gen 3 hemi swap in a j body?

efriedrich

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
724
Reaction score
41
Lol, everybody wants pictures so I'll ask for a few of that Alterkation. The Hellcat is going to be a crate motor imagine that suspension and motor hidden in a FMJ, that would be badass.
 
Last edited:

kkritsilas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
419
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
There was a letter from Rick Ehrenberg of Mopar Action magazine that stated the the Alterkation front end was NOT a good idea for Mopars, of any type (B, E, or F/M/J). The main problem that Ehrenberg had was that the Alterkation front end, which uses coil springs puts spring loads onto parts of the car that were not designed to have those shock loads, a potential failure point, and also a potential afety problem.

The coil springs end up sitting on bodywork/sheet metal that was never intented to carry those loads. In all Chrysler cars, whether they be the traditional front to back torsion bars (i.e. anything before the F/M/J bodies), or our own cars, the torsion bars do not work against bodywork; they work either against the frame (traditional torsion bars) or against the K member (in our cars). Because of this, the bodywork was never designed to take either the shock loads, or just the constant weight of coil springs holding up the car. The body work is just that, bodywork, it is not structural, and wasn't designed to be from the basic car design. He further stated that the front end would probably be OK on a track with smooth pavement, but in a real world situation, with the state of city and highway roads, with the bumps and road imperfections, the Alterkation front end, to his mind, was a bad idea.

At this link:

http://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1228625/4.html

on page 4, there is a partial reprint of the actual response from Rick Ehrenberg regarding his concerns with the Alterkation. He has some very specific areas in which he is concerned, and some of it is not related to the car structure, but the design of the Alterkation system itself.

Kostas
 
Last edited:

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
The F/M/J AlterKtion is different, in that the upper control arm mounts, and subsequently the shock/spring mounts are an integral part of the K-Frame. On the B/E, I imagine this could have been an issue, as the upper control arms use the stock mounting location. In the case of the F/M/J, the entire load is on the K-Frame itself, which the car then, in effect, sits on top of. I don't want to sound like an add for this product, but I did a lot of research before I spent a lot of money on it. I'll attach some pics as soon as I can. Hmm, a hellcat engine....
 

kkritsilas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
419
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The shock towers are only one part of the reason that Ehrenberg has an issue with the Alterkation. You need to sit down and read the article carefully. Note the part where the K member is no longer a K member, and the part regarding the cantilevering of the torsion bar ends. This is as true of the Alterkation front end for our cars as it is for the B body. As an opinion, I don't think that Ehrenberg is out of line to point this stuff out. These points are being raised in comparison to the factory suspension in terms of reliability. Nobody has said that the Alterkation front end doesn't improve the handling of the cars; it does, because it has much better geometry over its travel than the factory suspension does. However, in return for the improved geometry, you are changing the fundamental design of the structure of the car. Chrysler did not come up with a K member because they had nothing to do one day; they did it because it is absolutely necessary in a unibody car that needs to have the frame rails properly positioned in relation to each other, and the other frame cross members don't do that (we are talking side to side, and front to back) strongly enough. Chrysler has used the K member for all of its unibody cars, and they knew exactly why they were doing it; because it is necessary. The Alterkation system makes that K member go away, or at least one of the major functions of it, go away.

If you are happy with your choice of front end, that is great. However, the points that Ehrenberg brings up are valid, and are the same points that were undoubtedly considered when Chrysler first started to design of the unibodies. You have done your research, and at the time, maybe none of this was known, as this was only published in 2012/2013. There are a lot of magazine cars that use the Alterkation, and maybe the potential problems will never be seen in the real world; the whole issue becomes, what if they do? What keeps the car from being torn apart from an offset frontal collision? The front radiator support? The firewall? The transmission cross member? None of those are designed to keep the frame rails aligned front to back; they were never intended to, and in an accident, won't. What prevents the cantilevered front tie rod ends from having the anchor bolt fail when cornering hard and you hit a bump? What keeps that same bolt from micro-fracturing while being used on a daily driver, and perhaps failing eventually when a bump is taken at higher speed at some point in the future? The K member and suspension design do this in the factory front end. What does this on the Alterkation? As Ehrenberg put it, if you are driving at a track, or just back and forth to shows, or only on smooth roads, this won't be an issue; however, in a daily driven car, in the real world, pavement is anything but smooth, and accidents happen.
 
