Would dropped spindles help handling?

[HP2]

So to sum up the conclusions so far, your saying the dropped spindles put the roll centers back closer to stock with a 235/60/R-15 tire

Yes.  Plus, assuming you have a 3600# small block car,  they put approximately 2000# of weight two inches lower while accomplishing that. On a big block, thats probably in the neighborhood of 2200#

[brads70]

Yes.  Plus, assuming you have a 3600# small block car,  they put approximately 2000# of weight two inches lower while accomplishing that. On a big block, that's probably in the neighborhood of 2200#

I agree IF you could lower the car 2" more ?
I'm thinking in my case I already have the car/chassis as low as I want to go, so  it wouldn't do that for me.( same height as 72B&B) All it would do is raise my roll centers and most likely mess with my bumpsteer.If I installed the dropped spindle I would have to crank the t-bars to raise the car so stuff wouldn't drag. Then the lower arms would angle more ( ball joints would be lower) as well as the upper control arms which will raise my roll centers? My cars suspension would look like the far right drawing.

I think cars with bigger than 1" T-Bars will/could benefit from the lowered spindle so they can actually get the car lower, as they can't because of the spring rate of the t-bars are holding up the car.
I guessing , to explain why out 2 cars are at the same height is because I'm running a 440 with 1" T-bars and 72bluNblue is running a small block with 1.120 T-bars . That's why I can get my chassis down ( more weight and less t-bar rate) to the lowest "street height" ( same as 72b&b) and he had to use the dropped spindles to get there?

[brads70]

I had a good look at my suspension today. My upper control arm is pretty much level. It's hard to measure , the ball joint looks to be at the same height as the rear upper pivot point. The front upper pivot point is higher, (the Hotchkis upper control arm lowers it though. takes out some of the anti-dive)
The lower control arm...the ball joint is 1 3/8 lower than the  t-bar.
( 10.875" and 9.5")
I went over to a stock car chassis builder ( he also builds street rod/car stuff) with some pictures and measurements and the Hotchkis upper control arm. He liked the Hotchkis upper a-arm, said he agreed with what Hotchkis was trying to do. I printed off pictures of the magnumforce spindle to show him and asked his opinion.
He said for me it would hurt the handling as it would raise my roll centers too much. He said it would have been nice IF they had raised the upper ball joint .
( meaning kept the same dimension between the upper ball joint and the spindle pin as stock) If they had done that THEN it would be better than stock in MY application. He also said IF I could lower my car the 2 extra inches, or if I had issues bottoming out the suspension( I don't ), it would also benefit me, but I can't.
I mentioned the Howe ball joints . http://www.howeracing.com/p-7577-upper-ball-joints.aspx
He said  he likes to see the upper control arms at 10 degs for a street car so it would be better if I used the longer ball joint to get it as close as possible. So the Howe ball joint raises the ball joint 1/2" not the 10 degs he mentioned but as close as I can get.
He explained he never has control arms at center because it causes to much change in camber, he prefers to "manage" it all in one direction. He suggested flipping the tie rod ends on the spindle so the center of the tie rod end is at the same height as the lower ball joint. He also said C-body spindles are taller ( doing the same sort of thing the Howe ball joints do)
In other posts I mentioned about the 71 Charger at the stock car track at I work at. This same guy worked on his car, it was a last place "turd" now it's a top 5-7 car! So he is doing something right. All the things he mentioned he did on that car too, so it does work?

[73EStroker]

Brad - I take it you don't have your Hotchkis A Arms in yet? Mine are a winter project. And may go with the 2" drop spindles to raise the suspension and not the car. wish they made 1" drop spindles. Seems like that would be the best of both worlds for me anyway.

[brads70]

Brad - I take it you don't have your Hotchkis A Arms in yet? Mine are a winter project. And may go with the 2" drop spindles to raise the suspension and not the car. wish they made 1" drop spindles. Seems like that would be the best of both worlds for me anyway.

