Dodge Challenger Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi. I would appreciate help. I have 1970 340 non number matching 4 speed cuda. I want to do 6.4 hemi conversion. I bought a 2015 challenger scatpack from insurance auction with running 6.4 hemi and 6 speed manual transmission. .I already cut the damage challenger and removed the 6.4 engine and transmission out of challenger I also removed the brake and clutch pedals and accelerator pedal. And shifter the computer brake booster and brake resivor. I would need help if I should be able to use same transmission that came with 6.4. and what I should do with power steering and steering linkage .mounts . There must be tons of stuff that I may need. Thank you
 

·
Super Moderator
2016 SXT Plus Blacktop
Joined
·
16,797 Posts
Welcome from California ;) Quite a task, not sure if anyone can answer all your questions, people who have done similar had lots of experience, and mostly figured things out

I'm going to copy your post to the Build section, good luck

A Guy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
IMG_20200422_192142.jpg

Welcome from California ;) Quite a task, not sure if anyone can answer all your questions, people who have done similar had lots of experience, and mostly figured things out

I'm going to copy your post to the Build section, good luck

A Guy
Thank you
 

·
Registered
2014 SRT Core
Joined
·
9,202 Posts
Welcome to the forum. Sounds like a great project, Modern Muscle I believe has parts for this type of conversion and probably High Horse Performance ( a vendor here, see the vendor section) would also be able to help you out with items you may need. Good luck and keep us updated.
 

·
Registered
2019 Challenger R/T Scat Pack Widebody
Joined
·
170 Posts
Hopefully I wont get censored for throwing out his information, dont mean any harm just trying to help.

Graveyard Cars (season 8) did a SEMA build of a 1971 Cuda with a modern day Mopar 392 crate engine and 6 speed gearbox (sounds almost the same as yours), for the front suspension steering and engine mount they went with the Magnum Force Suspension modular suspensions which they make for all Mopars and should be plug and play with your setup.

Hope this helps
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Welcome to the forum. Sounds like a great project, Modern Muscle I believe has parts for this type of conversion and probably High Horse Performance ( a vendor here, see the vendor section) would also be able to help you out with items you may need. Good luck and keep us updated.
Thank you


Hopefully I wont get censored for throwing out his information, dont mean any harm just trying to help.

Graveyard Cars (season 8) did a SEMA build of a 1971 Cuda with a modern day Mopar 392 crate engine and 6 speed gearbox (sounds almost the same as yours), for the front suspension steering and engine mount they went with the Magnum Force Suspension modular suspensions which they make for all Mopars and should be plug and play with your setup.

Hope this helps
Thank you
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,642 Posts
Hopefully I wont get censored for throwing out his information, dont mean any harm just trying to help.

Graveyard Cars (season 8) did a SEMA build of a 1971 Cuda with a modern day Mopar 392 crate engine and 6 speed gearbox (sounds almost the same as yours), for the front suspension steering and engine mount they went with the Magnum Force Suspension modular suspensions which they make for all Mopars and should be plug and play with your setup.

Hope this helps
+1 on the Magnum Force Suspension, easiest way to go coil overs on an old MOPAR. I was going to get it for a B body but I sold the car.
 

·
Registered
2018 Pitch Black SXT
Joined
·
1,543 Posts
Welcome from New Jersey. I saw an article somewhere where someone did exactly what you want to attempt. ( can't remember where I saw it, sorry) It was a big job but it was done.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,339 Posts
many of the common modifications will be relocation of oil filter (clearance issue with cross member), trans tunnel modification (transmission is longer than older style). Depending on the k-member being used, sometimes the oil pan might have to be changed.

a local member is having a 392 / A8 transplant into a '70 Barracuda - and its having a modern front K-member / suspension and modified 4 link rear suspension
 

·
Registered
‘15 R/T 6M STP
Joined
·
377 Posts
I haven't heard the best reports about Magnum Force on ForABodiesOnly.com (FABO). Not the best customer support (as I recall), but I don't have specifics so take it with a grain of salt.

The thing to be careful with is the support for the top of the coil over and how the LCA resists impacts that would drive the LBJ backwards. The older Mopars were never designed to support the weight of the car on the top shock mount and should be reinforced in some way. And most of the kits don't have a lot of lateral support for the LCA unlike the stock setup.

At the same time, cutting the TB crossmember out to fit a T56 (TR6060) means you need to rebuild it as strong as before if you keep the TB's since it is carrying the weight of the car through the bars.

Personally, I think a front coil over suspension is kind of a waste of money on a Mopar. The GM cars had horrible geometry and updating it to coil overs makes some sense, but the old Mopars had great geometry and just really need some minor updates like stiffer torsion bars and maybe UCA's with more caster. There is certainly the benefit of more room for exhaust by losing the TB's, but TTI has headers that work with TB's (for the most part) and I would rather drop $1K on a full upgrade of the stock suspension and $1K on headers instead of $3.5K on a suspension just so I can say I have coil overs that really doesn't work any better.