Last edited:

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
These are all valid points, and so far haven't really been tested. I guess I will find out what issues I face as time goes on. Nothing in the aftermarket is really as time-tested as OEM design, and I'm sure there will be some issues. What I can say about this set up, just from my observations, is that it appears to be built very well, with high quality parts and welds. it is very similar to Magnum Force and XV Motorsports designs for B/E bodies, so I imagine it should be at least as reliable as those setups. The bottom line is, using this set up greatly simplified the drivetrain install. You're right, these cars were not meant to have such a suspension design, but there were also not designed to have a 5.7 Hemi drivetrain in them. I guess time will tell how this will work out.
 

Monkeyed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
701
Reaction score
76
Location
West MI
The shock towers are only one part of the reason that Ehrenberg has an issue with the Alterkation. You need to sit down and read the article carefully. Note the part where the K member is no longer a K member, and the part regarding the cantilevering of the torsion bar ends. This is as true of the Alterkation front end for our cars as it is for the B body. As an opinion, I don't think that Ehrenberg is out of line to point this stuff out. These points are being raised in comparison to the factory suspension in terms of reliability. Nobody has said that the Alterkation front end doesn't improve the handling of the cars; it does, because it has much better geometry over its travel than the factory suspension does. However, in return for the improved geometry, you are changing the fundamental design of the structure of the car. Chrysler did not come up with a K member because they had nothing to do one day; they did it because it is absolutely necessary in a unibody car that needs to have the frame rails properly positioned in relation to each other, and the other frame cross members don't do that (we are talking side to side, and front to back) strongly enough. Chrysler has used the K member for all of its unibody cars, and they knew exactly why they were doing it; because it is necessary. The Alterkation system makes that K member go away, or at least one of the major functions of it, go away.

If you are happy with your choice of front end, that is great. However, the points that Ehrenberg brings up are valid, and are the same points that were undoubtedly considered when Chrysler first started to design of the unibodies. You have done your research, and at the time, maybe none of this was known, as this was only published in 2012/2013. There are a lot of magazine cars that use the Alterkation, and maybe the potential problems will never be seen in the real world; the whole issue becomes, what if they do? What keeps the car from being torn apart from an offset frontal collision? The front radiator support? The firewall? The transmission cross member? None of those are designed to keep the frame rails aligned front to back; they were never intended to, and in an accident, won't. What prevents the cantilevered front tie rod ends from having the anchor bolt fail when cornering hard and you hit a bump? What keeps that same bolt from micro-fracturing while being used on a daily driver, and perhaps failing eventually when a bump is taken at higher speed at some point in the future? The K member and suspension design do this in the factory front end. What does this on the Alterkation? As Ehrenberg put it, if you are driving at a track, or just back and forth to shows, or only on smooth roads, this won't be an issue; however, in a daily driven car, in the real world, pavement is anything but smooth, and accidents happen.

Do you think sub-frame connectors would help, or a similar welded reinforcement? It seems you could strengthen it structurally, though obviously without the amount of testing the factory would subject it to,
 

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
I have welded subframe connectors front to back. I might fabricate something across the front rails for added strength. Like I said, I guess I'll figure it out as I go along. I haven't heard of any actual failures of this system, but that doesn't mean anything.
 

Monkeyed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
701
Reaction score
76
Location
West MI
I have welded subframe connectors front to back. I might fabricate something across the front rails for added strength. Like I said, I guess I'll figure it out as I go along. I haven't heard of any actual failures of this system, but that doesn't mean anything.

I think the point is not just straight across side to side like an (front) l==l (back) but diagonlly as well (front) K=l (back) yes, those are supposed to be cars.. where's a whiteboard when you need one? if you take a square frame of anything it has strength, as long as the forces on it are square, once you put pressure on the corners it becomes diamond shaped, the K angles reinforce and brace in that direction.
 