No I don't have them on yet , mine is a winter project too!   I also have Hotchkis sway bars and the RCD shocks to go on as well, and firm feel fast ratio arms. I agree ,wish they had a 1" drop as well.
Is your car going to be a street car?
I'm investigating using 74-76 C-body spindles .( 73 is the same, but a one year only thing as it uses a smaller inner bearing) From what I've "read" they are dropped 1" and 1" taller as compared to the e-body spindle. It's not a bolt in deal but I'm sure I can make it work.
http://www.moparchat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117425&page=2
I'm sure I'll take some flak for this but, I don't think the magnumforce spindle is so good for handling in my set up? Great for dropping the chassis 2" or if the larger than 1" t-bars are used, but in my opinion it screws up the front end geometry IF you don't lower the chassis 2".  I can't do that, as I'd have clearance issues ( street car, not a autocross car)

[cudazappa]

If you really want taller spindles, go with the 73+ B body spindle.  Its 3/8" taller, and will provide some geometry gains.  It used to be on BigBlockDart.com, and was also in Mopar Muscle (I just brought my collection home today, will have to dig it out).  The study was conducted by Bill Reilly (of RMS Alter-K fame).  I don't think what you could gain from the C-body spindles will be worth the time and effort for what you are going after.

Personally, I don't think you NEED a dropped spindle or a different spindle for what you are trying to achieve.  There are some pretty impressive setups using stock spindles.

[brads70]

If you really want taller spindles, go with the 73+ B body spindle.  Its 3/8" taller, and will provide some geometry gains.  It used to be on BigBlockDart.com, and was also in Mopar Muscle (I just brought my collection home today, will have to dig it out).  The study was conducted by Bill Reilly (of RMS Alter-K fame).  I don't think what you could gain from the C-body spindles will be worth the time and effort for what you are going after.

Personally, I don't think you NEED a dropped spindle or a different spindle for what you are trying to achieve.  There are some pretty impressive setups using stock spindles.

Does it bolt in? ( 73+ b-body spindle)
I agree I don't need to change the spindle, but I figure if I'm going to have the front end all tore out of the car now would be the time to change ? I've come this far, I figure I might as well  try to " put my best foot forward"?
I'd love to read the article you mentioned!

[72bluNblu]

Does it bolt in? ( 73+ b-body spindle)
I agree I don't need to change the spindle, but I figure if I'm going to have the front end all tore out of the car now would be the time to change ? I've come this far, I figure I might as well  try to " put my best foot forward"?
I'd love to read the article you mentioned!

Yup, bolts in. Also found on the F/J/M bodies. Same place the 11 3/4" rotors come from (Cordoba's, Diplomat's etc).

The article at Mopar Muscle is here

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/suspension/mopp_0503_swapping_a_and_b_disc_brake_spindles/index.html

Looks like Big Block Dart is re-doing their site, hopefully all the tech articles will go back up, they had a pretty good resource set up.

[brads70]

Yup, bolts in. Also found on the F/J/M bodies. Same place the 11 3/4" rotors come from (Cordoba's, Diplomat's etc).

The article at Mopar Muscle is here

http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/suspension/mopp_0503_swapping_a_and_b_disc_brake_spindles/index.html

Looks like Big Block Dart is re-doing their site, hopefully all the tech articles will go back up, they had a pretty good resource set up.

Thanks, that was a good read!

[HP2]

Boy, take a couple days off and things sure stack up fast.

I had a good look at my suspension today. My upper control arm is pretty much level. It's hard to measure , the ball joint looks to be at the same height as the rear upper pivot point. The front upper pivot point is higher, (the Hotchkis upper control arm lowers it though. takes out some of the anti-dive)

This is normal. To find the actual pivot height you draw a line from the centers of the two upper arm bushings, then find the point that intersetcs that line 90* that runs straight to the ball joint. This is why in any layout, demonstrated height will appear different than actual height. Tough to do on the car, I've always had to layout an arm in mock up to find this point.