Think of it like rear disk brakes when they were first introduced. There were advantages, but for a street car, rear drums worked fine and carried few functional drawbacks. But when your competitor is marketing 4 wheel disk brakes and Joe Carbuyer doesn't care about test results and only how sexy rear disk brakes look, you sell 4 wheel disk brake setups. It's not a functionality change, it is a marketing change. Not to say they haven't improved since rear disks where first introduced, but at the time, there wasn't a lot of difference between the two. Similarly, I think most of the builds of old Mopars use front coil overs because it carries a better image and it is easier for the builder, not necessarily because it is a better system.
 

·
Registered
2019 Challenger R/T Scat Pack Widebody
Joined
·
170 Posts
mmm not so sure I agree with the drum brakes versus disc being a marketing change over a functional change, with cars getting bigger, heavier in those days and having more horsepower and the government imposing more strict regulations (CFR) governing brake fade the drum brakes were not capable of handling the amount of heat dissipation necessary and hence a functional change to disc brakes was required.
 

·
Registered
‘15 R/T 6M STP
Joined
·
377 Posts
mmm not so sure I agree with the drum brakes versus disc being a marketing change over a functional change, with cars getting bigger, heavier in those days and having more horsepower and the government imposing more strict regulations (CFR) governing brake fade the drum brakes were not capable of handling the amount of heat dissipation necessary and hence a functional change to disc brakes was required.
To be clear, not referencing front disk brakes, or disk brakes in general, only rear drum/front disk versus rear disk/front disk (4 wheel disks).

Wasn't something I came up with on my own, it was something I read about years ago. There was zero additional stopping ability using drums in the rear versus disks in the 80's and 90's. I know of a guy running a 6.1 Gen3 in a Dart in Germany with rear drums and pretty sure he said slowing for turn 1 on a track was no issue with rear drums and 11.75" front rotor upgrade.

I think the biggest advantage disks have is control. Because drums are self energizing, they have a tenancy to grab and are more likely to brake unevenly, and modulation is much harder. Disks do not self energize so they are easier to modulate and are less grabby.

No idea if an 11" rear drum could brake with the same force as a 13.8" rotor, technology has certainly moved on.

And I am not advocating for rear drum brakes, just look at my "restomod" Duster. I put in considerable effort to swap to rear disks despite the logic that I wasn't probably going to see any better braking force on this car.

Just saying that sometimes changes are made not because they are better, but because they are "perceived" to be better.
 

·
Registered
2019 Challenger R/T Scat Pack Widebody
Joined
·
170 Posts
To be clear, not referencing front disk brakes, or disk brakes in general, only rear drum/front disk versus rear disk/front disk (4 wheel disks).

Wasn't something I came up with on my own, it was something I read about years ago. There was zero additional stopping ability using drums in the rear versus disks in the 80's and 90's. I know of a guy running a 6.1 Gen3 in a Dart in Germany with rear drums and pretty sure he said slowing for turn 1 on a track was no issue with rear drums and 11.75" front rotor upgrade.

I think the biggest advantage disks have is control. Because drums are self energizing, they have a tenancy to grab and are more likely to brake unevenly, and modulation is much harder. Disks do not self energize so they are easier to modulate and are less grabby.

No idea if an 11" rear drum could brake with the same force as a 13.8" rotor, technology has certainly moved on.

And I am not advocating for rear drum brakes, just look at my "restomod" Duster. I put in considerable effort to swap to rear disks despite the logic that I wasn't probably going to see any better braking force on this car.

Just saying that sometimes changes are made not because they are better, but because they are "perceived" to be better.
CFR requires 15 consecutive brake stops from 62mph to heat the brakes all round to close to fade and then to perform a stopping distance test and achieve a regulatory stopping distant requirement. The driver for moving to disk brakes was the year over year reduction in stopping distances, the drums could not efficiently dissipate the heat to achieve the regulatory stopping distances (even with disk brakes up front and only drums on the rear they both have fade limits). Not saying there is anything wrong with drums just saying it wasn't driven by a marketing request.
 

·
Registered
‘15 R/T 6M STP
Joined
·
377 Posts
CFR requires 15 consecutive brake stops from 62mph to heat the brakes all round to close to fade and then to perform a stopping distance test and achieve a regulatory stopping distant requirement. The driver for moving to disk brakes was the year over year reduction in stopping distances, the drums could not efficiently dissipate the heat to achieve the regulatory stopping distances (even with disk brakes up front and only drums on the rear they both have fade limits). Not saying there is anything wrong with drums just saying it wasn't driven by a marketing request.
The 62mph spec leads me to believe you are talking about a current requirement. Think Foxbody Mustang, not 2020 Challenger. And I don't believe REAR drums affect fade as much as people think.

Either way, this is kind of a straw man. The original point is that coil over conversions on classic Mopars is more driven my perceived advantages over actual ones. IMO.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top