1967 Dart

Several years ago I replaced the rebuilt in 2008 KH factory front disks with Dr Diff supplied mid 70's B body spindles, and single piston disk brakes.

At the same time I ditched the 10 year old CCP tubular upper control arms for a set of more robustly engineered QA1 upper tubular arms, and a set of adjustable strut rods. Since owning this car the line up guys have had problems getting enough caster on the passenger's side. A problem I don't under stand because of the adjust-ability of the strut rod and the extra 3* of caster built into the QA1 arms.

I'm not sure which height spec to use for setting correct ride height, the A Body, or B body height due to the larger or taller B body spinals now installed. I have learned to set the ride height before having a alignment performed it is seems beyond the modern alignment tech's ability to perform. The last alignment was a total waste of money. These rack jockeys don't understand our torsion bar front ends, that there are two other adjustments after ride height to make before toe is set, and somehow jacking around with ride height after is has been established is going to make the car's stance look cool. F the cool crap, I just want the thing to go down the road straight, and not wear the front tires.

So A or B body ride height for the Dart?

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.
82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp
07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

The factory ride height specifications are for OE factory suspensions and tires.
They should be used for a guide line, but basically set the ride height where it fits the cars suspension and tires as the car is today. Pay attention to allow room for suspension travel before the bumpers contact their stops. If the ride height is good but the bumper travel is not you can find alternative shorter bumpers or cut the existing bumpers down.
The important thought is to set the ride height prior to making other alignment adjustments.

_________________
Doo Ron Ron and the Duke of Earl are friends of mine.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX8Nj8ABEI8

John has got it. The handling will not vary much with height unless it is way off. I would just make it the same side-side and I might shoot for 1/2" - 1" using the factory setting procedure, and see what the car looks like. Make sure there are no tire contacts and that the LCA bump stops have at LEAST 3/4" and more like 1" open space at rest (after driving car to let it settle). If not enough LCA stop clearance, cut them down with a hacksaw. Can discuss more...

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines

I used to be an alignment guy for many years. Even in the 80s and 90s I craved the older cars to come in. Even back then guys that would come up after I did couldn't do shims (like GMs were famous for) or slip shafts or cams on one of the control arms. They wanted the "loosen the lower strut bolts and pivot top of wheel to green" set toe and let em go.
I couldn't stand the S10 crowd who were the worst for "take a torch, heat the spring til the truck dropped on the bump stops" then bitch at ME because I couldn't get them up on the rack let alone align them very well... well I'm not the one who ruined their suspension then to bring it in for an alignment
As far as your ride height some of the old Mopar gave a spec of "the difference between 2 measurements" as the ride height spec. Vary the torsion bars until that difference came out where the book called for.
No matter which way you measure, it would depend on overall tire height compared to what was stock, what those specs were written for. So allowances needed to be made there. Or add on/helper springs, etc...
As I remember it seemed that back in the day a stock b body would sit higher than a stock a body.
Much of that is the difference in tire sizes they came with. The little dinky tires that were on an a body's 13" rim, well you could never get a 13" tire that was very tall. The overall height of the tires used on 14" rims always had taller sidewalls.

I used to align alot of 4wd trucks with torsion bars. Often I would find that they would come in way out of spec.
When I first got into alignments I would just go to town with shim/cam caster and camber adjustment and get them in spec, send them away. But I don't know what happened along the way but somewhere in the 20 years I did that for a living I started checking ride height after the heads were hung, before I adjusted anything.
Next I would raise the low side via the torsion bars to match the height the high side. I'd just measure at the fender lip. Never did look at actual "spec" for ride height and never lowered the high side to match the low side.
I'd then take another caster sweep and compare readings. Often that ride height adjustment was all that was needed to bring the alignment back to dead nuts perfect on caster/ camber. And often eyeballing from the front of a vehicle they never looked like there was "that much" difference side to side. But there was.
And yes if you set camber and caster at one set height then crank the torsion bars up or down and recheck the car's settings there would be a drastic difference between them.

