My #71 K&K Daytona race tribute

[Highbanked Hauler]

 Steve, do you still  make stuff like that cooler now  as if I get that far on mine I'll need a couple of them ?

[Mike DC]

To understand the extent of the factory's lowering job, you need to look at where the center points of the wheels are in relation to the body panels.  


Look at the front wheels here:

The center point is about even with the bottoms of the doors on the production unibody.  But on the racing version it's even with the bottom corner of the door scallop.  

The production car would have been cranked a bit higher on the torsion bars than the racecar was.  But still, the sheetmetal changes were responsible for most of the difference.  







IMO the full body channeling job is necessary to truly get the stance of a real Grand National stocker.  They got the bodywork like that and still maintained a minimum 5" ground clearance under the whole thing.  On a stock unibody the front subframe rails hang too far down below the bodywork to run it quite that low.  

The lowering job is limited by the engine height.  The oil pan can't be too close to the pavement and the air cleaner can't hit the hood skin.  No matter how you monkey around with the car body that engine isn't getting any shorter.  



The alternative - Setting up the stock unibody to ride lower:

Front end suggestions:
--  aftermarket 2" drop spindles
--  stock oil & trans pans
--  custom build the exhaust system to be very flattened-out (oval tubing) underneath the front half of the car.

Rear end suggestions:
--  trimmed rubber bumpstops above the axle
--  upside-down front spring eye brackets and longer rear shackles, for both better geometry and NASCAR looks.  

That should get you partway there and still leave the car fairly drivable.  

[JB400]

He could go with a dry sump setup like they did.  Then, he could drop the engine down with a custom k member like they did.  Little extra coin though.

[Indygenerallee]

Mike, I am fully aware of all you have stated and I have no problem dropping the body I just need to find out exactly how much was taken out (which I don't think was all that much maybe 2"), also out back the race version used lowering blocks look like 1 1/2" and from the location of the upper ball joint on the front to the a-arm location it is cranked down considerably.

[odcics2]

April 2012 MoPar Action has some good pics of stock cars being built.
The 'frame' had to be 6.5" off the track, the oil pan 5".  These are minimum specs.

Look at the recent photos on the Baker thread!!   That shows it all, for a 1968 short track car
converted to a Daytona - using street parts!   Bottom is accurate enough... 

[Indygenerallee]

 Well I went out in the garage and tested the frame at a 5" ride height (on the lowest part the torsion bar cross member) I sat the wheel in there just to check how close I was on masking for the wheel opening cut. There is still plenty of room for K member clearance I will install it after I cut the fenders and bolt up the front suspension to check it all before doing any welding. After looking at several pics of the race Daytona's I always wondered why in the heck did they make a new torsion bar cross member and why was it raised above the floor into the driver compartment?? You can tell it was because the metal sleeve that the torsion bar fit's in is half exposed where as a stock version is right in the middle of the cross member, I know they had a driver side torsion bar adjuster in the cockpit but I have a feeling the overall design moving the cross member up was due to ground clearance rules, I may wind up employing this design.


IMAG1961 by

And yes it's low! 

[url=https://flic.kr/p/oPVsCy]IMAG1960 by

[Mike DC]

Mike, I am fully aware of all you have stated and I have no problem dropping the body I just need to find out exactly how much was taken out (which I don't think was all that much maybe 2"), also out back the race version used lowering blocks look like 1 1/2" and from the location of the upper ball joint on the front to the a-arm location it is cranked down considerably.

The racers used lowering blocks in back, but they also notched the rear subframe rails above the axle too.  The NASCAR rear subframe rails don't look too obviously chopped-up but the extra clearancing is definitely there if you compare them to a stock rail.  (And I don't recall a bumpstop either.  If not, that would buy another 2" just by itself.)

After looking at several pics of the race Daytona's I always wondered why in the heck did they make a new torsion bar cross member and why was it raised above the floor into the driver compartment?? You can tell it was because the metal sleeve that the torsion bar fit's in is half exposed where as a stock version is right in the middle of the cross member, I know they had a driver side torsion bar adjuster in the cockpit but I have a feeling the overall design moving the cross member up was due to ground clearance rules, I may wind up employing this design.

