Mopar Aftermarket Suspension Comparison Test

[Project66]

Understand the primary purpose of the springs/tb is to support mass, and the closer/shorter they are to that mass, the more efficient the structure can become. The engine/trans is the largest/densest mass the front suspension supports.

Good point. Caveat- I'm not trying to be argumentative, so I apologize if it comes across that way in print. I'm just annoyingly analytical sometimes.

If we are trying to achieve to efficiency, what does it mean in this context? How would we measure it? How would we know when we get it right?

If our design goal is to divide car into 4 corners and have the suspension of each spring manage weight independently, then the compact design might be best. However, if our design goal is to move weight away from the corners of the car, to the "box" at the heart of our unibody, then maybe TBs (with a direct connection to that box) are more efficient.

I have a '67 Vette (recent acquisition) that has coil springs in the front and the front frame rails seem much more substantial than those in my Satellite. With its 4-wheel independent suspension and ladder frame, the Vette seems to follow the "4-corners" design ethos. I think Mopar might have had a different idea with its TB cars. I suspect that we would need to significantly reinforce the front subframe of a TB car for a coil-over conversion to work properly because TB cars were not designed to carry the car's weight that way. Think about how beefy Gen 1 and Gen 2 Camaro front subframes are.

I may be wrong, but I tend to think that coil-over kits for Mopars are more form than substance. It seems to me that the suppliers are just trying to design simple and inexpensive ways to make their existing, coil-over products fit in Mopars. The results probably handle better than stock because of better-quality shocks and reduced weight, not because of any inherent design superiority of coil-overs.

 

[j-c-c-62]

Good point. Caveat- I'm not trying to be argumentative, so I apologize if it comes across that way in print. I'm just annoyingly analytical sometimes.

If we are trying to achieve to efficiency, what does it mean in this context? How would we measure it? How would we know when we get it right?

If our design goal is to divide car into 4 corners and have the suspension of each spring manage weight independently, then the compact design might be best. However, if our design goal is to move weight away from the corners of the car, to the "box" at the heart of our unibody, then maybe TBs (with a direct connection to that box) are more efficient.

Two points I'll expound on, "efficiency" here in this context it is not measurable precisely, it's a concept, it's basically what is the simplest structure to get the results desired, and I mentioned two aspects that lend towards that goal, mainly distance and or proximity.

The second consideration that ties into that "efficiency", you mention a box, which is a decent analogy in this context, but if the box is the unibody, and what the box holds is heavy and dense, (the motor/trans), supporting the box efficiently is best done as close to the motor that is placed wherever in that box.

An OEM K member is a very efficient design item in this context, unfortunately the TB design downside is it transmits equal chassis weight forces to the chassis in a B body 41" away.
Does that help explain my thinking?