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
I have thought about tying it all together diagonally across the frame rails. I just have to fabricate something that will clear the exhaust, driveshaft, etc. I will be building a brace similar to a strut tower brace to tie the inner fenders together.
 

kkritsilas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
419
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The diagonal bracing is the main point of concern for our cars (shock loads going into non-stuctural members would be an added point of concern for the B body guys). I would think that diagonal braces of adequate strength would address the issue, but getting that right isn't a trivial thing. I suppose you could just weld in the biggest, longest diagonal braces and be done with it, but again, it will be hard to know if the braces will be sufficient or create their own problems (i.e. they may fix the "diamond shape" diagonal stress issues, but how do you know you are tying into a part of the frame rail that is designed to take that stress? Or how do you know that the stress concentration at the point where the added diagonal braces meed the frame rails isn't going to exceed the strength built into the frame rails? After all, the factory designed the frame rails to take diagonal stresses at the K member mounting points, not where the diagonal braces are to be added). Again, maybe I am over-thinking this, but better to over-think this now, than to be in an accident and find out that, gosh darn it, the factory did get it right, and maybe messing with the car's structure is not a good idea, the hard way.

Also, while we are focused on frame strength, do not disregard the point about the tie-rod end being held in place by a bolt and a stack of washers. Going into a turn and having that bolt break is going to mess up your day.

Ever see the episode of "The Big Bang Theory: where Wollowitz is about to blast off into space in a Russian Soyuz spacecraft? There is him, a Russian astronaut, and another American astronaut. The Russian astronaut gets a message from ground control, and Wollowitz asks what it was about. Russian astronaut says there is a fuel leak. Wollowitz (who is scared as all get out) says that they should get out of the ship and abort the mission. Russian astronaut says to relax, 9 times out of 10 there is no problem. Wollowitz asks what about the tenth time? Russian astronaut says "Problem". In a similar way,9 time out of 10 the Alterkation won't be a problem, maybe even 999 times out of 1000. Question is, what if you are the 1 case that there is a problem?
 
Last edited:

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
Incidentally, I did read Ehrenberg's article before contemplating this project. I also spoke to a lot of people running this set up on B/E bodies, and Ehrenberg is the only one that seems to have a negative opinion. I'm not saying he's wrong, as I'm certainly not an engineer, but his opinion doesn't seem to reflect the actual experience of any of the AlterKtion users I've spoken to. Again, I think it's just a matter of wait and see how it turns out.
 

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
The diagonal bracing is the main point of concern for our cars (shock loads going into non-stuctural members would be an added point of concern for the B body guys). I would think that diagonal braces of adequate strength would address the issue, but getting that right isn't a trivial thing. I suppose you could just weld in the biggest, longest diagonal braces and be done with it, but again, it will be hard to know if the braces will be sufficient or create their own problems (i.e. they may fix the "diamond shape" diagonal stress issues, but how do you know you are tying into a part of the frame rail that is designed to take that stress? Or how do you know that the stress concentration at the point where the added diagonal braces meed the frame rails isn't going to exceed the strength built into the frame rails? After all, the factory designed the frame rails to take diagonal stresses at the K member mounting points, not where the diagonal braces are to be added). Again, maybe I am over-thinking this, but better to over-think this now, than to be in an accident and find out that, gosh darn it, the factory did get it right, and maybe messing with the car's structure is not a good idea the hard way.

Also, while we are focused on frame strength, do not disregard the point about the tie-rod end being held in place by a bolt and a stack of washers. Going into a turn and having that bolt break is going to mess up your day.

The F/M/J doesn't have a stack of washers. It has a steel sleeve welded to the spindle. I was a little leary of the heim joint tie rod end, but a lot of major manufacturers seem to use them.
You seem to be a purist, and I respect that. If this car was original when I got it, like the numbers matching 81 CMX I'm restoring next, I would never have done this to it. This car was a "put together" when I got it, so I decided to experiment. If I had tried to put the Hemi in the factory k-frame, I probably would have had to modify it so much that structural integrity would be compromised anyway. This is just going to be a wait and see how it turns out. If my experiences with AlterKtion turn out to be the sameas everyone else's that I've spoken to, I'll be happy. If Ehrenberg turns out to be right, I'll be shit out of luck!
 

