Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports

Author Topic: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports  (Read 15241 times)

Offline Challenger III

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2010 - 10:34:10 PM »
I am thinking about using the RMS setup also. Sure would like to know in advance if it's possible to easily get away from all those U-Bolts in the rear installation, though.
Mike    Yakima, Washington

Resto Thread:  http://www.cuda-challenger.com/cc/index.php?topic=66668.0




Offline Ornamental

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 918
  • Oslo, Norway
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2010 - 10:52:59 PM »
That's not that hard, just like you do with anything else you strengthen, you would weld in re-enforcement plates, gussets, etc... to make that area stronger.  It gives the area more mass to distribute the energy too.  I know one mopar builder that went as far as cutting out the original K-member bolt holes, make a little enclosure around the bolt holes with gussets and re-enforcement plates, then welding it back into the frame rails with additional gussets and re-enforcements to make sure that the front end was safe. 
For the record, I'm not trying to take the piss here, I'm not an engineer, but I do try to bend my head around your reasoning. I have an Alterktion on my Chally, and I'm just curious on what precisely the issue is.

Do I understand you correctly if I believe you're worried that the frame rails themselves will compress or bend out of shape, and thus cause the bolts to slip off?

Do you have any worry that the whole frame rail itself will bend out of shape where they're attached to the body?

This next question is where my lack of engineering knowledge smells strongly of my layman ideas about weight transfer.
In your reply to 500Stroker, you say that the 4 K-member bolts transfer ALL the energy from the front suspension.
I thought that those four bolts basically kept the k-frame anchored to the frame rails, and that the weight transfer / energy transfer were through the entire surfaces of where the frame rails lies on the K-member, bolts included?
Panther Pink '72 Challenger Rallye.
Grey '70 Challenger R/T

-There are two kinds of pedestrians: The quick and the dead.

***Per Arne***

Offline Devil

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Forward, Together Forward
    • Ryan's Cars in Barns
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2010 - 11:22:22 PM »
Re-enforcing the front end of a Mopar has been around alot longer then XV, hotchkis, etc... It is just a good move all around.

And that's funny, I talked to the guys at Mopar Muscle, they had to work the frame on the B-body to make it work, AND they re-enforced it with plate steel to make sure it was strong enough to take the abuse.  And they never did finish it.

As did Dave at Totally Auto, he did significant upgrades to the entire front end of the Barracuda, including re-enforcing the front K-member bolts to ensure there would be no issues.  I spent a week with him last year on the Power Tour, talked quite a bit about it.  He's the one that told me about some options to re-enforce the front frame rails to make sure they wouldn't fail.

And I think we all know how E-Booger feels on the subject.

Here is what Mopar Builder John from US Car Tool said.

Quote
Now, when an Alterktion is installed, all the suspension forces are carried by the front frame rails. There is no more torsion bar to distribute some of the force to the crossmember and the Alterktion coil over upper shock mount is ultimately connected to the frame rail. All the suspension forces are now carried by the front frame rails (supported by the inner fenders as well).

This is where Bill and I diverge. I believe that reinforcing the top of the shock tower to the firewall helps keep the frame rails from deflecting under serious suspension load, Bill believes the stock frame rail / inner fender is very strong and no extra bracing is needed under that load.

Ornamental:
You're absolutely right.  Energy is transferred through the movement of the suspension, previously alot of that energy was passed along the torsion bar and then in the crossmember.  Now all that energy from the suspension movement has no place to go, it is transferred along the unit to the 4 K-member bolts, that can cause the frame rails to fail.  It hasn't yet to anyone's knowledge, but it can.

Since the 4-bolts are the parts that actually connect the two pieces together, that is where the energy travels from.  Just having it on top of each other doesn't transfer alot of energy, because they aren't really connected to each other, just sitting near eachother.  The bolts are where the two pieces are connected.

Hey, I'm done, you guys keep saying "None have failed yet, so it must be good.", I keep saying "I'm saying the design has a flaw, that can be fixed, but can allow the frame rails to fail."  You guys wanna go around and around, fine.  I've laid the information out there.

Ryan
Ryan's Cars in Barns

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hemipwr70/
http://carsinbarns.blogspot.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71 Challenger R/T Clone
69 Charger R/T SE
70 Barracuda
74 Dart Swinger
93 RamCharger
88 Caprice Classic Brougham

Offline abodyjoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • Get It On....
    • A-Body Joe's
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2010 - 07:45:19 AM »
I am thinking about using the RMS setup also. Sure would like to know in advance if it's possible to easily get away from all those U-Bolts in the rear installation, though.


  there is  weld in version if ya don't want to use the bolt in u-bolt in system.   give rms a call..

Offline abodyjoe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
  • Get It On....
    • A-Body Joe's
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2010 - 07:49:38 AM »
 
 someone better call the suspension engineers at chrysler and warn them then...    at this very moment they are running a 74 dart sport in the 2000 mile targa race in newfoundland.  guess what suspension system they are using....    ummm...  ya the RMS set up.  i guess devil and ebooger know better then the chrysler lab though.....




Offline IMNCARN82

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3547
  • LeDZeP
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #50 on: September 04, 2010 - 10:12:31 AM »
U bolts? You mean the thru bolts? 

