Goin on a diet! - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

Jesse 67 c-10 · 03-26-2003, 01:32 AM

hehe, not me! the truck. After working on the formula SAE car here at the U of S I've come to the conclusion that the best way to get more speed, better handling and better milage out of out trucks is to make them lighter weight! wow who knew? so better weight distribution and lighter overall is the key then. Some obvious thoughts I had

gas tank in the back
aluminum heads and manifold
rollpans or lighter bumpers
sb on l6 mounts
aluminum driveshaft and tranny
hollow sway bars?

Then there's stuff like glass front end, tubular control arms, 4link rear aluminum blocks and other cool stuff. Any other ideas? short of gutting interior and whatnot. hmm, how bout aluminum diamond plate bed floor? just imagine what your truck would feel like at 3000lbs? 2500! anything is possible.
Jesse

Longhorn Man · 03-26-2003, 01:38 AM

Well, they make every body panel out of fiberglass now. Plus Lexan for glass, get rid of the window regulaters, get an alluminum block, drill the crap out of the frame (ever seen a "swiss cheese" Catilina?) The lightest wheels known to man, (which is more iportant since it is unsprung weight), drums are normally lighter than discs...this is a freebie since you have a 67 with drums already)
There are plenty of places to drop a couple pounds. Just gotta figure how much $$ you want to spend in the process.

72 CustomCamper · 03-26-2003, 01:41 AM

You could always call up US Body Source and get a fiberglass cab and bed...

Chuck

Seke69 · 03-26-2003, 07:33 AM

OT: HEY LONGHORNMAIL, happy birthday tomorrow...

how much would a fglass bed cost? and does this mean that my rusted though rear control arms are a good thing?!

Blue Beard · 03-26-2003, 08:23 AM

I don't know, from a lot of the posts I'd say.............Chrome it, makes it go faster..........

MOTHERTRUCKERS · 03-26-2003, 08:48 AM

Just buy my truck, full US BODY fiberglass front,cab and bed on a tube chassie 1200 lbs. BTY all the fiberglass parts in our catalog are US BODY parts. No better quality available anywhere,

Jesse 67 c-10 · 03-26-2003, 12:50 PM

Good ideas, Sounds like glass is the best way to loose it. ya that would be pretty sweet. I've been dreaming of some day makin an tube frame, 4 wheel independant, bremo disk braked, glassbodied, air sprung 67 shorty with 18's, a FI aluminum twin turbo 427, and hmm a clutchless 6 speed. or maybe I could just take a F1 car and put a glass 67 body on it? *sigh* someday, when I have time, money and a shop, untill then, anyone know the website for US body source?

Thanks!
Jesse

*Randy70C-10* · 03-26-2003, 01:35 PM

www.usbody.com

Crank · 03-26-2003, 01:45 PM

What exactly would the small block on I-6 mounts give you weight wise? Arent mounts mounts? They lighter?
Brandon

Class of 69 · 03-26-2003, 02:17 PM

Save your money, and just put a 502 crate motor in it.. It will go faster than you want to. Having all that power and speed sounds like fun, but I've seen a lot of guy's pull their foot out of it at 120mph. 500 horse should get you there in about 13 seconds on the street. The 70SS Chevelle I had weighed about the same as a 2wd pickup. Turned 13.07 in the quarter with L60X14 Bias tires, and the headers hooked to the exhaust. Had a LS5 in it. Pumped about 530 HP on the dyno.

