True???

-
yes it is true, careful though, some are just a bit taller and some seem to think that this will affect geometry, I however do not believe this. The 73 and 74 E body spindles are direct copys of the A body spindles geometry wise. I used M body spindles on my 64 dart. worked just fine. Handled great and no hint of balljoint interference (what a lot are worried about)
 
Oh, boy. First, the taller knuckles WILL affect geometry! Think about it: if the dimensions change, the front-end geometry MUST change! Second, make sure of hose routing! The wrong knuckles can result in brake hoses getting snagged or cut!
 
Not true. It has a very negligble effect on anything. Go over to BigBlockDart.com and look through their tech pages. They have a really nice wrote up about it from people who have actually done it and had no problems whatsoever. In fact, improved handling from the swap.

Here you go. Read it for yourself.

http://www.bigblockdart.com/techpages/spindles.shtml
 
Absolutely nothing you posted contradicts what I posted in any way, shape, or form. I said not one word about changing the geometry being a problem, only that the taller knuckle DID change the geometry!
 
Jarlaxle said:
Oh, boy. First, the taller knuckles WILL affect geometry! Think about it: if the dimensions change, the front-end geometry MUST change! Second, make sure of hose routing! The wrong knuckles can result in brake hoses getting snagged or cut!
Click to expand...

Think about it.....
Countless folks have done there conversions based off of this information

http://www.bigblockdart.com/techpages/dbconversion.shtml

just saying......
 
Jarlaxle said:
Absolutely nothing you posted contradicts what I posted in any way, shape, or form. I said not one word about changing the geometry being a problem, only that the taller knuckle DID change the geometry!
Click to expand...

I didn't say it to contradict you. I posted the information because you left it so open ended. Someone could have gotten the idea that doing the swap was not a good idea and that is as far from the truth as you can get. What you posted may not have been incorrect, but it was most certainly incomplete.
 
74DartSwinger360 said:
Ok if all of them will work....Why are there so many different types if they is no difference?
Click to expand...

Because that's how the engineers designed them. Nobody ever said they were smarter than Chrysler engineers either. The fact is, the spindles will interchange just fine. Go to BigBlockDart.com and read the article. It's a good one.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Because that's how the engineers designed them. Nobody ever said they were smarter than Chrysler engineers either. The fact is, the spindles will interchange just fine. Go to BigBlockDart.com and read the article. It's a good one.
Click to expand...
truth is people have been swapping them for years. they all work just fine. some people just like to argue
 
Some people like to keep things the way Chrysler designed them, no more and no less. Answer me this: If the other spindles work just as well, then why did they go to the trouble of tooling up for a new one?
 
It's not even steering geometry....it's that the taller spindle over-angles the ball joints.

Does it work? Yes?

Does it stress the piss out of the ball joints at the extreme ends of compression and extension? You bet.

Having been lucky enough to experience a balljoint failure at parking lot speed and nothing more, I will NEVER run the FMJ or B/R spindles on an A-body. No-way, No-how. NEVER.

Most people don't have an issue because they don't actually hit the limits of suspension travel where the issue is. It might cause an issue on the first hit or the fiftieth, but it's not worth it to me.

For the rest of you, it's your ace, not mine. Mopar Muscle tech sucks balls and is consistently far off base. No thanks.

How do we know ignorance abounds on the issue? Simple! Steering Axis Inclination (according to Mopar Mushle) is increased by a half degree using the "other car" spindles....which would make the car more stable (as MM says), yet people describe "better handling". Sorry, those two are counter to one another. The people claiming better handling are describing something that is not attributable to the spindle swap.
 
Jarlaxle said:
Some people like to keep things the way Chrysler designed them, no more and no less. Answer me this: If the other spindles work just as well, then why did they go to the trouble of tooling up for a new one?
Click to expand...

And this guy makes the point that you have to answer:

Why would cash-strapped mid-70's Chrysler spend money engineering, and re-tooling for new spindles if what they had worked for the new applications?

Interchanges, by definition, work both ways, but if the A/E spindle wouldn't work on FMJ or B/R that should tell you something....