I printed off pictures of the magnumforce spindle to show him and asked his opinion.
He said for me it would hurt the handling as it would raise my roll centers too much. He said it would have been nice IF they had raised the upper ball joint .
He said  he likes to see the upper control arms at 10 degs for a street car so it would be better if I used the longer ball joint to get it as close as possible. So the Howe ball joint raises the ball joint 1/2" not the 10 degs he mentioned but as close as I can get. He also said C-body spindles are taller ( doing the same sort of thing the Howe ball joints do)

Uhmm, yes, but we've got a bit of a contradiction here. So far we know for sure the drop spindles raises roll centers. However, taller ball joints and taller spindles do the exact same thing. I've done plots for the lateB/F/J/M spindle set up as well. This spindle is 3/8" taller than the stock E body spindle. This 3/8" of spindle height equates into raising the front roll center 1". If you added a 1/2" Howe ball joint to these, or you went 1" over stock with a C body spindle, this would equate to raising the roll center height  over 2 inches, or putting you in the same range as the drop spindle. Remember the roll centers are only a part of the total lateral weight transfer equation and it can be altered by almost ever other aspect of the suspension from the tire contact patch on up.

Another note of the taller FJM spindles; they are lighter, 2# per side, and have more steering axis inclination, which provides additional stability and return to center capability. Too bad big block dart.com is down as they have the most in depth analysis of this conversion that I've seen. The jist of it is that in the normal range of driving, you won't notice any difference between these and the shorter spindles. If you run against a clock, they may make you nominally faster, and at the extremes of travel, the tall spindles to have more bump steer by a minimal amount.

I did have a complete C body disc brake set up once. I forget the exact year, but I recall everything on it was bigger. Bigger ball joints, bigger spindle, bigger bearings, thicker rotor. I'm sure it could be adapted, but at the time I wasn't too interested in it. I never got around to measuring the spindles to see if they are a 1" drop or not, so you've got my curiosity piqued. However, I'm  not sure the C body ball joints will adapt easily to the E body arms.

He explained he never has control arms at center because it causes to much change in camber, he prefers to "manage" it all in one direction. He suggested flipping the tie rod ends on the spindle so the center of the tie rod end is at the same height as the lower ball joint.
In other posts I mentioned about the 71 Charger at the stock car track at I work at. This same guy worked on his car, it was a last place "turd" now it's a top 5-7 car! So he is doing something right. All the things he mentioned he did on that car too, so it does work?

Yes, you want to take anti-dive out of the front end of a race car for two reasons; one you control the dive with spring rates and two, you eliminate the caster change as the suspension cycles. This may be what he meant instead of camber. Camber changes can be changed by altering upper control arm length, but caster changes because of the angled mounting of the upper control arms. Flatten this out,  like the Hotchkis arms do, and you stabilize caster change in bump.

Flipping the tire rod end is also an awfully big jump to make too as this will alter this mounting point by 2". However, if they were dropped 2" by a spindle change, this may be the ticket to getting things back in line.

BTW, my friend did agree to let me use his suspensionprogram. He will try to drop it off sometime this week, and we can dig in to this further. I've also got a bunch of cool pictures that help explain some of this, but I need to work on converting my scans to jpeg files befire I can post them.

TC

[brads70]

Hi HP2! 

   Ya things  are stacking up! This has been keeping my mind busy these days!   I like it!
 When you said
"Uhmm, yes, but we've got a bit of a contradiction here. So far we know for sure the drop spindles raises roll centers. However, taller ball joints and taller spindles do the exact same thing. I've done plots for the lateB/F/J/M spindle set up as well. This spindle is 3/8" taller than the stock E body spindle. This 3/8" of spindle height equates into raising the front roll center 1". If you added a 1/2" Howe ball joint to these, or you went 1" over stock with a C body spindle, this would equate to raising the roll center height  over 2 inches, or putting you in the same range as the drop spindle. Remember the roll centers are only a part of the total lateral weight transfer equation and it can be altered by almost ever other aspect of the suspension from the tire contact patch on up."