**StingRay** · 03-26-2003, 02:34 PM

Well Jesse if you are building a truck for day to day use it is probably best to start with alum heads, intake, radiator, water pump and wheels. Most trannies already have aluminum cases. The aluminum driveshaft is a good idea too but big bucks. If you look at what you have to add in material thickness and structure in fiberglass body panels and aluminum bed floors if you are actually going to use the vehicle day to day around here you might find the weight savings pretty expensive for what you actually achieve. Some of the existing body panels really aren't that heavy. Now the doors are boat anchors and glass doors might be something for the menu.
Replacing glass with plastic is a great weight saver too but once again not very practical or durable for day to day use. Swiss cheesing your truck or car if you are going to race it is fine but if you drive it every day it might not pass a body and frame integrity inspection.
An aluminum rad support would be a weight saver and would not be real difficult fabricate.
A good idea for weight saving from an engineering perspective is to go to a smaller displacement aluminum block engine and then make up for the size with a turbo and some technology.
Don't forget about that battery. It can go to the back and you can get em lighter than the run of the mill batteries most of use today.
Power assisted accessories add weight too. Old world performance cars had manual everything.

If you are building a race truck then talk to an old racer. They know ways to shed pounds like no others!

Ackattack · 03-26-2003, 02:42 PM

I came to the conclusion that these trucks are just to heavy to make real fast, so I decided not to waste the time/money trying to make it real fast. I'm not only talking straight line fast either. That's why I bought an F-body...

My truck is for cruising, looking cool; not racing

ckhd · 03-26-2003, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Beard
I don't know, from a lot of the posts I'd say.............Chrome it, makes it go faster..........

I thought it was red paint. or maybe that coral pink stuff that Ludwig likes!

Red paint is smoother, so it causes less wind drag. It makes it more aerodynamic

XXL · 03-26-2003, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Class of 69
Had a LS5 in it. Pumped about 530 HP on the dyno.

What did you do to it to get the extra output? LS5 was 425hp, I believe. And you say 'about 530' on the dyno... did you get a printout to get an exact number?

Kenneth

lukecp · 03-26-2003, 04:36 PM

Actually, these trucks aren't that heavy. In my Resto Pack, it says a '72 LWB fleetside, with a SBC weighs a tad bit less than 3800 lbs. A SWB fleet with a SBC weighs in at around 3750 lbs. That is as much, if not less than an intermediate muscle car, like a Chevelle, and much less than an Impala or Monte Carlo.

BTW, i would go with a fiberglass front clip and fiberglass doors. I wouldn't want to drive a fiberglass cab equipped truck unless it had a rollbar in it. I wouldn't trust that stuff to protect me in the event you roll the truck. Keep the bed steel for traction. Trucks have a hard enough time hooking up as it is. Hollow sway bars don't sound like a bad idea, but i bet they wouldn't be anywhere near as strong as a solid one, and therefore not work as well, unless they were made out of a very strong material.

gmc67swb · 03-26-2003, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ackattack
I came to the conclusion that these trucks are just to heavy to make real fast, so I decided not to waste the time/money trying to make it real fast. I'm not only talking straight line fast either. That's why I bought an F-body...

My truck is for cruising, looking cool; not racing

YA KNOW THOSE F-BODIES ARE KINDA HEAVY TOO. MY '98 SS CAMARO WEIGHED 3660 WITH ME IN IT. BTW, I RAN 13.5'S AT 105MPH WITH NO MODS AT ALL IN AUGUST AT THE MOTORPLEX IN TEXAS...THAT'S A '98. I BELIEVE THE 01'S HAVE A LITTLE MORE POWER. I.E.(BETTER INTAKE AND CAM FROM THE FACTORY)

Jesse 67 c-10 · 03-27-2003, 09:06 PM

All good points, ya, I looked at the US body site, That one peice tilt front end would be very cool! no seams, just slide forward and tip em up for complete access. would definatly take some weight off the front. There's lots of weight to be lost in the back of the truck, heavy bumpers, bed parts etc, so moving essential accesories, like gas tank, battery, and movin the motor back a few inches would help the weight distribution. ya glass cab would be kinda scary without a roll bar. I bet a step side bed could be made pretty light, its all single wall stuff and such though. might look into a hollow sway bar though, I got some ideas kickin around

As for just adding a bigger motor to go faster, ya that would be sweet! and fun, but it would cost me $10,000 cnd, I'd get 5mpg and my truck would handle worse. I could probably build my own tube frame for a lot less. Technology definatly isn't waiting around for us, and we should all realize that if we want our trucks to be practical in todays world, ya got to join em, cause we can't beat em! just my 3 cents.

