Author Topic: AAR / T/A Handling  (Read 92735 times)

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #90 on: July 16, 2009 - 02:03:10 PM »
The latest issue of Hot rod (Sept or Oct 09, whatever they are sending out right now) has an article about the new Hotchkiss suspension pieces.  Neat things about the article is they install a part and then test. So you can get an idea of what specific changes will net you in the feel of your car if you're starting from stock. They do run the car through a slalom after each install and give you times and speed so you can see the incremental improvements of each step.

So they basically prove that for a few grand you can make you mopar handle like a modern Honda (their comparison). Granted this is Hotchkis and their parts to tend to be the most expensive ones on teh market so you can beat their price easily by shopping around. IMO, they put together the best reasonable compromise type set up that is going to give most owners the most pleasure in driving their car. By no means did they build a pro touring car, nor did they push the envelope with their set up, so there is still more left in the old mopar design.




Offline SBDave

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #91 on: August 05, 2009 - 02:21:08 PM »
I just picked up that magazine.  Good article.  It would be nice if this sort of information was available with the products (or some performance specifications).  I was looking for this information from XV or at least some customers feedback but after about a month of looking I couldn't find any.  I bought the level 1 system and will let everyone know what I think.

thanks,
Dave

Offline autoxcuda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 572
    • Spring Fling
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #92 on: August 08, 2009 - 06:10:21 PM »
The latest issue of Hot rod (Sept or Oct 09, whatever they are sending out right now) has an article about the new Hotchkiss suspension pieces.  Neat things about the article is they install a part and then test. So you can get an idea of what specific changes will net you in the feel of your car if you're starting from stock. They do run the car through a slalom after each install and give you times and speed so you can see the incremental improvements of each step.

So they basically prove that for a few grand you can make you mopar handle like a modern Honda (their comparison). Granted this is Hotchkis and their parts to tend to be the most expensive ones on teh market so you can beat their price easily by shopping around. IMO, they put together the best reasonable compromise type set up that is going to give most owners the most pleasure in driving their car. By no means did they build a pro touring car, nor did they push the envelope with their set up, so there is still more left in the old mopar design.

What do you consider "pro touring" ? -Double the cost of cool looking gadgets for 5% more performance? 

J/K I know you're not one of those bling for blings sake guys.

BTW I was at the Mopar Hotchkis open house. Grilled them with a bunch of question. I actually had the engineer that drives that T/A in the autocross drive my 68 Barracuda.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2009 - 06:13:05 PM by autoxcuda »
Spring Fling XXX
April 22 & 23 2016

at Woodley Park Van Nuys, CA.
Special 30th Anniversary Event!
600+ Mopars, 300+ swappers,  50+ manf. midways.
Thrus: Mopar Track Day at Willow Springs Raceway
Fri: Caravan & Cruise
Sat: Mopar Cruise-In

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #93 on: August 09, 2009 - 12:08:38 PM »
Very good point. I suppose with a .96 t-bar it will cover the "touring" aspect quite well since that will still provide a comfortable ride. Since I tend to lean more towards higher wheel rates, I would have expected something in the 1" plus range for more competent hanlding prowess.

Offline Road_Runner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Mopar Owner & Standard Bearer Since 1974
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #94 on: February 01, 2010 - 11:37:21 PM »
For those of us old enough to remember when these cars ran in the Trans Am series, (I was a kid but was hugely into all things car related), and although Sam Posey and others made the best of these cars, they never really threatened the z28s or Boss 302s which pretty much ruled the series.  That's not to say they couldn't have gotten there, but they joined the series late so didn't have the time to really maximize their setups.  Plus, their biggest disadvantage was their size.  They were the largest cars in the series, but were limited to the same 305C.I. engines that everyone else ran. 

Later, Jim
1970 383 Roadrunner Tor Red
1973 318 Barracuda Mist Green
2014 Mustang GT/CS Convertible All Black

Offline PlumCrazyChris

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 456
    • Mopar Muscle Cars of Austin
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #95 on: February 23, 2010 - 11:35:21 AM »
For those of us old enough to remember when these cars ran in the Trans Am series, (I was a kid but was hugely into all things car related), and although Sam Posey and others made the best of these cars, they never really threatened the z28s or Boss 302s which pretty much ruled the series.  That's not to say they couldn't have gotten there, but they joined the series late so didn't have the time to really maximize their setups.  Plus, their biggest disadvantage was their size.  They were the largest cars in the series, but were limited to the same 305C.I. engines that everyone else ran. 

Later, Jim

I'm curious, just what a 69 camaro or mustang weighs? 

I don't think my SB Challenger weighs very much stock, I think 3200lbs is on the title, but I haven't weighed it myself yet.  I'm sure those stripped race cars were in the 2600-2800lb range... 

Runner, Do you have any idea what there race weight was for the cars in the TA series?

PlumCrazyChris
Mopar Muscle Cars of Austin
Round Rock Tx
70 Challenger 5.7, A518, A/C
70 Challenger 340 convertible (Gone to Sweden)
68 Barracuda (sold it too)
www.mopar.org

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #96 on: February 23, 2010 - 01:21:54 PM »
While the mopars did not win many races, they did have the power and handling to regularly qualify up front. They did not have the time to sort out the durability issues within the program that prevented more podium finishes.