I've wondered if the altered T-bar crossmembers on the NASCARS might have been done partially just to add some height (read: stiffness) to the crossmember.  The thicker T-bars would have been trying harder to twist the crossmember into a pretzel as the downforce pressed down on the car at speed.


Looking at the backstory of how the NASCAR guys developed those cars, you're dealing with two separate issues in terms of lowering. 

#1, the chassis needs work to clear the oversize tires even with the undercarriage at a reasonably high ride height.  They were doing this in the early/mid 1960s.

#2, the outer body skin being lowered & raked farther down on the undercarriage for aerodynamics.  They started doing this in the later 1960s, as they started re-skinning earlier chassis/cages with later bodywork.

[Indygenerallee]

I was outside thinking about how they would lower the body and to me it would have been inconceivable to drop the entire body because while the front sheet metal bolted to the cage the rear sheet metal would have had to have been lowered in the valance/ tail panel area and the trunk floor would have been raised and all the race Daytona pics i have seen still have the factory trunk latch bracket that is welded from the trunk pan to tail panel, you would think if they raised the floor they would just toss that part due to weight/ time saving as it served no function. What I finally came up with makes more sense and saved the teams time while maintaining the rest of the body was mainly "stock", I believe they just sectioned and raised the front stub! It lowered the front sheetmetal and gave the car the rake effect and makes sense to me why they relocated the transmission cross member up into the car I measured and with the transmission cross member moved up a 1 1/2" the torsion bars would still clear the front floor pans and you would not see the front stub or the transmission cross member from the side view as it is actually above the pinch weld and level with the horizontal outer rocker. This makes the most sense to me as everything else would line up on the front suspension!

I just looked at the pics of the Buddy Baker Daytona, go about halfway down and look at the underside shot of the engine, look at the front frame rails as they go back towards the torsion bar cross member they shrink about half their size beginning at the front of the floor pan, I just went and looked at my Charger and they are the same height all the way back to the cross member, also notice the torsion bar mount location also. IMO the teams just pulled the front stub and shaved
however much they wanted to lower the cars front and re-installed the stub along with the new upper trans cross member!  


http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,63521.525.html


Raised floor by

[JB400]

I read somewhere that is what Petty done on his cars, was just raised the front stub.

[Indygenerallee]

Well, I decided to throw the K frame, torsion bar and the passenger spindle on with the tire to check out the space between the torsion bar and the floor pan, also cut the fender, still needs trimmed back further on the rear of the fender, I am going to have to remove the stock sway bar mount on the LCA as it hits the caliper. Pretty happy with the progress, going to take a bunch of measurements then drill out the spot welds on the frame rails and torsion bar cross member sometime this week.

IMAG1962

IMAG1963

IMAG1964

IMAG1965

[Stevearino]

Somebodies on fire. Looks like when you decide to hit the go button it would be good to get out of the way.

[Mike DC]

I am going to have to remove the stock sway bar mount on the LCA as it hits the caliper

You could just swap things side-to-side so the calipers are placed behind the balljoints.  No more swaybar interference. 

I was outside thinking about how they would lower the body and to me it would have been inconceivable to drop the entire body because while the front sheet metal bolted to the cage the rear sheet metal would have had to have been lowered in the valance/ tail panel area and the trunk floor would have been raised and all the race Daytona pics i have seen still have the factory trunk latch bracket that is welded from the trunk pan to tail panel, you would think if they raised the floor they would just toss that part due to weight/ time saving as it served no function. What I finally came up with makes more sense and saved the teams time while maintaining the rest of the body was mainly "stock", I believe they just sectioned and raised the front stub! It lowered the front sheetmetal and gave the car the rake effect and makes sense to me why they relocated the transmission cross member up into the car I measured and with the transmission cross member moved up a 1 1/2" the torsion bars would still clear the front floor pans and you would not see the front stub or the transmission cross member from the side view as it is actually above the pinch weld and level with the horizontal outer rocker. This makes the most sense to me as everything else would line up on the front suspension!

