K-Member / Rack & Pinion Steering Suggestions

[72bluNblu]

Nothing, just nicer.

What part? What makes them “nicer”?

I’ve seen a couple install threads here, nothing really stands out. The only reason I’ve ever seen given for using a Gerst vs an HDK or RMS is price, and that’s debatable.

They don’t have the history or proven track record, so, what makes it worth the gamble vs known great products like the HDK or RMS? If you have reasons to believe they’re “nicer”, let’s hear them

 

[SPACECOWBOY]

Round tube, heim joints, k frame supports shocks without bracing. Nicer a arms. On a all steel street car no problems. Just throwing it out there

 

[Super-Cuda]

Ok , so here's my 2c worth.

In the above photo, I can see that the inner part of the forward k frame mount is not welded. The shock mount looks to be made from multiple pieces. And my biggest reason, hopefully corrected by now, was that QA-1 is a new company formed when Cap Auto bit the dust. No way in hell would I ever buy anything that was made by Cap Auto. I saw first hand their quality. I know a lot of members use QA-1 now so they must have improved their quality.

HDK or RMS for me .

 

[SPACECOWBOY]

Ok , so here's my 2c worth.

In the above photo, I can see that the inner part of the forward k frame mount is not welded. The shock mount looks to be made from multiple pieces. And my biggest reason, hopefully corrected by now, was that QA-1 is a new company formed when Cap Auto bit the dust. No way in hell would I ever buy anything that was made by Cap Auto. I saw first hand their quality. I know a lot of members use QA-1 now so they must have improved their quality.

HDK or RMS for me .

Well they are all really just ford front ends and clearly unsafe.

 

[72bluNblu]

Round tube, heim joints, k frame supports shocks without bracing. Nicer a arms. On a all steel street car no problems. Just throwing it out there View attachment 1715945432View attachment 1715945432

View attachment 1715945433

Thanks for posting that!

I do prefer round tube to square, although with proper engineering it shouldn't really matter. I would actually argue against heims on the street. I've run them at the UCA, and they do not live long enough in that application to be practical in my opinion. 7-10k miles is the best I've done with them there, which is more frequently than I want to replace them. Much prefer Delrin bushings at the UCA.

They have the mount for the coil over off of the K frame, so, advantage being you don't have to mount the coil-over to the upper shock mount that wasn't designed to carry the weight of the car. Downside as Denny addressed is the shorter coil over. Pros and cons like anything. It looks like you have a tubular support installed for your shock tower, was that part of the Gerst?

Thanks again for posting the pictures!

Ok , so here's my 2c worth.

In the above photo, I can see that the inner part of the forward k frame mount is not welded. The shock mount looks to be made from multiple pieces. And my biggest reason, hopefully corrected by now, was that QA-1 is a new company formed when Cap Auto bit the dust. No way in hell would I ever buy anything that was made by Cap Auto. I saw first hand their quality. I know a lot of members use QA-1 now so they must have improved their quality.

HDK or RMS for me .

Better get your facts straight. QA1 was not formed when CAP "bit the dust". The bought out CAP for their designs to get into the Mopar aftermarket. QA1 itself has been around since 1993, which I believe means that as a company they've been around longer than RMS, not sure about HDK. Obviously they're going to be "new" to the coil over conversion, but they've been offering their torsion bar K member and parts for quite some time now. And they've been doing suspension for other makes/models longer.

CAP actually had pretty good designs, they were just a small shop and the the guy doing their welding was an amateur. I ran CAP parts on my Challenger actually. I never had an issue with the CAP UCA's, although some did and there were documented failures. I did have a weld on one of their LCA's crack, which was when I pulled all the welded CAP products off my Challenger. I still run the adjustable strut rods, and have a full 70k+ miles on those. Again, this is pretty much exactly the design QA1 still uses. CAP's issue was fabrication, not design, although QA1 definitely made a lot of improvements on the CAP K member. The LCA's were almost unchanged, and the strut rods were unchanged. The UCA's were completely redesigned and look nothing like what CAP was selling.

I actually hadn't realized that Gerst was bought out by QA1, but that makes sense with the new QA1 coil over front end. Like with the CAP products I'm sure they made some improvements. They seem to have a fairly regular practice of buying out smaller manufacturers to expand their product line.

Well they are all really just ford front ends and clearly unsafe.

