• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Mopar Aftermarket Suspension Comparison Test

tallzag

Well-Known Member
Local time
12:03 PM
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
105
Reaction score
78
Location
Olympia, WA
Had the opportunity in my shop to have three very different suspension set ups in very similar cars so decided to do a comparison test. A 1971 Plymouth Road Runner with a Magnum Force front suspension, a 1969 Plymouth GTX with all the Borgeson stuff done to it and a stock 440 Daytona. Hope you like the video!

 
Funny I just watched it this past weekend myself ... torsion bars till I die lol
 
I remember this screen name form another Mopar forum that has gone into the crapper the past few years.
Welcome to the better site. I recall you guys building a 64-66 Barracuda for some race series.
I watched the video, I appreciate the effort.
I am absolutely no fan of these poorly engineered coil over kits either. Every person that I've seen praise them is a guy that had a worn out car that needed everything, they made a call and opened their wallets instead of opening their minds. The guys that I have known that had the Magnum Farce and RMS kits have had noises, failures, a poor ride, W-I-D-E turning radius and none of them have taken their cars on a road course. Anecdotally, I've read from others that have reported zero advantage on a road course over a properly prepped torsion bar car. The money it costs might be worth it if there was a notable improvement but there isn't.
Also, regarding the Borgeson swap....You made a few mistakes on that. It does not require the user to modify the steering column. Peter Bergman has been including a hybrid bolt in coupler with his swap kits that were under $1000 the last time I checked, not the $1200 price that you quoted. You do not need new hoses or pump either. A stock Saginaw unit with mounts from The 440 Source are cheap and readily available. The Borgeson unit is in no way "darty". I've driven three cars with them and with a proper alignment, they feel much better than any stock or rebuilt Mopar steering box. Every Mopar box has some degree of slop from the center to the right or to the left. It is a matter of the design of the unit that dates back to the late 1950s when overboosted power steering was actually desirable.
 
Used the adapter kits for the column and they have always come apart on me and spread grease everywhere.
 
Had the opportunity in my shop to have three very different suspension set ups in very similar cars so decided to do a comparison test. A 1971 Plymouth Road Runner with a Magnum Force front suspension, a 1969 Plymouth GTX with all the Borgeson stuff done to it and a stock 440 Daytona. Hope you like the video!


Hiya Tom, good to see you participating over here.
I quite enjoy yours, Jamies' and Joes' YT channels (and even Uncle Tony - sometimes).
 
How could a one piece adapter come apart?

Borg 12.JPG


Borg 13.JPG
 
I guess some are at more of an angle than others but the grease retention is no worse than stock. Sometimes the inner and outer shafts slip within each other some, effectively making the shaft shorter and the shoes in the coupler engage closer to the grease seal and thin retainer. There are wire clips to help the thin retainer stay in place. I think the thin steel retainer is a flimsy design so the wire clip is an excellent idea.
 
The RMS set-up was the first Mopar offering of a R&P, a K member offering more oil pan clearance, replacing TB's with coil overs allowing much better header clearance, and a reduction of some weight mainly by offering a bolt on disc brake solution.
It was initially never marketed as a better performing IFS for any road course application. Early on the Mopar crowd decided in groupthink it seems that TB's are old, Coil overs are new, and therefore they must be far superior in every application.
This thinking happens often it seems.
I cornered Bill on this topic nearly two+ decades ago, and he basically admitted as such, but reality is, people make up their own minds and Bill had a hot profitable shiny new offering to sell, and it was not bad.
It seems though even with the above, bang for buck has caught up to it.
This video here IMO is hardly useful nor effective as a real "comparison". It's simply a review, uncontrolled, not empirical, on three different cars that seem to only share in common is their shiny paint and manufacturer.
But once again, people will believe what they want to believe.
 
Last edited:
It is a test on three cars on the exactly same platform two with the same engine and trans combo, the other one with a 383 (so weighs what, 10 pounds less) driving on the same road on the same day, don’t think it gets more controlled than that.
 
Again, with respect to you for the effort but there was no skid pad test, no slalom, no road course. The test in the video was entirely subjective with opinion but no numbers to back it up. You drove the cars with respect to the owners and the speed limits that were posted. I saw no hard cornering or driving on bumpy roads. It was good of you to not bash another person's car but without pushing the limits, you don't get to discover strengths and weaknesses.
In theory, I agree with your assessment but opinions carry less weight sometimes than numbers and hard data.
The only way that I think a direct comparison would be possible is to have three cars otherwise identically equipped except for the front suspension.
OR.... one car that is rebuilt to totally stock, then the same car with upgrades to the OEM system, then the car again with the full aftermarket kit installed.
That takes a lot of time and effort to do. I have a car that would work for that if someone wanted to sponsor me:

JF 7.JPG


I am retired and have the free time.

