60's Chrysler torsion bars and airbags?

So I'm building a 66 Chrysler 300 convertible that I plan on bagging. The rear is easy enough, but the front poses a bit of a challange. Has anyone built an airbag system around the stock torsion bar fronts on 60's chryslers? or does everyone swap out the front clip to something more generic. I would really prefer to keep the stock clip, if possible. Someone told me that I could crank down on the torsion bars and then let the bags take over the ride from there. thoughts on that? If I sit and look at it long enough, I'm sure I can come up with something, but I'm hoping someone has gone through this already.

Thanks!

 

Well, I don't know about cranking the torsion bars down and then using bags to provide the suspension, so to speak. However, I think that you can improvise a screw motor to drive the adjustment screw on each torsion bar such that you could control the amount of "spring" provided by the bars. Simply by adjusting the screws up or down you can provide up or down movement to the front end.

I think that Posies used this arrangement, or something very similar, on one of his cars a number of years ago.

This system would take some engineering, but it can be done.

 

I have never seen a real good setup for the mopars torsion bar front end for bags.

Considering the adjustment bolt is on the underside of the lower control arm, I guess you would have to do the adjustement at the torsion bar mount on the torsion bar crossmember.

What I have been thinking of trying one day is to remove the mount on the torsion bar crossmember, but keep the torsion bar socket in there fixed so it can rotate. Then weld a lever on the socket with a small hydralic cylinder or screwjack connected to the lever. When the cylinder or screwjack is activated, it can rotate the torsion bar socket, and raise or lower the car. The cars suspension would act like stock and keep the nice ride and handling, but you could drop it to the ground...

 

Thanks guys. I like both the ideas. I will look into them somemore.

Here is what I was thinking. As far as I can tell, the torsion bar locates the lower control arm. So, it has to stay there, or something else needs to hold it in place. If I could just remove the bars, that would make it a little easier. I was thinking about building a tube bag tower thats welded to the frame in the engine compartment. It will follow the inner fender (or I'll cut most of the inner fender out) to about the top of the fenderwell, exit outward into the wheelwell, where I will make a "halo" for the upper bag mount. Then build the bag off the top of the upper A arm. For strength I'd run a removeable monte carlo, or strut tower brace, across the 2 sides.

It all looks good in my head, but it kinda depends on if the torsion bars can remain in place.

I just thought of something else. Maybe find some t-bars with a lower spring rate, that cant hold up the car (just to locate the LCA), and build the bag system like mentioned above?

Thanks for the help and listening to my ramblings.

 

The T- bars do not locate the lower control arm. The bars are just held in with a little clip in the back from the factory, but they tend to rust in place. The lower arms are held in by a stud that is pressed into the lower bushing. Make sure you replace these lower bushings with new rubber ones. They are a pain to do.

The inner fenders are structural so I would run a brace from the firewall down to the frame near the steering box on it. Probally on both sides. The upper a-arm is not designed to hold the weight of the car, so you probally want to box it and reinforce the mounts. Also, by putting the bag there, I woud change to solid or urethane bushings in the upper A-arm.

One thing you should do if you are doing a lot of cutting in the front is run subframe connectors. You should run them on any old unibody car IMO. Mopar vert's have lots of extra bracing, but I would still drop them in. Or run 1" x3" box behind the rockers to connect the torsion bar crossmember to the rear spring mounts. Greatlhy stiffens the car.

I have a complete torsion bar front end sitting in my garage right now for my 69' mopar. Its an A-body but the front suspensions are all the same pretty much on a/b/c bodies until 73 - when they isolated the K-member.

 

Can you see any problems with removing the bars completely? If I can just remove them, w/o any side effects, that would make things alot easier.

I'm not planning to cut it all out. I would prefer to keep it all in if possible. I still have to look at it a little to see if my idea will work. Good idea on boxing the upper A arms and reinforcing the mounts.

