Which year K member would I choose?

[tubalcain]

I'm wanting to build a run stand based on a K member so that fitment of parts can be easily determined. I intend to do the engine break-in on a stand because the transmission and other stuff will also be new, and I want to "introduce them separately" If that makes sense. Too many new things, started at the same, time can cause problems. I've read that there are advantages to using a 70 or so K member because of the engine set back (or something to that effect). I'm thinking that almost any year K frame would be OK, except maybe the 62, for a stand, but a later year might be good to have for a possible build upgrade. I may choose to change the K frame during this build. My current K frame is in perfect condition. I'm using a B block currently in a 64 B body. The drive shaft has yet to be made. Many of you have a wealth of knowledge and I'm asking for guidance.

 

[493 Mike]

I would suggest you build the whole stand from scratch. If you needed to pull an oil pan it would be much easier with no K member in the way and narrower also.
Mike

 

[tubalcain]

I would suggest you build the whole stand from scratch. If you needed to pull an oil pan it would be much easier with no K member in the way and narrower also.
Mike

Good point, and well taken, but if I finish the build with the current 64 K member, I'll need one of those pricy max wedge oil pans. Something for me to consider on this, already pricey, toy.

 

[tubalcain]

So, then, RSZ28, why the disagreement. Splain yourself.

 

[ckessel]

I'm using a 70 unit in my 65, moves the engine back about 1.5". Any heat/ac plumbing needs to get moved elsewhere since the expansion valve, lines etc are already close with the 63-5 k. Here is a pic of clearance now for comparison.

 

[Lefty71]

The one you already have motor mounts for.................
Also, you are going to have trouble "introducing them seperately" since you need the trans to start the engine.
Otherwise, you've got a lot of fabbing to do, so why bother with the K-frame at all?

You do know a whole lot of assemblies have been setup from scratch and run without damage? Just be careful to check, and then double check (10 times lol).

 

[ckessel]

On my 65, I also needed to flatten out the pinch weld above the bell plus do some thumping on the floor to clear the various lumps/bumps on the trans. Add in some trans mount change too.

 

[Lefty71]

I'm curious why anyone would consider the later style K-member an upgrade?? (really just curious), especially since he already has the right mounts. Buying a Maxie pan is not much of an expense, esp. since they are re-popped. Also, Street Wedge pans are not (or were not) all that tough to find...I have some here tha I picked up over the years. And is moving the motor back really an advantage?? It can't be for racing right? If he was doing that, then he'd likely be boxing the K at the least anyway, and much more??

 

[ckessel]

For me the advantages are: better weight distribution, better idler arm mount[ double shear instead of bayonet bolt] and sway bar through the k. I plan on running my car at track events, auto cross and some fun drives with an occasional trip to the drags.

 

[493 Mike]

On my 65, I also needed to flatten out the pinch weld above the bell plus do some thumping on the floor to clear the various lumps/bumps on the trans. Add in some trans mount change too.

I noticed the floor pan is stamped to match the outline of the servo housing. Ma Mopar wanted things tight! I fixed that on mine.
Mike

 

[tubalcain]

The one you already have motor mounts for.................
Also, you are going to have trouble "introducing them seperately" since you need the trans to start the engine.
Otherwise, you've got a lot of fabbing to do, so why bother with the K-frame at all?

You do know a whole lot of assemblies have been setup from scratch and run without damage? Just be careful to check, and then double check (10 times lol).

I have, in the past, put the whole shebang together, with success. As you say, preparation is needed, check everything, valve adjustment, timing, etc. But then I did not have the fancy facilities that I have now, big shop, gantry crane, two post lift and all. I worked with jack stands on my back, bench-pressing the 727 up off my chest. I'm enjoying spending the grandkids inheritance and doin a good job of that. I also like the idea of the setback to be gained. It has been pointed out that there are some difficulties but what do you gain that does not cost something? I think that a 66-72 B body or a 70-74 E body K frame will do it.

 

[ckessel]

I noticed the floor pan is stamped to match the outline of the servo housing. Ma Mopar wanted things tight! I fixed that on mine.
Mike
View attachment 1588109

Me too.

 

[gkent]

I recently built a "test stand". Since its "universal" I made a separate fixture to fit a k-member. Since I want to minimize any damage to a painted or powder coated k-member I made it so the K rests where two of the frame bolts would go.

 

[493 Mike]

Me too.

View attachment 1588211

My inside pic:
I should have bead rolled mine for strength but, my pal with the roller has died. So, I bought 3' of sch.40 10" pvc, ripped it lengthwise, and covered the tunnel so my upholstery guy couldn't dent the sheet metal. It will be covered with a console later.
Mike

 

[tubalcain]

The talk of cutting, welding, and bashing the tunnel has altered my thinking about changing the K member in my car. It's just too cherry to alter like that. It's not one of the Mecum auction cars but nice enough to respect. I'll still make a stand for startup cause I'm going to use a flat tappet cam and I want a proper break in. 440 Source 512 with them newfangled alunium heads. It's kinda new to me but also very familiar territory. Do I need a 512, hell no, but I'm playing now. The kids will have to work for a living.

 

[GASSR]

I went down the path of using a 66 and up (QA-1) k member in my 63 440. For me, the benefits (besides weight distribution) were easy fitment of an anti roll bar, additional clearance around the motor and room for my oversized radiator, fans and serpentine belt. As others have mentioned this is tight but on my car still cleared the firewall and trans tunnel. To add to the challenge, I am using a Gear Vendors overdrive. This is requiring fabrication in part of the tunnel and seemingly a major modification to the trans cross member. If anyone has pictures of a cross member modified for this combination I would appreciate seeing the design. I do have a 1/0 QA-1 62-65 K member if you want to retain the original position for the motor.