If I had $1000 to spend on suspension/handling upgrades, what should I do first

[triple_green]

already have bilstein shocks up front and Edelbrock IAS (I think in back) Front end is rebuilt 8 years ago to stock specs.

What would be the next things I could do without breaking the bank too much?

Thanks!
Mark

[Charger-Bodie]

Bigger front bar. Rear bar and bigger t- bars.

[303 Mopar]

Weld in 1" steel tube sub-frame connectors. Cheap and makes the car more solid, plus doors/windows fit better.

[Nacho-RT74]

Weld in 1" steel tube sub-frame connectors. Cheap and makes the car more solid, plus doors/windows fit better.

or torque boxes which are cleaner on look

[c00nhunterjoe]

Weld in frame connectors that tie into the floor will be the number 1 drastic improvement. From there- torsion bars, then sway bars. That should eat up 1,000.

[5wndwcpe]

Tubular upper control arms would be my first choice.

[garner7555]

Bigger front bar. Rear bar and bigger t- bars.

I agree with this, and I would add subframe connectors to the list.     

[Kern Dog]

Weld in frame connectors that tie into the floor will be the number 1 drastic improvement. From there- torsion bars, then sway bars. That should eat up 1,000.

This is a good plan.
To start with, a firmer frame structure will act less like a spring and force the suspension to work better. In theory, a stock suspension in a car with frame connectors may feel as good or better than a car with slightly bigger torsion bars/leaf springs and sway bars and NO frame connectors.

[c00nhunterjoe]

Weld in frame connectors that tie into the floor will be the number 1 drastic improvement. From there- torsion bars, then sway bars. That should eat up 1,000.

This is a good plan.
To start with, a firmer frame structure will act less like a spring and force the suspension to work better. In theory, a stock suspension in a car with frame connectors may feel as good or better than a car with slightly bigger torsion bars/leaf springs and sway bars and NO frame connectors.

My car cornered better after i added the 2x3 box without a front sway bar then it did with the front bar and no connectors. The difference the connectors made when simply jacking the car up was drastic as well. Stock, i could not open or close a door if jacking up 1 wheel. Now with the connectors both doors open and close freely.

[Mike DC]

 

Don't go through-the-floor with connectors.  The USCarTool ones are fine.  It only helps to add stiffness to that spot until it's no longer the weakest link in the chain.  

In terms of metal thickness, it doesn't really help to use thicker tubing than the rest of the subframe rails on the car.  Thicker-walled metal is stronger (against bending in a wreck) but it's not really more stiff/rigid for handling purposes. 



When Chrysler updated the B-body chassis in 1973, they added torque box plating as standard.  They also added a standard lower radiator support brace and shock-tower-to-firewall bracing.  They did all that to stiffen up the body, but they still didn't add subframe connectors.  

Subframe connectors seem to be more helpful for drag racing purposes than for cornering/handling.   And they will be more helpful when the rocker boxes are getting rusty.  Today the muscle car hobby rates them more important than the factory did 50 years ago.    

[Nacho-RT74]

When Chrysler updated the B-body chassis in 1973, they added torque box plating as standard. 

¿?¿?¿?

[Mike DC]

¿?¿?¿?

Take a good look at the underside of a '73-up B-body.  It doesn't look exactly like an earlier car with torque boxes but Chrysler clearly had that in mind.   It's more obvious on the front ends of the rocker boxes than the rear. 

They also turned the lower radiator support into a boxed rail, and they boxed the upper part of the inner fenders (which means the shock towers are braced to the firewall).  They hit all the same areas as the aftermarket stiffening kits for the earlier cars.     

[Kern Dog]

I think that they were doing all that as a band aid for the rubber isolated K frame crap idea. They induced flex, then tried to stiffen it back up.

[Nacho-RT74]

I have a 74 and I can't remember anything like you mentioned about the "torque boxes plating" or I don't get what you talk about... yes on the rest.

[b5blue]

Offset UCA bushings 40.00/Solid mount adjustable strut rods 200.00/Addco rear swaybar 125.00/Mopar sub-frame connectors 200.00 and you still have money.

[Mike DC]

I think that they were doing all that as a band aid for the rubber isolated K frame crap idea. They induced flex, then tried to stiffen it back up.

Yes and no.  The earlier cars benefit from all the same stiffening additions too.  It wasn't just the isolated K-frame alone causing flex.

The isolated K-frame was bad for hi-po cornering but it was good for selling cars.  The public wanted soft rides.  At the time GM kept all their medium & large cars on frames and they even put the Novas & Camaros on big subframes.  Ford had their Fairlane/Torino on a unibody all through the muscle era and yet they converted it back to a full separate frame in 1974.  

Nowadays the industry is full of rubber-bushed subframes, even on performance cars.  You could argue that Mopar's '73-up B-body was more modern than any of the others.  It added some weight but probably less than 100 lbs.  Today they might make that separate K-frame out of aluminum.

I have a 74 and I can't remember anything like you mentioned about the "torque boxes plating" or I don't get what you talk about... yes on the rest.

The rear spring hangars don't look as much like it as the front part.  Look where the front of the rocker boxes are tied in to the front subframe rails - that's a lot like the torque box plating.  

[b5blue]

Yea but Mark has a 69 Charger so why debate 74 up chassis? 

[c00nhunterjoe]

Offset UCA bushings 40.00/Solid mount adjustable strut rods 200.00/Addco rear swaybar 125.00/Mopar sub-frame connectors 200.00 and you still have money.

I would not run solid strut rods on a street car. And if you do, do not buy the aluminum ones. Seen plenty fail on the street.

[JR]

Subframe connectors. Then front and rear sway bars. Then adjustable UCAs with a more modern alignment settings.

I've gone about as far as you can go with bolt on suspension mods, and those three things, in that order, made the most drastic improvement. Literally night and day differences

Along with modern tire compound on 17s. But I would do the mods mentioned first.

[Nacho-RT74]

Yea but Mark has a 69 Charger so why debate 74 up chassis? 

Just a side note due something posted by Mike

[b5blue]

Offset UCA bushings 40.00/Solid mount adjustable strut rods 200.00/Addco rear swaybar 125.00/Mopar sub-frame connectors 200.00 and you still have money.

I would not run solid strut rods on a street car. And if you do, do not buy the aluminum ones. Seen plenty fail on the street.

I use these: https://www.jegs.com/i/Hotchkis/515/14366/10002/-1

[Kern Dog]

Seems like anything solid like that would transmit too much vibration to the driver and passengers.

[b5blue]

No Moog rubber bushings do their job and the Addco rear bar plays well with Mopar H.D. parts. (I forgot, also reinforced LCA with plates.)  Love that B Body ride! 

[RallyeMike]

Mark,

You didn't mention if this includes brake upgrades or what brakes your currently have. If you have drum brakes, spend your money on discs as the highest priority.
If you have discs or are not interested in brake upgrades, then BY FAR the #1 thing that you will feel immediately and will provide the most improvement is a larger front sway bar. Better yet, its an easy upgrade you can do/undo yourself which is another reason to start there.

[WHITE AND RED 69]

Offset UCA bushings 40.00/Solid mount adjustable strut rods 200.00/Addco rear swaybar 125.00/Mopar sub-frame connectors 200.00 and you still have money.

I would not run solid strut rods on a street car. And if you do, do not buy the aluminum ones. Seen plenty fail on the street.

Just curious, what was the failure point on the ones you've seen and what brand made them?