Laying frame on a 67

[1low1967]

I havent gotten mine aligned yet, so it is off A LOT. i dont even have any shims in but after i get that done it should be a lot better. All the measurements I took before and after the z came out the same. I know that S-10s do the same when you drop em. A good friend of mine is going to do a laser alignment on it hopefully this week and then I'll have a better idea of how much it moves back layed out. thanks for pointing it out though

[XXL]

Originally Posted by 1low1967

I havent gotten mine aligned yet, so it is off A LOT. i dont even have any shims in but after i get that done it should be a lot better. All the measurements I took before and after the z came out the same. I know that S-10s do the same when you drop em. A good friend of mine is going to do a laser alignment on it hopefully this week and then I'll have a better idea of how much it moves back layed out. thanks for pointing it out though

That's not an alignment issue. Because the KPI (as it should be) is angled back, as you raise the suspension through its arc travel, it will necessarily shift the wheel centerline backward. This is a function of what we're doing when we lower the trucks. The solution is to move that centerline forward (after which, if you raised the truck up again, you'd see the wheel centerline too far forward in the wheel opening). One way to do this is to move the xmember forward, but that becomes problematic due to radiator clearance issues. So, my question is... what have others done? Maybe during the Z'ing process, shifting the cut forward a little? I know that slammed67 changed the location of the lower ball joint. While this does move the wheel centerline forward, unless you do the same to the upper, you increase the KPI, which can lead to pretty heavy understeer (and a "slotcar" feel).

[1low1967]

I see whatyou mean. What if you would roll the crossmember forward a few degree, keeping it in the same place front to back but rolling it forward, that would decrease the kpi a little, If im thinking correctly. I dont know what that would do to the steering geometry, or ride quilty but it might be an option. IF it would work. I neverr really thought about it that much before but now you have me thinking. I guess a mustang II front suspension is always an option but I know I dont want to drop the money If I can think about long enough and make something work and work well. Well if you come up with something let me know as will I

L8r

[fastbagged68]

You do not want to roll the crossmember. The arms are set up on an angle for anti-dive. I moved my crossmember up. But I have a 63 so mine is not as noticeable as 67-72.

[omar69chevy]

is there anyway that you could make me some of the notches that extend to clear the stock trailing arms(DroppedChoppedPanel
BADPANL) i would pay if the price is right i like that setup let me know

[jdb368]

Hello,
i have a 68 pick up and am planing on laying frame. the truck currently has factory A/C does any one know it the tire (29 inches tall) will hit the A/C box or if it will work?

[lolife99]

XXL,... The easiest way I can figure out,... is to make your "Z" cuts on a 45 degree angle. That way when you raise the crossmember frame section up,... it will also move forward. (ie 1.5" up = 1.5" forward) If you need to go up MORE than you go FORWARD,... that will require a different angle.

[FRENCHBLUE72]

Holy old thread batman..

[63 & 64 Bowties]

Originally Posted by FRENCHBLUE72

Holy old thread batman..

pretty good one, although these guys are probably in the retirement home by now.