GeorgeH
Well-Known Member
Bolting this on a bent car still won't make it track straight. LOL is right.
There's a few guys on this site that would give them and you a run for their money.
Last edited:
QA1 Six-Link Rear Suspension Conversion Installed
- Thread starter 65RoadRacer
- Start date
-
Bolting this on a bent car still won't make it track straight. LOL is right.
There's a few guys on this site that would give them and you a run for their money.
GeorgeH
Well-Known Member
Durability? Rod ends are going to last 300k mi. like the stock stuff?????????? Again.
Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
And you're a wannabe.A Corvette doesn't have any performance?
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
You must like agreeing with yourself.
As far as you giving me a run for my money. You're a legend in your own mind.
As far as you giving me a run for my money. You're a legend in your own mind.
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
Durability? Rod ends are going to last 300k mi. like the stock stuff?????????? Again.
GeorgeH;
Yeah like your stock rubber bushing bullshit lasted 300k. Or maybe you think that is still is working fine.
That's probably more like what you believe.
GeorgeH
Well-Known Member
The bushing might fail, but It still doesn't fall apart. Oem's take safety and liability into account. What happens when a rod end fails. Lol Wannabee? Legend? I'm not the one claiming to be somebody.
Last edited:
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
Sure you are! King GeorgeH
"King of Clapped Out Stock Suspension"
"King of Clapped Out Stock Suspension"
65RoadRacer
Member
Well, I can see that this has turned into a real healthy conversation.
ScampMike
Despicable Damn Yankee
it's stout looking and neat looking too - - but I am with the "over kill/under developed" crowd -- all that engineering and, as it sits, it'll never make a car look like this..We've been dying to install one of these to see how it goes, and we have a fresh 1967 Dart taking in the coilover setup. Check it out here. The front installation is next.
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
All bullshit aside.
You can usually put an "angle of tilt" on a spherical bearing of 2 to 5 Degrees which would be around 3/4" to 1-3/4" on the front frame mount. I think the front mount on the system can be moved on this system inboard. All of the links occupy less space than the leaf spring. Still, I think with a little fab work all the basic parts are there to even use this with a mini tub (not that you need to). For all the naysayers, this looks well made and engineered. It should reduce roll steer more than upgrade leaf springs can.
Even Hotchkis doesn't recommend more tire than what fits in the stock fender wells because it doesn't help in handling. But even Hotchkis wants you to buy their leaf springs. The Hotchkis sway bar bushing's even mount on the axle with a center to center distance of 24 1/4" on an A-body. QA1's mounts look wider than that which is more optimal. There swaybar looks interesting to me for my project.
As far as ProStreeter's go. I built one in the 90's. It was fun at the drag strip. Not very useable on the street. It sat around in my barn until I got tired of looking at it. But I sure do miss that Ram Chargers paint job!
You can usually put an "angle of tilt" on a spherical bearing of 2 to 5 Degrees which would be around 3/4" to 1-3/4" on the front frame mount. I think the front mount on the system can be moved on this system inboard. All of the links occupy less space than the leaf spring. Still, I think with a little fab work all the basic parts are there to even use this with a mini tub (not that you need to). For all the naysayers, this looks well made and engineered. It should reduce roll steer more than upgrade leaf springs can.
Even Hotchkis doesn't recommend more tire than what fits in the stock fender wells because it doesn't help in handling. But even Hotchkis wants you to buy their leaf springs. The Hotchkis sway bar bushing's even mount on the axle with a center to center distance of 24 1/4" on an A-body. QA1's mounts look wider than that which is more optimal. There swaybar looks interesting to me for my project.
As far as ProStreeter's go. I built one in the 90's. It was fun at the drag strip. Not very useable on the street. It sat around in my barn until I got tired of looking at it. But I sure do miss that Ram Chargers paint job!
Last edited:
65RoadRacer
Member
haha...you're comparing apples to oranges - you'll never make the car look like that by drilling only four small holes in the frame rails, either. LOL
Nobody ever claimed this was in lieu of tubbing the car so you can run 15-inch wide wheels. It's a coilover conversion that doesn't require cutting up the car. The A-body doesn't permit very wide wheels/tires to begin with, so if that's where you want to go, you're not going to install this kit... it's a conversion kit, not a complete modification to accommodate big tires/wheels.