Yes,the rms transfers more stress to the front frames.

Yes,those stresses can easily be made safe.

Yes,RMS is a better unit than magnumforce.
So what were we talking about?
'73 340 5 speed,RMS,BAER,... "Supercuda" (O[   ]||||[   ]O)  
'69 Dodge Charger 383,Auto                  (OiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiiiiiiO)
13' Challenger R/T BlacktoP  6spd. (OO________OO)
71' Demon
75' Duster
87' Conquest TSI
56' Plaza
Boulder CO
Robert    "cuda bob"

Offline brads70

  • C-C.com Expert
  • ********
  • Posts: 18747
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #51 on: September 04, 2010 - 10:19:06 AM »
Lets all be freinds boys! :bigsmile:  :burnout: don't let this topic get ugly huh?
Brad
1970 Challenger 451stroker/4L60 auto OD
Barrie,Ontario,Canada
Proud to own one of the best cars ever made!!!!!

My restoration thread 
http://www.cuda-challenger.com/cc/index.php?topic=59072.0
 My handling upgrade post
http://www.cuda-challenger.com/cc/index.php?topic=73985.0

Offline torqueaddict

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 310
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #52 on: September 04, 2010 - 10:54:23 AM »
Man people get passionate here!!! I think healthy debate is good we should all be civil.
1972 Challenger  (O O [======R/T=] O O) 1970 clone

Offline Challenger III

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1290
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #53 on: September 04, 2010 - 11:42:02 AM »

  there is  weld in version if ya don't want to use the bolt in u-bolt in system.   give rms a call..
Thanks for the info. That's good to know.
Mike    Yakima, Washington

Resto Thread:  http://www.cuda-challenger.com/cc/index.php?topic=66668.0

Offline 4Cruizn

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Expert
  • *****
  • Posts: 18521
  • HEMI FISH
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #54 on: September 04, 2010 - 02:19:48 PM »
WOW this thread has taken an interesting route . . .

First thing is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL BE TOLERATED . . PERIOD!   :nono:  You want to slam someone, don't do it here.  Next . . everyone is intitled to their opinion whether you like what they have to say or not.  I'm not going to shut down this thread at this point but am definitely watching it.   :eek7:



Offline IMNCARN82

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3547
  • LeDZeP
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #55 on: September 04, 2010 - 02:57:20 PM »
 :roflsmiley:  geeeze dad.  Not sure where all the slams are.I sincerely apologize to any and all. I just don't see any big deals here. Got back from a cruise. She hasn't snapped in half yet. It's ALL OPINIONS anywayz.  He said this... He said that...
The facts speak for themselves .

These cars weren't made to take that stress.we beef up the cars to handle it.   

Where's the beef?  :icon16:
'73 340 5 speed,RMS,BAER,... "Supercuda" (O[   ]||||[   ]O)  
'69 Dodge Charger 383,Auto                  (OiiiiiiiiiiIiiiiiiiiiiO)
13' Challenger R/T BlacktoP  6spd. (OO________OO)
71' Demon
75' Duster
87' Conquest TSI
56' Plaza
Boulder CO
Robert    "cuda bob"

Offline grimmey71

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #56 on: September 04, 2010 - 03:38:50 PM »
Has anyone answered the question on a good way to stiffen up the front in order to handle an aftermarket front end?  Where do they put the bracing and are there photos? just curious as I am preparing to install an RMS kit and would like to take extra precautions if possible. I have the xv stiffening kit already.

Offline 72hemi

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 4812
  • MEMBER SINCE JANUARY 2006
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2010 - 04:35:40 PM »
The XV stiffening kit is a great place to start with the inner fender braces, the lower radiator support and the engine compartment brace. Throw in some subframe connectors and that should stiffen you up pretty well.
1972 Dodge Challenger 340 6 Pack 4-speed
1996 Dodge Viper GTS Coupe

Offline thedodgeboys

  • Resident
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • ''Normal’s Overrated''
    • THE DODGE BOYS
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2010 - 07:02:41 PM »
The XV stiffening kit is a great place to start with the inner fender braces, the lower radiator support and the engine compartment brace. Throw in some subframe connectors and that should stiffen you up pretty well.
:iagree: that should be all that is necessary if anyone is concerned about it needing such modification. (thats also what I did except the compartment brace)
I am thinking about using the RMS setup also. Sure would like to know in advance if it's possible to easily get away from all those U-Bolts in the rear installation, though.

Robert, challenger III is asking about the street linx rear that you have already installed  :bigsmile:

PS I just ran 2 days of auto cross in my Alterktion and the only problem I had was my clock quite working.  :screwy:





 
Go Fast & Have Fun...
70 6.1 HEMI 6-speed Drop Top...

Offline dodj

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 6197
Re: Magnumforce vs Reillymotorsports
« Reply #59 on: September 04, 2010 - 09:57:14 PM »
PS I just ran 2 days of auto cross in my Alterktion and the only problem I had was my clock quite working.  :screwy:
Einstein's theory of relativity proposes that time slows down as you go faster. You must have gone pretty fast!  :2thumbs:
Scott
1973 Challenger  440 4 spd 
2007.5 3500 6.7 Cummins Diesel, Anarchy tuned.
Good friends don't let friends do stupid things. ........alone.