My #71 K&K Daytona race tribute

[Stevearino]

The more I look at this I may just buy these 2" drop spindles since they have the large 73-up brakes (and beefier spindle) and that way I won't have to raise the front stub, lower the body 2" and not have to jack with any of the suspension geometry and still have the correct look for a Grand National Daytona.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1962-76-Mopar-A-B-E-Body-2-Drop-Spindles-/121403031342?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1c442f3f2e&vxp=mtr

We got a saying at the shop "keep it simple stupid"

[Mike DC]

    
The 2" drop spindles would help.  They would compensate for the taller tires and put the chassis back near the stock distance from the ground (with normal suspension travel & geometry).  But that still leaves the body a bit on the high side for NASCAR appearances.    

I think the 2" drop spindles + your original plan to raise the front subframe upwards might be the perfect combo.  If you moved the subframe, say, 2" . . . that would put the front wheel hubs a total of 4" higher than stock relative to the car's outer skin.  And that's with full normal suspension travel & geometry.  That would look badass and still have more real-world drivability than it has any right to.



Whatever.  You could just start by getting the drop spindles on the car and seeing where that gets you.  It would be lightyears easier than doing the subframe mod, that's for sure.

[Indygenerallee]

Mike, I was talking about dropping the body 2" and then using the 2" drop spindles. But I mocked my seat up without the seat frames (so it's sitting on the floor pan)
and my head was only 5" from the ceiling. I spent some time looking over the pics of the Buddy Baker car again and also a few other Chrysler dirt track 500's and I see how they achieved the drop in the rear, they just shortened and raised the rear frame rails that is also why it gives the appearance that they notched it for axle clearance and you can see the bottom of where the torque boxes are are even with the rocker panels. Im switching back and forth so much but after realizing this and knowing I don't have much head room as it is now I may go ahead and raise the frame sections which would be consistent with a "stock floor body drop"

[Mike DC]

Mike, I was talking about dropping the body 2" and then using the 2" drop spindles. But I mocked my seat up without the seat frames (so it's sitting on the floor pan)

Okay, so we are on the same page here.  Getting the chassis 2" lower on the wheels, and then the body another 2" lower on the chassis . . . sounds about perfect IMO.  



I love the torsion bar setup but it's an obstacle to getting the car very low.  It demands at least 3-5" of chassis height underneath the floorpan at the driver's feet.  



About your seat & subframe plans -

If you end up with the T-bar crossmember sitting higher in relation to the floorpan just behind it (or if you bugle the floorpan farther downwards for the same effect), then it creates a clearance problem for removing the torsion bars.  When you try to slide the torsion bars out the back of their hex mounts in the crossmember, they start hitting the floorpan.  (Notice that the stock floorpans have odd bulges underneath the driver/pass seats going straight back behind the T-bars.)  

The T-bars could still be installed/removed by yanking the whole K-frame off the car.  Maybe even by sliding the T-bars back just far enough to get their front hex-ends out of the LCAs, and then tipping the bars down to pull them out forwards.  I dunno.  You'd have to experiment a bit.  I'm just saying the problem is something to be aware of.

[Indygenerallee]

Yeah, I took a picture of the front stub tonight and compared it to pictures of the Buddy Baker #6, I have looked at it for a while now, I measured 2" up from the bottom of my frame and ran a level chalk line down the frame and it is almost identical to the #6 if you chopped it there and welded a plate to the bottom even the torsion bar mount looks the same, but cut in this spot it would not "raise" the front suspension in the car?, It would also seem to be the reason for the raised torsion bar mount (for added strength since the original was cut in half), at 2" it is ABOVE the rocker point so you would never see any uni body frame there from a side view also it explains why the floor pans are not raised forward of the raised through the floor torsion bar mount, because if you leave the front floor pans in place you can only gain about 3/4" before the torsion bars hit the front of the floor pan. explain why the #6  is as low as it is and I have looked at numerous pics of it over and over again and compared it to my 69 and the body has not been lowered over the floor. Also on the rear if they just took 2" out of the bottom of the frame rail rear of the hump over the axle and cut it all the way to the factory spring hanger you would gain the needed travel to clear the raised axle from raising the front spring hanger up into the rear floor a little over 2 inches. I may see if I can get a hold of the folks that own the #6 and see if they will take some measurements for me. can't hurt to ask.

