Make it handle

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by nikwho

To approach a different way; Rob, do you think that I should start buy purchasing this kit:
No Limit Engineering FatBar kit
https://nolimit.net/products#!/Fatba...tegory=6157546

I looked at your 3 link kit, but feel like there is no way that my large diameter aluminum driveshaft would fit that crossmember.

Also looking at these parts:

X-Member Kit
http://nolimit.net/products#!/X-Memb...tegory=6157546

No Limit Rear Sway Bar
http://nolimit.net/products#!/Rear-S...tegory=6157546

Your Fatbar kit, X-Member kit and rear sway bar kit would account for roughly $2045 of my $3,000 budget. If these three pieces would be a good fit for my application, what front (1979 Camaro) sway bar would you reccomend? What else would you invest in to improve the handling? I'm pretty well stuck (welded) with the Camaro sub-frame. What front springs are best suited for use in this truck? Or do you reccomend coilovers?

If I order your Fatbar kit, do you suggest going with the RideTech or Viking coilover shocks?

In addition to your parts listed above, if that is what you reccomend, I was thinking that I would purchase these, to finish up this stage of my suspension, then allow my bank account to recuperate for a bit. ��

Ridetech dual rate springs: (long ago I cut a coil off of each of my Eibach springs, and now the truck sits too low. Looks good, but suspension not in the "sweet spot"! And, in my 340 mile trip to Phoenix area and back, my truck crossmember bottomed out on the freeway 5 times! 🤯 Makes a little racket, but definitely got some attention when it shot sparks everywhere after dark. I don't want to start a fire, damage roads, or get hurt, so I need to correct my ride height!

https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...-springs-pair/


RideTech MuscleBar for '79 Camaro:
https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...e-shocks-each/

That would pretty well spend $3,000! But seems like a bunch of high quality, well matching pieces, that would compliment one another. Thoughts?


Again, thank you for any and all guidance and knowledge that you are willing to share! I would like to thank you by purchasing any parts that I need/can afford from you!

I'll add a couple of pictures. The old '59 is ugly, but sure a riot to drive!

Nik

Nice build. You might reach out to Rob/NLE directly for a faster response. While he does respond here, it sometimes takes a minute. The direct approach might help get the info quicker.

[nikwho]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Nice build. You might reach out to Rob/NLE directly for a faster response. While he does respond here, it sometimes takes a minute. The direct approach might help get the info quicker.

Thanks! Ill give it a few days, then give him a call.

Nik

[Dagobah]

Hey Rob, I just wanted to get your advice on my 69 swb pickup. I've read through quite a bit of this thread, but most of it is oriented towards track and autocross.

Is there a setup you recommend for a daily driver? I'm thinking the most demanding scenario my truck is ever going to see are mountain roads.

I'm looking for a reasonable drop, 3 and 5, give or take without notching the frame. Less drop is ok if that's the way it needs to be. Thanks for yours and really anyone else's input. My brother and I have been looking at Hotchkis, CPP, QA1 and Performance Online.

[UncleMatt]

Wow what a fantastic read! Thanks so much for the wealth of knowledge shared!!

My question regards frame boxing & bracing with a current daily driver (not a bare frame). Is it okay to do the welding on a twin post lift? (wheels drooped) Do we need to be concerned about frame flex from it hanging?

Thanks!

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by UncleMatt

Wow what a fantastic read! Thanks so much for the wealth of knowledge shared!!

My question regards frame boxing & bracing with a current daily driver (not a bare frame). Is it okay to do the welding on a twin post lift? (wheels drooped) Do we need to be concerned about frame flex from it hanging?

Thanks!

I would not weld on or box the frame w/it suspended in air from a twin post lift. The frame needs to be properly supported @ all areas along it's length to alleviate stress/distortion before making modifications. I would only consider it if that can be accomplished.

[UncleMatt]

Hi Rob,

Can you give us guys without access to a track some real world street tests we can use to track our progress? As we make changes it would be great to have some benchmark tests we can do on the street or in a parking lot to compare the results. I plan to do many of your suggested changes to my ‘69 short bed but want to take your advise and do 1 at a time. And test the results each with each step.

Thanks!!
Posted via Mobile Device

[67_ShortFleet]

Is there an advantage of having a steel floor in the bed verses a wood floor as far a rigidity of the rear of the truck?

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by 67_ShortFleet

Is there an advantage of having a steel floor in the bed verses a wood floor as far a rigidity of the rear of the truck?

Having had one of each, I would say yes as far as w/stock trucks. The solid steel floor definitely helps solidify the bed area.

For my 64 that's under construction, I'm gusseting & triangulating the bed supports w/each other so that the mounting structure/s firm up the bed assembly like a steel floor would w/the wood merely being on top for visual purposes.