I don't understand that? If you raise the upper ball joint higher than the pivot points on the chassis I would think it would lower the roll centers? What I did was measure the length of the a-arm . I guessed at 8" as the Hotchkis is adjustable. So to get it at the 10 degs( ball joint higher) like my buddy would like, I figured it out with simple trig that I need to raise it 1.480"  So when I got some input with the c-body spindles being a 1" drop and 1" taller I thought "perfect". The 1" drop will give be some more room before I run out of suspension travel in the lower control arm. ( remember in my case I want the chassis to remain at the same height)  not that I've had a problem with this yet, and the 1" taller plus the Howe ball joint give me the 1.480" or close as I'm gonna get! 
Again I don't claim to be any sort of expert but it makes sense to me? Also a thought I had was... I've noticed that the spindle height seemed to get taller as the years went by B,C body I'm thinking the engineers wanted to lower the roll centers as handling was becoming a bigger and bigger issue with new cars. (I know lots of factors to consider than just taller spindles but...? Look at all the k-frame kits XV, Magnumforce, altercation(sp?) etc.... they all use taller spindles C-5 stuff etc..? Nascar spindles, even imports use relatively tall spindles. From what I've read the Chrysler kit car used 73 C-body spindles.
I'm trying to get my hands on a set of c-body spindles to measure and see if what I've been reading is true or crap? Reason I'm wanting 74-76 C-body spindles is just that they have bigger bearings and should be easier to get? 73 is a one year only thing and as far as I can tell from reading the only difference is the bearings are smaller and the lower ball joint holes are wider apart. I've read that the Chrysler kit car used 73 C-body but I figure that's because it was around 73 when they came up with the kit...?
I agree that on a street car with normal driving you most likely wouldn't notice  small changes in  roll center heights, but I'm just thinking "hey, while I got it all apart, might as well make it the best I can"
With me as long as I can be " competitive" with cars like Vettes etc... on the street I'm happy, both power wise and handling.  With my Buick I wrenched on it till I could crawl up a vettes a$$ on a clover leaf , then pass them when the road straighted out! I love using my brains instead of my wallet! Vettes have always " bugged" me I figured all it takes is money to get a Vette but to make as car that wasn't designed for handling and power blow by them with a fraction of what they spent takes brains and just puts a big old grin on my face! The last Vette I smoked ,I looked over and said "Hey I didn't know they put 6 cylinders in those cars"

 Funny this all started because my 2005 Suburban could out handle,and out brake my Challenger. Now we just can't have that can we!  I've never been acookie cutter car type of guy eg.Camaro, Mustang anyone can do that? I love when people say " that won't bolt on" or "won't fit"  It then becomes a challenge! Every car I've built you would need a manual to go with it if I sold it, nothing is stock! My wife said about the Suburban...now your going to leave this one alone right!
I'm enjoying this thread and learning! Thanks for everyone's input!
The research continues........

[Tom Quad]

I am confused as to why people think the dropped spindles are required to properly lower a car. To lower an ABE body is not rocket science and you can only lower the chassis so far before it hits every object in the road...

[HP2]

Yeah, my wife has made a point of telling me its hands off her Suburban, although she did let me change the PCM.

For roll center location in relation to spindle height, I guess that really is a "it depends" situation. On my car, where my lower control arms are level, raising the location of the upper ball joint will result in a higher roll center. That is because the position of my upper control arms creates an instant center on the opposite side of their location. If your control arms are in a more stock orientation, then your instant center will converge on the same side of the car they are on, and it will lower to roll center. I also forgot to factor in that 1" drop of the C body spindle. If it is truly a 1" drop over the E spindle, then that will result in arms that converge on the same side of the car, thus lowering the roll center. My mistake was just adding 1" at the upper ball joint without considering the coresponding drop in the lower ball joint as well. Sorry!

One thing a taller spindle can do is create a shorter effective length of the upper control arm. Shortening the length of the upper control arm creates negative camber gain as the suspension bumps. Adding negative camber in bump allows the suspension to continue to pull the tire to an upright position as the body rolls around it. The allows a greater contact patch with the tread face. This is the primary reason tall spindle conversions are so popular with the older chevy crowd. In stock form, some of the vintage chevy designs create positive camber as they bump, or the exact opposite of what you want to maintain tire contact with the ground. In later models where designs began with a clean sheet, I would suppose taller and longer parts are used as they create longer converging positions. Longer convergence points means that for any given inch of travel in the suspension, you will get less change from ideal static positions, so things remain more constant and change less than parts that are designed with shorter parts and tighter convergence points that move more radically.

