Tag: IFS

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Poll results!

Poll Results: What Are You Looking For?

I recently ran a poll to find out what kits and components you’re most interested in. Unsurprisingly, the clear winner was the “Fridge Trucks” — the 1957–1960 Ford F100s. That’s where my focus will be over the next four weeks.

If you’re one of the many who voted for it, you’re in luck—development is already underway.

Ranking of the poll
Ranking of the poll from 03/16/2025 through 03/23/2025

What’s Next: Fabricated Arms and Airbags

Tube control arms are still on the table, but I’m also working on a fabricated version. These would potentially reduce cost and be better suited for airbag setups. I have quite a bit of design work to finish before they’re ready.

 

What I need from those of you interested, is suggestions on how you intend on using these. Stock applications? That is a possibility for you Dakota guys. Do you want to stick with stock rubber bushings, go fully Poly bushings? How about something trick like spherical bearings?

Studebaker IFS Kits and What’s Coming Next

Over the years, I’ve built a handful of Studebaker IFS kits. While they worked well and had their fans, they were never big sellers—on average, I moved fewer than six kits a year. On top of that, the fixtures I had built for them were damaged during my move back in early 2020.

That means if I want to bring them back, I’d have to start from scratch—completely rebuilding the fixturing and investing the time and materials to make them viable again. Based on current costs, I estimate each kit would land at around $1250, plus crating and freight for shipping.

A Community-Supported Build?

Here’s the deal:
If 10 committed people are truly interested, I’m willing to do the work. I’d need a $750 deposit from each person to fund the fixture rebuild and the first production run. Once your kit is built and ready to ship, the balance would be due.

If that sounds like something you’d be on board with, reach out. If I can gather 10 real commitments, I’ll greenlight the project.

New Name, Same Mission

As many of you know, I’m in the middle of a rebrand. The new parent company will be called KofA Kustom.
I’ll still be using Industrial Chassis as the label for my branded suspension parts, but KofA Kustom will represent the broader business and future of what I’m building here.

Thanks for sticking with me, and thanks for voting—it’s genuinely helpful as I plan what’s next.

Posted on by — 3 Comments

Bench Racing Forums

The Bench Racing Forum is the place to ask questions and have a discussion about the products we make and sell.

The forums can be found in the tool bar above and to the left, click that tab and join me in the forums.

There we can discuss the products offered, your project or just ask a question about your build. I would much rather have a conversation here than on social media pages.

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Interesting information!

MOOG looks like they are making the Dakota control arms now.

CarID has a page where the Passenger side is listed available

 

MOOG® - R-Series™ Front Driver Side Upper Control Arm and Ball Joint Assembly

https://www.carid.com/1990-dodge-dakota-suspension-parts/moog-r-series-control-arm-and-ball-joint-assembly-3665691174.html?parentsubmodel[]=WHEEL+DRIVE|RWD+%28Rear+Wheel+Drive%29

Right Upper – RK623220
Left Upper – RK623221

No information on lowers at this time.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

We have achieved a soft open

These last two years have been very interesting. The shop has been operating at very limited capacity since August of last year. We are now at a point were we can start ramping up production. Some parts are available now, but building inventory is always going to be slow.

I made the decision to stop making a few low volume parts, like the Studebaker clips. The issues now with the Mustang II spindles is going to require a redesign of a kit I have been producing for nearly 18 years. And the fixture was damaged in the move. I really don’t want to go through the trouble to redesign and build from scratch again on those. I am going to focus on the trucks more. In design right now are my un-parallel rear four bar kits. With air bag or coil over options. There will be a standard height and a Bridge Notch type. Also is a Pre-Z front suspension kit. This will get you 2″ closer to the ground for those of you wanting to lay frame/rocker.

The shops main focus is full builds. Industrial Chassis is the house brand of parts to Phoenix Hotrod Company. You can find them over at www.phoenixhotrods.com This site will remain as the focus on parts and chassis builds.

I am moving away from Facebook. The ad pushes and cultured content are just too much. Please make an account here on the website and join the forums. I do not collect data on you, will not sell your information and can focus on your questions better.

Forum

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Opening Day is getting closer

I am getting really hammered with requests for product, I really want to get back to production. This COVID virus has really put the brakes on everything. We had hoped to be up and running by last month, more likely we will have things working and ready for production by mid-August now.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Covid Blues

This has been one strange journey.

Since our merge with Phoenix Hotrod Company in February, the move came to a crawl. The preparation for our new location in Tempe Arizona almost ground to a halt. The electrical install has taken way longer than we anticipated. However, things are finally getting wrapped up. Machinery is finally getting placed and we hope to move the remaining equipment from the Deer Valley location of Phoenix Hotrod by mid-July. The push to get going over there is urgent.

It will likely take us a few weeks if not months to get the workflow worked out, so production may be a little slow in coming. But it looks like we will get everything back online before the end of summer and, AND new stuff also.

Posted on by — 1 Comment

Issue found with Heidt’s Mustang II stock spindles

We had a customer complain about one of our Studebaker clips not capable of an alignment recently. With all the shims removed from the adjusting plate, there was still negative camber.

