Author Topic: AAR / T/A Handling  (Read 92368 times)

Offline Tom Quad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #30 on: April 23, 2007 - 04:38:15 AM »
I have owned this car a long time, it has always been a good handler and gets better with age.  In today's world the only fair comparison to other modern cars would be stock hardware using stock style replacement service parts like shocks, bushings, brake pads etc-let's go back to the Superbird that we set up.  Everything done to that car to get it ready was done with off the shelf autozone/pep boys/nappa style replacement service parts.  It was amazing...and still is

I have great pics but this web site will not accept them due to size

As to Barry's questions

Gear ratio? 3.55's with a passon OD alum 4sp-need 3.91's for the track

Highest speed on the straights? Currently 131mph  on radar

Course length and average lap time / speed? 3.7 miles  2 min 30 sec approx, never figured out any average speeds.

I guess having a car that weighs only 3200lbs without driver and 400 rear wheel hp helps a little....gets 16 mpg too

Highest speed on the highway going home?  110 mph with a State Trooper in the rear view mirror-true story for another day

As for the skeptics-go get your import car or your ZO6 or your big fat hemi and get ready for your beating

I am not afraid of you... :scared: :dogpile:





Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #31 on: April 23, 2007 - 04:58:57 AM »
  How much do you think keeping stock UCA's limit the car's capability to perform well through a corner? (Stamped steel vs. tubular)  My original plan was to re-use the original UCA's, but I've thought about going the extra step and going over to tubular ones with the heim joints instead of bushings. (I planned on using the offset UCA bushings to help with the + caster.)

The biggest advantage of the tubular arms is the are built to create caster more easily than a stock arm. The additional caster creates direction stability at speed, which will create a more solid feeling to the driver. Additionally, caster creates a "jacking effect" by lifting the outside corner of the vehicle during turning that will help reduce the cross weight transfer applied to that tire during the turn. I.E. you get better grip at the front tire and more traction from the rear tire. This jacking also helps transfer load from the outside to the inside more easily. Nascar jockeys talk about weight jacking (wedge) all the time.

How much will you be limited by it? Definetly some amount and the faster you drive into a corner, the more pronounced that "some" will be. That is hard to quantify by the seat of your pants other than to say that you know it when you feel it. This actually is a very good point to point comparison to a modern car and its ability to feel more solid. A modern car may run 6 to 8 degrees positive caster whereas most mucle era cars run 1-2 degrees positive and in some cases negative caster. Combine that caster setting with a negative camber setting and a rack and pinion and now you know why a modern car feels a lot tighter and more precise than a muscle car. This can mostly be overcome with alignment changes and a new, tight steering box.

Since tubular arms are built with additional caster in mind, you don't necessarily need the ones with heim joints, but they can get you even more adjustment in caster and camber than bushed versions. Just make sure you get dust seals for them and keep them lubed up.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007 - 11:45:02 AM by HP2 »

Offline DQHemi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 172
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #32 on: April 23, 2007 - 07:41:50 AM »
These type of threads are hard to answer because a book could easily be written answeing this question and other points raised.

You will actually get some of this answered as we're doing an article with one of the biggest mainstream automtive mags out there next month where they will be doing a full evaluation of a full tilt car (XV001) and we're providing a stock 70 T/A as well.  The differences from our own testing were extreme to say the least, so I'm not sure how detailed they will go in terms of comparison, but they will have a benchmark to see just how far it can be taken.

The stock setup definitely does not handle well by todays standards. 
It can be made to work much better for sure, as we have done with our Level I suspension.
With that setup we've pulled 1.0 sustained (not peak) lateral G and significantly improved the handling and ride in virtually every other way.

So the stock type setup can be made to work.  However, I don't know that I'd say you're going to go and eat up everything new that's out there running T-Bars and leaf springs.    Significanly better than stock without a doubt and definitely useable on a track where you can have a great time and get very respectable results, but not what I'd consider world class.