Yeah, no need to go there. No one said they were unsafe, not even me. I just like to look at what the actual advantages are, what the REAL benefits are, not just "they're nicer". What the performance advantages are. And the coil over conversions do have advantages, they're really the only way to run a rack and pinion on these cars. I don't believe a rack and pinion is necessary myself, but that's just my opinion.

 

[SPACECOWBOY]

Thanks for posting that!

I do prefer round tube to square, although with proper engineering it shouldn't really matter. I would actually argue against heims on the street. I've run them at the UCA, and they do not live long enough in that application to be practical in my opinion. 7-10k miles is the best I've done with them there, which is more frequently than I want to replace them. Much prefer Delrin bushings at the UCA.

They have the mount for the coil over off of the K frame, so, advantage being you don't have to mount the coil-over to the upper shock mount that wasn't designed to carry the weight of the car. Downside as Denny addressed is the shorter coil over. Pros and cons like anything. It looks like you have a tubular support installed for your shock tower, was that part of the Gerst?

Thanks again for posting the pictures!



Better get your facts straight. QA1 was not formed when CAP "bit the dust". The bought out CAP for their designs to get into the Mopar aftermarket. QA1 itself has been around since 1993, which I believe means that as a company they've been around longer than RMS, not sure about HDK. Obviously they're going to be "new" to the coil over conversion, but they've been offering their torsion bar K member and parts for quite some time now. And they've been doing suspension for other makes/models longer.

CAP actually had pretty good designs, they were just a small shop and the the guy doing their welding was an amateur. I ran CAP parts on my Challenger actually. I never had an issue with the CAP UCA's, although some did and there were documented failures. I did have a weld on one of their LCA's crack, which was when I pulled all the welded CAP products off my Challenger. I still run the adjustable strut rods, and have a full 70k+ miles on those. Again, this is pretty much exactly the design QA1 still uses. CAP's issue was fabrication, not design, although QA1 definitely made a lot of improvements on the CAP K member. The LCA's were almost unchanged, and the strut rods were unchanged. The UCA's were completely redesigned and look nothing like what CAP was selling.

I actually hadn't realized that Gerst was bought out by QA1, but that makes sense with the new QA1 coil over front end. Like with the CAP products I'm sure they made some improvements. They seem to have a fairly regular practice of buying out smaller manufacturers to expand their product line.



Yeah, no need to go there. No one said they were unsafe, not even me. I just like to look at what the actual advantages are, what the REAL benefits are, not just "they're nicer". What the performance advantages are. And the coil over conversions do have advantages, they're really the only way to run a rack and pinion on these cars. I don't believe a rack and pinion is necessary myself, but that's just my opinion.

Attempt at humor

 

[Super-Cuda]

Thanks for posting that!

I do prefer round tube to square, although with proper engineering it shouldn't really matter. I would actually argue against heims on the street. I've run them at the UCA, and they do not live long enough in that application to be practical in my opinion. 7-10k miles is the best I've done with them there, which is more frequently than I want to replace them. Much prefer Delrin bushings at the UCA.

They have the mount for the coil over off of the K frame, so, advantage being you don't have to mount the coil-over to the upper shock mount that wasn't designed to carry the weight of the car. Downside as Denny addressed is the shorter coil over. Pros and cons like anything. It looks like you have a tubular support installed for your shock tower, was that part of the Gerst?

Thanks again for posting the pictures!



Better get your facts straight. QA1 was not formed when CAP "bit the dust". The bought out CAP for their designs to get into the Mopar aftermarket. QA1 itself has been around since 1993, which I believe means that as a company they've been around longer than RMS, not sure about HDK. Obviously they're going to be "new" to the coil over conversion, but they've been offering their torsion bar K member and parts for quite some time now. And they've been doing suspension for other makes/models longer.

CAP actually had pretty good designs, they were just a small shop and the the guy doing their welding was an amateur. I ran CAP parts on my Challenger actually. I never had an issue with the CAP UCA's, although some did and there were documented failures. I did have a weld on one of their LCA's crack, which was when I pulled all the welded CAP products off my Challenger. I still run the adjustable strut rods, and have a full 70k+ miles on those. Again, this is pretty much exactly the design QA1 still uses. CAP's issue was fabrication, not design, although QA1 definitely made a lot of improvements on the CAP K member. The LCA's were almost unchanged, and the strut rods were unchanged. The UCA's were completely redesigned and look nothing like what CAP was selling.