[cjohnson6772]

If someone was considering having a new spindle manufactured, what design improvements should be considered? What would be ideal?

Here is what I'm thinking so far:

-Weight optimized
-Bolt on sealed bearing hub from a late model Durango
-Bolt on steering arm to allow for tuning Ackerman and bumpsteer
-Taller for better camber gain
-2.5" or 3" built in drop

What loads would be reasonable to consider for purposes of FEA? Would there be any foreseen issues with billet aluminum instead of a forging?

[SCOTI]

-Bolt on sealed bearing hub from a late model Durango

How durable is the Durango hub? Has it been used in actual high load/stress apps (racing)? There's a reason the Vette hubs are commonly used.

-Bolt on steering arm to allow for tuning Ackerman and bumpsteer

This is a good idea. Bolt-on steering arms allow for tuning but will be harder for initial market introduction. Might have to start w/one & then other options w/increased adjustability @ a later date (unless several options can be built/tested prior to public release).

-Taller for better camber gain

C10 spindles are one of the tallest GM iron spindles for their time. How do they compare to modern spindles? With a taller spindle, would real estate become a limiting factor? Would a more current spindle/joint arrangement work better (BJ attached under the upper pad vs on top; basically similar impact of the Gulstrand mod)?

-2.5" or 3" built in drop

The more spindle drop, the greater the interference issues. Built in drop needs to be balanced w/possible issues.

Would there be any foreseen issues with billet aluminum instead of a forging?

Isn't forging done for increasing strength from an aluminum material life-span aspect (aluminum has a reduced lifespan vs steel)?

Just initial thoughts. I'm sure there's more....

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

How durable is the Durango hub? Has it been used in actual high load/stress apps (racing)? There's a reason the Vette hubs are commonly used.


This is a good idea. Bolt-on steering arms allow for tuning but will be harder for initial market introduction. Might have to start w/one & then other options w/increased adjustability @ a later date (unless several options can be built/tested prior to public release).


C10 spindles are one of the tallest GM iron spindles for their time. How do they compare to modern spindles? With a taller spindle, would real estate become a limiting factor? Would a more current spindle/joint arrangement work better (BJ attached under the upper pad vs on top; basically similar impact of the Gulstrand mod)?


The more spindle drop, the greater the interference issues. Built in drop needs to be balanced w/possible issues.


Isn't forging done for increasing strength from an aluminum material life-span aspect (aluminum has a reduced lifespan vs steel)?

Just initial thoughts. I'm sure there's more....

Thanks for the reply SCOTI. I was hoping that you might weigh in since it seems like you have been into the C10 handling scene for a long time and have a lot of good experience.

My thinking is that the Durango is a considerably heavier vehicle with a 5x5 bolt pattern by default. Could easily sub in Jeep Wrangler hubs which would have the same BP, be very common place, and have certainly been proven to withstand abuse. While the Vette is good for racing a 3300 lb car, I'm not sure it is the best for a 4,000 lb C10 and it requires custom bolt pattern to be drilled.

My thinking on the steering arm is the same for sure.

I know that taller upper ball joints were discussed earlier in the threads with good results so I was after a similar after. While it is taller for 60s GM, these spindles are super short compared to a modern truck spindle. The modern ball joint arrangement may be a good option. I see so many new cars where the upper ball joint is basically on top of the tire!

I agree on the forging being a better option for long life. It just seems cost prohibitive unless large orders. Wondering out loud if a billet aluminum machined spindle could be designed for sufficient strength and life. I know DSE'S new upright is forged but not sure about Wilwood Pro Spindle.

My biggest complaint with aftermarket options currently available is lack of a spindle with bolt on arm for tuning and also lack of "off the shelf" bolt on sealed hub in 5x5 bolt pattern. There has to be a way to incorporate those features and I figured that I may as well improve other geometry at the same time if possible.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

Thanks for the reply SCOTI. I was hoping that you might weigh in since it seems like you have been into the C10 handling scene for a long time and have a lot of good experience.

My thinking is that the Durango is a considerably heavier vehicle with a 5x5 bolt pattern by default. Could easily sub in Jeep Wrangler hubs which would have the same BP, be very common place, and have certainly been proven to withstand abuse. While the Vette is good for racing a 3300 lb car, I'm not sure it is the best for a 4,000 lb C10 and it requires custom bolt pattern to be drilled.

True. There's a big difference between Vette vs truck weights; especially on the front hub. I know my research on comparable aftermarket high end spindles suggested there is a tug-o-war going on about the reliance of sealed bearings.