I had to investigate further, and on a chassis we are supplying right now we had the same issue come up. This is brand new for us, so I needed to investigate. This is what I came up with. The upper ball joint bore is moved outboard about 1/2″.

This is causing a few problems, First off is the Camber issue. Second is going to be an issue of scrub radius. This may not cause any driveability issues, but you may notice a bit more wheel kickback on uneven road surfaces.

Short solution is to use a longer control arm, in some cases where the stock slot and T-bolt are used, you may not have much of an alignment issue.

EDIT:

I spoke with a representative from Heidt’s this afternoon. Of course this issue has never come up with them. He informed me they use a 1/4″ longer control arm at 8″ from pivot to ball joint. No reason given as to why. I want to caution everyone that if you are to mix-match parts, you may end up with a front end that you can’t align.

We have used the Heidt’s and CPP dropped spindles without this problem. I have used the stock height spindles from SPC and Kaiser without issue.

 

I want to go further with you as to what these changes will make to the way your front end will drive and handle in a future date. Right now I just needed to get this information out there.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

New feature coming soon

 

One of the reasons for doing the redesign is for you the customer to navigate and find products easier.

The other is to add in a new forum that will go live in the next few days (I hope) where you and I can engage in a more technical sense.  I get asked to help people sort their suspension issues on all sorts of vehicles.

I am working to put together a searchable forum where we can get in-depth with the true geometry of what makes your IFS work and why. This will  be a subscription service, Sorry folks but more and more of my time is being taken up by answering questions. For those of you who are customers, you will get access to the forums, but for those of you on the fence, the fee will be minimal. In that forthcoming forum, we can get in-depth to get your ride working the way you want it to.

 

Eventually, I would like to expand the forum to be an offsite, 3rd party tech line for any aftermarket hot rod parts manufacturer. If you would like to participate in some way, PDF files of instruction sheets of kits you have installed would be helpful in growing to that goal.

As always, I appreciate some input.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ball Joints 2.0

In my last post, covered the Chrysler style screw in ball joints commonly used on Mustang II front ends. Today I want to talk about the Dakota ball joints and some misconceptions being run around the internet. There are a few generations of Dodge Dakotas now, I concentrate on the first two, being 87-90 and 91-96. Both are pretty much the same, the ball joints are exactly the same.

I have run across a few people trying to conflate the 97 up (3rd Gen) Dakota ball joint issues with the earlier First and Second generation trucks. In the 3rd Generation Dodge made quite a few changes to the Dakota’s front suspension. Almost a complete redesign. About the only thing similar is the lower control arm spacing and bushing size (yes, they will fit our kits) and the upper control  arm rear mounting bolt is in the same location. But that’s it. The rack mounting and angles are very different and the upper control arm became symmetrical for cost cutting reasons. The other major changes are in the spindle and ball joints. They bare no resemblance to the 1st and 2nd gen trucks. The ball joints became significantly smaller and the orientation of the lower ball joint changed from tension (pointing up) to compression (pointing down) making dropped spindles pretty much impossible.

 

Have a look at the line up of ball joints here. From Left to right, the 1997 and up Dakota/Durango ball joint, The K772 Ball joint used in most Mustang II type set ups, The K778 joint used in the 87-96 Dakotas (and many other full size cars and trucks) and then on the Right is the K7025 used on the Dakotas and several other full size cars and trucks. Visual confirmation would show you, this is robust stuff. History can confirm that these larger ball joints were not failure prone. Sure, everything wears out, this is why we recommend using premium quality repair parts when building your car or truck. Not only will you see a longer service life, you will get a better ride quality with parts like the MOOG joints and bushings we suggest.

I suppose shocks would be the next topic, stay tuned!

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Ball Joint talk

What I wanted to discuss is regarding the screw in MOPAR style ball joint that is very popular with the tubular control arms for the venerable Mustang II suspension.

These two ball joints are very different in how they are supposed to be used

The ball joint pictured at the right is the commonly used K772 MOPAR screw in ball joint used on tubular control arms throughout the industry. If you look up that number you will see it is meant for MOPAR Upper Mid-Sized cars. It is not intended for use as a lower ball joint where it will see tension loads.

The ball joint on the Left is a K719. It has the same threaded body of the K772 but if you notice one very different difference in that body, it encloses much more of the ball stud. This is a true lower ball joint meant for the Mid-Size and larger passenger cars. While it will directly replace your K772 ball joint in the control arm, the stem is larger. This larger stem requires you to machine your spindle to accept it.

While many thousands of cars and trucks are on the road using the K772 as a lower ball joint without failure, we have seen a few. Granted, this is a very robust ball joint, and if you are using a quality joint like the MOOG Problem Solver line, you may never experience a failure. We have, on the other-hand, solved some driveability issues associated with the Mustang II suspension, mainly the nervousness out on the highway but replacing the ball joints with a true lower ball joint. Now don’t take this as the end all-cure all solution to your Mustang II suspension, it’s just something we have experienced. Because the K772 is not meant to be loaded in tension, it can be “sticky” and not let your steering wheel return to center properly.

All of our Mustang II based control arms feature the K719 on the lower, and we machine the spindles to fit. If this seems like an upgrade you would like to make, give us a call and we can take care of you.