Hi All,

My '67 dart appeared to have a saggy front end (lower than one might expect for a stock model), so I wanted to raise the front end a bit. I adjusted my torsion bars, which worked great and firmed up the ride nicely, but, I couldn't get the front end at even height until I got to a position that is a little higher than I'd prefer. I'm surmising that the torsion bars (original) have weakened over time and since the slant six is slanted to one side, I couldn't get the height even until the tension on the bars was sufficient to overcome the weight imbalance due to the slanted engine. In other words, no matter how I adjusted the bars, it seems there were only two heights where I could make the front end even, at the original low height (presumably pretty low tension on the bars) or the new higher point (more tension on the bars), but that I feel is likely too high. I looks like there is about 3 inches between the top of my 14" tire and the front fender well. I like the feel of the ride, it's not too stiff, but is much firmer than before. I'm sure my rear leafs are also 46 years old and weak, could it be that if I change them the front end will come down simply from the incremental weight shift back toward the front?

thanks for any torsion bar, suspension wisdom, anyone has.

BG

These cars came from factory with chassis level to ground, in other words no forward rake, and look to be high in front with today’s prospective. The only way to determine if there is something goofy with ride height staying put is to follow factory procedure to set ride height, drive it for a week, and recheck measurements:

With trunk empty, no passengers, full tank of fuel, and recommended tire pressures, car on flat level floor or lift.

Clean all foreign material form lower steering knuckle arm assemblies and from lowest area of lower control arm inner pivots.

Jounce vehicle several times releasing it on downward motion.

Measure distance from lowest point of one adjusting blade to floor (measurement “Aâ€￾) and from lowest point on steering knuckle arm on same side (measurement “Bâ€￾) Measure only one side at a time.

Adjust height so A – B = 2 1/8th inch +/- 1/8th inch.

After each adjustment jounce car before remeasuring. Both sides should be measured even though one side is adjusted.

Measure other side in same manner. The maximum side to side difference is 1/8th inch.

You will have to ping pong left and right until both sides are in spec.

If you had a weaker bar than the other, once height is set the car should maintain ride height, but one would notice differing feel between sides during turns when suspension is loaded on one side. In other words if driver’s side bar was weak right turns would feel mushy and car would keel over more compared to left turns because of the increase load on weaker driver’s side bar.

Another reason for front end to look high is weak sagging rear springs. You need to determine condition of rear springs before making judgments on vehicle ride height.

I would recommend new torsion bars 0.940â€￾ and larger and new rear springs. Rear springs can be built to several ride heights from under stock factory to 2-3 inches over stock ride height.

If you want the raked look, keep front end at factory ride height specs because these cars just handle better that way, and adjust the rake with rear spring height. Cranking down ride height at front end causes excessive negative caster problems, bottoming out on bump stops, crappy ride, and poor handling.

_________________
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

Thanks so much, the procedure is what I followed. The more I look at the height, the more "normal" it appears to me. As you suggested, when I address the rear leafs, there will be some compensation for the leveling. I grew up on the east coast, where 46 year old leaf springs would be rusted and broken; but mine are essentially rust free as this is a CA car. Still, the rear leafs do seem a bit weak. Does anyone recommend genuine Mopar leafs, or a particular other vendor?

I think the kid who owned the car previously must have lowered the front end somewhat, as it does ride better now and handles better in the turns. My torsion bar adjustments didn't appear to hurt the alignment, as I kept to the 1/8" differential in height spec and there is no pull to either side whatsoever on level driving conditions.

After the rear leafs, I'm considering front and rear sway bars to improve handling further. Anyone have any recommendations on sway bar choices?

Thanks Everyone. I definitely have Slant Sixness...

Brian

'67 Dart 270

[url=http://www.springsnthings.com/]ESPO Spring ‘N Things[/url] if I remember correctly are located in PA have good prices, and selection. For Chrysler A Body one has to give them a call as these springs aren’t not listed on site, and they will build what you want.

1 1/4th inch front anti sway bar will work well with a stiffer than stock torsion bar. These cars as all cars from the sixties were dreadfully under sprung making them great wallowing hogs compared to today’s stock suspensions.

My 67 Dart has 0.940â€￾ torsion bars from Firm Feel, Addco 1 ¼â€￾ front sway bar with [url=http://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=304768&highlight=addco#304768]reengineered[/url] mounts, sub [url=http://chucker54.stores.yahoo.net/framconpac.html]frame connectors[/url], stock ride height six lief rear springs, and I had [url=http://www.steerandgear.com/]Steer and Gear[/url] rebuild PS gear to level 2 firm feel. The car is a pleasure to drive, it has a very neutral predictable feel, and rides softer than my 2007 300C AVD.