On caster on our older cars: back then for them to spec more than 1-1/2 to 2* caster was alot. In the mid 70s I think it was the monte carlo and equivalent other gm products that started calling for what was then "way high" caster. Over 3-1/2* and some called for even more.
And often a manual steer version of a same vehicle would often call for neg caster, or at least much less positive. And if there was a problem anywhere we were always told to get camber right first and settle on caster wherever it would fall, as camber is more likely to eat tires along with the toe setting, caster would not. The biggest concern with caster has always been "cross" caster, or the difference between the left and right, because too much "caster spread" would definitely cause a pull one way or the other.
Camber will likewise cause a pull if too much difference in setting left to right. We would be usually try and get camber pretty equal and then vary caster to compensate for road crown if need be.

Thanks for all that explanation Do-n.

The car cam with disk brakes and 6.95-14 tires which according to Bing has a height of 25.1 inches. After installing the mid seventies B body disk brake conversion that required large bolt pattern wheels, I went with 15x7 inch Rallye rims, and mounted P235/60 which have a height of 26.1"; an gain in height of 1 inch. Rear springs are six lief standard ride height.

I have been using the formula listed in the factory manual of taking the difference between height of torsion bar at the blade and height of the lower ball joint from a level floor. Both difference side to side have to be within 1/8th inch of each other. Measurements taken after making sure all tires have been inflated to the same pressure.

The last line up guy did not give me a printout of before, and after spec. Claimed his printer was not working. I say he was pissed because he flooded the engine when starting it to bring it in the shop, and when it was time to go flooded it again. I had to get it started while on the rack.

I really wanted a print out of where all the setting were, regardless of if the finished product was in spec or not. I'm trying to figure out why everybody can't get this car in line. Years ago there was an old guy that could get it going down the road straight, and not wearing tires.

I'm getting close to bolting on an Alter Ktion front suspension or like with rack and pinion steering.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.

82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp

07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

One way I have found is to do the alignment myself once they set up the machine. If they'll let you do it... Set caster first by rotating front cam outward relative to rear cam., then rotate both front and rear cams in/out for camber, then toe last.

Tbar suspension is great, but I guess you could go aftermarket if it's too hard for the yokel shop. To me, the PS box can be a serious problem, and I would go manual with elec pwr steering or Borgerson if I wanted power. Might do electric before long??

Lou

_________________
Home of Slant6-powered fun machines

Hi. A bit of a resurrection here, but I hope it's okay.
If this post is not "on-topic" enough for this thread, please let me know, and I'll start my own thread.

My ID shows me as having just joined this forum this month, but I swear I was a member over ten years ago - I don't know whether the system purged inactive users, but if so, that would explain why there was no PW associated with my e-mail when I tried to reset my PW.

I just bought a '64 Dart 270 4-door with 38,000 miles on the clock, in very original condition, after having my eyes open for one since my '67 Valiant was wrecked around 2006, and I'll have a few questions as I go about cleaning 'er up.
I always refer to my Service Manual and Parts Manual before asking questions, so I hope not to ask any stupid ones.

My Question du Jour:
Does anyone out there with a properly set up stock \6 car have riding height measurements made "the old-fashioned way," like GM (:eek:) does 'em, from the flat bottom of the rocker, next to the pinch weld, a few inches behind the front / ahead of the rear wheel openings?

I reviewed the Service Manual's instructions, which are essentially a side-to-side differential measurement, but they won't answer my question, which is:
Is the rear of my car just a little tiny bit (like 1/2") low?

I ask because I don't enjoy driving with the butt low - it makes it harder to see forward and makes the steering too light and prone to understeer, and I'm just not sure whether my rear springs have sagged significantly in... 60 years.

Here are my measurements, on the very smooth, level concrete surface of my shop, unloaded, with a very empty gas tank, riding on B78/13 bias-ply tires inflated to the specified pressure (24psi, if I recall):
LF: 8-1/8" RF: 8-1/8"
LR: 9" RR: 8-1/2"

And here is a photo of my car from the side. The surface it's on begins to slant uphill slightly at the front.



Thanks for anything you can tell me,

- Eric

60 year old rear springs will be sagging and fatigued, just how much is hard to say, the rear spring bushings are probably perished as well.

The FSM states the before a front end alignment is made, the fuel tank should be full, with the spare tire in the trunk.

The thing to do would be to replace all the front end suspension bushings before spending a dime on a lineup. Replace or re-arch the rear springs to get all the slop & sag removed from the rear end. You can replace all the bushings in the driveway, the exception might be the lower control arm bushings, which may require a press depending on what type of new bushing one uses.

If your steering box is worn it should be rebuilt or replaced with a new unit such as Borgeson sells.