From the source that did it first, who actually chums around with Chrysler engineers, AND consistently turns out good tech:
http://www.moparaction.com/Tech/archive/disc-main.html
 
People have different ways of doin things its all in ones opinion. I prefer to use the stuff that is made to work on the car even if I have to spend alittle more than run some part that aint made for the car and have it fail. Yes some people have used it with sucess and others have not. Its all a preference and I just prefer to have the correct stuff.
I mean how much are you really saving usin junkyard part that may last 30 thousand miles or 100
 
jos51700 said:
And this guy makes the point that you have to answer:

Why would cash-strapped mid-70's Chrysler spend money engineering, and re-tooling for new spindles if what they had worked for the new applications?

Interchanges, by definition, work both ways, but if the A/E spindle wouldn't work on FMJ or B/R that should tell you something....

From the source that did it first, who actually chums around with Chrysler engineers, AND consistently turns out good tech:
http://www.moparaction.com/Tech/archive/disc-main.html
Click to expand...

Funny because the facts are that all of the negatives Rick spoke of have been proven to be false. I like Rick. He's a good guy. But he wrote that article literally in the dawn of doing the FMJ swaps. There was no long term testing as of yet. Now there has been and it won't hurt a thing. There are so many vehicles now running around with the "wrong" spindles in your opinion, so why haven't we seen more failures? We haven't because there are none that can be attributed directly to the spindles.
 
73AbodEE said:
truth is people have been swapping them for years. they all work just fine. some people just like to argue
Click to expand...

Exactly and those people probably haven't even read the proof in the link I posted. You just caint tell some folks anything no matter how hard you try.
 
jos51700 said:
It's not even steering geometry....it's that the taller spindle over-angles the ball joints.

Does it work? Yes?

Does it stress the piss out of the ball joints at the extreme ends of compression and extension? You bet.

Having been lucky enough to experience a balljoint failure at parking lot speed and nothing more, I will NEVER run the FMJ or B/R spindles on an A-body. No-way, No-how. NEVER.

Most people don't have an issue because they don't actually hit the limits of suspension travel where the issue is. It might cause an issue on the first hit or the fiftieth, but it's not worth it to me.

For the rest of you, it's your ace, not mine. Mopar Muscle tech sucks balls and is consistently far off base. No thanks.

How do we know ignorance abounds on the issue? Simple! Steering Axis Inclination (according to Mopar Mushle) is increased by a half degree using the "other car" spindles....which would make the car more stable (as MM says), yet people describe "better handling". Sorry, those two are counter to one another. The people claiming better handling are describing something that is not attributable to the spindle swap.
Click to expand...

Another thing: how many people here have lowered their car? If so, this makes the ball joint angles WORSE.
 
Jarlaxle said:
Another thing: how many people here have lowered their car? If so, this makes the ball joint angles WORSE.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's just the opposite for a lowered car. Did you even read the article on BBD? I can tell not. Those people have reasearched it, done it, posted all the numbers for comparison. All you gotta do is read.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Exactly and those people probably haven't even read the proof in the link I posted. You just caint tell some folks anything no matter how hard you try.
Click to expand...

A million people said the Earth was flat, and life got along fine for them. Doesn't mean that they were right.

Like I said, if you've never experienced a balljoint failure, keep trucking.

For my money/life, I'll err on the side of caution.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Actually, it's just the opposite for a lowered car. Did you even read the article on BBD? I can tell not. Those people have reasearched it, done it, posted all the numbers for comparison. All you gotta do is read.
Click to expand...

As posted already...

It's not even steering geometry....it's that the taller spindle over-angles the ball joints.

Does it work? Yes?

Does it stress the piss out of the ball joints at the extreme ends of compression and extension? You bet.
Click to expand...

Lowered Mopars generally START with more compression.
 
Chrysler introduced the taller B-body knuckles in 1973 to match the dimensions of the new iso-mount front suspension.

I'm not aware of any geometry or ball joint angularity problems caused by 3/8" taller knuckles installed on daily driver or race cars.

Brake hose routing has nothing to do with knuckle height.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top