Make it handle

[michaelnolimit]

Greywolf, I just got off the phone with Helwig, we have been working on new C-10 rear bars. I should have final prototypes in about 2 weeks, then production bars in another 3 weeks. This is a tubular 5140 bar, with adjustable links and tunable mount points. They mount over the top of the chassis, so the bad news is you have to lift the bed about 3" to get the bar inplace. The link assy allows the bar to be used with stock - to - 8" drops. If we made them in solid, the kits would retail for about 190, in tubular form the cost is going to push retail up to the 225 mark. We think the quality of the bar, finish and performance is well worth it. We are testing on our JT and a few others. I put up some picts as soon as we have a final.

[dirtball]

Originally Posted by michaelnolimit

Greywolf, I just got off the phone with Helwig, we have been working on new C-10 rear bars. I should have final prototypes in about 2 weeks, then production bars in another 3 weeks. This is a tubular 5140 bar, with adjustable links and tunable mount points. They mount over the top of the chassis, so the bad news is you have to lift the bed about 3" to get the bar inplace. The link assy allows the bar to be used with stock - to - 8" drops. If we made them in solid, the kits would retail for about 190, in tubular form the cost is going to push retail up to the 225 mark. We think the quality of the bar, finish and performance is well worth it. We are testing on our JT and a few others. I put up some picts as soon as we have a final.

You have my attention!

[robnolimit]

Some basic info about sway bars. The vehicle suspension all works together, and there are many parts and considerations. No one component is isolated from all others, so each component is effected by the others. Sway bars, or - "anti roll" bars are no exception. The basic job of the sway bar is to reduce vehicle side roll, by increasing the "ROLL STIFFNES". The basic parts involved in the suspensions roll stiffness are the springs, sway bar, lower A-arm ratio, and track width. Changing any of these things will effect the others, and the roll stiffnes. Each can also have a negative effect on other ride considerations. Here are some examples. While increasing roll stiffness, these negatives may/will result. Stiffer springs = harsh ride, less weight transfer. Longer A-arm ratio = harsh ride, less travel. Stiffer sway bar = twitchy ride, may start to 'push' more. Wheels offset to increase track = increased scrub radius, harder to steer. The perfect setup is again a combination of these, with the minimun of negatives. I'm working on a sway comparison chart for you guys to look at. Give this some thought.

[robnolimit]

New...1963-72 Chevy Pickup Rear Shock Kit
NO LIMIT ENGINEERING
New Rear Shock Kit to fit 1963-72 Chevy Pickups!! - I'm feelin pretty good about this. After dropping another 2" in back, we ran into the same trouble as everyone else. The shock issues. After researching the other kits, and solutions, and thinking about it, we came up with a plan. Here are some of the problems we noted. 1. No room for a longer shock, even with reworked or 'dropped' mounts. 2. shock angle gets worse, the lower you go. 3. If we go another 2" (8 total) we're screwed again. 4. the exhaust is a nightmare. 5. the inboard shock design doesn't handle that great. With this in mind, we set out for a fix. This is the whole idea behind the JT, to come up with tested components that WORK, and will HELP get more trucks on the road to be enjoyed.

[afmdmc]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

New...1963-72 Chevy Pickup Rear Shock Kit
NO LIMIT ENGINEERING
New Rear Shock Kit to fit 1963-72 Chevy Pickups!! - I'm feelin pretty good about this. After dropping another 2" in back, we ran into the same trouble as everyone else. The shock issues. After researching the other kits, and solutions, and thinking about it, we came up with a plan. Here are some of the problems we noted. 1. No room for a longer shock, even with reworked or 'dropped' mounts. 2. shock angle gets worse, the lower you go. 3. If we go another 2" (8 total) we're screwed again. 4. the exhaust is a nightmare. 5. the inboard shock design doesn't handle that great. With this in mind, we set out for a fix. This is the whole idea behind the JT, to come up with tested components that WORK, and will HELP get more trucks on the road to be enjoyed.

ok so i really like the looks of this setup. i went to your website and couldn't find them. do i just need to call or can you give us the part #. also the panard bar in your JT build is pretty cool also. and thanks for all the info.

[robnolimit]

We are also using this forum, and site to set the record straight. I am sure we will be copied. Now there is lasting, dated proof, and those who 'knock-off' will be called out. This kit will come with 2 different length shocks. A 10" stroke shock for the stock to 4" drop guys, and a 8" stroke shock for the 6" to 10" drops. Once the stock shocks and mounts are gone, the new lower mounts are a direct replacement.