Jesse

Class of 69 · 03-27-2003, 09:33 PM

XXL The LS5 was factory rated at 390 hp. The only thing left of original parts was the castings, and crank. It had 11.5:1 compression ratio. The heads, which are oval port closed chamber, were cc'd, and the runners cleaned up, but not polished. Had a Comp Cams cam with 586 lift, and 304 duration. It wouldn't idle below 1200 rpm, oh and the cam was still hydraulic. Couldn't afford Rhodes lifters at the time, so it really loped! Edelbrock Tarantula intake. Remember those?? The carb sat on it at a 45% angle to the block to straighted the runners, with a 850 Holley dual feed, double pumper with 50cc accelerator pumps front and back. Headers had 2 1/8'' primery tubes ending ina 3 1/2 collector. 2 1/2 '' exhaust out the back. 528 dyno hp to be exact. The 13.07@117 mph was with the air cleaner on and exhaust hooked up. Ran 12.67@119 in full race trim with 26x9.50x14 wrinkle walls.. That's with corp. 12 bolt with 3.73 gears!. Hooked 4th about 150 ft from the lights. Top speed of 158mph. Police certified to 130(all the higher their speedo's went) as I was leaving them behind. Had a lot of fun with that car!!!

68CST327 · 03-28-2003, 12:07 AM

I'm curious as to what other people's C20's weigh. Mine tips the scales at 4,790 lbs. and it seems like a bit much if you ask me. I wonder how much I'd lose by ditching the spare tire and heavy duty diamond plate step bumper.

I'd like to keep mine pretty much stock, so I won't switch the 3/4 parts over to the 1/2 ton parts, but it'd be interesting to see how much weight could be saved on a 3/4 ton truck.

67shortie · 03-28-2003, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Class of 69
XXL 528 dyno hp to be exact. The 13.07@117 mph was with the air cleaner on and exhaust hooked up. Ran 12.67@119 in full race trim with 26x9.50x14 wrinkle walls.. That's with corp. 12 bolt with 3.73 gears!. Hooked 4th about 150 ft from the lights. Top speed of 158mph. Police certified to 130(all the higher their speedo's went) as I was leaving them behind. Had a lot of fun with that car!!!

Damn

68CST327 · 03-29-2003, 06:22 PM

Wow, I just removed the spare tire (old Firestone on a split rim, bleh) and the heavy duty step bumper off the back of my truck, and man those two things probably weighed close to 300 pounds. I should have taken those off before I got my truck weighed for the DMV certification

crazy longhorn · 03-29-2003, 07:19 PM

My 3/4 ton longhorn went on a diet. The truck tips the scales @ 4040, less driver. The body is still all steel, she is on 1/2 ton suspension,deleted heater steel tilt front(no inners), & less front bumper. The eng is set in the I6 position for weight transfer, & has alum heads & intake. the battery is moved to the rear. The seats are Jazz plastic buckets. The top is chopped 4"(minor weight savings), & no door glass(yet!) All in all, not too bad considering the stock longhorn tipped the scales in the 4800-5000lb range empty. As far as shaving rear weight,I would try to eliminate and/or move as much front weight back that you can.....the back is too lite! crazyL

68CST327 · 03-29-2003, 08:08 PM

Yep, it's a good idea to move what you can to the back. The only thing that's cool about removing rear weight is that it should be easier for my 3/4 ton axles to spin at the stop sign on my street

Another thing I'm thinking would probably help is to make sure the truck has a level stance, or maybe having it slightly lower in the back than the front would help too; I think this would probably help to transfer weight to the rear.