Tubbing, narrowing the axle, relocating the springs... those are all things that require far more than what this kit is intended to do. It also allows you to change spring rates easily, change ride height, adjust compression/rebound, adjust proper pinion angle. We simply installed the kit, and I shared it. I figured some people might be interested. Thanks.
Wow. There's just no facts left in this conversation at all.
If a 2017 Ford GT or C07 Corvette doesn't handle, I don't know what you think does. Certainly nothing with that 6-link. If those cars don't handle well, then there's absolutely no hope for our A-body's regardless of what you do to them. As far as durability, there's nothing wrong with torsion bars. They're used on semi's too. The 40k lb fire engine I ride around in at work has torsion bars. Really, really big torsion bars. And we have engines that are well over 100k miles, and not easy miles either. Maybe composite mono-leaf transverse springs don't last forever, but all you have to do is look up the handling specs from a road test on the new 'Vette to tell you they work pretty darn well despite having been around since the dawn of the automobile.
Rod ends won't last anywhere near 100k miles on the street. Not even close. The rod ends on the Hotchkis UCA's on my Challenger didn't make it 7k miles driving on the street when I was using the car as my daily driver. Hotchkis replaced them for me, but after another 7k miles I can tell you they won't probably won't see 10k before they need to be replaced based on their current conditions. Rod ends are not for street cars. The only place I've had success with them on the street is in adjustable strut rods, where they've lived for almost 60k miles on my Challenger. But I suspect that's just because they have very little load in that application. When they're used in UCA's and multi-link rear suspensions they won't last anywhere near as long as even an original rubber bushing. If I get the rod ends in my Hotchkis UCA's past 10k miles I'll be thrilled, because it's not the most fun thing to change over and over again. I won't use another set of rod ends on any of my cars in anything other than the strut rods again, I put too many miles on them and I don't want to change them every single year.
As far as anyone on here being able to engineer a system like the QA1 6 link, yes, there are at least several people here that could do it. I could, if I wanted to apply my time into doing it. As a former aerospace engineer, with FSAE car design and build experience, setting up a 6-link like the QA1 is something I'm capable of. And I know I'm not the only one, given the other members on this board that design suspension replacements for a living. Suspension design is not really all that difficult. And you don't need to design your own suspension system anyway. My point was simply that if you can weld, you don't need a suspension system that is completely bolt in, not that you should design and build your own from scratch.
Exactly so. Even the cars with full RMS conversions have proven to be slower than plain old torsion bar/leaf spring cars when run head to head. Now, that's not apples to apples either because we aren't talking about the same drivers, tires, etc. But if a good driver can outpace a car with all the fancy suspension conversions with a well set up torsion bar/leaf spring car, you're better off improving your driving abilities than converting your suspension.
If a 2017 Ford GT or C07 Corvette doesn't handle, I don't know what you think does. Certainly nothing with that 6-link. If those cars don't handle well, then there's absolutely no hope for our A-body's regardless of what you do to them. As far as durability, there's nothing wrong with torsion bars. They're used on semi's too. The 40k lb fire engine I ride around in at work has torsion bars. Really, really big torsion bars. And we have engines that are well over 100k miles, and not easy miles either. Maybe composite mono-leaf transverse springs don't last forever, but all you have to do is look up the handling specs from a road test on the new 'Vette to tell you they work pretty darn well despite having been around since the dawn of the automobile.
Rod ends won't last anywhere near 100k miles on the street. Not even close. The rod ends on the Hotchkis UCA's on my Challenger didn't make it 7k miles driving on the street when I was using the car as my daily driver. Hotchkis replaced them for me, but after another 7k miles I can tell you they won't probably won't see 10k before they need to be replaced based on their current conditions. Rod ends are not for street cars. The only place I've had success with them on the street is in adjustable strut rods, where they've lived for almost 60k miles on my Challenger. But I suspect that's just because they have very little load in that application. When they're used in UCA's and multi-link rear suspensions they won't last anywhere near as long as even an original rubber bushing. If I get the rod ends in my Hotchkis UCA's past 10k miles I'll be thrilled, because it's not the most fun thing to change over and over again. I won't use another set of rod ends on any of my cars in anything other than the strut rods again, I put too many miles on them and I don't want to change them every single year.
As far as anyone on here being able to engineer a system like the QA1 6 link, yes, there are at least several people here that could do it. I could, if I wanted to apply my time into doing it. As a former aerospace engineer, with FSAE car design and build experience, setting up a 6-link like the QA1 is something I'm capable of. And I know I'm not the only one, given the other members on this board that design suspension replacements for a living. Suspension design is not really all that difficult. And you don't need to design your own suspension system anyway. My point was simply that if you can weld, you don't need a suspension system that is completely bolt in, not that you should design and build your own from scratch.
