Torsion removal

[Shorty Thompson]

Playing with the idea of taking the torsion bars out, leaving them out and stepping over to Koni Coil overs on the front. What I am seriously concerned about is will the lower control arms stay in place, or dislocate themselves from their pivots?

 

[khryslerkid]

If you have a sway bar it will have to be disconnected. Remove the bump stop under the upper control arm. Place jack stands under the K frame or where the frame meets the body. Remove the lower shock bolts. Loose the front strut bushing nut. Place a jack under the lower control arm and jack it up an inch or two. Loosen the lower control arm adjustment bolts all the way. Lower the jack to drop the control arm to take the tension off of the torsion bar. At the backside of the torsion bar cross member there is a wire clip holding the torsion bar in the socket. Remove these and also slide the boot on the opposite side forward. Now you're ready to drive the torsion bar rearward in order to remove it. You could try driving the torsion bar rearward by inserting a drift into the socket in front of the lower control arm and hammer the bar there. Or you can obtain the tool that clamps onto the torsion bar and hammer on that to drive the torsion bar rearward.

The lower control arm stays in place when the torsion bar is removed.

 

[Kern Dog]

The structure of these cars is not designed to take suspension loads to the shock mounts no matter what a vendor tells you.

If the area is reinforced, it helps but there is no valid reason to reinvent the wheel and abandon the torsion bar system.

 

[radical rob]

True, the front frame rails of these cars are not actually a frame rail. They are a u shaped piece of metal tack welded to another piece and aren’t really thick enough to carry the weight of the car. Rick ehrenburg, the tech engineer for mopar action has always said that torsion bars were a great suspension, brings the unsprung weight back under the car.

 

[Shorty Thompson]

If you have a sway bar it will have to be disconnected. Remove the bump stop under the upper control arm. Place jack stands under the K frame or where the frame meets the body. Remove the lower shock bolts. Loose the front strut bushing nut. Place a jack under the lower control arm and jack it up an inch or two. Loosen the lower control arm adjustment bolts all the way. Lower the jack to drop the control arm to take the tension off of the torsion bar. At the backside of the torsion bar cross member there is a wire clip holding the torsion bar in the socket. Remove these and also slide the boot on the opposite side forward. Now you're ready to drive the torsion bar rearward in order to remove it. You could try driving the torsion bar rearward by inserting a drift into the socket in front of the lower control arm and hammer the bar there. Or you can obtain the tool that clamps onto the torsion bar and hammer on that to drive the torsion bar rearward.

The lower control arm stays in place when the torsion bar is removed.

get you into better perspective. My 73 has already be done. So everything your telling me is no mystery. I worried about the lower control arm walking off the pinned point where it's bolted to the K' member.

 

[WileERobby]

The lower control arms also have strut rods to "stay in place". The LCA is the load-bearing component in Mopar suspensions. And there is really no reason to change from a proven design such as torsion bars.

 

[Shorty Thompson]

The structure of these cars is not designed to take suspension loads to the shock mounts no matter what a vendor tells you.

If the area is reinforced, it helps but there is no valid reason to reinvent the wheel and abandon the torsion bar system.

Well Sir. That thought did cross my mind. Just so happens that there is a gentleman with a very favorable reputation that does nothing but Mopar. I put the same question to him as well. and he said it should. I again reflect on the bushing area and it pulling off there.

 

[Shorty Thompson]

The lower control arms also have strut rods to "stay in place". The LCA is the load-bearing component in Mopar suspensions. And there is really no reason to change from a proven design such as torsion bars.

Mine would be to free up obstructions. Make access from the engine compartment to under the car.

 

[WileERobby]

Obstructions to what, may I ask ?

 

[jimbosride]

 

[Kern Dog]

Well Sir. That thought did cross my mind. Just so happens that there is a gentleman with a very favorable reputation that does noting but Mopar. I put the same question to him as well. and he said it should. I again reflect on the bushing area and it pulling off there.

If it is a poly bushing, it will surely slip fore and aft. The rubber bushing will too eventually.
No Mopar guy with any sense would advocate a coil over suspension mounted to the shock supports. The structure was neither engineered nor designed for it. Sure, if the car is trailered everywhere and not driven, it would be fine.

 

[Budnicks]

I too still run my torsion bars

many of the coil over stuff
has it's own lower control arm separate from the stock set up,
LCA & many have a separate shock mount,
removing the torsion bars, make for a lot of room for headers & oil pan
usually have to change steering too, many are front steer,
Mopar is rear steer, tie rods behind the spindle centerline
both mounts, shocks & LCA's built into/welded directly to
the tubular k-member you will be replacing, the stock stamped steel one with
depends on who's coil over system/k-member you will be using

Gertz now owned by QA1 had one like I described

High-Performance Suspension Kits & Systems | QA1

Elevate your driving experience with QA1 Lowering Kits & Full Vehicle Suspension Systems. Explore our range for the perfect stance & improved handling.

qa1.net

if any of that made any sense

not all the suspension kits are the same
or use the stock shock or LCA points of attachment

the downfall is the most of the others, are based on a Mustang II design

Good luck

 

[Shorty Thompson]

Obstructions to what, may I ask ?