Level II was developed to take the cars to that level.  Most of the components are aluminum (including the K), all the geometry is optimized based upon current suspension technology, components are all matched and dialed in, all designed to be stong and light and also reduce unsprung weight - and we use modern race quality high pressure monotube shocks custom valved for each platform we support.  This was designed to run with the best modern cars.

It's also important to note that we did not do this as a full race setup.  However, it is a full road race quality suspension basically de-tuned for the street so it can be pounced on track and still provide good ride comfort on the street - which is what my expectation of a really good modern performance car is.  It could easily be dialed up for a full race application, but as someone else pointed out, no one's really campaigning these cars anymore (someone really does need to run a car in the American Iron series though).

We will shortly be announcing an open track event that we are putting on at a real road race course and will be open to whoever wants to attend - up to the number of cars that can be handled.  It will have professional instructors, class time in the AM and plenty of time for people to see how their cars actually work on a real road race course.  The event will be for American musclecars only - but not limited to just Mopars. 

Want to see how our cars run in person - here's the opportunity and we'll probably give some rides as well.

The DVD referred to is is all the thirteen episodes we were on Dream Car Garage last year and is up on our website and can be bought for $4.99.  Visit us here or at shows and we're happy to just give you a copy.  Come to our open house we'll be giving those out to all that attend as well as some other goodies.  Anyway, that DVD shows stock, Level I and Level II on track.  The last segment shows XV001 running full tilt on a large fast road race course.  Watch that first and then judge for yourself.  Rest of the DVD shows how we developed and tested - if you're a hardcore gear head you will really dig it - people have told us it is "Car Porn" - we thought that was awesome and laughed our butts off.  Much of what was used is straight from the OE level and the highest levels of professional motorsports (i.e. F1, IRL, Grand Am, ALMS, NASCAR, CHAMP) - we used the same engineers and tools.  We even used a ride and handling specialist that gets loaned out to the OE's when they have issues w/ their production vehicles.

All of that was also used on the Level I setup, so it is pretty much as dialed in as can be for a stock type suspension. All the components are matched, which unless you have tons of time on the track to try every T-bar, shock setting, shock type, sway bar size and have leaf springs made up in different rates you won't get to - that is the value in our Level I - it's ll dialed in, matched and optimized.  For example, we found out immediately that to make the cars handle, the T-Bars were way too light and the leaf springs way to heavy - so we have much larger bars made up to our spec and very light rate leaf springs which our shocks are dialed in to work with.  Anyway, this is how race teams do it - you test, dial in, eliminate weaknesses and optimize.  No one else offers that.

If you haven't seen any of these before, here's some shots taken the same day the last segment on the DVD was filmed on track.














     

 


John Buscema
XV Motorsports
www.xvmotorsports.com

Offline DQHemi

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 172
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #33 on: April 23, 2007 - 07:58:20 AM »
It is funny when people talk that car with leaf springs can't handle. :blah:
The new Z06 smokes everything in the corners and it has leaf springs at the back :burnout:

Just to clarify, the C6 Corvette runs a full IRS suspension.  They've used a transverse leaf spring in that setup for the spring aspect of the suspension for many years.  So the leaf spring is just used to provide spring rate and nothing more.     

The leaf springs in the calssic Mopars ARE the entire rear suspension. 

Big difference.
John Buscema
XV Motorsports
www.xvmotorsports.com

Offline Mr. 440SixPack

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 167
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #34 on: April 23, 2007 - 08:55:44 AM »
 :wow: guys!  :cheers: Thanks for all these great posts. A lot of technical stuff there and I don't understand a half of it :roflsmiley: :newbie:.


Quote
Just to clarify, the C6 Corvette runs a full IRS suspension.  They've used a transverse leaf spring in that setup for the spring aspect of the suspension for many years.  So the leaf spring is just used to provide spring rate and nothing more.     

The leaf springs in the calssic Mopars ARE the entire rear suspension. 

Big difference.

I didn't know that :clueless: I am watching Top Gear sometimes and in every show with American cars Clarkson is talking about corvette and its old technology leaf springs at the back. Looks like he doesn't know anything about suspension :smilielol: Enough about corvette for now...

