Magnum Force Suspension - Took My Money

[Burns69RT]

AGREED! Carl Gerst, who I met at the nats in Ohio when he was just getting going with his products, IS someone I'd trust with my life, because THAT IS exactly what you are doing when you install some of these systems! RMS seems to be a good product, but hasn't there been a few people who have had upper rear shock or strut mounts break??
Anyway, I would have liked to have rack and pinion steering, but I have concerns about the stresses put on the frame and other components that are designed for torsion bars, AND I just recently read (and looking at it I believe it) that the torsion bars add some strength and stability to the frame components at large.
That's one of several reasons why I went with QA1

That’s why you weld in US CarTool subframe connectors and torque boxes and also their inner fender braces. When you’re going that route you go all in or half assed. And one of those choices will determine what happens to you car in the long run. Magnum force is pure garbage. But I agree, RMS or Gerst all the way.

 

[biomedtechguy]

That’s why you weld in US CarTool subframe connectors and torque boxes and also their inner fender braces.

The USCT fender braces will happen when I have the chromoly steel roll bar installed, along with the J bars in the inner fenders, tied into the rollbar through the firewall OR possibly to plates welded on the firewall.
That is going to be part of the prep for when my BME 541 stroker motor goes in.
Along with the front and rear torque boxes, and subframe connectors, I also had inner and outer front spring hanger reinforcement plates put in.

 

[Burns69RT]

The USCT fender braces will happen when I have the chromoly steel roll bar installed, along with the J bars in the inner fenders, tied into the rollbar through the firewall OR possibly to plates welded on the firewall.
That is going to be part of the prep for when my BME 541 stroker motor goes in.
Along with the front and rear torque boxes, and subframe connectors, I also had inner and outer front spring hanger reinforcement plates put in.

View attachment 980243 View attachment 980244 View attachment 980251 View attachment 980253

That’s definitely going to turn out great! I always use USCT. John’s a great guy and products are quality and on point.

 

[Dan64]

Does anyone feel that there is a need to use both the inner fender braces and a J bar when running a Alterkation front end?. I have the usct frame connectors,inner fender, torque boxes and front radiator support installed already (64' Polara) but starting to wonder if j bars would also make sense or just be over kill?.

 

[Johnpat]

Bad super glue on that joint

 

[biomedtechguy]

Does anyone feel that there is a need to use both the inner fender braces and a J bar when running a Alterkation front end?. I have the usct frame connectors,inner fender, torque boxes and front radiator support installed already (64' Polara) but starting to wonder if j bars would also make sense or just be over kill?.

I have a similar question, and it's important for me to get feedback on this topic.
My buddy HEMI-ITIS had suggested getting the J bars installed, he has them, but his go on the "outside" of the inner fenderwells to the front frame, and many others have them on the inside of the inner fenders, and in some cases have tabs welded to them for mounting "elephant ears" or motor plates (same thing??).
Anyway, THIS "round" of massive add ons, mods, systems installed, etc for my Roadrunner has TREMENDOUSLY improved the stiffness and stability of my frame and suspension, as I went from factory stock to: USCT subframe connectors, front and rear torque boxes, and inner and outer front spring hanger reinforcement plates.
My "plan" was to add the USCT inner fender braces, radiator cradle support, and the J bars as part of my "prep" for installing the 541 stroker. I'll probably have to put some kind of blow proof bellhousing in for my own safety or peace of mind, and likely upgrade the clutch disc and pressure plate, if the set I have hasn't already been replaced by then.
So in my case I have a QA1 tubular K-member and front suspension, which uses the factory torsion bars. I'd like to know with all of the USCT support parts I already have, and the addition of the USCT fender braces and radiator cradle brace, and what I expect will be a close to 700 HP and Torque motor, should I have the J bars too? Or if the J bars are a must, are the USCT inner fender braces redundant or still helpful and recommended?
Thanks!