Also, while they seem larger, you can bet your bippy the mopars were pushing the weight minumiums in the class and were not hauling around any extra pounds over the Camaros and Mustangs. I'm sure most of us have heard the story about the acid dipped Challenger roof whose skin was so thin that a tech inspector dented it just by putting his arm on it.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2010 - 02:41:25 PM by HP2 »

Offline Grancoupe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 830
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2010 - 09:54:36 PM »
Interesting concept on size. I won a pretty good bet that my 70' was smaller than a 90' Mustang GT. Which is considered to be a relatively small sized car for an American Muscle car. My car was shorter by about 3 inches if I recall correctly. Both cars were parked side by side, when mine was actually running. My friend was sure my 70' was at least a foot longer judging from a distance.

Offline mrwfp

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 139
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #98 on: June 24, 2010 - 08:36:58 PM »
Here's a link to a Hotchkis video about a 1970 T/A Challenger going up against a 2010 SRT Challenger

http://www.insideline.com/dodge/challenger/2010/2010-dodge-challenger-srt-8-vs-1970-dodge-challenger.html

Offline the_engineers

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2639
  • Cheap, fast, reliable...pick 2
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #99 on: June 24, 2010 - 08:50:39 PM »
Cuda is the shortest vehicle we own, length and height. Much wider, though.
Brooks

1971 'Cuda 360
2004 Infiniti G35 6-spd Coupe
2001 Toyota Solara Convertible
2002 GMC Savana 1500 Explorer Hightop Conversion
1972 Dodge Dart Swinger...keeping the Slant.  Rocking the turbos.

Offline Roppa440

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #100 on: January 19, 2011 - 05:34:02 AM »
I had my 440 Challenger weighed at the strip last summer. Over the years I have removed a lot of weight from the car. In particular weight from the front half. Manual brakes/steering, no heater or air con, ally radiator, ally intake, plastic front bumper, battery moved to the rear etc etc.
But stock iron heads and full stock interior.

Total weight of car with full tank of fuel was 3705lbs.

Total race weight with me in the car was 3890lbs.

Front - Rear weight was split 54.9% - 45.1% (pretty good for an iron head big block car I think).

Side to side weight distribution was 50.8% Left and 49.2% Right.

Dave
1970 Challenger R/T
1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited

Offline the_engineers

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 2639
  • Cheap, fast, reliable...pick 2
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #101 on: January 21, 2011 - 10:51:39 PM »
:popcorn:
Brooks

1971 'Cuda 360
2004 Infiniti G35 6-spd Coupe
2001 Toyota Solara Convertible
2002 GMC Savana 1500 Explorer Hightop Conversion
1972 Dodge Dart Swinger...keeping the Slant.  Rocking the turbos.

Offline Road_Runner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Mopar Owner & Standard Bearer Since 1974
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #102 on: January 21, 2011 - 11:33:19 PM »
Runner, Do you have any idea what there race weight was for the cars in the TA series?

You know, I really don't.  I'm not sure where I got the idea (fact?) that the Mopars were at a weight disadvantage to the Boss 302, AMX & z28's but I can remember always thinking it was so.  Not sure if I read about it back then or what.  I'm going to do a little digging through my old books and see if I have something on it.  Unfortunately, all my mags from back then are long gone, even the dirty ones!

Later, Jim
1970 383 Roadrunner Tor Red
1973 318 Barracuda Mist Green
2014 Mustang GT/CS Convertible All Black

Offline HP2

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4478
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #103 on: January 22, 2011 - 10:30:37 AM »
I had my 440 Challenger weighed at the strip last summer. Over the years I have removed a lot of weight from the car. In particular weight from the front half. Manual brakes/steering, no heater or air con, ally radiator, ally intake, plastic front bumper, battery moved to the rear etc etc.
But stock iron heads and full stock interior.

Total weight of car with full tank of fuel was 3705lbs.

Total race weight with me in the car was 3890lbs.

Front - Rear weight was split 54.9% - 45.1% (pretty good for an iron head big block car I think).

Side to side weight distribution was 50.8% Left and 49.2% Right.

That's pretty consistent with what I've seen over the years. However, for some reason a lot of people don't believe that E bodies weigh almost as much as B bodies because they are shorter. Here is some proof.
The distribution is pretty fair, as you said. You have moved a few % points around for the effort, and while seemingly small, it does help. To get much more aggressive with weight reduction or distribution requires liberal use of fiberglass and aluminum.

My '74 Challenger small block was a bit over 3650 with me and 1/2 tank of gas in stock form. I''ve since done some reduction/redistribution on it, but haven't weighed it to see what progress I've made. Earlier models might be a bit lighter.


Do you have any idea what there race weight was for the cars in the TA series?

Race weights for the trans am series were initally 2900#. By 1970, that had been raised to 3200# with a 3400# max including fuel and driver. Any special production cars had to have 2500 units built to homologate the car, up from 500 initially specified. By '70, dual carbs were gone and any 4 speed or brake combination could be used so long as they were listed in the manufacturers parts books and available over the counter.

Offline Katfish

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • 70 Challenger
Re: AAR / T/A Handling
« Reply #104 on: January 22, 2011 - 04:41:50 PM »
Interesting concept on size. I won a pretty good bet that my 70' was smaller than a 90' Mustang GT. Which is considered to be a relatively small sized car for an American Muscle car. My car was shorter by about 3 inches if I recall correctly. Both cars were parked side by side, when mine was actually running. My friend was sure my 70' was at least a foot longer judging from a distance.

I knew this couldn't be right.

Exterior Dimensions & Weight
Curb Weight: 3160 lbs
Wt. Dist.: 59/41
Wheelbase(Ft/Rr): 100.5
Track (Ft/Rr): 56.6/57.0
Length: 179.3
Width: 69.1
Height: 52.1

Our Challengers are 191" long!