The spindles using the C5/6/7 sealed bearing set-ups recommend only using the top tier Zr1 parts because of short life span on alternative replacement parts. Those suckers are ~$400 a pop; pricy if you're replacing things more frequently. Thus the old stand-by wheel bearings w/their easy serviceability & 'common-folk' friendly purchase price are a value to those that have limited resources.

I see value in both. But, w/o having first-hand exposure on the lifespan of unit-bearings I'm @ a disadvantage of how 'worthy' they are in the scheme of things (return on investment).

I know that taller upper ball joints were discussed earlier in the threads with good results so I was after a similar after. While it is taller for 60s GM, these spindles are super short compared to a modern truck spindle. The modern ball joint arrangement may be a good option. I see so many new cars where the upper ball joint is basically on top of the tire!

I have tall upper BJ's on my C10's. I just know from my previously mentioned research that the disc brake style C10 spindles were taller than most for their era. From my notes:

67-72 A/F/X/& G body 'short' spindles ~7-7.5"
70-81 F/B-body & 73-87 C10 'tall' spindles ~9"
C4 Vette ~11"
ATS & Wilwood aftermarket spindle ~9"

*I can confirm the 73-87 C10, G-body, & C4 Vette spindle heights as I own them & actually measured for the research when trying to source something better for a g-body. The other numbers were from online look-up & could be suspect/incorrect.

I agree on the forging being a better option for long life. It just seems cost prohibitive unless large orders. Wondering out loud if a billet aluminum machined spindle could be designed for sufficient strength and life. I know DSE'S new upright is forged but not sure about Wilwood Pro Spindle.

This is true & apparently time consuming (I'm still waiting for ATS spindles paid for in June). The ATS spindle is forged & I believe the Wilwood is as well. But, even the forged versions have an expected lifespan (x-miles/x-years) before they SHOULD be replaced. It's a limitation most don't even think about for their steel spindles

My biggest complaint with aftermarket options currently available is lack of a spindle with bolt on arm for tuning and also lack of "off the shelf" bolt on sealed hub in 5x5 bolt pattern. There has to be a way to incorporate those features and I figured that I may as well improve other geometry at the same time if possible.

I confess I haven't really studied the Wilwood spindle because I'm a fan of being able to source the parts used from OE applications (Have a brake part issue in Podunk, TX. Pop into Oreillys/Auotzone/Advance Auto & ask for a Wilwood pad/caliper/master cyl/hose etc....). However, you can usually do the same for PBR & Brembo parts & they'll have something.

I'm 100% w/you on a spindle designed for optimum set-points of the geometry & tuning for the steering. I'm on the fence about the sealed hubs being 'better'. I assumed they were until reading about the alarming failure rate for typical store-bought replacement parts.

[Custom 68]

Scoti, you have probably said in the past but what tall ball joint did you use? Did you like that mod? It sounds fairly simple I thought I had looked in the past and didn't find an option for that swap but it has been so long I don't remember.

And to add to this I am running the CPP modular spindles and am almost certain at the time I went with the 71-72 spindles, I don't remember why but did.
Thanks,
Dave

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Scoti, you have probably said in the past but what tall ball joint did you use? Did you like that mod? It sounds fairly simple I thought I had looked in the past and didn't find an option for that swap but it has been so long I don't remember.

And to add to this I am running the CPP modular spindles and am almost certain at the time I went with the 71-72 spindles, I don't remember why but did.
Thanks,
Dave

I'm using the CPP 'modular' spindle on my current built ('64). I used the QA1 tall BJ for the upper.

[aggie91]

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Scoti, you have probably said in the past but what tall ball joint did you use? Did you like that mod? It sounds fairly simple I thought I had looked in the past and didn't find an option for that swap but it has been so long I don't remember.

And to add to this I am running the CPP modular spindles and am almost certain at the time I went with the 71-72 spindles, I don't remember why but did.
Thanks,
Dave

Just for FYI, the spindles are all the same when looking at the unfinished casting used. The only difference between the 71-72 and the 73-87 spindles are in the size and taper of the ball joint holes and the tie rod hole on the steering arm. So, I am guessing you bought the 71-72 spindles so that you did not have to changes ball joints and/or tie rod ends.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by aggie91

Just for FYI, the spindles are all the same when looking at the unfinished casting used. The only difference between the 71-72 and the 73-87 spindles are in the size and taper of the ball joint holes and the tie rod hole on the steering arm. So, I am guessing you bought the 71-72 spindles so that you did not have to changes ball joints and/or tie rod ends.

We are discussing this in PM's now so I wanted to put it here as well....

I recall the 71-72 vs 73-87 spindle differences were the TRE's. Drum brake spindles use different UBJ's/LBJ's vs disc brake spindles. I've always used the 73-87 platform when modding the front suspension so I have no knowledge of the 71-72 model specific parts. I swapped things to whatever the 73-87 spindles required (arms/steering/etc).