Replacing all front end bushings, and loose or worn parts will finish the job. One place that often causes problems in a 67 is the one year only cantilevered idler arm mount. My car’s idler arm mount had egged out and was imposable to get idler arm to tighten up. [url=http://slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=355554&highlight=idler+arm#355554]Solution[/url] was to remove old mount, and weld in ‘68 and up mount.

By that way, my first car was a ’67 270 hardtop with a 273 V8, and three on the tree.

_________________
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

Wow, thanks for the information and lesson on the '67 front suspension.

bg

I respectfully disagree. Lower center of gravity = better handling. So lowering the front on the car 2-3", lowers the engine (a heavy piece!) effectively improving the handling.

My front fender lip is flush with, or just barely above, the top of my 25" tall tire. I will give you that the ride isn't for everyone. But otherwise, I have a proper alignment, bottom out no more than I did when stock, and have an exceptionally well handling car.

Brian, what are you looking to do with the car? That might help us steer you in the right direction.

_________________

Zorg: True lower center of gravity will allow more stability in theory, but if the suspension has restricted movement, that is to say less travel than what engineers designed, handling and ride will suffer. You can’t make a car handle when on the bump stops. Also most A bodies have limited + caster adjustment, and lowered front suspension limits dialing in more caster, a desired handling enhancement that radial tires require.

If one desires to lower car, drop spindles is the way to accomplish the task while keeping proper front end geometry, and articulation.

Also having rear end of car higher than stock factory ride height in relation to front end will degrade handling. The higher the rear is the more over steer one will experience.

_________________
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

Stiffer torsion bars solve that problem quite easily.
Perhaps I need a lesson on caster, but from riding bikes as a kid, lots of + caster makes for more stability in a straight line, not better handling?
...are a way...
I'm confused as to how these two suggestions work together?

_________________

Raising the rear of an A-body makes them tail happy.

I always lower the front end around 2" - 3". I also don't follow the factory method and just measure from the front attachment bolts on the K-member.

I have even lowered them to the point where I had to cut the bump stop on the LCA. I have never had problems with front alignment or handling.

It sure does...but putting a set of new leaf springs in and balancing it out with your spare tire and tools in the trunk puts it right back into balance...


Of course using a 6 spring leaf pack makes it a little harder, I had to put a slant six block in the trunk to get it to finally mellow out and look right! (Told my machinist that I used the local Ford Guru's body as ballast... )

-D.Idiot

whajr:
[quote]You can’t make a car handle when on the bump stops[/quote]

[quote]Stiffer torsion bars solve that problem quite easily.[/quote]

Yes, but if suspension is contacting bump stop it is as if the spring rate suddenly changes and will upset the set of the front end during whatever maneuver it being made. Upset = unpredictable = poor handling

Yes stiffer torsion bars will lessen extreme suspension travel compared to soft floppy factory spring rates, but if that suspension is contacting pump stops with any frequency than it can’t do its job, it needs more travel.


[quote]Perhaps I need a lesson on caster, but from riding bikes as a kid, lots of + caster makes for more stability in a straight line, not better handling? [/quote]

Yup more straight line stability and a more settled going down the road feel with better steering impute. These cars when set at factory castor zero to +1 degrees tend to wander a bit when in the truck ruts found on most roads these days. Without adding problem solver bushings or highly adjustable tubular upper control arms, it is difficult to get into positive caster when front end is lowered from factory settings.

wjajr:
[quote]Also having rear end of car higher than stock factory ride height in relation to front end will degrade handling. The higher the rear is the more over steer one will experience.

If you want the raked look, keep front end at factory ride height specs because these cars just handle better that way, and adjust the rake with rear spring height.[/quote]

[quote]I'm confused as to how these two suggestions work together?[/quote]

I left out this thought: if you want the raked look, and to hell with best handling, lift the rear of the car with spring arch, not rear shackle extensions, it will be the best trade off of look to handling.

'67 Dart 270 was looking to resurrect his worn out suspension. Probably a good starting point would be to do as I suggested to clone a factory Formular S factory engineered set up as a starting point. If he wants to play around with different ride settings, after that, it's up to him. I have gone down that road, and found lowering front suspension with a ¾â€￾ wrench doesn’t produce good results in the handling department.

_________________
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

Hi All,

I definitely don't like the raked look, I like a Dart to have an "even" look to it, and not a low rider look. The adjustment I've made might seem a tad high, but the car has an even look and handles very well. I'll replace the old tired leaf springs and I think it'll be fine.

Thanks so much everyone,

BG

mgndld;sl

_________________
'72 Duster 198 stock cam, 3:23's Hookers on jack stands for 8 years in the driveway
'79 Maxivan 360 Offy Qjet Comp RV cam/rusting in the driveway.
93 D350 160HP Cummins Auto Dually Clubcab needs a injector pump
2005 Golden Couch Buick