I make some tubing lying around that I was planning on welding in there.

Thanks for the input! I appriciate it.

 

dude over at bigblockdart.com sells a complete front end setup for 67 and up a-bodies called AlterKtion. this removes the torsion bar setup completely and replaces the standard shocks with coilovers and tubular a-arms. god knows bag shocks probably won't clear the stock a-arms... i've got a 65 a-body that i'd like to bag, so i wonder if u replace the torsions with coilovers will the car still handle the same or better?

 

I did a Newport about 9 years ago and it was a learning experience. I cut and plated alot of the front crossmember and modified the stock lower control arms to accomodate the airbag towards the front of the control arm. It rode great but i would do it completely different if i were to do it again. I have a friend that did one a few months ago like RACERRICK is describing usign the T-bar key to adjust height. He made a new torsion bar key that would hold/support the airbag. A new crossmember was made under the car to suport the torsion bars and the other side of the bags. The torsion bars rode on delrin bushings to give a little more support to the torsion bars.
I really wish i could describe it better or had pictures but i was a really nice set up and rode great.

 

i did put air bags on my 56 ford pickup/W 79 chrysler cordoba front end w/torsion bars. put the air bags under the old shock mount and moved the shocks to the rear of the lower control arm. worked fine on that truck pulling a 22 ft race trailer with 3000 lb car in it many miles, maybe 50,000 or so. it diferent than your deal because it wasn't in stock vehicle. I left the bars in and cranked them down til the front was real low, maybe a couple inches off the ground the pumped up the bags to get the ride hieght i wanted. that was about 10 yrs ago. also did my 39 ford sedan the same way few years later. worked well.good luck you can make it work .

 

What did you do with the torsion bars? Crank down or remove?

Thanks

 

I'm sure it would handle better, but you would still have to replace the A arms to clear the coilovers (I'm pretty sure). Also, if the coilover mount to the stock shock mounts, you will probably have to rework the upper mount. The upper shock mount is not indtended to hold the weight of the vehicle, just the shock.

 

IIRC the 79's torsion bars are transverse mounted, not long ways with a mid (rear) crossmember. I dont know if it changes anything, but thanks anyway.

 

On my car i left them in. The first time i left them out and it took too much pressure to get it off the ground. I put them back in and adjusted them so it will go all the way down on the frame but just enough to help it up.

I also remebered i had to rework the upper arm because the ball joint would bind at full compression. This car was on 20 inch wheels and layed frame.

 

Damn heavy cars! I dont think mine is going to be as fancy. Probably stock 14 inch wheels and bump stopped just before the frame is down, so I can cruise low.

 

Ya, Ive learned alot since then. The other way my friend did it was alot easier and took half the amount of time.

 

The Cordova's and the last full size Charger's (last of the B bodys) t bars were straight until the body change of 81 when the Cordova shared the body with the dodge Mirada and the Charger went away until the front drive version.

If I were going to bag a Mopar, I probably do it at the t bar cross member. Way back in the day, Nascar Dodges had an adjustable anchor at the cross member so on track adjustments could be made. A guy might be able to lever both bat anchors against a single bag, or make a center bracket to hold two bags back to back. The straight bars roll towards each other on the top of the cross member as they load. Gene

 

Ok, let's dust off this topic a bit with some fresh views on the issue.

Gene, your idea sounds good, but I think ground clearance might become an issue here if you mount the bags below the crossmember. Unless one would use 'thin' bags.

Here's an underside photo of my '62 Chrysler wagon I plan on bagging pretty soon... (but still haven't got a clue on how to do the front end...)