On the control arm subject, something my buddies and I experimented with once was relocated upper control arm mounting points with shorter upper control arms. It actually was similar to the Hotchkis design, but it did not use stock mounting points at all. What we did is use a $20 Speedway chevy tubular control arm and created a mounting plate that attached to the frame rail just under the stock mopar pick up points. This gave us a great deal of flexibility in chosing the vertical mounting location and its resulting roll center location, eliminating anti dive, and negative camber gain. We also could alter caster quite a bit as well if we used offset control arms, so we could create cross caster set ups that were so radical the car would practically steer its self in to the corner. On a quarter mile oval that was mostly corners, this set up worked great until tech inspection saw it and made us ditch it.

Being wholly unfamiliar with C body parts, a couple issues you may run in to if you choose to use them; the Howe ball joint is designed around the E body ball joint. Using the C body spindle may create a mismatch in tapered seats between the two. Similar situation on the lower ball joint mount, where the E body control arm taper seat is not designed for the larger C body ball joint stud. This would be easy to taper ream to fit. Up top though, you might need to do some welding and milling. If you use a C body upper ball joint, you may need to modify the socket the ball joint screws in to. But again, I'm not sure of the exact dimensions of the C body parts. Maybe I'll hit the Pick A Part this weekend to see if I can find some.

Tom, I don't think anyone is saying the drop spindles are required to lower a mopar. We're just discussing the pro/cons of using them and examining some of the resulting changes they may or may not produce, along with entertaining the thought of alternatives that are easily available. Yes, street cars have compromises in ride height that are a factor as well, but it is still fun to play with designs, just to play the what if game.

[brads70]

HP2,
From what I've found is the C-body uses the same upper ball joint as an e-body, Moog 772. I looked up a 74 Monaco and a 74 Challenger on RockAuto.
As far as the lower is concerned , to use the e-body ball joint the hole spacing is off. Aparently the 74-76 spindle has the closer spacing, so that with easier availability
( 73 is a one year olny deal) and the bigger bearings....that's why I'm "hunting" this one.
Here is the site I've been getting info on. The guys on there seem pretty nice and willing to help! Hard to find Mopar circle track folks!
http://www.moparchat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117425&page=2

Here is the quote I got the info from, I still want to get a spindle in my hands to make sure the info is acurate!

""""Originally Posted by dgracerx 
73 c body spindle hollander # 691 aka kit car spindle is aprox 1" taller and has 1" of drop from the pin on down over the b/e body spindles
uses rotor#1438 73 c body and 73-76 d 100 and ram chargers

74 -76 c body spindle hollander # 741 same height and drop but uses a different rotor and the steering arm bolts are closer together than all the other spindles
uses rotor #1468 74-76 c body only

73-76 dodge truck spindles hollander #694 same height and drop and steering arm spacing as the 73 c body kit car spindle the major differance is the upper ball joint hole is for a larger ball joint this is overcome bye replacing the stock upper ball joint k772 with a k719 screw in ball joint

keep in mind that the steering arm bolt spacing is wider on all of the above spindles than any a -b-e- or f body steering arms

this requires either option 1 welding up the spindle and redrilling it to match your steering arm or option 2 starting with the c body arm and shortining the tie rod end to make it all work

if you chose option 1 leave the stock rear bolt hole alone and just weld and redrill the front hole this lowers the chance for part failure by half and will ad some much needed caster at the same time """

[brads70]

I am confused as to why people think the dropped spindles are required to properly lower a car. To lower an ABE body is not rocket science and you can only lower the chassis so far before it hits every object in the road...

( Ditto)I agree with what HP2 said to you! Some members have found that with BIGGER
( over 1"?) T-bars there is not enough adjustment in the stock set up to lower the car Personally I'm after the best handling with available "relatively stock "parts Sure there are kits out there for big money to change the whole front K-frame, but I'm into the challenge of getting all I can from the "stock" parts. I want to use bolt on parts so the car can be put back to stock if so desired. That and I can't/won't spend the money on the high dollar set ups!