I actually hadn't realized that Gerst was bought out by QA1, but that makes sense with the new QA1 coil over front end. Like with the CAP products I'm sure they made some improvements. They seem to have a fairly regular practice of buying out smaller manufacturers to expand their product line.



Yeah, no need to go there. No one said they were unsafe, not even me. I just like to look at what the actual advantages are, what the REAL benefits are, not just "they're nicer". What the performance advantages are. And the coil over conversions do have advantages, they're really the only way to run a rack and pinion on these cars. I don't believe a rack and pinion is necessary myself, but that's just my opinion.

Thanks for the update 72 bluNblu.

I stand corrected on QA-1 being formed when CAP went away. I obviously mis interpreted what I read . I saw pics of the Cap weld failures though when I was researching Suspension options and read numerous comments on the poor welds , hence my concerns about buying their products. As I stated though, a lot of members on here are using QA-1 products with no issues so all good.

 

[72bluNblu]

Thanks for the update 72 bluNblu.

I stand corrected on QA-1 being formed when CAP went away. I obviously mis interpreted what I read . I saw pics of the Cap weld failures though when I was researching Suspension options and read numerous comments on the poor welds , hence my concerns about buying their products. As I stated though, a lot of members on here are using QA-1 products with no issues so all good.

I myself run the QA1 tubular LCA's on my Duster. I have one of the earlier versions before they redesigned and added the bump stops, so the version I have is almost identical to the CAP tubular LCA's that had a weld crack on my Challenger. I've had no issues with the QA1 version, and the build quality improvement is obvious. Although it was entirely unnecessary I did add gussets to the QA1 LCA's based on where the CAP LCA cracked, just overkill on my part. You can see what I did here

[URL="https://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/threads/my-new-74-duster-or-why-i-need-a-project-like-a-hole-in-the-head.198098/page-9#post-1971782629"]My "new" '74 Duster- or why I need a project like a hole in the head[/URL]

Most of the failures on the CAP parts I saw were the UCA's, which again, QA1 completely redesigned. The QA1 UCA looks nothing like the old CAP UCA's.

 

[go-fish]

I myself run the QA1 tubular LCA's on my Duster. I have one of the earlier versions before they redesigned and added the bump stops

Are you absolutely sure QA1 redesigned the A-body LCA's?
This is what Summit shows for the A-body arms ...

PLYMOUTH QA1 52307 QA1 Mopar Control Arms | Summit Racing

And this is what they show for the E-body arms ...

PLYMOUTH QA1 52308 QA1 Mopar Control Arms | Summit Racing

Have you seen the B/E arms perhaps and assume they all look the same?

I would love to take advantage of more travel and I do hope it is a case of mistaken Identity. I have even thought about ordering some LCA's from Summit just to fondle them and see if they are still the old style and send them back if they aren't.

So, if these a-bdy arms are in fact "updated" would they still be an upgrade over gusseted OEM LCA's? Would they still provide more travel and could you modify them to gain the travel back that the original QA1/CAP arms had?

 

[72bluNblu]

Are you absolutely sure QA1 redesigned the A-body LCA's?
This is what Summit shows for the A-body arms ...
View attachment 1715945943
PLYMOUTH QA1 52307 QA1 Mopar Control Arms | Summit Racing

And this is what they show for the E-body arms ...
View attachment 1715945944
PLYMOUTH QA1 52308 QA1 Mopar Control Arms | Summit Racing

Have you seen the B/E arms perhaps and assume they all look the same?

I would love to take advantage of more travel and I do hope it is a case of mistaken Identity. I have even thought about ordering some LCA's from Summit just to fondle them and see if they are still the old style and send them back if they aren't.

So, if these a-bdy arms are in fact "updated" would they still be an upgrade over gusseted OEM LCA's? Would they still provide more travel and could you modify them to gain the travel back that the original QA1/CAP arms had?

Pretty sure the Summit picture is just of the old style LCA. I believe the A-body QA1 LCA's also have a bump stop now. I haven't seen a set in person, but a member here posted about it in this thread
QA1 LCA has no bumper

Picture

As far as them being an upgrade still, I dunno. I run them entirely for the gain in suspension travel. They're about 8 lbs lighter than a stock set of LCA's, but as far as flex I don't think they'd be substantially better than a boxed set of stockers. As for the travel, with the new bump stop design I think it's been eliminated. Now, I don't see it as all that hard to get back, I would just remove the bump stop and cut the threaded boss off the LCA.

