer, even if it increases camber gain. But even camber gain has its limits, if you’re gaining too much compared to the body angle you’re losing contact patch too. Ideally the camber gain would track with the lean angle of the car during cornering.
Click to expand...
I have no intentions of shortening the arms. While widening my front wheels isn't exactly cheap, it's much cheaper than buying another set of wheels.
 
I have an HDK setup I ordered two years ago and have still to install it (I work way too slow at my hobbies) and am wondering where to purchase this 2" upper balljoint? I don't need a canyon carver, but if this balljoint improves handling I rather intall it before I get too far into the install with the 1" balljoint.
 
newguy said:
I have an HDK setup I ordered two years ago and have still to install it (I work way too slow at my hobbies) and am wondering where to purchase this 2" upper balljoint? I don't need a canyon carver, but if this balljoint improves handling I rather intall it before I get too far into the install with the 1" balljoint.
Click to expand...

Allstar Performance maybe?

Post #273

www.forabodiesonly.com

DOES THE HDK SUSPENSION K-MEMBER HANDLE BETTER THAN A T-BAR SUSPENSION?

That’s pretty cool how they welded that aluminum lower radiator support to the steel frame rails and sheet metal. You can actually see the welds in the pictures of the Cuda build. :rofl: Please share with us the quote of whoever made that claim
www.forabodiesonly.com www.forabodiesonly.com
 
Sorry I missed your question. Yes it's an Allstar performance ball joint. Attached is their catalog page with all the available part numbers. Just google up the part number and you will find someone selling them.
 

Attachments

  • ALL56008.pdf
    220.5 KB · Views: 7
I sure hope this thread doesn't get derailed again, like most of them do on this subject matter. For those actually interested in the content I'll provide an update on the car with real data, not speculative. I get it that most that disagree aren't educated on the physics required to actually make a car handle better. For the people wanting to talk $hit, please stay away. I don't care what you have to say.

The car now has a 5.7 hemi in it. The HDK made the swap super simple.

What makes a car "handle" well isn't necessarily how if feels compared to your worn out stock suspension. It's all about the geometry. In this photo you can see the front right wheel is nearly vertical and the body is rolling and I'm turning. Also note the front left is nearly completely flat on the ground. This is due to the camber gain and aggressive alignment.

Capture.PNG



Now take a look at this Charger - (nothing against Dylan here). Which tire do you think is applying more grip to the ground?

1726855168639.png




Lastly, I got 4th in the vintage class of grand champion autocross. I was less than 1 second away from 1st place. 1st place was a B-body with QA1 coil overs, 2nd was a B-Body with Hotchkiss, 3rd was an E-body with damn near all stock T/A stuff, which is amazing. 4th was me. I'll also add, everyone ahead of me was on a 275 or larger front tire. I have a 235 front tire. All things considered, I'd say all 4 of us are fairly equal drivers.
 
racerjoe said:
I sure hope this thread doesn't get derailed again, like most of them do on this subject matter. For those actually interested in the content I'll provide an update on the car with real data, not speculative. I get it that most that disagree aren't educated on the physics required to actually make a car handle better. For the people wanting to talk $hit, please stay away. I don't care what you have to say.

The car now has a 5.7 hemi in it. The HDK made the swap super simple.

What makes a car "handle" well isn't necessarily how if feels compared to your worn out stock suspension. It's all about the geometry. In this photo you can see the front right wheel is nearly vertical and the body is rolling and I'm turning. Also note the front left is nearly completely flat on the ground. This is due to the camber gain and aggressive alignment.

View attachment 1716305601


Now take a look at this Charger - (nothing against Dylan here). Which tire do you think is applying more grip to the ground?

View attachment 1716305607



Lastly, I got 4th in the vintage class of grand champion autocross. I was less than 1 second away from 1st place. 1st place was a B-body with QA1 coil overs, 2nd was a B-Body with Hotchkiss, 3rd was an E-body with damn near all stock T/A stuff, which is amazing. 4th was me. I'll also add, everyone ahead of me was on a 275 or larger front tire. I have a 235 front tire. All things considered, I'd say all 4 of us are fairly equal drivers.
Click to expand...

A couple of quick questions .

Does the 5.7 hemi sit in the factory location with the HDK system or is it moved further forward or back from the original v-8 engine position ?

Did you have to modify the lower front fenders for tire clearance using 235's ?

Thanks.
 
Super-Cuda said:
A couple of quick questions .

Does the 5.7 hemi sit in the factory location with the HDK system or is it moved further forward or back from the original v-8 engine position ?

Did you have to modify the lower front fenders for tire clearance using 235's ?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Denny's mounts allow for adjustment, I don't recall how much. Maybe an inch. I initially had them on the engine so it would be as far back as possible. That proved to be too far back for me. I have my main engine harness connector on the firewall and it was just too close to work. It also put the valve cover very close to my already trimmed steering column tube. I'm sure other applications, the rear most position would work fine. I feel like I have it very close to where the small block was. I didn't take any of those measurements to confirm.

The front of the inside of the fender is trimmed. It's the part that folds under near the rod that goes to the bumper bracket. I just cut it on a 45. Hardly even noticeable. I also rolled the fender lips slightly. Keep in mind, with the HDK, track width has a ton of adjustment. I'll be widening my wheels and switching to either 265s or 275s soon.

I did "adjust" the K slightly to move the lower control arm forward. I did this to keep the tire off the rear side of the fender due to the amount of caster I'm running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top