You might want to up grade the one pot master cylinder to the 1967 and newer two pot type. Check out the Brake sticky section here for more info on the conversion.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.

82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp

07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

Agreed, but I was curious whether, based on his experience, one of the members here believed that this particular car was sitting a bit lower than stock in the back.

The FSM only gives measurement instructions that ensure that the rear is level, not that measure the absolute height of the back of the car.


Which is standard practice, except that I'm not lining it up now. It's got 60 year old tires on it, there's salt on the roads, and its not going anywhere until Spring. A lot of time has to go by before I get to that point.
But knowing whether I'm going to be buying springs before I do line it up would be useful.


But I never said anything about getting it aligned now. I only asked about the riding height, which is the subject of this thread.
And the bushings are actually pretty good, considering that it's only got 38,000 miles, and was driven very conservatively its whole life.


It doesn't appear to be, considering that the car has only 38,000 miles on it, but I do plan on following \6Dan's advice on adjusting it, once I've made a separate post to clarify them, and I will reconsider a new box after that, and once it is on the road.
I have swapped a 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee box into a '74 full-size Olds, so I am familiar with the change that comes with a tighter-ratio steering box.


I have already ordered a 15/16" dual M/C and it is on the way, along with brake hoses, spring kits, and wheel cylinder rebuild kits (dirt cheap, and always worth a try before installing Chinese replacements). I'll get shoes only if these are worn or soaked. The original asbestos shoes will grip better than hard modern shoes.
Replacement of a single with a dual M/C is straightforward, and, honestly, I don't understand why there are so many threads on the subject.

Thank you,

– Eric

MDchanic:


Can't tell from the photo. Looking under the car at the spring's arch is it humped up, straight, or down? Humped up or straight indicates a sagging spring. Measure the distance to level floor from each end of the pinch weld under the rocker panels. Those four measurements should be close once you follow the ride height adjustment measurements listed in the FSM.



There is nothing good about 60 year old bushings. They are most likely rock hard, cracked, or egged out. Can you drive the car like that, sure, but it won't ride too well, it will feel kind of sloppy, and may have a clunk or two.

You have a nice winter project.

_________________
67' Dart GT Convertible; the old Chrysler Corp.

82' LeBaron Convertible; the new Chrysler Corp

07' 300 C AWD; Now by Fiat, the old new Chrysler LLC

As I said in my first post, just above the photo:

Height to the rear rockers is just the tiniest bit higher in the rear than in the front.


Can't argue with that, but as someone who's driven vehicles where the control arm bushings had lost all their rubber (I was wild in my youth), I'm surprised at how good they look.


I have far too many. We'll see where this one lands on the list.

– Eric

When I set front ride height, I measure from a level surface to the front attachment bolt on the K member. My ride height will be different then yours, since I am not running 13" tires.

If your car has had normal usage, you may want to add a "2" in front of the odometer reading. Normal usage would be about 10,000 miles per year, for the first 10 years, with the yearly usage tapering off after that point.

Good place to check – Thanks!


It doesn't.

It is a Northeast car with no meaningful rust (still has visible paint on the underside of the floors), almost no discernible wear on the seats, the pedals, or the heel pad, and is 100% original, with no non-factory equipment. The tires are undated B78-13s, and the spare is a 6.50-13 with factory ink across the tread.

I bought it from the third owner, who gave me the registration from the second owner, and I've spoken to the the second owner, who worked for the first owner, and bought it from her family after she died at 103.

I believe it to have 38,000 true miles.

– Eric

CONCLUSION:

I answered my own question.

In the 1964 Valiant AMA Specifications, page 24, are listed height from floor to bottoms of rockers and floot to bottoms of rear edges of doors.

It's not for the Dart, but the Dart can't be very much different.

Specifications (with 300# Front Seat, 450# Rear Seat, Full Gas Tank) are:

Front Rocker to Ground..........7.4"
Rear Rocker to Ground...........7.0"
Front Door to Ground...........11.7"
Rear Door to Ground............11.6"

My car (empty) measures:

Front Rocker to Ground.............8.125"
Rear Rocker to Ground..............9"L........8.5"R
Front Door to Ground.............12.5"L....12.125"R
Rear Door to Ground..............13"L.......12.375"R

So, if I get a chance to load up my car, I can tell for sure, but odds are it's a bit low, but not so severely low that I need to address it immediately.

Thanks to all,

– Eric