How much do the front inner fenders weigh? I might just have to go out and remove those now

crazy longhorn · 03-29-2003, 08:17 PM

The inners probably dont weigh a bunch,(40-50 lbs?) but everybit helps....it sure makes a mess driving in the rain without them tho! As far as stance, (oldschool).......the stick shift cars liked a little nosedown attitude, due to chassis reaction(the nose comes up hard on a stick). The auto equipped cars do like a more level stance to help hook up.....crazyL

Jesse 67 c-10 · 03-29-2003, 11:52 PM

ya inner fender dont weigh a whole lot. really though, if your mildly experienced with fiberglass you could use them to make a mold and then make your own glass inner fenders, repeats would be easy, you could sell a few pairs. That sounds pretty good crazy longhorn! Thanks like taking a spare big block and tranny out the back of your truck, about right? does anyone have any pics of our trucks with a one piece glass front end? I'm thinking it would look pretty sweet all seamless. I spose you would see a big increase in handling by reducing the unsprung weight, lighter wheels and susp components. I don't think theres much you can do for the rear though, other than a lighter rear end, but that wouldn't hold up.

03-26-2003, 01:32 AM	#1
Jesse 67 c-10 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 599	Goin on a diet! hehe, not me! the truck. After working on the formula SAE car here at the U of S I've come to the conclusion that the best way to get more speed, better handling and better milage out of out trucks is to make them lighter weight! wow who knew? so better weight distribution and lighter overall is the key then. Some obvious thoughts I had gas tank in the back aluminum heads and manifold rollpans or lighter bumpers sb on l6 mounts aluminum driveshaft and tranny hollow sway bars? Then there's stuff like glass front end, tubular control arms, 4link rear aluminum blocks and other cool stuff. Any other ideas? short of gutting interior and whatnot. hmm, how bout aluminum diamond plate bed floor? just imagine what your truck would feel like at 3000lbs? 2500! anything is possible. Jesse __________________ Edmonton, Alberta, 67 c-10, Long fleet, front disks, 5 lug rear end, 327 with Vortechs, edlbrock manifold, comp cams XE 256, 600cfm carb. Backed by a getrag 5 speed and 1 piece driveshaft. 1993 Dihatsu Hijet Jumbo cab 4x4, currently converting to battery electric power.

03-26-2003, 01:41 AM	#3
72 CustomCamper huh ??? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Fredericksburg,Va. Posts: 3,368	You could always call up US Body Source and get a fiberglass cab and bed... Chuck __________________ 90 Blazer Silverado 350w/ 700R4 and 32" Kelly's "I am a bomb technician. If you see me running try to keep up!"

03-26-2003, 08:23 AM	#5
Blue Beard Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Washington State Posts: 8,831	I don't know, from a lot of the posts I'd say.............Chrome it, makes it go faster.......... __________________ 1970 Chev CST 2003 Harley Fatboy 1975 Chevrolet Step Van 1956 Chev Bel Air 1977 Blazer 2WD For Sale $3000.00 1978 Blazer 2WD For Sale $7000.00 1978 Silverado 2005 Monte Carlo

03-26-2003, 08:48 AM	#6
MOTHERTRUCKERS Registered User Join Date: Dec 1999 Location: BRADENTON FLA Posts: 3,269	Just buy my truck, full US BODY fiberglass front,cab and bed on a tube chassie 1200 lbs. BTY all the fiberglass parts in our catalog are US BODY parts. No better quality available anywhere, __________________ Rest in Peace Ed. Thanks for all the good times.