Whatever. If I wanted to put a set of headers on it then they'd basically a bolt and play.

 

[Kern Dog]

I'm not defending the Mopar clearance issues. I am fully aware of them. It looks like they intentionally put obstacles in the way.
WHY would the engineers put the oil filter, starter, the transmission cooler lines, mechanical shift linkage, downshift linkage and a speedo cable all on the same side along with the rear steer steering box, linkage.... and exhaust? It is absolutely criminal. GM at least had cable operated shifters, ATF cooler lines and vacuum modulator stuff on the other side . In stock form, the Mopar setup is an engineering masterpiece. Light weight, the loads are spread over several feet and the weight is low in the chassis and closer to the middle of the car than any GM from the 50s to the Macpherson strut FWD car era.
There are 2 great header manufacturers that make products that do fit and work well. Going to a terribly inferior front suspension design to have header clearance does not make structural nor financial sense.
The 60s-70s Fords had terrible chassis design what with the huge shock towers and convoluted steering linkage. The Pinto/Mustang II based aftermarket stuff is a welcome addition to the classic Fords because their stock designs were crap. Our Mopars were superior. Any deviation from it is a step down.
A reinforced factory based torsion bar setup is hard to beat. Yeah, you get header clearance with the coil over system but you lose durability. There have been no cases of a car equipped with a coil over suspension turning faster road course lap times than a well sorted torsion bar car.
Yes, some dedicated drag race cars have been converted to coil overs but they are also heavily reinforced and usually only driven on a race track.

 

[Shorty Thompson]

I'm not defending the Mopar clearance issues. I am fully aware of them. It looks like they intentionally put obstacles in the way.
WHY would the engineers put the oil filter, starter, the transmission cooler lines, mechanical shift linkage, downshift linkage and a speedo cable all on the same side along with the steering box and exhaust? It is absolutely criminal. GM at least had cable operated shifters, ATF cooler lines and vacuum modulator stuff on the other side .
There are 2 great header manufacturers that make products that do fit and work well. Going to a terribly inferior front suspension design to have header clearance does not make structural nor financial sense.

This why I ask here, and on boogaloo page on Facebook. I know there's a lot of diehard purist in here. but it's something I thought about , and have to know

 

[Shorty Thompson]

If it is a poly bushing, it will surely slip fore and aft. The rubber bushing will too eventually.
No Mopar guy with any sense would advocate a coil over suspension mounted to the shock supports. The structure was neither engineered nor designed for it. Sure, if the car is trailered everywhere and not driven, it would be fine.

No poly, no rubber. Feel Firm. Last car I got had another set so now I have 2 sets, but that's not what this is about.

 

[66 Sat]

Forgetting all arguments about the merits of what you're doing and purely answering your original question - in my common-sense but not certified engineer opinion, yes the LCA is at risk of walking off the pin. The original design locks it on there, but with nothing retaining it at the rear, then you're relying on the bushing only. Unsafe I reckon.

 

[Kern Dog]

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink....
I've stated not just opinions but facts. The lower control arms have but two ways to isolate metal to metal contact at the mounting points. Rubber and then some type of plastic whether it is urethane/polyurethane/polygraphite/delrin or whatever. There is no Feel Firm but there is Firm Feel Inc, a company in Washington state that caters to the Mopar suspension systems. They may sell control arms but they will be adaptations of what Ma Mopar had originally, not anything coil over. They know that coil over stuff may be fine with a bunch of additional reinforcements but they are a durability downgrade when compared to the original design.
Nothing will compare to the knowledge of the members on this site. Farcebook is ripe with idiots that know nothing.
Back to my point at the top...I've made my points here but if you're stuck on going the route of coil overs with stock lower control arms, there is a genuine risk of the inner section of the control arm pulling out when the bushing fails, and it will fail. In stock form, the torsion bar is in place to eliminate fore-aft movement of the control arm. The strut rod is not enough to hold the control arm in place.

 

[66 Sat]

The strut rod is not enough to hold the control arm in place.

I reckon the strut rod on its own will actually be trying to force the lca off the k frame. The factory design has the strut rod pulling on the front of the lca at one end while the torsion bar pushes on the lca at the other end. Take the torsion bar away and the strut rod will be acting like a lever.

To the OP, put your suspension together with no torsion bar and leave the nut off the lca pin. Tighten the strut rod fully. Bounce the car up and down a few times. See what happens.

You don't need to have "qualifications" like Bob Renton to see that this is a disaster waiting to happen.

Just my opinion of course...

 

[Kern Dog]

That is some funny ****...."Just my opinion of course".....