That's only a problem if you make the pivot point (between the undercarriage & body) at the rearend of the rockers.  If you make the pivot point at the very back end of the car then the undercarriage won't hang down below the rear valance.

I just looked at the pics of the Buddy Baker Daytona, go about halfway down and look at the underside shot of the engine, look at the front frame rails as they go back towards the torsion bar cross member they shrink about half their size beginning at the front of the floor pan, I just went and looked at my Charger and they are the same height all the way back to the cross member, also notice the torsion bar mount location also. IMO the teams just pulled the front stub and shaved
however much they wanted to lower the cars front and re-installed the stub along with the new upper trans cross member!  

Yeah, just raising the front subframe is a viable way to do it.  Not a bad way overall.  

But be aware that the suspension geometry is slightly worse than stock at both ends that way.  You end up with better geometry at both ends by keeping the undercarriage intact & flatter with the ground.  Notice that old racers tended to run very long spring shackles & build raised boxes on the floor of the cabin for the leaf spring eye brackets.  There is also the front caster angle to contend with, which needs to move several degrees back already.  

[Indygenerallee]

You could just swap things side-to-side so the calipers are placed behind the balljoints.  No more swaybar interference.  

Mike, I am just going to cut them off as I will be using a Nascar style sway bar (tube through the K-frame)

That's only a problem if you make the pivot point (between the undercarriage & body) at the rearend of the rockers.  If you make the pivot point at the very back end of the car then the undercarriage won't hang down below the rear valance.

Only problem with that is if you cut the rockers all the way back, outer wheel houses, trunk drop offs, inner roof structure, package tray (which I am removing anyway) when that is all done and you go to lower the body over the floor something out back is going to distort (the tail light panel or valance and could buckle the rear quarters around the corners)  

Yeah, just raising the front subframe is a viable way to do it.  Not a bad way overall.  

But be aware that the suspension geometry is slightly worse than stock at both ends that way.  You end up with better geometry at both ends by keeping the undercarriage intact & flatter with the ground.  Notice that old racers tended to run very long spring shackles & build raised boxes on the floor of the cabin for the leaf spring eye brackets.  There is also the front caster angle to contend with, which needs to move several degrees back already.  

Yeah I have not seen much of the rear spring setups, I was planning on making new upper control arms to address the caster problem.

[Mike DC]

Mike, I am just going to cut them off as I will be using a Nascar style sway bar (tube through the K-frame)

That would do it.  It would look NASCAR accurate, too.

Only problem with that is if you cut the rockers all the way back, outer wheel houses, trunk drop offs, inner roof structure, package tray (which I am removing anyway) when that is all done and you go to lower the body over the floor something out back is going to distort (the tail light panel or valance and could buckle the rear quarters around the corners)

Yeah it would be an issue to contend with. 

But it's wise to consider internally bracing the unibody before cutting much of any big chunk out of it, including the front subframe.

The body lowering was happening in NASCAR in the late 60s partly because they were starting to do these kinds of body-jobs anyway to update the cars.  They had an undercarriage/cage, and a newer roof/sides to mount onto it, and they were just starting to understand aero mods . . . why not mount it a few inches lower than stock?

Yeah I have not seen much of the rear spring setups, I was planning on making new upper control arms to address the caster problem.

They were basically trying to level-out the leaf springs.  Raise the front eye & lower the rear shackle end.

They also typically welded in wider (longer tubes) mounts for the rear shackles.  The top end of the shackle would be wider than the spring end.  It would help stabilize the shackle laterally. 

[Indygenerallee]

They were basically trying to level-out the leaf springs.  Raise the front eye & lower the rear shackle end.

Hmmm, seems if they were all doing this then they were offsetting the effects caused by raising the front stub up?