IMAG1973 by

[url=https://flic.kr/p/pcPqaS]rsz_screenshot_83(1) by

[Mike DC]

    
Keep in mind the history of that #6 car.  Official story or not, it's thought to be a short-track car which got the wing & nose added for show duty after a wreck.  It might not be 100% representative of the purpose-built wing cars.  These days everyone worries a lot about aerodynamics even for short tracks but that was less true in 1970.  That survivor might reflect the typical lowering job that a real Buddy Baker wing car had at the time or it might not.  

You might try to study or get pics of the surviving #71 Bobby Isaac Daytona museum car.  Might be more representative.  Or even the Ramo Stott Superbird, which is a true survivor from the era lifted right off the track.  


Have you been following the Mopar Action series of Chrysler racing articles covering that era?  A few months ago I recall one of the guys being interviewed talking about this subject.  He specifically related that he saw the NASCAR guys separating the Charger bodies from chassis at the rocker panels and reinstalling the bodies at 1.5 degrees tilted.    




Having said all that, it might work for your project's purposes to just trim down (well, up) the sidewalls of the subframe rails and re-weld a flat bottom back onto them.  However that means 100% of the car's lowering job has to come from the suspension now, which may be a challenge even with the 2" drop spindles.  It probably means notching the front subframe rails above the LCAs for more up-travel.  

Also, shaving the bottoms of the subframe rails higher would probably not provide a ton of additional net-total ground clearance for the whole car.  Not unless you also moved the drivetrain upwards & rebuilt the K-frame for more clearance somehow.  The bottom of the K-frame is roughly as low as the bottom of the front subframe pieces farther back.  Raising all that stuff might mean firewall/trans tunnel work.  

And there is the exhaust header collectors in that area to think about too.  It's already not easy to keep the exhaust from hanging way down below the subframe rails, BEFORE you trim the sub-rails to half their original height.  That probably means notching out the tranny crossmember above the exhausts.  Which would be another good reason to build added height on top of the crossmember inside the cabin. 


All this stuff contributed to my preference for relocating some/all of the undercarriage up into the sides of the body somehow.  I'm not convinced that leaving the subframe(s) in place really saves all that much work in total.  It just means different work.  

[Indygenerallee]

Mike, Yeah lot's to think about, I am just trying to figure out how they did it originally and from the pics of that #6 car (the only one I have seen from the bottom) that's all I can gather. I do have several pics of the Ramo Stott Superbird and I figured out how the hood hinges were done through the photos (but not much other than that), I would really like to see the #71 but I have all the pics of it I can find. I went ahead and just bought a set of 2" drop spindles from Magnumforce here about 15 minutes ago and I am going to try and find a set of drilled and slotted rotors, and mock it up again when I get the rotors to see what it looks like. I believe the only reason they chopped the frame down was to pass a tech inspection as far as how far the frame had to be off the asphalt.

[Mike DC]

I just went back & checked a few pics of the #6 C500 short-track car before it got wrecked (probably the #6 show Daytona's original identity) on an older DC.com thread.  The front wheel hubs look pretty far up into the fenders even before the wing & nosecone went onto it.  I dunno, it might be built with the same lowering job as the wing cars after all.  




Funny that you bring up the hood hinges deal.  I asked Ramo Stott himself about the hood hinges on his Superbird when talking to him at a show a few years ago.  He didn't recall what they were taken off of. 

Just eyeballing it, they look like Mopar A-body hinges of the period.

   

[Indygenerallee]

Mike, got a link?