Exactly so. Even the cars with full RMS conversions have proven to be slower than plain old torsion bar/leaf spring cars when run head to head. Now, that's not apples to apples either because we aren't talking about the same drivers, tires, etc. But if a good driver can outpace a car with all the fancy suspension conversions with a well set up torsion bar/leaf spring car, you're better off improving your driving abilities than converting your suspension.
GeorgeH
Well-Known Member
Hope that makes you feel better. But presently my car has no rear suspension in it all. The clapped out stuff is long gone, hence my attention to this thread because I am looking. Hard to sell me when you've talked me out of it, because this 6 link suspension as far as what's being discussed is that it is not quite for the x-crossers, doesn't quite fit in for the drag crowd, and is not intended for daily driving as mentioned by another supporter of this product. While the quality of the construction might be outstanding it's middle of the road generic, not the next best thing since sliced bread. Most middle of the road people are not going to want all the maintenance and upkeep/inspection. While it sounds like it does ok for most things, does it excel at anything? Ma Mopar had this sorted 50 years ago whether you want to run 9's or carve. The stuff still works today, and will survive on the street on a dual purpose car virtually untouched for another 30 years
Last edited:
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
You guys spend too much time on here.
I never wrote a Corvette doesn't handle. What wrote was they don't put a transverse monoleaf in a Corvette because it's better.
They do it because it's a smaller package and fits in the tight space of those cars because they sit low and don't have the space to put a coil over shock system in. And yes, composite monoleafs with delaminate and break on the ends. I've tested hundreds of them.
As far as everyone that keeps bringing up RMS AlterKtion and thinking it was designed with the same quality as say anything from Detroit Speed and Engineering is kind of funny. It was designed originally for a lite weight drag racing kit. Then... Modified a few times to what it is now.
But you all know everything. And sit around waiting to find something to pick apart.
The kit initially this post was about was for a Bolt in Kit. I think it's a great effort. I wish we could see some track time or notes from how it turns out.
And no, you really won't convince me that Chrysler had designed every aspect of a 45 year old car to be perfect for auto crossing or handling today in 2016. The only way I can get rear frame rails to not buckle, break around mounting points is to replace them with thicker steal. And you definitely aren't going to get much chassis strength unless you reinforce it anywhere you can.
I never wrote a Corvette doesn't handle. What wrote was they don't put a transverse monoleaf in a Corvette because it's better.
They do it because it's a smaller package and fits in the tight space of those cars because they sit low and don't have the space to put a coil over shock system in. And yes, composite monoleafs with delaminate and break on the ends. I've tested hundreds of them.
As far as everyone that keeps bringing up RMS AlterKtion and thinking it was designed with the same quality as say anything from Detroit Speed and Engineering is kind of funny. It was designed originally for a lite weight drag racing kit. Then... Modified a few times to what it is now.
But you all know everything. And sit around waiting to find something to pick apart.
The kit initially this post was about was for a Bolt in Kit. I think it's a great effort. I wish we could see some track time or notes from how it turns out.
And no, you really won't convince me that Chrysler had designed every aspect of a 45 year old car to be perfect for auto crossing or handling today in 2016. The only way I can get rear frame rails to not buckle, break around mounting points is to replace them with thicker steal. And you definitely aren't going to get much chassis strength unless you reinforce it anywhere you can.
GeorgeH
Well-Known Member
This suspension bolts to what?
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. You say you've broken suspension mounting points and ripped more sway bar mounts out of cars than you can count, and that you can't keep the rear frame rails from buckling without heavy reinforcement, but you think the bolt in QA1 6 link is the way to go. It bolts to the stock suspension mounting points and un-reinforced frame rails because it's a bolt in system. So...?
Further, what makes you think that any of these uni-body cars can handle well without chassis stiffening? I don't care what suspension conversion you install, if you don't include subframe connectors, torque boxes, and probably more, you won't be successful running autoX or road courses. None of my posts suggest a unibody chassis will handle well without reinforcement, and in fact all of the cars I've mentioned have at least moderate chassis stiffening, including my own car. Coilover conversions in the front require even more stiffening in my opinion, because the chassis was not designed to carry load the way the coilovers distribute it. And the rear 6 link will not replace the need for further stiffening either. It would be a colossal waste of money to install the 6-link without subframe connectors at the minimum.