When looking at pics I cannot see a obvious slant on the floor to inner "door" opening and also it does not look lowered but in pictures it's hard to judge just a
inch or two. I looked at my car better and I can get the car 2" lower in the front by dropping the body a 1" and raising the front stub a 1" and the floor to door opening would still look. Just wish I could go take some measurements off a real deal! 

[Mike DC]

                                       
If you're going to all the trouble of raising the front subframe then IMO you oughtta take it up 2 inches or more.  Seems like a shame to dump all that effort into getting just 1 inch.  


If the project was mine I would be trying to get the NASCAR look but not overly concerned with matching exactly how it was done.  I mean . . . the NASCAR wings were a bunch of cars, over several years, coming from several shops, some built new, others were updated old cars.  All were subject to weekly crashing & reskinning and Bill France changed the rules like he changed his clothes. 

If you're not on a mission to replicate a single car or make it 200mph-worthy then I would just figure out something practical that makes a good street cruiser, whatever lowering method(s) that turns out to be.   Totally duplicating a full-on Grand National car from that era demands all kinds of odds & ends that would be hard to find or build.  And many of those details would end up ill-suited to a street car even if you did them.



Just my two cents, as with all my comments on this thread.  

Sorry if I come across like I'm underestimating your knowledge or commitment to it.  I've kicked around ideas for a project like yours myself so I'm preloaded with a lot to say about it.  




There is a bright metallic green customized '68 Charger that has been showing up in magazines/shows lately (recent build.)  It has the front subframe channeled upwards a few inches just like you are talking about doing.  Some other mods to the back too.  Might be worth looking into.  

[Indygenerallee]

If the project was mine I would be trying to get the NASCAR look but not overly concerned with matching exactly how it was done.  I mean . . . the NASCAR wings were a bunch of cars, over several years, coming from several shops, some built new, others were updated old cars.  All were subject to weekly crashing & reskinning and Bill France changed the rules like he changed his clothes.

If you're not on a mission to replicate a single car or make it 200mph-worthy then I would just figure out something practical that makes a good street cruiser, whatever lowering method(s) that turns out to be.   Totally duplicating a full-on Grand National car from that era demands all kinds of odds & ends that would be hard to find or build.  And many of those details would end up ill-suited to a street car even if you did them.

Mike, Yeah it's not going to be anywhere near correct as the grand national cars were I have a 5.7 Hemi and T56 that will be going in it but the outward look of it I want to be spot on as well when you pop the hood (minus the 5.7 Hemi  )

Sorry if I come across like I'm underestimating your knowledge or commitment to it.  I've kicked around ideas for a project like yours myself so I'm preloaded with a lot to say about it. 

No problem with any input I don't get upset when anyone interjects any opinion (two heads are better than one!) I have done serious body work in the past as chop tops, body drops and sectioned one car (refuse to do that ever again!) So I have a pretty good understanding where cuts need to be made and I gave it a look again today as I said and I see where it can be done without any interference near the rear.

There is a bright metallic green customized '68 Charger that has been showing up in magazines/shows lately (recent build.)  It has the front subframe channeled upwards a few inches just like you are talking about doing.  Some other mods to the back too.  Might be worth looking into.

I have not seen that car yet.

[Mike DC]

 
There was a thread on the green '68 on this site a year or two ago when the car first showed up.  



As I said above, in your car's case I would probably think hard about running the 2" drop spindles, even though I'm generally not a huge fan of those things for normal wheel/tire setups.  That would help compensate for the taller tire size and put the undercarriage height back closer to stock.  


On the real GN cars they used to cut chunks out of the subframe rails above the LCAs just to let the LCAs pivot higher (think: clearancing a rear framerail above a rear axle on lowering blocks).  


Another option that I've heard of people doing in the past is to cut the LCA off near the balljoint (past the bumpstop pad) and weld it back together with the BJ repostioned higher up (a big move, like 1" or more).  The idea is not to change the LCA geometry but rather just scoop out some more bumpstop clearance in the middle of the LCA.  This mod would also affect the T-bar positioning (just the height adjustment).  It would call for some fab work to keep the LCAs strong but it seems do-able.  