Thanks again for the video.
 
Last edited:
It is a test on three cars on the exactly same platform two with the same engine and trans combo, the other one with a 383 (so weighs what, 10 pounds less) driving on the same road on the same day, don’t think it gets more controlled than that.
Well to test your claim, share with us then anything you can think of that was not controlled or similar, and let us decide.
You have a vested personal interest in this matter, I get that. I don't.
We are more informed/entertained by having the video shared and by the efforts taken to make it. I appreciate that.
My interest here is making sure most make an informed interpretation thereof. I noted above prior history of how that goes off the rails sometimes. That can and must include some things others feel is unpleasant or negative, but we are all adults, right?
 
Torsion bars are inherently superior to coil springs due to unsprung weight. The rest is just geometry. Chrysler engineers (most likely the best in the industry at the time) did really well figuring out the geometry at the time and never intended the shock mounts in the front or the rear to support the weight of the car.
Mounting a 2 or 3 inch vertical extension on a tie rod end defies any torque loading logic I've ever seen for a safe, long term application.
I choose to walk by any car that has coil springs where torsion bars used to be as to me it no longer represents what the car was designed as. If someone else wants to install an LS engine, Ford 9 inch and a Camaro front suspension that's fine, but it's not for me. 20 years from now a T-bar, original Mopar will still be in style. A 2000's modified car will look totally out of style.
 
Thanks for sharing. I have a borgeson on my 67 Belvedere just installed. About 100 miles so far, I’m with Kerndog this is an amazing upgrade. The flaming river box that was on before was sloppy and felt over boosted.
IMG_0289.jpeg
 
I put an updated torsion-bar suspension in my E-body ragtop. It handles like my new 300C or Hellcat.

Stock K-frame with steering box brace
Borgeson box
C-body tie-rod ends and billet sleeves
QA1 upper and lower arms
QA1 adjustable struts
2" drop spindles
Bilstein shocks
1 1/8" sway bar
1.03 torsion bars
additional bracing to sub frame/dog house

cuda 4-10-23 6.jpg

cuda mt clemens 5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Torsion bars are inherently superior to coil springs due to unsprung weight. The rest is just geometry. Chrysler engineers (most likely the best in the industry at the time) did really well figuring out the geometry at the time and never intended the shock mounts in the front or the rear to support the weight of the car.
Mounting a 2 or 3 inch vertical extension on a tie rod end defies any torque loading logic I've ever seen for a safe, long term application.
I choose to walk by any car that has coil springs where torsion bars used to be as to me it no longer represents what the car was designed as. If someone else wants to install an LS engine, Ford 9 inch and a Camaro front suspension that's fine, but it's not for me. 20 years from now a T-bar, original Mopar will still be in style. A 2000's modified car will look totally out of style.
Just to be clear, unsprung weight reduction of a TB vs Coil over is correct, but it is only one of, but not the only one of TB's positives, IMO. Mopar TB's do have negatives. I agree on the 2 or 3" single shear issue with TR mounting on the R&P set-ups, but also chuckle at those that think "upgrading" Mopar's to 11/16'" TR is also needed, both of those solutions are extremes IMO.
The RMS suspension does not use the upper shock mount for any support. Comparing a RMS set-up to a Magnum Force setup is rather disrespectful to Bill and uninformed by those that do.
It's a case of a copy never being as good as the original, and being different it seems just to be different for marketing's sake, and no more.

Anybody that thinks I'm anti TB, be advised, I'm currently finishing up custom 41" C Body hex sized hollow 1.38" CM TB's for my E body
 
This is an interesting topic. I have seen the coil-over kits for B-bodies and I always wondered if there was any real advantage. I'm curious to see what people think.

Before my daughter was born (about 20 years ago), I was heavy into sportbikes. I rebuilt/revalved my forks and invested in a full-adjustable Ohlins shock. I used to tinker with suspension settings, ride height, preload, sag, etc. on the regular, looking for some magic that would make my ZX6R handle like a Ducati. So I am conversant in suspension setup.

Based on my experience, the only advantage I can see going coil-over versus TB is the ability to set spring preload. I really don't think that is of much value for a car, unless you are autocrossing. I'm probably missing something.

Another thought - The TB crossmember is located in the middle of a B-body. I wonder if there is an advantage to having the spring forces anchored there, rather than out at the wheels? Intuitively, I think having the spring anchor at the wheels would result in more chassis flex, especially in a unibody car that was not designed to absorb spring forces that way.
 
This a valid discussion, TB and coils offer the same adjustability in place.
IMO the forces being applied at the rear TB crossmember is an unavoidable design downside on pre 73 mopars, as it complicates the load path compared to a typical coil location.
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.
 
Auto Transport Service
Back
Top