Coil-over Conversion Interest?

[Badart]

Some of you may know me from over at FABO. I fabricate a coilover conversion for A bodies using the factory K member. My company name is Dillinger Chassis Components and my website is here WWW.Dillingerchassis.com The conversions have been fairly popular for guys wanting additional header clearance, additional adjustment with my upper and lower control arms, less weight and retain their factory brakes, spindles and steering.

I am just curious how much interest there would be with this conversion for the B and E body crowd? I have owned a couple of b bodies in the past, but I am not familiar with how upper and lower arms differ from the later cars to the early cars? I know many vendors have one part number for all bodies, so I am sure that they are similar.

I have a K member, spindles, uppers, lowers and strut rods from an E body that will help me set up my jigs and get going on this project.

Just so you are aware all parts are top shelf stuff. All of the tubing is thick wall DOM tubing that is 100% tig welded and Sleeves and Heims are Chromoly.

 

[Badart]

More parts from my display.

 

[5.7 hemi]

Looks bad ***. The 62-70 b body and 70-74 e body use the same stuff. How about some heim jointed srut rods??

 

[Badart]

Looks bad ***. The 62-70 b body and 70-74 e body use the same stuff. How about some heim jointed srut rods??

I make those already for the E bodies. The price is the same a A bodies on my site. They come with Chromoly Adjusters and QA1 high misalignment Chromoly Heims that are teflon lined. They really free up the front suspension.

 

[benno440]

damn uses stock k member, i wish i saw this before i spent 10k on my magnumforce front k member and rear 4 link.

i think you will have alot of interest good luck

 

[68 Sport Satellite]

I make those already for the E bodies. The price is the same a A bodies on my site. They come with Chromoly Adjusters and QA1 high misalignment Chromoly Heims that are teflon lined. They really free up the front suspension.

Can you expand on the frees up front suspension comment? I had considered running strut rods like these from hotchkis but changed my mind and just put new rubber on my stock strut rods cuz I was afraid of too harsh a ride and possible k frame damage with street driving. The roads in much of northern california bay area are not that great. . .

Should I reconsider? Are there differences in suspension response besides the stiffer feel?

 

[Badart]

Can you expand on the frees up front suspension comment? I had considered running strut rods like these from hotchkis but changed my mind and just put new rubber on my stock strut rods cuz I was afraid of too harsh a ride and possible k frame damage with street driving. The roads in much of northern california bay area are not that great. . .

Should I reconsider? Are there differences in suspension response besides the stiffer feel?

I guess freeing up the front suspension isn't the best choice of words. There is much less resistance with droop and compression compared to a stiff bushing.

Some guys are concerned with binding running a setup like this. I have taken a small video with one of my lower control arms installed and I could move it with one finger through then suspension cycle. Running a factory arm would be the same deal because you still have a bushing in the pivot for the lower control arm.

As far as damage to the K member goes, I am yet to see any and I have had friends running this style setup for a couple of years with no issues. The main advantage of this style strut rod is retaining positive caster under hard braking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMmAXI8bvNc&feature=plcp

 

[topbrent]

Hi John,

You know I am definitely game for the conversion! :headbang:

Let me know if you want to borrow a 66-67 B body K-frame and parts to verify that everything fits. I would be happy to drop it by sometime. :unitedstates:

 

[Badart]

Hi John,

You know I am definitely game for the conversion! :headbang:

Let me know if you want to borrow a 66-67 B body K-frame and parts to verify that everything fits. I would be happy to drop it by sometime. :unitedstates:

Brent I thought there would be more interest. Hmmm:eusa_think:

 

[iraqivet01]

Looks good and fairly easy installation.

If I didn't already have a RMS set up. I would be interested.
Maybe on the next one.

 

[topbrent]

Brent I thought there would be more interest. Hmmm:eusa_think:

Just like in "Field of Dreams," If you build it...they will come...

...at least I will! Surely a few others will as well.

 

[68 Sport Satellite]

I guess freeing up the front suspension isn't the best choice of words. There is much less resistance with droop and compression compared to a stiff bushing.

Some guys are concerned with binding running a setup like this. I have taken a small video with one of my lower control arms installed and I could move it with one finger through then suspension cycle. Running a factory arm would be the same deal because you still have a bushing in the pivot for the lower control arm.

As far as damage to the K member goes, I am yet to see any and I have had friends running this style setup for a couple of years with no issues. The main advantage of this style strut rod is retaining positive caster under hard braking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMmAXI8bvNc&feature=plcp

Thanks for the info! Can you tell me if and how these strut rods are different than the ones Hotchkis sells, if at all? I'm a bit familiar with those since I had them on the car and then swapped them out after my mechanic scared me with stories of broken k-frames. Now I'm thinking about going back to strut rods like these. It did give the car a nicer feel to me when driving.

 

[68 Sport Satellite]

You still there? Any info on comparison to the hotchkis strut rods?

 

[old tired rebel]

I know there is a lot of us with Later B bodies 73-79 that would be interested in this. Does the conversion remove the torsion bars?

 

[fatecaptured]

Don't forget about the anti sway bar placement difference between the earlier B bodies and the 70-72 B bodies and how they attach to the LCA's. I'm sure people are concerned with the weak shock towers in these cars. I see in all your pictures that the shock towers are reinforced. Some people may not want to do this to their cars. Good idea and I'm looking forward to the responses of people who run them.

 

[old tired rebel]

Any updates? I would like to know what you plan to offer for the 71-72 73-79 B bodies? Yes the k frame is different between those years.

 

[Sneke_Eyez]

Well, I wasn't around when you posted this originally, and now it seems as though you've probably packed up and moved back to FABO, but I'm interested in anything you could do for a 69 Coronet. I've seen your stuff for the A bodies and it looks top notch.
Not only that, I've got a few suggestions for where some additional business for B-Bodies could come from. This place never has struck me as a big hangout for those looking to make their B-Bodies handle, which isn't a knock against it, its just a different crowd.

 

[greenmachine]

I am very interested in the conversion u are considering making! I can't afford the rms conversion so this seems like the very nice option. I'm rolling a 1969 coronet, (literally rolling right now with no engine/trans lol). Will go to your site and count me in for interest!

 

[old tired rebel]

I would like a reasonable price k frame for late B bodies also

 

['73bird]

Id be interested in the setup for a 1973 440 roadrunner. Any chance you have developed it for 73 to 79 b bodies?