If you repositioned the lower BJ just slightly farther towards the front of the car during this process then it would help the caster issue too.  All the caster improvement you can get from the UCAs involves moving the top of the spindle backwards whereas this would move the bottom forwards - the combination of both would be better for keeping the wheel where it belongs.  




Anyway . . . if you mod the suspension a couple inches for the big wheels then you'd end up with something like the mid-60s GN Mopars that were modified standard unibodies.  You would just be left using the subframe drop to accomplish the additional lowering jobs they started doing on the 68-up cars when the bodies were getting more severely cut up.  

[Indygenerallee]

As I said above, in your car's case I would probably think hard about running the 2" drop spindles, even though I'm generally not a huge fan of those things for normal wheel/tire setups.  That would help compensate for the taller tire size and put the undercarriage height back closer to stock. 

Yeah, I don't think those will work with my tire combo though it would move the LCA really close to the rim and may scrub through the suspension travel? idk
for the $300 they cost at this point it's maybe only 4 hours of work to go ahead and drop the body 2" inches over the floor then raise the front stub 1"
if the car was completely together I would think about giving them a try.

Another option that I've heard of people doing in the past is to cut the LCA off near the balljoint (past the bumpstop pad) and weld it back together with the BJ repostioned higher up (a big move, like 1" or more).  The idea is not to change the LCA geometry but rather just scoop out some more bumpstop clearance in the middle of the LCA.

I looked at this to as I have done it on truck LCA to lower them but they were more beefy compared to the Chrysler LCA. I am going to cut the bump stop
bracket off and recess it as low as I can get it into the LCA for added clearance (even though it won't have a bump stop, just keep it for strength) I also have a
set of LCA reinforcement brackets I will weld on as well.

I have been looking it over and I know where to make all the cuts to free the floor from the body, not as bad as I thought it would be should only take about a hour. I am going to raise the floor first then take the front stub off, I ordered this last night for a new torsion bar cross member so I can raise it through the floor should work perfect https://www.cachassisworks.com/p-79-tubular-crossmember-heavy-duty-3-x-2-x-120-wall-57-12-long-with-6-12-drop.aspx

[Stevearino]

One other scenario before you raise the floor would be to  free up the front clip from the transmission crossmember  forward.   Brace up the front clip square stock to the ground. I would cut and remove the front floor pan just ahead of the rear side of the cross member. Now you can lower the main body of the car intact over the clip until you get the rake you want. Then weld the front clip members back to the side frames ect.  Then re install the front floor pan This leaves the geometry of the front end pickup points level to the ground.  The only thing in the rear you will have to adjust would be the spring mounts to rotate the rear to maintain your pinion angle.You will probably have to fab a new trans tunnel which you might be doing any way.

[Mike DC]

This leaves the geometry of the front end pickup points level to the ground.

It leaves the geometry level with the rest of the car. 

But the front (and rear) geometry would still be tilted nose-down relative to the ground. 

[Indygenerallee]

Steve, I did more measuring and think I am going to lower the body 2" over the floor and raise the front stub 1" and yes I bought a trans tunnel at the same time I bought the new torsion bar cross member.

[Stevearino]

Just thinking of head room. I am 5' 10" and granted the SRT seats are big but my head almost hits the ceiling on this car.

[Indygenerallee]

Steve, Yeah funny you mentioned that I was thinking about that tonight while I was in it cleaning up the area to cut, I am going to modify my 69 seats and it will be mounted on the floor (no adjusters) and scooted back pretty far as no one but myself will drive this car 

[Stevearino]

Steve, Yeah funny you mentioned that I was thinking about that tonight while I was in it cleaning up the area to cut, I am going to modify my 69 seats and it will be mounted on the floor (no adjusters) and scooted back pretty far as no one but myself will drive this car 

Sounds comfy