As for the Chrysler design, first, it's older than 45 years. The '67 cars set all the major chassis/suspension points for all the A bodies up to 76. Obviously it was designed before that, so, it's over 50 years old. And, I didn't suggest it was a perfect system. It was designed for bias plys, the stock geometry doesn't even work well for radials. But lowered more than and inch and with the geometry of the UCA's corrected for additional caster the camber curves and bump steer numbers are very good. But, to do that you also need larger torsion bars, different bump stops, and at least offset bushings if not UCAs with different geometry. You will also find in my posts that I always recommend adjustable strut rods. And reinforced LCA pivot tubes, reinforced torsion bar anchors, and the chassis stiffening I've already talked about above. But they're still torsion bar/leaf cars.
And ALL suspension design is a trade off. There is no "best" design. Some designs work better given certain applications, but they ALL have pros and cons even within a specific application. So far, everything I've experienced and seen shows that the torsion bar/ leaf cars are still the fastest when properly tuned. That doesn't mean it's the "best" suspension design, but it seems to work the best where the rubber hits the road.
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
OK 72BluNBlu... Usually I agree with you and enjoy your input. But...
Where did I write that an old Mopar doesn't need chassis stiffening? I know damn well they do. You're the one that also wrote that Corvettes use a transverse monoleaf with the intention that it is superior to say coilover shocks, so in your mind leaf springs are better than coilover shocks because a Corvette uses them? (So do a lot of GM Front wheel drive cars. Ever look under the back of a W-body from 1980 to 1996?)
Just seems to me when a company like QA1 starts to make suspension parts for an old Mopar, all of you knock it. It's the reason why no company will bother with old Mopars. What's the point, you all will just claim the stock parts are superior (Or in King GeorgeH's mind completely clapped out with 300k+ miles is the only way to go). Or worry about ruining the originality. I can see why they went through the effort to make it a bolt in kit.
Anyone with 80's Camaro, Firebirds or even Mustangs are familiar with QA1's suspension kits. They are good quality and always developing new stuff.
As far as quoting that some guy beat Mary Pozzi's Camaro... well Mary is constantly rebuilding and changing her Camaro. It's had different suspension in it from Hotchkis, AME, DSE, Ridetech and been used to develop parts, She's actually semi retired since 2014 and is lending herself and her cars for development with companies. So, if some guy posted a quicker lap time than her at one event doesn't mean much. She's still an 11-time national SCCA Solo champion. She's also an autocrosser not a road racer. There's a difference.
As far as King GeorgeH. Why are you looking at this post when your mind is made up stock or in your case clapped-out is the only way you will go?
Where did I write that an old Mopar doesn't need chassis stiffening? I know damn well they do. You're the one that also wrote that Corvettes use a transverse monoleaf with the intention that it is superior to say coilover shocks, so in your mind leaf springs are better than coilover shocks because a Corvette uses them? (So do a lot of GM Front wheel drive cars. Ever look under the back of a W-body from 1980 to 1996?)
Just seems to me when a company like QA1 starts to make suspension parts for an old Mopar, all of you knock it. It's the reason why no company will bother with old Mopars. What's the point, you all will just claim the stock parts are superior (Or in King GeorgeH's mind completely clapped out with 300k+ miles is the only way to go). Or worry about ruining the originality. I can see why they went through the effort to make it a bolt in kit.
Anyone with 80's Camaro, Firebirds or even Mustangs are familiar with QA1's suspension kits. They are good quality and always developing new stuff.
As far as quoting that some guy beat Mary Pozzi's Camaro... well Mary is constantly rebuilding and changing her Camaro. It's had different suspension in it from Hotchkis, AME, DSE, Ridetech and been used to develop parts, She's actually semi retired since 2014 and is lending herself and her cars for development with companies. So, if some guy posted a quicker lap time than her at one event doesn't mean much. She's still an 11-time national SCCA Solo champion. She's also an autocrosser not a road racer. There's a difference.
As far as King GeorgeH. Why are you looking at this post when your mind is made up stock or in your case clapped-out is the only way you will go?
Ok guys, you're both talking past each other now, time to step back and let OP continue on with his thread if he so chooses.