Jack Meoff

Mopar Maniac
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
10,747
Reaction score
1,200
Location
Hogtown, Ontario
I'll leave my comment at this.
Sounds to me like you know what you're doing and I'm looking forward to watching this build progress.

The idea of a hemi going into this has definitely got me intrigued.
 

kkritsilas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
419
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I'm not a purist in the real sense of the word. I am a purist in that I believe that the factory knew exactly what they were doing when they designed our cars, and knows exactly how to make them work their best for the use they were intended. They were never intended to ge "G" machines or road racers. They were designed to be safe street cars, and do that well. They have a solid, if imperfect suspension design that has been beaten on by countless numbers of police cars and taxis over many, many years. The amount of abuse these cars have had in those situations, and by the public at large, leads to the conclusion that this is a very safe and reliable front end. In an attempt to "cure" some perception of a less than "optimal" front geometry, new front ends have been designed. They have however, brought with them issues with regards to reliability and rigidity that should not have been there if the people designing the front ends truly understood the structure of the unibody cars. I have no issue with suspension upgrades of any sort. I have a real issue when it comprimises the structural design of the car; not just our cars here, any car that I work on, from any manufacturer. You want a better handling car? Great, get tubular control arms, polyurethane bushings, polyurethane body mounts, quicker ration ptman and idler arms, larger diameter sway bars, etc. DO NOT alter the structural design of the car, under any circumstances. You want a stronger K member, great, it will help the rigidity of the car. You want to remove the K menmber of the car for some "geometry improvement/camber curve improvement"? I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. It is that simple. Fix what you want, improve anything you want, when you understand exactly what you are doing. Do not mess with a factory design unless you know everything about why it is wrong (and I have no doubt that the factories get things wrong, even Chrysler), but don't "fix" something by changing something structural that doesn't appear to be understood. Let me ask the following question, specifically for our cars (the F/M/Js9. Could the Alterkation front end, with its suspension geometry correction, have not been made in such a way that the frame rails have been kept in position correctly?

The point about the tie-rod anchor point is not about washers or tubes, it is how far the bolt is sticking out. The longer the bolt, the easier it is to bend. If the forces are going to bend a bolt, then they will bend a sleeve, unless the sleeve is very heavy wall. I can't say anything about heim joints on street cars except to say that I don't know of a lot of cars using them, including some of the high dollar cars.
 
Last edited:

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
I'm not a purist in the real sense of the word. I am a purist in that I believe that the factory knew exactly what they were doing when they designed our cars, and knows exactly how to make them work their best for the use they were intended. They were never intended to ge "G" machines or road racers. They were designed to be safe street cars, and do that well. They have a solid, if imperfect suspension design that has been beaten on by countless numbers of police cars and taxis over many, many years. The amount of abuse these cars have had in those situations, and by the public at large, leads to the conclusion that this is a very safe and reliable front end. In an attempt to "cure" some perception of a less than "optimal" front geometry, new front ends have been designed. They have however, brought with them issues with regards to reliability and rigidity that should not have been there if the people designing the front ends truly understood the structure of the unibody cars. I have no issue with suspension upgrades of any sort. I have a real issue when it comprimises the structural design of the car; not just our cars here, any car that I work on, from any manufacturer. You want a better handling car? Great, get tubular control arms, polyurethane bushings, polyurethane body mounts, quicker ration ptman and idler arms, larger diameter sway bars, etc. DO NOT alter the structural design of the car, under any circumstances. You want a stronger K member, great, it will help the rigidity of the car. You want to remove the K menmber of the car for some "geometry improvement/camber curve improvement"? I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. It is that simple. Fix what you want, improve anything you want, when you understand exactly what you are doing. Do not mess with a factory design unless you know everything about why it is wrong (and I have no doubt that the factories get things wrong, even Chrysler), but don't "fix" something by changing something structural that doesn't appear to be understood. Let me ask the following question, specifically for our cars (the F/M/Js9. Could the Alterkation front end, with its suspension geometry correction, have not been made in such a way that the frame rails have been kept in position correctly?