[robnolimit]

The new upper mounts locate to the frame with a factory 5/8" hole. We provede a big bolt to hold and align the new mount. You have to drill the two 3/8" holes.

[robnolimit]

Then your all but done. Just bolt on the shocks and mount studs, all included.

[robnolimit]

After some drive time, I am happy to report that the difference is clear. Body roll is reduced, and the ride is very smooth. The outboard location is a benefit in many ways. With a good quality monotube shock, these kits wil run about $185.00 I think thats a good deal for the gains. Just remember, You saw it here FIRST.

[PBFAB.COM]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

After some drive time, I am happy to report that the difference is clear. Body roll is reduced, and the ride is very smooth. The outboard location is a benefit in many ways. With a good quality monotube shock, these kits wil run about $185.00 I think thats a good deal for the gains. Just remember, You saw it here FIRST.

Looks great Rob! Good price for a good product!
Posted via Mobile Device

[robnolimit]

Thanks Nate, I think this will be a nice upgrade for the guys that are working with mostly stock, or lightly (bolt-in C) modified frames.

[basemodel67]

Hey Rob - any chance the new shock mounts could hold up if used with a coilover? That would be awesome if they would!

Speaking of coilovers... could they be mounted midway up the rear control arm and still be effective? I'm thinking of like how trophy truck coilovers are placed closer to the pivot end of the control arm than the axle end. Sorry if that is the most confusing description of what I'm thinking. Thanks for any input!

[52 choptop]

Rob, Great advice. I moved the upper shock mounts outward as far as I could with still staying inside the leaf spring. They were about 6" apart, now with the new mounts welded in they are a good 3' apart. Threw in some Monroe coil overs a buddy had still new in the box to try it out. What a huge difference. So no I'm ready to order some from you (the Monroes were the test shocks). What info do you need? Let me know, and thanks again.

[robnolimit]

Ha, Good question. We used to make a coil-over kit that was similar to this (thats where some of the inspiration came from), but due to low sales we dropped it. The only difficulty with mounting on the forward side, to gain leverage, is that there is no room to put the dang thing. Our thinking here is that a lot of trucks already have dropped springs and/or blocks, and they just need some help to make them ride and handle better.

[N2TRUX]

Great product Rob!

I have heard of running "hot laps" to test a suspension, but isn't this bit excessive...

[robnolimit]

Lets talk about CASTER. Caster helps your truck turn, and stay straight. It's sort of like "rake" on your bike. This "rake" is the line through the center of the upper and lower ball joints, as viewed from the side. "0" caster would have the upper and lower ball joints directly level - up and down. If the upper ball joint is in 'front' of the lower, this would be "negative" caster, and we don't want that. As the upper ball joint is moved 'back' from the lower, that creates "positive" caster. - that's a good thing. Now, for '59 and older trucks, this means you need to look at the IFS kits your using/thinking about. Those who are still making IFS kits with 1* or 2* of + caster are stuck in 1979, and that 15" is a big wheel, - and a 60 series is a wide tire. So, ask them before you buy. If you already have one, and it tends to "nose in" to a hard corner, your best bet is a custom upper A-arm to move the upper ball joint back. If your interested in this type mod, let me know, and I'll put up some info. For '63-'87 trucks, if your working with the stock stuff, it may be a bit of a different choice. These trucks already have the wheel too far back in the opening. So, moving the upper ball joint back wil make things worse. I know that Porter's Dropmember & arms address this, as do Ride-Tech, and Hotchkiss. But all of the others that I have tested seem to be on the stock geometry plan. (Before you *****, if I didn't mention your parts, and you think they are better than others, contact me with the info) Noting the wheel placement issue, the answer seems to be to move the lower ball joint forward - appx 1 1/4" would be nice. So, aftermarket A-arms, or modify stockers.I'm going to modify a set of lower arms for our '72 JT next week. I'll put up some picts and show you what I've done.

[dirtball]

So......did you make it out to test the JT last night with the new rear shock kit?

[Conundrum]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

Noting the wheel placement issue, the answer seems to be to move the lower ball joint forward - appx 1 1/4" would be nice.

So how far will this move the wheel? 1/2 the amount that you move the balljoint? I would imagine it would be dependent on which spindles you use correct? Whether you are using stock, 2", 2 1/2", or 3" drop spindles, that will change that amount although a very small amount maybe?