[Mike DC]

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php?topic=63521.120

This thread, about the 17th page.  Reply #420 from "Tallzag".  Pics of (what many people suspect is probably) the #6 Daytona show car, before it was turned into a show car.  It was a short track car that got wrecked.

[Indygenerallee]

Yeah, that does look like the same car sans the wing and nose, And yes I had heard a long time ago that they used A body hood hinges I need to start looking for a set, should be able to find a set cheap as there were a ton of A bodies made!

Also here is a pic of the #71 Daytona's and 500's ... They all look like they are set at the same ride height to me except maybe the 70 on the end looks a little higher (could be because the fenders are cut higher as well)

K&K Fleet - no 201 mph car ! by

[Highbanked Hauler]

   With my Charger when I was going to do it up and still may  the idea I had was remove the 2 floor braces to the rail,side and top and without the aprons in place the rails float kind of free. Now in putting the floor and aprons in Sons 74 Challenger without those brackets the rail was "free" and could be moved easily. its only connection to the body was where it was welded to the  T-bar Cross member and with a little effort I could have lifted the front end of the rail at least 2 in. to the point the radiator support would have to drop to hold the fender line.  The only thing I see is the front of the K frame would be lifted and tilted up in the front a bit and you would have to weld a piece of plate to the bumper brackets and re-drill the holes to get the bolt holes to align.    Thoughts on this procedure... 

[Indygenerallee]

With my Charger when I was going to do it up and still may  the idea I had was remove the 2 floor braces to the rail,side and top and without the aprons in place the rails float kind of free. Now in putting the floor and aprons in Sons 74 Challenger without those brackets the rail was "free" and could be moved easily. its only connection to the body was where it was welded to the  T-bar Cross member and with a little effort I could have lifted the front end of the rail at least 2 in. to the point the radiator support would have to drop to hold the fender line.  The only thing I see is the front of the K frame would be lifted and tilted up in the front a bit and you would have to weld a piece of plate to the bumper brackets and re-drill the holes to get the bolt holes to align.    Thoughts on this procedure...

I don't think they would have done this as it would have really thrown the front end geometry off and even if they had the floor above the T bar would have had to been raised as it could only be lowered 3/4" before the T bars hit the floor.

[Stevearino]

I think you are on the right track to mock it up with the drop spindles first. Get a visual and go from there. Might be all you need to do.

[69_500]

Not trying to change the subject here but are you actually in Brazil Indiana? I am in martinsville, and go to over that way quite a bit. Would love to swing by in the 500 some time.

[Indygenerallee]

Daniel, yep the massive town of Brazil, Indiana!   yep your not too far away!  Your on my facebook friends list if your in my area message me (David Hughes)

[Highbanked Hauler]

With my Charger when I was going to do it up and still may  the idea I had was remove the 2 floor braces to the rail,side and top and without the aprons in place the rails float kind of free. Now in putting the floor and aprons in Sons 74 Challenger without those brackets the rail was "free" and could be moved easily. its only connection to the body was where it was welded to the  T-bar Cross member and with a little effort I could have lifted the front end of the rail at least 2 in. to the point the radiator support would have to drop to hold the fender line.  The only thing I see is the front of the K frame would be lifted and tilted up in the front a bit and you would have to weld a piece of plate to the bumper brackets and re-drill the holes to get the bolt holes to align.    Thoughts on this procedure...

I don't think they would have done this as it would have really thrown the front end geometry off and even if they had the floor above the T bar would have had to been raised as it could only be lowered 3/4" before the T bars hit the floor.

I wish I could remember the pix, it was a Petty car and the rails went up  a huge  angle. I am sure it would have had other mods too.