03-26-2003, 12:50 PM	#7
Jesse 67 c-10 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 599	Good ideas, Sounds like glass is the best way to loose it. ya that would be pretty sweet. I've been dreaming of some day makin an tube frame, 4 wheel independant, bremo disk braked, glassbodied, air sprung 67 shorty with 18's, a FI aluminum twin turbo 427, and hmm a clutchless 6 speed. or maybe I could just take a F1 car and put a glass 67 body on it? sigh someday, when I have time, money and a shop, untill then, anyone know the website for US body source? Thanks! Jesse __________________ Edmonton, Alberta, 67 c-10, Long fleet, front disks, 5 lug rear end, 327 with Vortechs, edlbrock manifold, comp cams XE 256, 600cfm carb. Backed by a getrag 5 speed and 1 piece driveshaft. 1993 Dihatsu Hijet Jumbo cab 4x4, currently converting to battery electric power.

03-26-2003, 01:38 AM	#2
Longhorn Man its all about the +6 inches Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Hilliard Ohio Posts: 2,690	Well, they make every body panel out of fiberglass now. Plus Lexan for glass, get rid of the window regulaters, get an alluminum block, drill the crap out of the frame (ever seen a "swiss cheese" Catilina?) The lightest wheels known to man, (which is more iportant since it is unsprung weight), drums are normally lighter than discs...this is a freebie since you have a 67 with drums already) There are plenty of places to drop a couple pounds. Just gotta figure how much $$ you want to spend in the process.

03-26-2003, 07:33 AM	#4
Seke69 Space Cadet Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Twin Cities Posts: 132	OT: HEY LONGHORNMAIL, happy birthday tomorrow... how much would a fglass bed cost? and does this mean that my rusted though rear control arms are a good thing?!

03-26-2003, 01:35 PM	#8
Randy70C-10 Account Suspended Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Virginia Beach, Va. U.S.A. Posts: 15,320	www.usbody.com

03-26-2003, 01:45 PM	#9
Crank Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Crittenden, KY Posts: 1,965	What exactly would the small block on I-6 mounts give you weight wise? Arent mounts mounts? They lighter? Brandon

03-26-2003, 02:17 PM	#10
Class of 69 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Stillwater MN Posts: 1,166	Save your money, and just put a 502 crate motor in it.. It will go faster than you want to. Having all that power and speed sounds like fun, but I've seen a lot of guy's pull their foot out of it at 120mph. 500 horse should get you there in about 13 seconds on the street. The 70SS Chevelle I had weighed about the same as a 2wd pickup. Turned 13.07 in the quarter with L60X14 Bias tires, and the headers hooked to the exhaust. Had a LS5 in it. Pumped about 530 HP on the dyno. __________________ 69 GMC K10 ..some restoration required....still..

03-26-2003, 02:34 PM	#11
StingRay Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Saskatoon,SK,Canada Posts: 2,476	Well Jesse if you are building a truck for day to day use it is probably best to start with alum heads, intake, radiator, water pump and wheels. Most trannies already have aluminum cases. The aluminum driveshaft is a good idea too but big bucks. If you look at what you have to add in material thickness and structure in fiberglass body panels and aluminum bed floors if you are actually going to use the vehicle day to day around here you might find the weight savings pretty expensive for what you actually achieve. Some of the existing body panels really aren't that heavy. Now the doors are boat anchors and glass doors might be something for the menu. Replacing glass with plastic is a great weight saver too but once again not very practical or durable for day to day use. Swiss cheesing your truck or car if you are going to race it is fine but if you drive it every day it might not pass a body and frame integrity inspection. An aluminum rad support would be a weight saver and would not be real difficult fabricate. A good idea for weight saving from an engineering perspective is to go to a smaller displacement aluminum block engine and then make up for the size with a turbo and some technology. Don't forget about that battery. It can go to the back and you can get em lighter than the run of the mill batteries most of use today. Power assisted accessories add weight too. Old world performance cars had manual everything. If you are building a race truck then talk to an old racer. They know ways to shed pounds like no others! __________________ Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada

03-26-2003, 02:42 PM	#12
Ackattack Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Valley Center KS Posts: 3,524	I came to the conclusion that these trucks are just to heavy to make real fast, so I decided not to waste the time/money trying to make it real fast. I'm not only talking straight line fast either. That's why I bought an F-body... My truck is for cruising, looking cool; not racing __________________ Project Bruiser: 68 Pro-Touring C-10 5.3L / 4L60E Project Ironhide: 97 GMC Crew Cab 4x4 Cummins SOLD: '69 GMC 1/2T SWB TBI'd: Project No Buck Assembly Manual Index Sign up Thread!!! Factory Service Manual Index

03-26-2003, 04:36 PM	#15
lukecp Formerly yellow72custom Join Date: May 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 7,531	Actually, these trucks aren't that heavy. In my Resto Pack, it says a '72 LWB fleetside, with a SBC weighs a tad bit less than 3800 lbs. A SWB fleet with a SBC weighs in at around 3750 lbs. That is as much, if not less than an intermediate muscle car, like a Chevelle, and much less than an Impala or Monte Carlo. BTW, i would go with a fiberglass front clip and fiberglass doors. I wouldn't want to drive a fiberglass cab equipped truck unless it had a rollbar in it. I wouldn't trust that stuff to protect me in the event you roll the truck. Keep the bed steel for traction. Trucks have a hard enough time hooking up as it is. Hollow sway bars don't sound like a bad idea, but i bet they wouldn't be anywhere near as strong as a solid one, and therefore not work as well, unless they were made out of a very strong material. __________________ '72 Chevy C10 Mild 350/TH350/3.07. Ochre/White. Old high school ride. '70 GMC C2500 '62 327 4bbl/SM465/4.56-geared Dana 60. White/White. Project or parts truck. '97 Saturn SL DD. 1.9/5-speed. 40+ highway mpg

03-27-2003, 09:06 PM	#17
Jesse 67 c-10 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 599	All good points, ya, I looked at the US body site, That one peice tilt front end would be very cool! no seams, just slide forward and tip em up for complete access. would definatly take some weight off the front. There's lots of weight to be lost in the back of the truck, heavy bumpers, bed parts etc, so moving essential accesories, like gas tank, battery, and movin the motor back a few inches would help the weight distribution. ya glass cab would be kinda scary without a roll bar. I bet a step side bed could be made pretty light, its all single wall stuff and such though. might look into a hollow sway bar though, I got some ideas kickin around As for just adding a bigger motor to go faster, ya that would be sweet! and fun, but it would cost me $10,000 cnd, I'd get 5mpg and my truck would handle worse. I could probably build my own tube frame for a lot less. Technology definatly isn't waiting around for us, and we should all realize that if we want our trucks to be practical in todays world, ya got to join em, cause we can't beat em! just my 3 cents. Jesse __________________ Edmonton, Alberta, 67 c-10, Long fleet, front disks, 5 lug rear end, 327 with Vortechs, edlbrock manifold, comp cams XE 256, 600cfm carb. Backed by a getrag 5 speed and 1 piece driveshaft. 1993 Dihatsu Hijet Jumbo cab 4x4, currently converting to battery electric power.

03-27-2003, 09:33 PM	#18
Class of 69 Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Stillwater MN Posts: 1,166	XXL The LS5 was factory rated at 390 hp. The only thing left of original parts was the castings, and crank. It had 11.5:1 compression ratio. The heads, which are oval port closed chamber, were cc'd, and the runners cleaned up, but not polished. Had a Comp Cams cam with 586 lift, and 304 duration. It wouldn't idle below 1200 rpm, oh and the cam was still hydraulic. Couldn't afford Rhodes lifters at the time, so it really loped! Edelbrock Tarantula intake. Remember those?? The carb sat on it at a 45% angle to the block to straighted the runners, with a 850 Holley dual feed, double pumper with 50cc accelerator pumps front and back. Headers had 2 1/8'' primery tubes ending ina 3 1/2 collector. 2 1/2 '' exhaust out the back. 528 dyno hp to be exact. The 13.07@117 mph was with the air cleaner on and exhaust hooked up. Ran 12.67@119 in full race trim with 26x9.50x14 wrinkle walls.. That's with corp. 12 bolt with 3.73 gears!. Hooked 4th about 150 ft from the lights. Top speed of 158mph. Police certified to 130(all the higher their speedo's went) as I was leaving them behind. Had a lot of fun with that car!!! __________________ 69 GMC K10 ..some restoration required....still..