The point about the tie-rod anchor point is not about washers or tubes, it is how far the bolt is sticking out. The longer the bolt, the easier it is to bend. If the forces are going to bend a bolt, then they will bend a sleeve, unless the sleeve is very heavy wall. I can't say anything about heim joints on street cars except to say that I don't know of a lot of cars using them, including some of the high dollar cars.

You're missing my whole point. I'm not trying to improve the suspension or handling with this setup. true, it will probably handle better, but my goal was to be able to install a modern Hemi drivetrain in this car, without having to hack up the factory parts to the point that they might not work. Believe me, if I thought it would have been possible to do this without spending an extra $6000.00 on suspension parts, I would have. But because this car wasn't designed from the factory to have a Hemi in it, I had to use a suspension that wasn't designed from the factory to put one in it. I don't know if it will be better or worse than stock. I had no complaints about the stock suspension, except that I couldn't bolt my Hemi in it.
I'm not sure what you mean when you ask about the frame rails being kept in position correctly. the AlterKtion k-member bolts directly to the frame rails, in their original mounting position, with no modification. True, it is not a "true k-frame", in that it has a square cross bar, but all four mounting points are utilized as they are with the stock setup.
 

kkritsilas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
419
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
OK, I am going to try to make my point clearer by adding some pictures.

The following link is to the Alterkation installation manual:

https://www.reillymotorsports.com/store/installation_manual.pdf

I don't know if it applies to the F/M/J body version of the Alterkation front end. If there are differences, I will make the assumption that they are in the included shock towers, and not the basic Alterkation front end.

Within the manual, go to Page 10. This is the section called "Installing the Alterkation System". In step 1 is a picture of a mopar with the Alterkation frame in place.

Enclosed below is a picture of the M body (pretty much the same as the F and J) transverse torsion bar suspension. Note the depth of the main cross memeber, the amount and size of the K member near the frame rails. All of this is what comines to keep the frame rails from moving (or becoming a Diamond Shape) during an accident. There is enough depth (front to back dimension of) in the cross member, and the forces are spread over a large enough distance that, should there be an offset frontal accident, one of the frame rails won't end up ahead or behind the other. This is what Ehrenberg was talking about.

0201.jpg


I have made some assumptions here based on availability of pictures and specific information.

Also, there are enough companies making Hemi Conversion packages (XV, Bouchillon) that replacing the front end with a coil over is not really necessary. In fact, Schumacher just announced kits for putting Hemis into B and A bodies; I would think that F/M/J kits are on the way.

image.php.jpg


0201.jpg
 
Last edited:

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
OK, I am going to try to make my point clearer by adding some pictures.

The following link is to the Alterkation installation manual:

https://www.reillymotorsports.com/store/installation_manual.pdf

I don't know if it applies to the F/M/J body version of the Alterkation front end. If there are differences, I will make the assumption that they are in the included shock towers, and not the basic Alterkation front end.

Within the manual, go to Page 10. This is the section called "Installing the Alterkation System". In step 1 is a picture of a mopar with the Alterkation frame in place.

Enclosed below is a picture of the M body (pretty much the same as the F and J) transverse torsion bar suspension. Note the depth of the main cross memeber, the amount and size of the K member near the frame rails. All of this is what comines to keep the frame rails from moving (or becoming a Diamond Shape) during an accident. There is enough depth (front to back dimension of) in the cross member, and the forces are spread over a large enough distance that, should there be an offset frontal accident, one of the frame rails won't end up ahead or behind the other. This is what Ehrenberg was talking about.

View attachment 9995

I have made some assumptions here based on availability of pictures and specific information.

Also, there are enough companies making Hemi Conversion packages (XV, Bouchillon) that replacing the front end with a coil over is not really necessary. In fact, Schumacher just announced kits for putting Hemis into B and A bodies; I would think that F/M/J kits are on the way.