 

i always thought that small hyd. cilinders would work good just put them undr the seat they only need to move the torsion bar mount a fue inches or maby a air over hyd like a lover press would work so you wouldent have to run two seprate systems

 

If you are thinking about loading the t-bars at the ancher end, you would probably want to use a hydralic jack. Changing the hight at the back of the bars will still leave the torsion bar fully functioning. Not so sure you could get enough air pressure to move the bars at the back end. Also you wouldn't need a lot of movement, an quarter inch turn more or less rotation at the rear bar mount will make a huge adjustment at the lower control arm. The torsion bar adjustment bolts are only about an inch and a half or two inches long and that can change the hight of the front end almost 6". Your not replacing coil springs here.

Also, the rear adjustment would be much easier to do above the crossmember, and maybe even inside the car. (That would require more stroke.) That Petty race car frame I saw had the bracket mounted to the rear of the driver side torsion bar and was about 6" long, putting it about 2" above the floorpan. Two brackets were welded to the floor and a threaded rod ran between them and the bracket mounted to the t-bar was connected to the threaded rod between to two floor brackets. There was a socket welded to one end of the threaded rod and was adjusted with a rechet. The threaded rod was about 2" long and would change the ride hight a couple inches when moved to the extreems, if I remember right,
Gene

 

This is it:

http://www.suicidedoors.com/TorsionFrontAirbagBrackets.php

and ditch the torsion bars.

 

50dodge,
The torsionbars-adjustment bolts are over 6 inch on Early '60 Chryslers, not 1 or 2".
I had a look yesterday beneath my '64 Chrysler which is on a lift, and I agree there's no way 1 or even 2 bags would be able to lift the vehicle. There's just not enough leverage as the anchors are too short compared to the lower control arms.
They would definitly have to made longer somehow, and then they will indeed poke through the floors. And that's way too much hacking for me on such a 'rare' car.

Hard On Parts, can you tell me how to properly install that kit on a Mopar?

I also had a good look again at the front-suspension, but I didn't see an 'easy' installation of bags there either.
If there are guys who have bagged a (fullsize) Mopar without hacking up the whole frontend, I would really like to see some pics of it...

 

I dont know if this helps, but 50ies packard had torsion suspension and electric motors to adjust rideheight, could be worth a look for ideas or parts if someone consider going that route!

 

There should be quite a gear-reduction before an electric motor can turn those adjusters. And it will wear out the threads pretty fast aswell me thinks.

Even in a fresh, blasted and greased state, with the cars weight on the torsionbars, the bolts require a lot of torque to start turning.
Perhaps an altered crossmember and anchors with more leverage might work.

Here's better pic of the rear anchors on an early '60s Chrysler...

 

Wow, I will try.
First you will remove the bottom control arm.
Then you will cut off the shock mount and rubber snubber. You will weld the large flat piece to the control arm, curved park down and to the outside edge just before the balljoint.

The area where the shock goes up will have to be opened up to allow expansion of the airbag(need at least 1/2" of clearance when fully compressed).

The flat piece with the two larger oval holes will have to be cut down and welded up into the area where the top of the shock currently bolts too.

The cup (round stock with flat plate welded ontop)will then be welded to the large flat plate on the lower control arm and the airbag will be sandwiched between them.

You will then just have to find a correct sized bolt to go into the lower contol arm to replace the torsion bar.

Here is a pic of the basic idea, sorry this is all I had laying around. Hope it helps.

 

Thanks for the explanation H-O-P.
I do think the (turneddown) torsionbars can stay where they are and 'help' the 'bags to get the car off the ground if needed.

But...

...I think the airbags are already larger in diameter than the chassis is wide there, so there will be no way the bags could go 'into' the chassis at the shock-location. Widening the (±2.5") shock-hole area will weaken the chassis considerably at that point, if at all possible.

I don't know yet how high the bags will still be in their deflated state, but because of their diameter they only can be installed 'between' the LCA and the chassis, and not into the chassis I think.