[Custom 68]

Thank you guys for the info, I had PM to Scotti as not to completely muddy this great thread. I had stuck with the 1972 spindles so it appears the tall ball joints referred to will work on the 73-87. The older spindles don't seem to have an option for those, that said I may have missed it somewhere but they don't seem to be around.
Thanks,
Dave

[aggie91]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

We are discussing this in PM's now so I wanted to put it here as well....

I recall the 71-72 vs 73-87 spindle differences were the TRE's. Drum brake spindles use different UBJ's/LBJ's vs disc brake spindles. I've always used the 73-87 platform when modding the front suspension so I have no knowledge of the 71-72 model specific parts. I swapped things to whatever the 73-87 spindles required (arms/steering/etc).

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Thank you guys for the info, I had PM to Scotti as not to completely muddy this great thread. I had stuck with the 1972 spindles so it appears the tall ball joints referred to will work on the 73-87. The older spindles don't seem to have an option for those, that said I may have missed it somewhere but they don't seem to be around.
Thanks,
Dave

It appears from my research that the LOWER ball joint is the same from 1971-1986 ('87 R10 also). But the UPPER ball joint is specific to the 71-72 and then a different one for the 73-87.


I would think that mounting the UPPER ball joint to the underside of the upper arm will give you a slight increase in ball joint height (it moves the pivot point of the ball about 1/2" to 5/8") vertically referenced to the plane of the arm. I my head, that tells me you would get some benefit similar to a taller ball joint...

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by aggie91

It appears from my research that the LOWER ball joint is the same from 1971-1986 ('87 R10 also). But the UPPER ball joint is specific to the 71-72 and then a different one for the 73-87.

Thanks. That makes sense. The upper BJ & the TRE's were the changes.

I would think that mounting the UPPER ball joint to the underside of the upper arm will give you a slight increase in ball joint height (it moves the pivot point of the ball about 1/2" to 5/8") vertically referenced to the plane of the arm. I my head, that tells me you would get some benefit similar to a taller ball joint...

I bolted the uppers under the a-arm before I knew 'tall' BJ's were available.

[Custom 68]

Originally Posted by aggie91

It appears from my research that the LOWER ball joint is the same from 1971-1986 ('87 R10 also). But the UPPER ball joint is specific to the 71-72 and then a different one for the 73-87.


I would think that mounting the UPPER ball joint to the underside of the upper arm will give you a slight increase in ball joint height (it moves the pivot point of the ball about 1/2" to 5/8") vertically referenced to the plane of the arm. I my head, that tells me you would get some benefit similar to a taller ball joint...

Karl and Scotti that's a heck of an idea on mounting the upper ball joints. I agree that should simulate the taller ball joint to a degree.
Thanks for the great suggestion.
Dave

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Custom 68

Karl and Scotti that's a heck of an idea on mounting the upper ball joints. I agree that should simulate the taller ball joint to a degree.
Thanks for the great suggestion.
Dave

I made a trim/backing plate for the top side of the a-arm as well.

[cab4word67]

Ok I have a question, my truck has a 5.5/7 ride hight with springs and spindles in ft and leafs and a flip kit in the rr. I am running .5degs camber and 4.5 degs caster with cpp upper control arms and leafs in the rear. I have 255/35 20s in ft and 275/40 20s in the rear. It will go around 50 mph corners at 70 with no roll and no slip. Am I doing somthing wrong here?

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by cab4word67

Ok I have a question, my truck has a 5.5/7 ride hight with springs and spindles in ft and leafs and a flip kit in the rr. I am running .5degs camber and 4.5 degs caster with cpp upper control arms and leafs in the rear. I have 255/35 20s in ft and 275/40 20s in the rear. It will go around 50 mph corners at 70 with no roll and no slip. Am I doing somthing wrong here?

Other than exceeding the speed limit? Sounds like your combo works for you.

[Rob Fisher]

I have a 1964 GMC with Porter Built Air ride suspension front and rear.
I recently swapped out the generic mustang 2 front power steeering rack for a Detroit Speed rack. I was having some steering issues which I thought where related to the rack, it turns out that it must be power steering pump as the problems still persists after changing racks. The issue I am having is that the steering is very knotchy, easy, hard, easy, hard as you turn the wheel left to right or vice versa.
I did take out the washers I put in to reduce pressure for the Mustang rack that runs at 1100 psi to 1300 psi that the Detroit Speed rack requires.
I think it is the Saginaw pump which I am unsure of it’s condition.
The question I have is do I fix or replace the Saginaw pump or do I take this opportunity to switch to a type 2 pump.
Your thoughts please
Thanks
Rob Fisher

[SCOTI]

I would switch to the Type=2 set-up if making changes.