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

03-28-2003, 12:07 AM	#19
68CST327 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: USA Posts: 443	I'm curious as to what other people's C20's weigh. Mine tips the scales at 4,790 lbs. and it seems like a bit much if you ask me. I wonder how much I'd lose by ditching the spare tire and heavy duty diamond plate step bumper. I'd like to keep mine pretty much stock, so I won't switch the 3/4 parts over to the 1/2 ton parts, but it'd be interesting to see how much weight could be saved on a 3/4 ton truck.

03-29-2003, 06:22 PM	#21
68CST327 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: USA Posts: 443	Wow, I just removed the spare tire (old Firestone on a split rim, bleh) and the heavy duty step bumper off the back of my truck, and man those two things probably weighed close to 300 pounds. I should have taken those off before I got my truck weighed for the DMV certification

03-29-2003, 07:19 PM	#22
crazy longhorn Fabricate till you "puke" Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ill Posts: 9,402	My 3/4 ton longhorn went on a diet. The truck tips the scales @ 4040, less driver. The body is still all steel, she is on 1/2 ton suspension,deleted heater steel tilt front(no inners), & less front bumper. The eng is set in the I6 position for weight transfer, & has alum heads & intake. the battery is moved to the rear. The seats are Jazz plastic buckets. The top is chopped 4"(minor weight savings), & no door glass(yet!) All in all, not too bad considering the stock longhorn tipped the scales in the 4800-5000lb range empty. As far as shaving rear weight,I would try to eliminate and/or move as much front weight back that you can.....the back is too lite! crazyL

03-29-2003, 08:08 PM	#23
68CST327 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: USA Posts: 443	Yep, it's a good idea to move what you can to the back. The only thing that's cool about removing rear weight is that it should be easier for my 3/4 ton axles to spin at the stop sign on my street Another thing I'm thinking would probably help is to make sure the truck has a level stance, or maybe having it slightly lower in the back than the front would help too; I think this would probably help to transfer weight to the rear. How much do the front inner fenders weigh? I might just have to go out and remove those now

03-29-2003, 08:17 PM	#24
crazy longhorn Fabricate till you "puke" Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ill Posts: 9,402	The inners probably dont weigh a bunch,(40-50 lbs?) but everybit helps....it sure makes a mess driving in the rain without them tho! As far as stance, (oldschool).......the stick shift cars liked a little nosedown attitude, due to chassis reaction(the nose comes up hard on a stick). The auto equipped cars do like a more level stance to help hook up.....crazyL

03-29-2003, 11:52 PM	#25
Jesse 67 c-10 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 599	ya inner fender dont weigh a whole lot. really though, if your mildly experienced with fiberglass you could use them to make a mold and then make your own glass inner fenders, repeats would be easy, you could sell a few pairs. That sounds pretty good crazy longhorn! Thanks like taking a spare big block and tranny out the back of your truck, about right? does anyone have any pics of our trucks with a one piece glass front end? I'm thinking it would look pretty sweet all seamless. I spose you would see a big increase in handling by reducing the unsprung weight, lighter wheels and susp components. I don't think theres much you can do for the rear though, other than a lighter rear end, but that wouldn't hold up. __________________ Edmonton, Alberta, 67 c-10, Long fleet, front disks, 5 lug rear end, 327 with Vortechs, edlbrock manifold, comp cams XE 256, 600cfm carb. Backed by a getrag 5 speed and 1 piece driveshaft. 1993 Dihatsu Hijet Jumbo cab 4x4, currently converting to battery electric power.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.