If you did that, you'd be right back to the old style set and having about an extra 1" of suspension travel. And then you just add a small bumpstop onto the frame horn, whatever you're comfortable with. I run a 3/8" tall one on mine.

 

[go-fish]

If you did that, you'd be right back to the old style set and having about an extra 1" of suspension travel. And then you just add a small bumpstop onto the frame horn, whatever you're comfortable with. I run a 3/8" tall one on mine.

It's pretty tempting. I am trying to absolutely optimize the torsion bar system on my Valiant so gaining an extra 1" of travel is worth the money and effort. I am a believer in the torsion bar system and the Green Brick was a hero car of mine growing up and apparently Tim Werner as well.

I am not against the coilover suspension but I am also for torsion bar systems. I understand and agree with your view that if people did a little research they may choose to build an OEM based system instead of jumping right to a coilover system.

There are many variables that come into play when choosing a front suspension and removing any misunderstanding AND bias is important to honestly arriving at a conclusion that is best for you.

For my Valiant, I just want to achieve what Dick Ehrenberg and Tim Werner achieved and in the same way (as far as front suspension). For my 'cuda I needed clearance for 1-7/8" header primaries, I wanted to be able to tune the suspension faster than changing out torsion bars, and I wanted the lowest ride height I could get. Some say, "Different strokes for different folks" but I say, "Different strokes for different cars".

Know your options and do your due diligence in weighing the options.

 

[72bluNblu]

It's pretty tempting. I am trying to absolutely optimize the torsion bar system on my Valiant so gaining an extra 1" of travel is worth the money and effort. I am a believer in the torsion bar system and the Green Brick was a hero car of mine growing up and apparently Tim Werner as well.

I wouldn't have any issues cutting the bump stop off the re-designed LCA's. Worst case is you have to weld a plug into the hole you create by removing the threaded boss. I like the gusset on the new ones better than the old ones too.

Whether or not you need to bother would depend on your torsion bars. If you're not planning on lowering the car a ton, or if you're going to run larger than 1.12" torsion bars, you may not need the whole 1" of additional travel. I know on my car my combination of 1.12" bars and 2" of drop at the suspension needs the extra travel.

You could also modify the factory LCA, if you're boxing it already you could cut the profile down and box it/gusset it further. Firm Feel used to use LCA's off of the FMJ cars and modify them for use on other models, they had a flatter profile LCA which provided more travel in a similar fashion.

 

[go-fish]

Whether or not you need to bother would depend on your torsion bars. If you're not planning on lowering the car a ton, or if you're going to run larger than 1.12" torsion bars, you may not need the whole 1" of additional travel.

I have the 1.24" FF bars, Fox adj. shocks, and an 18x10 wheel.
I just have th suspension and engine/trans mocked up on a k-frame dolly so I'll have to wait till the car is done at the chassis shop to mock everything up.

 

[72bluNblu]

I have the 1.24" FF bars, Fox adj. shocks, and an 18x10 wheel.
I just have th suspension and engine/trans mocked up on a k-frame dolly so I'll have to wait till the car is done at the chassis shop to mock everything up.

Yeah actually with 1.24" bars you probably don't need the QA1's or any additional travel. Even if you lowered the car substantially from stock a shorter bump stop would probably give you all the travel you'd be able to use.

 

[Bakerlite]

I've had a couple of customers supply RMS front ends for their builds. One was a 67 Dart, I had to screw around with the engine mounts to get the engine to fit correctly. Was a pain in the ***..
I'm not a fan of the spindles, you'd think for the money, these guys would be making their own so you don't need a heim joint with a spacer Rinky dink in my book..
The one I have here now is in a 70 Cuda and getting a KB Hemi into it. It's using shitty B body Schumacher conversion mounts, that's right B body, as recommended by RMS and the whole thing is a half arsed mess.
The mounts are the correct way around..
The conversion mounts wouldn't go into the RMS K frame correctly. I took the pad bolts out of the conversion mounts to at least see where the engine would sit. No way the bolts will line up, it sits too high and looks like it's been moved forward.
It could at least go down an inch and back the same.
To be honest, it's a bit bodgy in my book and the K frame engine mount pads could be in a better place to mount a Hemi anyway. More directly in line with the block mount would be nice, that way you don't need to have offset mounts.
It looks like he makes a B / RB bigblock K frame and you then have to use a conversion mount to drop a Hemi in there and deal with the issues that arise. Why not make a Hemi specific frame and mount. Why make a frame based around another companies "conversion" effort that puts the engine in a non stock location? What a joke..
After a chat with the customer, I'll be making new engine mounts and maybe moving the pad locations on the K frame itself.
These days, bolt on mods just seem to be bolt on problems.