 

I think those brackets are for a mini truck with torsion bars I'm not sure but they may not be the same. I think if you were try to make them pivot on the back would take an extreme amount of pressure

 

Trying to reinvent the wheel again.
Here's a couple of thoughts:
Aside from the fact that the much maligned Chrysler lengthwise torsion bar frontend was a pretty decent setup with very good geometry (for it's time), far better than most mid to late 60s GM stuff and if you don't believe it, plot out the parameters (camber curves, etc.) sometime, and compare them with an GM A body or Camaro, the torsion bar is a very effective and simple springing device. requiring only sturdy anchors (which mother MOPAR provided in this case). Why anyone would want to replace it with something as complex and problematic as an airbag system is beyond me.
Adding airbags to torsion bars for height adjustment seems equally redundant. Engineers gave up on double springing systems early in the 20th century, and at best they were a band aid to aid suspension travel (see above wheel statement).
Adding in adjustable torsion bar anchors would require extensive chassis reinforcement to the sheetmetal unibody of a Chrysler, so it would seem the least difficult directon to go in for an easily in car adjustable suspension would be the adjustors themselves.
Why not take a page from the lowrider crowd and use hydraulic struts (rams), which are not a spring of themselves by the way, having them work on the adjustor arms in place of the adjustor screws. Find a friend to plot out the piston size if the math required is beyond you, or use the Easter Egg method (trial and error). Use one ram connected with linkage or two acting directly and using a common pressure supply branched to both to minimise side to side variance.
Of course, any change in working ride height should be accompanied an alignment for that ride height irregardless of any vehicle height at rest.

 

Remember, I am trying to explain by looking a picture of the bottom of the suspension.

If you cut out some of that front of the frame, then you will weld the top plate back in and then weld in some supports to bring the required strength back.

The height is controlled by the cup(the round piece under the bag), you can cut it down to required height or just weld a standard flat plate for the bag to sit on.

The only problem with the cranked down torsion bars is the car will not lay completely out, if you are wanting to lay the frame the bars have to go. If you are not wanting to lay frame, then forget the bags and just crank down the bars.

 

twofosho,
Thanks for your input.
I know all to well the Chrysler Torsion Bar and leaf-system is a well designed spring-system. And I'm also really hesistant in altering this system just for 'looks' of a dropped ride. I'm just looking for ideas the get it done 'easily' without hacking up the car.
The idea of replacing the adjusters with hydraulic rams is something to ponder about. It seems to be, at this moment, the most promising way to go with the least amount of alterations on the original springsystem.
I'll definitly look into this.

H-O-P,
Why wouldn't the car be able to lay frame with the T-bars cranked way down, but still in place? The T-bars aren't the lowest point on the chassis.
The chassis will then lay on the rubber LCA-stops all the time ofcourse, but removing those will let the car drop even further until the front chassis-crossmember hits on the ground.

 

After studying your rear crossmember photo and since my earlier observations about the rear anchors were based on working under my Duster, I'm going to reverse myself.
It looks like it would be relatively simple on your big Chrysler to turn down slightly the outside of the cast rear anchors to allow them to mount bearings. The bearings could in turn be mounted by extending the non removable sections of the rear crossmember to down with plate and tube. Re-indexing the anchors to place the former mounting bosses directly on the bottom would allow a simple clevis attachment of a hydraulic ram or rams between them directly under the removable section of the rear crossmember.
Also, I've given a little thought to the rear suspension. Altering the spring mounting points to lower the car will ruin the designed in geometry if the car is raised back up to a more acceptable ride height for driving. Lowering blocks will get the car lower, but using hydraulic struts, air bags and the like to raise it back up to an acceptable working ride height will do the same because the MOPAR leaf spring is designed to work only at the factory ride height and changing the ride height DESTROYS the designed in rear suspension geometry and plays havoc with the designed in roll over-understeer. Making the front spring eye height adjustable might allow lowering the car when it is static and retaining the factory's geometry at ride height, but designing a link to vary this and be strong enough to keep the spring eye position fixed while the suspension is working would be a real pain, but probably more workable than abandoning the factory suspension for some other system.