@Tom Quad
I remember now that there was something about your AAR racing on cudaworld. I can't find it now but I read that you were also racing in snow...Is it true or am I wrong?

@NZ440R/T
Quote
Most E-Bodies are going straight (what they were built for) so good on you (and the others on board) for going in the other direction, literally.


As far as I know AAR, T/A and all 340 E-Body mopars were built with handling in mind. They all have front and rear sway bar, stiffer shocks and rear springs, 15 rims and other stuff. I know that an old AAR 'cuda can't keep up with Evo or Impreza which are really fast cars but I believe that it would keep up with 160 HP Vtec Honda... :clueless:

What do you think, Tom?

I can't wait for more posts from all of you...Great reading :worshippy (Sorry for my crappy English :banghead:)
« Last Edit: April 23, 2007 - 09:21:42 AM by Mr. 440SixPack »
My dream: 1970 Plymouth 'Cuda 440+6 Pack/4 speed Pistol Grip/Dana 60 rearend/PS, PB/Lime Light/Shaker hood/Rallye dash...


Offline Carlwalski

  • C-C.com Expert
  • ********
  • Posts: 20672
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #35 on: April 23, 2007 - 09:13:35 AM »

@NZ440R/T

As far as I know AAR, T/A and all 340 E-Body mopars were built with handling in mind. They all have front and rear sway bar, stiffer shocks and rear springs, 15 rims and other stuff. I know that an old AAR 'cuda can't keep up with Evo or Impreza which are really fast cars but I believe that it would keep up with 160 HP Vtec Honda... :clueless:



Yes, the Trans Am cars were built to offer the driver a better handling car. Some may argue it was to homligate the cars in the Trans-Am series, like Nascar & the Wing Hemi cars. Build a specific # so you can "legally" race them.

I was referring to the majority of E-Body and Mopar muscle fraternity when I was meaning straight-line. Someone posted "fat Hemis" lol....not all of them. A 528/540 aluminum engine weighs less than a small block Chev. Monster power, better handling. Hopefully in 2-3 years once the 'Cuda is complete I can get it out on a road track and see how all the modern modifications have turned it into a modern sports car. Grand Tourer is an easy target, true sports car is the goal.

The team building my 'Cuda (same who did Lucy) 2 of them race and use to race so I'm in good hands. Stiffening kits and body frame work, for me, is the most important area. Everything else is bolt on. Have to make a good base like a cake, then ice it. Where as a stock car will whale and bite hard into the tires a stiffened chassis car will pick the front tire off the ground completely it becomes that rigid - a drivers point and steer dream.

As for the Vtec 160hp.....you could probably run around the track faster lol. The Honda would lose out on hp/T alone so it wouldn't be fair. I think it may gain some under braking and perhaps corner exit speed but the T/A-AAR would just leave it for dead on the straights. That's my opinion anyhow............

Keep up the good posts guys, I'm enjoying reading all this stuff, learning things about the cars etc.

:thumbsup:
1970 Dodge Challenger R/T
White, License Plate, 0A-5599
540ci Aluminium Hemi, F.A.S.T EFI
TF-727 Gear Vendor OD, Dana 60

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #36 on: April 23, 2007 - 09:32:22 AM »
The year after I changed the shocks, boxed the LCAs, installed polyutherane brushing, swaped the 318-spec torsion bars to HEMI bars and installed subframe connectors. Last year I felt a big difference in the car, but it felt like the huge tires held me back.

Even with the swap to hemi bars, you are still significantly undersprung. Most of the solo and road race mopar guys I have talked to recommend going all the way to 1.22 t-bars if you are considering track action. You also need to pair that up with a 1.125 to 1.25 front sway bar and a .875 to 1.0 rear bar and you will significatnly reduce your body roll.

Like DQHemi said, mopars are way underspring up front and over sprung on the back in stock form. If you look at the kit car data Direct Connection put together back in the 70s, they only recommended a 120# rear spring rate coupled with 1.06 to 1.16 torsion bar and a 1-1.125 sway bar up front. For a point of reference, the stock XHD spring pack is approximately 140# and the super stock springs are around 160#.