 

[abodyjoe]

I've had a couple of customers supply RMS front ends for their builds. One was a 67 Dart, I had to screw around with the engine mounts to get the engine to fit correctly. Was a pain in the ***..

customer probably supplied you with the wrong mounts.. i know when i did my alter-k the thing practically fell into place.. hell the car was a running driving car at the time and i kept everything engine, trans, exhaust, cooling system in place and it still easily fell into place. if someone has that much trouble installing an alter-k there can only be a few reason, wrong parts ordered, car bent, or maybe they shouldn't be working on cars to begin with.

 

[HemiDenny]

I've had a couple of customers supply RMS front ends for their builds. One was a 67 Dart, I had to screw around with the engine mounts to get the engine to fit correctly. Was a pain in the ***..
I'm not a fan of the spindles, you'd think for the money, these guys would be making their own so you don't need a heim joint with a spacer Rinky dink in my book..
The one I have here now is in a 70 Cuda and getting a KB Hemi into it. It's using shitty B body Schumacher conversion mounts, that's right B body, as recommended by RMS and the whole thing is a half arsed mess.
The mounts are the correct way around..
The conversion mounts wouldn't go into the RMS K frame correctly. I took the pad bolts out of the conversion mounts to at least see where the engine would sit. No way the bolts will line up, it sits too high and looks like it's been moved forward.
It could at least go down an inch and back the same.
To be honest, it's a bit bodgy in my book and the K frame engine mount pads could be in a better place to mount a Hemi anyway. More directly in line with the block mount would be nice, that way you don't need to have offset mounts.
It looks like he makes a B / RB bigblock K frame and you then have to use a conversion mount to drop a Hemi in there and deal with the issues that arise. Why not make a Hemi specific frame and mount. Why make a frame based around another companies "conversion" effort that puts the engine in a non stock location? What a joke..
After a chat with the customer, I'll be making new engine mounts and maybe moving the pad locations on the K frame itself.
These days, bolt on mods just seem to be bolt on problems.

Maybe next time you will give HDK a try. HDK offers 5% FABO member discount, 10% builder / shop discount and discounted / flat rate shipping.

On building an engine specific K-frame, for what it is worth I have had several customers change directions with engine in the middle of a build. When all one has to do is swap out or buy another set of engine mounts, that versatility is a major plus and dollar saver.....and what can be even a bigger plus is if the guy that designs them, also has to install them (like I do).

Misc pics including B- body K package with the new HDK Gen/ stage II Hemi mounts..... fits like a glove. ALL HDK complete packages utilize Qa1 coil over shocks, most with 5-3/8" travel even on the lowered ride height versions and no heims.....designed / engineered with automotive tie rods.

Denny
HDK
304-939-0097
moparsuspension.com
you guys like pictures....right???

 

[Bakerlite]

customer probably supplied you with the wrong mounts.. i know when i did my alter-k the thing practically fell into place.. hell the car was a running driving car at the time and i kept everything engine, trans, exhaust, cooling system in place and it still easily fell into place. if someone has that much trouble installing an alter-k there can only be a few reason, wrong parts ordered, car bent, or maybe they shouldn't be working on cars to begin with.

They are the correct mounts, read my post again where is says " as recommended by RMS".
I contacted RMS before I started on the car to confirm this, because if something looks a bit weird, I check it out first before I start on it.. That's what good builders do..
The installation of the K frame itself is not the issue, it's getting the engine in the correct position.
I've been building cars for a long time, ( and repairing shoddy work ) with lots of hand fabrication work. I know when something is well done, and not so well done...

maybe they shouldn't be working on cars to begin with.

My 67 Dart has a Hemi in it. Apart from the TTI headers, I fabricated everything else to put that engine in there with the original small block K frame. Please don't hint at questioning my ability..
After doing a little reading, it looks like there are a few others out there not happy with those conversion mounts.
Does your car have KB Hemi in it?

 

[Bakerlite]

Maybe next time you will give HDK a try. HDK offers 5% FABO member discount, 10% builder / shop discount and discounted / flat rate shipping.