[Indygenerallee]

Al, yeah I just don't know. I am sure every single shop did it a little different from the next, I am pretty confident that with the drop spindles and a few frame mods above the LCA I will get it looking just right, I guess we will know when I get the spindles and take some more mockup shots. I did find out I do have to mod the LCA due to the angle of the lower ball joint, with it lowered all the way down (LCA even with the tire tread surface) it is bound at that point and will not move any more.
I have read the 73-up spindle actually moves the tire out in the wheel well I hope this is not the case in the Magnumforce spindles but if this is the case I will shorten the LCA at the same time I mod for the ball joint bind, I am not worried about the uppers since I will make those myself since I have to clear the 2 shocks on each side and to improve the ball joint angle at lowered ride height.

[Highbanked Hauler]

    FirmFeel has  front end stuff, don't know if it is any good in your situation but I kinda sorta think I will be using their drop spindles and upper control arms which look like they have room for two shocks if I use them on my 500 and not do the 68 into a 500 clone. still on the fence on that one.

[Indygenerallee]

Al, I have not seen any aftermarket upper control arms that have the room to clear both shocks the UCA that the Speedway cars used looked like a U vs. V and that was to clear both front shocks also had another brace welded between them near the UCA tower. I will be building a jig and using some mandrel bent tubing to make mine with caster improvements and better ball joint alignment.

[Highbanked Hauler]

Al, I have not seen any aftermarket upper control arms that have the room to clear both shocks the UCA that the Speedway cars used looked like a U vs. V and that was to clear both front shocks also had another brace welded between them near the UCA tower. I will be building a jig and using some mandrel bent tubing to make mine with caster improvements and better ball joint alignment.

  Sign me up for a set.. as any caster will improve the street manners of mine 

[Mike DC]

   
UCAs -

If you wanna U-shape them instead of V-shape, watch out for turning clearance on the rear (closer to firewall) UCA legs.  It's tight from the factory.  There is probably more room to widen the UCA's shape towards the front of the car for the extra shock. 



The 73-up spindle geometry -

The upper ball joint is placed up higher and a bit farther inwards compared to the '69 spindle, thus tilting out the top of the wheel for more positive camber.  The spindle was intended for a UCA that didn't stick out quit as far laterally. 

Running these later spindles on earlier cars -
People have been doing this for decades.  It gets on Rick Ehrenberg's (Mopar Action magazine) nerves, but another mag (Mopar Muscle?) tested out the idea years ago and found no reason not to consider it on a street car.  The balljoints don't come near binding (better still check it at your severely lowered ride height!).  The static alignment was a problem but it was manageable.

The static alignment changes were the biggest problem, which is totally fixable with non-stock UCAs.  The changes to the suspension geometry in-motion were deemed not enough to worry about.  Some dedicated road racers might care but the difference was pretty small.     

[Indygenerallee]

UCAs -

If you wanna U-shape them instead of V-shape, watch out for turning clearance on the rear (closer to firewall) UCA legs.  It's tight from the factory.  There is probably more room to widen the UCA's shape towards the front of the car for the extra shock.

Gotta remember though with the drop spindle it will be moving the rim to a different position where I believe there will be even more room.
still quite a bit of room here even with my tire turned to full lock right with the stock UCA.

IMAG1964 by

The 73-up spindle geometry -

The upper ball joint is placed up higher and a bit farther inwards compared to the '69 spindle, thus tilting out the top of the wheel for more positive camber.  The spindle was intended for a UCA that didn't stick out quit as far laterally. 

From what I have seen these Magnumforce drop spindles are closer to the A body version which were not as tall as the B body version

[Mike DC]

 
Hmm, yeah, your turning radius would be limited a bit in back by the tires already.  I hadn't thought of that in regards to the A-arms. 


I've actually thought about notching some clearance into the stock front subframes behind the shock towers for tire clearance.  Even a normal 15" wheel and tire size is enough to rub the framerail back there. 


With the extreme tire size you're running in front, it looks like even the firewall becomes a potential interference spot. 

[Mike DC]

   
Here's a modern day pic of the #71 Daytona.

Looks like the floor is still attached to the rockers like stock but the drivetrain is raised up.  The shifter is perched up pretty high and the whole tunnel looks fabbed.