The leaf springs in the classic Mopars ARE the entire rear suspension. 

Big difference.

This can be changed by putting a spring eye pivot in place of the bushings. The then allows the spring to function as only a spring and fore/aft locating device. By adding a panhard bar or watts link, you then have all the adjustability for tuning roll center height and rear bite that would come with any similarly situated coil spring/over suspension. However, most of this is something the average enthusiast wouldn't consider much less do.

Already mentioned is the front/rear issue but as well there is the center of gravity. If nothing else the heavier materials used in construction put the center of gravity higher than the modern counterpart & would limit the e-body's competitiveness. 

The center of gravity height actually isn't as bad as you might think compared to a new car. Once you drop a mopar a couple of inches, CG height, roll centers, roll axis, and a few other factors move real close to race car territory. New cars aren't really that lightweight either by comparison. The use of lightweight steels has necessitated using more of it in critical areas to maintain rigidity, which adds weight. The front/rear split, especially with a big block, is significant, but can be compensated for with spring rates.

Kinda funny. One of our biggest suspension discussion in a while and it isn't even in the suspension forum.

Offline jvike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 754
  • Pro-Touring Cuda
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #37 on: April 23, 2007 - 02:08:00 PM »
Even with the swap to hemi bars, you are still significantly undersprung. Most of the solo and road race mopar guys I have talked to recommend going all the way to 1.22 t-bars if you are considering track action. You also need to pair that up with a 1.125 to 1.25 front sway bar and a .875 to 1.0 rear bar and you will significatnly reduce your body roll.

I knew that when I decided to go Hemi bars. My car is mostly a street cruiser, I only take it to the road race track two weekends a year to have fun. Eventually I want to convert it to a Pro-Toruing car.
Anyone remember the tread about the french guy that raced a 'Cuda? Found some specs from his car over at Pro-Touring.com (it's in french)
http://www.pro-touring.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=15446&d=1170153200
http://www.pro-touring.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=15447&d=1170153200

This is a very good discussion, with input from some very talented guys. Should be a sticky in the Suspention forum.
 :cheers:
Member of The Rapid Transit System

Offline Bullitt-

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12167
  • Better Things To Come Member Since 2/16/06
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #38 on: April 23, 2007 - 03:26:16 PM »
Lotta good info guys..... HP2 you say that lowering the car a couple of inches improves things, I have read somewhere that you can go too low with torsion bars. Do you have a good guideline that we might go by as to a good safe ride height for the frone end?
Wade  73 Rallye 340..'77 Millennium Falcon...13 R/T Classic   Huntsville, AL
Screwed by Photobucket!

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #39 on: April 23, 2007 - 08:45:06 PM »
Well, that is one of those "it depends" type answers. In general a one to two inch drop is no problem depending on where you are starting from. If your low to begin with, 2" could be a problem. If you are starting with a stock ride height, it is no problem. I do admit that I have never used the factory specs for setting ride height. I always get the tires I want first, then set the front ride heights to achieve a 4-5" high roll center. I then adjust rear ride height with a slight nose down rake. After that comes the front end alignment. FOr some, huge oil pans may prevent ever want to get down that low.

Simply turning down the torsion bars takes preload off the bars so the suspension will run out of travel before sufficient resistence is offered by the bar, so yes, if using an original diameter bar and turning the ride height way down you run the risk of bottoming out the suspension and breaking parts. The work around for this is relocating the bump stops and/or stepping up the torsion bar rates.

Since I like my cars somewhat low, I always step up bar diameter by a good amount, that being .96 for small blocks and 1.0 for big blocks. The exception being my Challenger which is getting 1.22 bars. Here is where I like it with the 15" wheels.


Offline Street_Challenged73

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 8826
  • '73 FC-7 Challenger..Member since October 20, 2002
    • My '73 Challenger Restoration Page
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #40 on: April 23, 2007 - 09:09:17 PM »
Thanks for the input, HP2. :cheers: :2thumbs:
1973 Dodge Challenger......................The ongoing project. (00/----\00)
1991 Dodge Stealth R/T Twin-Turbo....The sunny day cruiser (RTBoost)
1990 Toyota Celica GT Liftback...........The new daily & winter driver.
All-American Muscle: 'Cudas and Challengers...Still the Elite and always will be.