On building an engine specific K-frame, for what it is worth I have had several customers change directions with engine in the middle of a build. When all one has to do is swap out or buy another set of engine mounts, that versatility is a major plus and dollar saver.....and what can be even a bigger plus is if the guy that designs them, also has to install them (like I do).

Misc pics including B- body K package with the new HDK Gen/ stage II Hemi mounts..... fits like a glove. ALL HDK complete packages utilize Qa1 coil over shocks, most with 5-3/8" travel even on the lowered ride height versions and no heims.....designed / engineered with automotive tie rods.

Denny
HDK
304-939-0097
moparsuspension.com

Denny, I try to stay away from fitting these types of front ends to cars here.( Australia) They have to be Engineer inspected and certified to be used on the road.
I won't fit them to an already registered car because the owners then try to avoid getting them certified as the car is already road registered and my balls would be in a sling if anything went wrong.. It's always the builders fault especially if I recommend it and fit it ..
That's why I get the customer to research and choose one.
Having said that, if the circumstances allowed it, I'd probably recommend yours, at least give it a whirl anyway.
Cars are right hand drive here , but I only fit them to left hand drive US imports .
Your engine mount locations and mounts themselves look better to me. Having the poly bush further away from the block mounting surface is also a better idea. The Schumacher poly bush is too close to the block and you have to use button headed Allen hex key fasteners to mount them because of the lack of space. Once tight, those fasteners can be a ***** to get out sometimes as well. Just not the best design.
I also like the shock support hoop..
"Never lift" right??

 

[Bakerlite]

Denny, the more I look at some of your Hemi mounting pics in various threads, the more I can see what a **** show the Schumacher / RMS deal is..

 

[HemiDenny]

Denny, I try to stay away from fitting these types of front ends to cars here.( Australia) They have to be Engineer inspected and certified to be used on the road.
I won't fit them to an already registered car because the owners then try to avoid getting them certified as the car is already road registered and my balls would be in a sling if anything went wrong.. It's always the builders fault especially if I recommend it and fit it ..
That's why I get the customer to research and choose one.
Having said that, if the circumstances allowed it, I'd probably recommend yours, at least give it a whirl anyway.
Cars are right hand drive here , but I only fit them to left hand drive US imports .
Your engine mount locations and mounts themselves look better to me. Having the poly bush further away from the block mounting surface is also a better idea. The Schumacher poly bush is too close to the block and you have to use button headed Allen hex key fasteners to mount them because of the lack of space. Once tight, those fasteners can be a ***** to get out sometimes as well. Just not the best design.
I also like the shock support hoop..
"Never lift" right??

Before the Covid cold hit and really screwed up international shipping, I sold several HDK packages that went to Australia (and New Zealand). Working with one of HDK early customers / installers , we received certification / approval from the engineers. Mostly LH drive (power and manual) but did a few LH drive / manual rack set-ups too.

Thank you for looking HDK over.....and yeah, NEVER lift

 

[racerjoe]

I'm just here to poke the bear and get sensitive people worked up, don't mind me......

LOL Before you start beating on me, remember, I don't give a $hit what you do to your car, nor should you care what I do to mine. Just sharing something I saw on FB.

 

[72Duster440]

View attachment 1715960415

How bad of a job is it to get that drain plug out and not make a mess? Or is it just the angle of the pic? I assume its just the angle because everything I see of yours seems to be well thought out and top notch.

 

[Super-Cuda]

I'm just here to poke the bear and get sensitive people worked up, don't mind me......

LOL Before you start beating on me, remember, I don't give a $hit what you do to your car, nor should you care what I do to mine. Just sharing something I saw on FB.


View attachment 1715961993

WoW !!!

Suspension setup looks suprisingly similar to the Pic posted by Spacecowboy earlier in this post.

I said at that time I wasn't comfortable with how the multiple pieces were welded together in the shock towers. This confirms my fears.

 

[HemiDenny]

How bad of a job is it to get that drain plug out and not make a mess? Or is it just the angle of the pic? I assume its just the angle because everything I see of yours seems to be well thought out and top notch.

Excellent question.

The oil pan drain plug is slightly below the HDK exclusive rear support bar. However, it is designed to be easily removeable simply by removing the poly nuts at the end of both axle / pivot shafts and slip it reward a little or completely off. The pivot shafts themselves are held tightly in place with two set screws on machined flats on the pivot shafts so simply loosed / remove the poly-loc nuts.