Whatever. I've said multiple times that the QA1 is a well engineered system, and that I appreciate the time and effort that went into it. And I do. I have QA1 parts on my cars, they make good stuff, and I will buy more of their parts. And I truly hope they continue to expand their offerings for old Mopars because I will continue to consider any new offerings they make.
But that doesn't mean I can't think that they've completely missed the boat with this 6 link system, because I do. For their price point and the limitations of the system there are better options on the market already. The prolific use of rod ends means that you will constantly be changing them if you run a decent number of street miles. The location of the links limit tire width, which is one of the biggest reasons these cars are converted to links and coilovers to begin with. The inability to run tailpipes, which is straight from QA1 themselves, means it's not a good choice for a frequently driven street car. The bolt in installation is definitely a plus, and I'm sure the adjustability of the system is very nice to have. But I don't think it's worth what the system costs.
No suspension system is perfect, they ALL have pros and cons. The QA1 system is no different. That doesn't mean it still won't be the best option for some people, I'm sure it will be and I'm sure it will sell. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the pros and cons, because that's how you reach an informed decision. Name calling doesn't further that. I offered examples of other cars with unique suspension systems not to suggest that they were the best or better than anything else, but to show that systems like torsion bars and even transverse leaf springs CAN be used successfully at a high level. All suspension systems have pros and cons, period. This one is no different. I would love to see reviews of how the 6 link actually performs on the street and track, and I sincerely hope that it does well (I'm sure it will).
But that doesn't mean I can't think that they've completely missed the boat with this 6 link system, because I do. For their price point and the limitations of the system there are better options on the market already. The prolific use of rod ends means that you will constantly be changing them if you run a decent number of street miles. The location of the links limit tire width, which is one of the biggest reasons these cars are converted to links and coilovers to begin with. The inability to run tailpipes, which is straight from QA1 themselves, means it's not a good choice for a frequently driven street car. The bolt in installation is definitely a plus, and I'm sure the adjustability of the system is very nice to have. But I don't think it's worth what the system costs.
No suspension system is perfect, they ALL have pros and cons. The QA1 system is no different. That doesn't mean it still won't be the best option for some people, I'm sure it will be and I'm sure it will sell. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the pros and cons, because that's how you reach an informed decision. Name calling doesn't further that. I offered examples of other cars with unique suspension systems not to suggest that they were the best or better than anything else, but to show that systems like torsion bars and even transverse leaf springs CAN be used successfully at a high level. All suspension systems have pros and cons, period. This one is no different. I would love to see reviews of how the 6 link actually performs on the street and track, and I sincerely hope that it does well (I'm sure it will).
oi81b4uu812b4
Well-Known Member
Glad you came around to my point of view.
I want to know if this car is completed?
I want to know if this car is completed?
SRT_DSTRHOLC
Well-Known Member
Carl Gerst Rear Suspension has a Parallel 4 link and Watts link for around 2G. AND....I am going to run 345 wide tire, even a 390 would fit. Also Made in USA...
GeorgeH
Well-Known Member
Who said I wanted stock or clapped out? After 42 years with dry rotted bushings and wore out springs it's outlived it's life span, but it still wouldn't leapfrog the rear end. You can still get hellova ways on the MP parts before getting into something like this, and somebody serious isn't going to want the QA1. I'm sure a few will buy it for the "look at me" in parking lot factor.
Are you ok? Seriously man, I don't think you've understood a single thing I've said.
If you did, you would understand that I never changed my point of view, and I think it's pretty obvious that I don't agree with pretty much anything you've posted in this thread. Just read post #9. Same thing I just said in post #44. The QA1 is a well engineered system that has more drawbacks than advantages and costs a lot of money. People will buy it because it bolts in and looks complicated, but if they can't weld they won't be able to do the chassis reinforcement needed to push their cars hard enough to know the difference between the QA1 and a good set of leaf springs with a sway bar, making it a waste of money.
GeorgeH
Well-Known Member
He's running leaf springs! Imagine that, and building a dual purpose car. Who'da thunk? As I pass my crown to the hypocrite !!!!!!!!
Last edited:
I know he is. And I also know he's asked for my input a few times too.
But the giant emojii's and attitude are unnecessary, doesn't help anything.
And although that ship has probably sailed at this point, I DO still want to hear more about the actual performance of the QA1 6 link. Good, bad or otherwise. It's limitations mean I'll never install one (and don't think it would be right for most folks), but that doesn't mean it's not useful to evaluate its performance. All suspension has pros and cons.
Last edited:
-
