QA1 front shocks

[BAM]

Hey guys,

So, on my 70 challenger, 318cui, i purchased a complete front QA1 setup, except the shocks. Can someone tell me what should be the shocks travel compressed vs. extended? I would actually like to have the car a bit lowered both front and back. On the back, i will be using the hotckis leaf springs and also no idea ehich QA1 shocks to use there.

Some advice on this, is much appreciated!

[dodj]

A bit lowered, the shocks listed on their site for Challengers work fine. That's what I have. Single adj.
I'm somewhere between a inch or two lower.
If you are going to drop significantly, I would call them.

[MOPAR MITCH]

Reconsider now... contact VIKING (via phone)... they have a detailed listing (web-site under some re-construction) of different level shocks for different duties, and... different level ride heights.    I recently ordered VIKING and was impressed with their tech line staff... and product line offerings.

Nothing against QA1, but they don't cater to the Mopar scene like Viking does. 

[ledphoot]

Edited for more details:

I have the QA1 setup up front and the hotchkiss leafs out back, I went with Ridetech (fox) shocks all the way around. I had heard the QA1 shocks weren't as good and many developed leaks. The ridetech / hotchkiss / fox shocks are designed for a somewhat lowered vehicle. My Cuda is just about 2 inches lower than stock.

The picture is from when I had it aligned. I will be driving the car on Thursday. Will let you know what I think of the setup then.

[ledphoot]

Looks like this

[FSHTAIL]

You can just call QA1 and talk with the tech people, they'll know what the stock fitment is and you simply tell them you are 1" or 2" lower than stock and they have the receipe to get you what you need.   

[dodj]

Nothing against QA1, but they don't cater to the Mopar scene like Viking does.

I have not dealt with Viking, but what do they do extra to cater to Mopar?
QA1 makes several different shocks, for different applications and ride heights, they even will make custom sizes, also control arms, strut rods, K-members, driveshafts.and a few other odds n ends.

Interestingly, Viking is just a shout down the road from QA1 in Lakeville MN.

[Brads70]

You can just call QA1 and talk with the tech people, they'll know what the stock fitment is and you simply tell them you are 1" or 2" lower than stock and they have the receipe to get you what you need.

I agree, phone them up, they are quite helpful! I've had QA1 shocks on my Challenger now for  10 plus years with no issues. When I bought mine a guy related to another shock competitor  said they were leaking right out of the box ect... when I received mine they did have some oil on the outside from when they were filled from the factory. They were not leaking. Just a bit sloppy on QA1's part before shipping. I just bought QA1 coilovers for my Javelin and they were clean no oil so QA1 has done a better job of housekeeping before shipping product IMO. I've been trying to get rears for the Javelin all summer with no luck due to shortages but that seems to be a universal issue these days.
I have no issue recommending QA1 to others. Good to see other competitors such as Fox, Ridetech, and Viking. I've been looking into Viking for the rears of my Javelin but can't find a distributor  to buy them  from around here?
I would also say/add if you at all serious about handling improvements , don't skimp on shocks! They are a key piece to handling as well as ride comfort.   

[MOPAR MITCH]

dodj -- QA! does, in fact, make other components, as you indicate.  But, in my opinion, after comparing the shock listings from QA1 and Viking, QA1 is very limited, where-as Viking offers a much wider selection... already listed with the critical specification dimensions.  I've spoken with both company's tech line people and the QA1 had to do the research and would get back to me later, while the Viking already had it listed on their website data.  BUT, in fairness, the Viking website has been under repeated re-construction.. their data is available on-line but a little difficult to locate.  I couldn't find different options with QA1, such as dropped ride-height;  Viking offers different level of shocks AND... ONLY DOUBLE-ADJUSTABLE shocks... which is most preferred, in my opinion for those who want the best option for handling performance shock absorbers.

The staff from Viking did originate from the nearby QA1... interesting background of how it happened.

I just received my new rear Viking "Biserker" double-adjustable shocks... this new line is in-between street Crusader... and all-out race Warrior.   I'm removing my old RED KONI D shocks in the rear (already replaced them in the front).

I currently have QA1 double-adjustable front shocks on the car now, but they are the standard size and there is little distance to allow before bottoming out IF I'd have such a case in driving.   Since my car is lowered, I'll be replacing them with new Viking Biserker front shocks that are already shorter so I won't have to worry about bottoming them out.

[FSHTAIL]

Nothing against QA1, but they don't cater to the Mopar scene like Viking does.

You're so wrong on this...   

Several of the engineers, management and techs own B and E body Mopars there..
They teamed up with Gerst Suspension and bought them out for their coilover systems.. 

You can drive there just about any day in the nice days in summer and you would think you were at a 70's Chrysler Dealership.. 
I don't live but 20 minutes away and stopped by to show an engineer something with their E body crossmember swaybar mounting setup, they're going to a rev C on the crossmembers soon.. 

Look at all of their Mopar videos they post on their YouTube page, those are their personal cars in the videos..

[FSHTAIL]

Looks like this

Do you have the QA1 tubular k frame?   
If so, what swaybar are you running up front?

I'm not sure if your bar is sitting super low to the ground, but I have a fix for that if you look for my post..

[BAM]

I'm not using a sway bar as I don't think is needed. I'll see how the car handles without one and if needed, I will add it later. Yes, I'm using the tubular K frame together with everything else from qa1. On the rear, I got Hotchkis leafs...hopefully they will all work great together and give me an uniform level of the car

[Brads70]

I'm not using a sway bar as I don't think is needed. I'll see how the car handles without one and if needed, I will add it later. Yes, I'm using the tubular K frame together with everything else from qa1. On the rear, I got Hotchkis leafs...hopefully they will all work great together and give me an uniform level of the car

Plan on adding one! You WILL need one! I'd suggest one of the aftermarket suppliers hollow tubular versions and bigger than stock. Those rear leaf's you have will lower the rear end, you might not like/want that?
The QA1 part numbers I used are TD801 rear and TD 501 front but take some proper measurements and contact QA1 or whomever your using with those measurements as they will be needed. Why did you use the tubular K-Frame? Was your stock k-frame missing/damaged? 

[FSHTAIL]

I'm not using a sway bar as I don't think is needed. I'll see how the car handles without one and if needed, I will add it later. Yes, I'm using the tubular K frame together with everything else from qa1. On the rear, I got Hotchkis leafs...hopefully they will all work great together and give me an uniform level of the car

I guess if you never plan on driving it on the street or taking any turns, he probably don't need a sway bar.   

Sloppy in the corners.    I wouldn't advise it, I went with Hotchkiss for my car because they had a front and rear, QA one only has a front.

[HP2]

It is relative to how you drive and what you have to begin with. My challenger did not have one when I bought it. Lowering it, changing the alignment, and adding larger torsion bars was such a big improvement from stock in casual driving that those changes without the sway bar felt great. Once I added the  sway bar, it was a further incremental improvement that allowed to to further push its capability.