I respect your opinion, but I don't necessarily agree with it. No matter how wide or deep the k-frame is, it still attaches to the frame rails at only four points, and in the case of the stock setup, there are thick rubber bushings between the k-frame and rail, which can't make for a very rigid connection. That being said, I am not saying this system is better than stock for safety or handling. I'm saying it is better than stock for installing a Hemi in a J body. I have found no other company anywhere that makes any Hemi conversion for F/M/J. And again, I can find nobody that has actually owned/driven a car with AlterKtion that has anything but good things to say about. I've spoken to several people with well over 15000 miles on their setup, without any problems. To me, that's a pretty good track record. No, it is not as time tested or engineered as the stock configuration, but for my application, it is the best option.
 

kkritsilas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,961
Reaction score
419
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Not my opinion, nor my points. They are all Ehrenberger's. Even on other boards, there are people who disagree with Ehrenberger. I don't know, nor do I have the engineering/technical background to say if the points that Ehrenberger raises are valid or just academic. I will say that I do see why he has a concern, simple as that. Ehrenberger is well respected source of Mopar knowledge, and I believe worked at Chrysler design or engineering (don't remember which) at one time. That in and of itself may not be applicable here, if he worked in interior design, or air conditioning design, his opinion carries no more weight that yours or mine do. His stature in the Mopar world is not, to me at least, open to question.

I do think it is incorrect to assume the only way to get a Gen III Hemi into an F/M/J is with an Alterkation front end. In fact, considering the prices shown on the Reilly Motorsports web site, an Alterkation front end is around $4-4.5K. The Schumacher Creative Hemi mounts are $195 + shipping. Now, the Schumacher kits don't do anything to improve handling, they are just engine mounts, and I am using prices for the A or B body kits, and it is possible for the F/M/J to be priced differently when they are released, but for the price of the Alterkation, you can not only get a junkyard Hemi and a 545RFE, but a considerable amount of suspension upgrades, which may not fix all of the sub-optimal geometry issues with the transverse torsion bar front end, will provide a significant improvement. I realize that this wasn't available when you started building your car, but the TTI and XV Hemi adaptors were.
 

Joe12459

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
961
Reaction score
175
Location
Catskill Mountains, NY
Not my opinion, nor my points. They are all Ehrenberger's. Even on other boards, there are people who disagree with Ehrenberger. I don't know, nor do I have the engineering/technical background to say if the points that Ehrenberger raises are valid or just academic. I will say that I do see why he has a concern, simple as that. Ehrenberger is well respected source of Mopar knowledge, and I believe worked at Chrysler design or engineering (don't remember which) at one time. That in and of itself may not be applicable here, if he worked in interior design, or air conditioning design, his opinion carries no more weight that yours or mine do. His stature in the Mopar world is not, to me at least, open to question.

I do think it is incorrect to assume the only way to get a Gen III Hemi into an F/M/J is with an Alterkation front end. In fact, considering the prices shown on the Reilly Motorsports web site, an Alterkation front end is around $4-4.5K. The Schumacher Creative Hemi mounts are $195 + shipping. Now, the Schumacher kits don't do anything to improve handling, they are just engine mounts, and I am using prices for the A or B body kits, and it is possible for the F/M/J to be priced differently when they are released, but for the price of the Alterkation, you can not only get a junkyard Hemi and a 545RFE, but a considerable amount of suspension upgrades, which may not fix all of the sub-optimal geometry issues with the transverse torsion bar front end, will provide a significant improvement. I realize that this wasn't available when you started building your car, but the TTI and XV Hemi adaptors were.

I'm sure it's not the only way to install a Hemi, but it is the best way to avoid cutting up the car to do it. The motor mounts aren't the issue. I could have welded in any mounts I wanted. The real issues were with oil pan, exhaust, steering linkage and trans clearance. I am running the NAG1 trans, but I didn't want to cut up the tunnel/crossmember, either. I tried probably different oil pan/manifold/header combinations on the stock /6 k-member, as well as a 318 k-member, but none of them provided enough clearance without cutting up the k-member and the car, which would probably have caused structural issues.
I'm not questioning Ehrenberg's knowledge or credentials. I know he's the man when it comes to Mopar tech. If he made or recommended an option that would work for my application, I would probably have used it. True, there are a lot of other options for people who just want to improve handling, but that was never my issue. I wanted a fairly cost effective way to install a modern Hemi drivetrain in a J body, without making any permanent modifications to the car. This system fit the bill. Again, I'll only know if I made the right decision after I drive the car a while. Either way, I'll make sure to share my real world experiences with anyone who wants to listen.
 
Back
Top