                                                                                             
                 
Street_Challenged73 from Wisconsin

Offline Bullitt-

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 12167
  • Better Things To Come Member Since 2/16/06
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2007 - 05:46:52 AM »
Thanks HP2... I have the .96 bars with a small block. Yours looks good, if you ever get the chance measure the clearance at the middle of the K-frame and let me know where your at.
You also mention negative camber whereas the spec was +1/8,+1/4. Any number you could recommend that works well with modern wider tires?
« Last Edit: April 24, 2007 - 05:56:46 AM by bullitt99 »
Wade  73 Rallye 340..'77 Millennium Falcon...13 R/T Classic   Huntsville, AL
Screwed by Photobucket!

Offline gomopar440

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 273
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2007 - 06:56:51 AM »
I'll second (or third or fourth ;D) the sticky reccomendation!

Good info as this is what I'm after with my Challenger. I doubt it'll ever be on a drag strip, but the temptation is there to try out some kind of road course.

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2007 - 08:12:42 AM »
Yours looks good, if you ever get the chance measure the clearance at the middle of the K-frame and let me know where your at.
You also mention negative camber whereas the spec was +1/8,+1/4. Any number you could recommend that works well with modern wider tires?

I'd be glad to take measurements and let you know what I find. I'll try to get that done this weekend.

Radials are a lot more tolerent of camber angles than bias ply tires were. For all around street driving .5 negative camber will provide a nice balance. If you are pretty agressive with your driving and like throwing it into corners or occasionally do a  road course, -1 degree may work better. If you are into autocrossing, then you may want more, but at that point I'd recommend a tire temp guage to get your setting optimized.

Since we covered caster previously and now camber, the only thing left is toe. 1/32 toe in is a safe, comfortable setting for street use that will really set up well during corner turn in. In my competition cars I've used 1/32 toe out, but that really changes how the car feels in the straights and transitions into corners and if you are not familiar with it, I would NOT recommend a toe out setting for street use.

My Challenger is being built with road course driving as a primary function with occasional street use, hence the large wheel rates it is getting. After spending years oval track racing, I miss the turns. After getting my rear handed to me for the past several years at the drags, I've realized I don't spend enough time at the strip to be good at it. So I'll be joining NASA soon and start going to some road courses. I'm really looking forward to it.

On a seperate note, I've seen more people interested in mopars and handling in the past two years than I've seen the in the past 20.  I presonally think it is great. I also am really glad to see a major player like XV getting into the mopar market as well. I know there are a lot of GM and Ford guys crying about the increased engineering focus mopars have been getting lately. Guess they'll have to suck it up and get used to seeing our tail lights int eh turn now as well.  :2thumbs:

Offline Carlwalski

  • C-C.com Expert
  • ********
  • Posts: 20672
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2007 - 08:19:43 AM »

On a seperate note, I've seen more people interested in mopars and handling in the past two years than I've seen the in the past 20.  I presonally think it is great. I also am really glad to see a major player like XV getting into the mopar market as well. I know there are a lot of GM and Ford guys crying about the increased engineering focus mopars have been getting lately.


Yupe, I've noticed that too. I think the power tour type cruises had a little part to play in this boom in handling cars. These types of cruises, straight lines are when you cruise and corners are where you actually drive. People modifying their cars more around taller gears, suspension and ride work setups for cross country driving. While I like drag racing, I still wish there was more interest with cornering and handling these cars. Like you say, seems bright for the future.



Guess they'll have to suck it up and get used to seeing our tail lights int eh turn now as well.  :2thumbs:


AMEN.  :cheers:
1970 Dodge Challenger R/T
White, License Plate, 0A-5599
540ci Aluminium Hemi, F.A.S.T EFI
TF-727 Gear Vendor OD, Dana 60