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by Conundrum

So how far will this move the wheel? 1/2 the amount that you move the balljoint? I would imagine it would be dependent on which spindles you use correct? Whether you are using stock, 2", 2 1/2", or 3" drop spindles, that will change that amount although a very small amount maybe?

Right on all accounts. With a 2.5-3" drop spindle, you should expect in the neighborhood of half since the spindle stub is closer to centered between the balljoints. Stock height would be slightly more since the movement would be closer to the wide end of the imaginary triangle drawn by the balljoint positioning.

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

...the answer seems to be to move the lower ball joint forward - appx 1 1/4"...I'm going to modify a set of lower arms for our '72 JT next week.

Is this where the custom steering linkage and heim joints become a necessity? Or do you anticipate being able to gain some caster while utilizing stock steering components?

[robnolimit]

With stock steering, the inner TRE pivit is too high. Computor analisys shows it should move down about 5/8" to help eliminate bump steer. We usually focus on the inner TRE, because moving the outer TRE means modified spindles. - (or rod-end type and other mods)As luck would have it, "tipping" the spindle to gain + caster will also raise the outer TRE, so this could easily turn out to be a 'win-win' mod.

As far as wheel position, with a dropped spindle, the wheel will move about 1/2 the distance of the LBJ. So if we move the LBJ forward 1 1/4", the wheel will move about 5/8". Yes, different drop or stock spindles will move a different amount. The more the drop, the less the wheel will move.

[gringoloco]

Is the 5/8" at stock height, or with lowered springs? Or do lowering springs even affect this measurement? Any worrries of binding the TREs with the spindle tilted? What mods do you anticipate having to make to the LCA?

Thanks for the info, sounds like a cool idea.

[Conundrum]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

With stock steering, the inner TRE pivit is too high. Computor analisys shows it should move down about 5/8" to help eliminate bump steer. We usually focus on the inner TRE, because moving the outer TRE means modified spindles. - (or rod-end type and other mods)As luck would have it, "tipping" the spindle to gain + caster will also raise the outer TRE, so this could easily turn out to be a 'win-win' mod.

So I guess if you cut 1 1/2" out of the crossmember, it will put you back to needing a custom center link? If it turns out that "tipping" the spindle helps with the TRE.

[68 TT]

Originally Posted by robnolimit

With stock steering, the inner TRE pivit is too high. Computor analisys shows it should move down about 5/8" to help eliminate bump steer. We usually focus on the inner TRE, because moving the outer TRE means modified spindles. - (or rod-end type and other mods)As luck would have it, "tipping" the spindle to gain + caster will also raise the outer TRE, so this could easily turn out to be a 'win-win' mod.

As far as wheel position, with a dropped spindle, the wheel will move about 1/2 the distance of the LBJ. So if we move the LBJ forward 1 1/4", the wheel will move about 5/8". Yes, different drop or stock spindles will move a different amount. The more the drop, the less the wheel will move.

Have you looked at using the early 90's C2500 light duty spindles? These came with 6-lug rotors but the 5-lug rotors of the same vintage will fit them as well so they can work for all of us.

They are about 9-5/8" tall so they would be about 1-3/4" taller than the stock spindles. They can be bolted on with the use of C20 lower A-arms once fit with the ball joints to match the spindles and the matching upper ball joints will bolt into the stock upper A-arm.

I have them on my 69 stepside but have quite a bit of work left to do before it is on the road so I don't know how it is going to work out alignment wise.

There are other board members who have done the swap too but I don't know of any that have the truck on the road with them yet.

It might be something to look into even if it might require moving the TRE attachment point a bit.

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by 68 TT

Have you looked at using the early 90's C2500 light duty spindles? These came with 6-lug rotors but the 5-lug rotors of the same vintage will fit them as well so they can work for all of us.

They are about 9-5/8" tall so they would be about 1-3/4" taller than the stock spindles. They can be bolted on with the use of C20 lower A-arms once fit with the ball joints to match the spindles and the matching upper ball joints will bolt into the stock upper A-arm.

I have them on my 69 stepside but have quite a bit of work left to do before it is on the road so I don't know how it is going to work out alignment wise.

There are other board members who have done the swap too but I don't know of any that have the truck on the road with them yet.

It might be something to look into even if it might require moving the TRE attachment point a bit.

Don't they net a bit of drop, too, due to spindle 'nub' location? There are drop castings available as well. It would be cool to use thesse in conjunction with the R&P kit with stock style TREs, for those that are leary of rod-ends. The downside I see to them, if the geometry is good, is the lack of brake upgrades available for the 88-98 trucks...