 

[Dan64]

Well, i think that I can answer my own question,lol. I been looking at my car with the hood off for so long as i work on it that i didn't really take into account for the hood springs. I don't see where there would be enough room on the firewall to mount a set of J bars on a 64' when still using the hood springs. I'll call Reilly's motor sports and confirm that the inner fender braces are all that is needed.

 

[biomedtechguy]

I'll call Reilly's motor sports and confirm that the inner fender braces are all that is needed.

 

[j-c-c-62]

Update: I wanted to wait until the check cleared but they did send me a check 2 weeks ago and it has not come back nsf so he finally made it good.

There are many areas of contention on this thread, I'm almost unsure where to start.

Here goes, no check in the US ever "clears" anymore in the over the past decade, they can be returned NSF, etc indefinitely.
Is that likely no, but it is possible.
That is why actual "cleared/paid" checks are not returned to the writer in most cases, because if that happens, then they can't be returned, and the banking industry/etc likes keeping that option.
Lifting a "hold" on deposited funds is not "clearing".

 

[j-c-c-62]

Check out the paperwork you get from MF, or any other like companies, to see if there is a disclaimer saying " for off road/highway use only" which is what they hide behind when problems happen. That will be your first clue that this is not an item to be used for a vehicle that sees road time.

That is boilerplate across the industry, mainly to discourage a lawsuit and/or sway a jury. I would say it is somewhat effective.
Blame the lawyers.
If it is disagreeable, you will not have a lot of options with aftermarket parts, as those who have nothing to lose or are naive operators, don't need to include the disclaimer.

 

[j-c-c-62]

his stuff is chrome molly tubing , he's not annealing the tubing after welding it . tig is hot and needs annealing after welding parts together , mig is less hot , but still requires it tobe done to welds for chrome molly to flex without braking at or around the welded area . he should know all about this process , he claims to be a pro welder .

At first glance the cracked/failed arm almost looked like alum.
I am a certified welder. I believe the annealing you are referring to would benefit the HAZ (heat effected zone), and that is where the cracking would be mostly located.
What I see posted here is a fractured weld and that makes me question what filler rod was used with the CM assembly.
The annealing/HT is not per se "required" and is often in the real world skipped for cost/time savings, but it is better if done, and I send my stuff out to a HT vendor for peace of mind.

 

[j-c-c-62]

From the looks of their products, Magnum Force seemed to be one of the most innovative and offered the greatest array of choices in their product line...
Having said that, I got my yet to be installed complete front suspension system (including tubular K-member) from QA1, except for the upper control arms, because SPC looked like a better UCA. No issues with the order being filled.
I'm looking to RMS StreetLynx or Gerst for the triangulated rear suspension system.

MF violated the cardinal rule of sound engineering, K>I>S>S, keep it simple stupid.
All the flash was to impress buyers or to fix prior design flaws.

All the aftermarket triangulated 4 link designs offered are dated, are basic copies of OEM designs that had as a primary goal low cost and packaging, and IMO have no place as an "upgrade" on our cars, unless 1/4 mile is the cars only application, and that is still a compromised limited solution.
If you want a triangulated 4 link that bad, go buy a FOX body 80's Mustang.

 

[j-c-c-62]

That’s why you weld in US CarTool subframe connectors and torque boxes and also their inner fender braces. When you’re going that route you go all in or half assed. And one of those choices will determine what happens to you car in the long run. Magnum force is pure garbage. But I agree, RMS or Gerst all the way.

Adding Torgue Boxes is only possibly really necessary if one's subframe connectors are inadequate or non-existent.
Using both IMO is similar to using a belt and suspenders to hold your pants up, one being much better than the other.
USCT SFC are an improvement over none. Full section SFC welded THRU the floor pan are far superior.
Reason mainly being, the weakest link here in the design is where they neck down to a very small vertical cross section, and they are only 3 sided.

On the USCT inner front fender braces, not sure what real benefit they are designed to provide bang for buck with say the RMS IFS set-up, the shock loads no longer are induced into the inner fenders, and CO's aren't either.