Any reason not to... - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

Spray-Bomb · 04-19-2007, 12:24 AM

Run RE-6's up front ?

**special-K** · 04-19-2007, 07:49 AM

Wussat?

Orange · 04-19-2007, 08:07 AM

Yea, RE who?

DLB

Spray-Bomb · 04-19-2007, 10:13 AM

I knew I shoulda posted this in the suspension forum

Orange · 04-19-2007, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spray-Bomb

I knew I shoulda posted this in the suspension forum

That was my first thought...but hey, thanks for enlightening the rest of us.

DLB

Joe67 · 04-19-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spray-Bomb

I knew I shoulda posted this in the suspension forum

Done

DUD2STUD · 04-19-2007, 11:20 AM

In my opinon the RE6 are a little light for your truck I would not run any thing lower than an RE7

jimmydean · 04-19-2007, 02:03 PM

Run the RE7. You need the weight and the added lift is nice too. They both lower the same.

thekid54 · 04-19-2007, 03:57 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there only a difference of 100 lbs. between the RE-6 and the RE-7 as far as weight capacity goes? If you're using a stock shock setup up front, you won't be able to use the extra lift capacity of the RE-7, at least I can't. I have RE-6s up front and my shock tops out before the bag reaches max height. The cool thing about the RE-6 is that it's smaller in diameter (obviously), and I didn't have to use cups. I just made a flat circular plate that sits in the lower coil pocket, no clearance issues what so ever.

XXL · 04-19-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spray-Bomb

Run RE-6's up front ?

What's the basis of your question? As in... why are you asking? Got some RE-6's cheap? or???

Spray-Bomb · 04-19-2007, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekid54

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there only a difference of 100 lbs. between the RE-6 and the RE-7 as far as weight capacity goes? If you're using a stock shock setup up front, you won't be able to use the extra lift capacity of the RE-7, at least I can't. I have RE-6s up front and my shock tops out before the bag reaches max height. The cool thing about the RE-6 is that it's smaller in diameter (obviously), and I didn't have to use cups. I just made a flat circular plate that sits in the lower coil pocket, no clearance issues what so ever.

RE-6
Diameter: 6"
Min height: 3"
Max height: 10"
Max PSI: 180

RE-7
Diameter: 7"
Min height: 3"
Max height: 11"
Max PSI: 180

RE-8
Diameter: 7.75"
Min height: 3"
Max height: 11"
Max PSI: 180

RE-6 Replaces a firestone 255c or contitech 2500# bag. (Front)
RE-7 Replaces a firestone 224c or contitech 2600# bag. (Rear)
RE-8 Replaces a firestone 2800# bag. (Rear duallys)

Yeah, only 100 lbs & one inch smaller tall & wide

Quote:

Originally Posted by XXL

What's the basis of your question? As in... why are you asking? Got some RE-6's cheap? or???

No, I just need to know what I'm gonna order
I just thought that if I could do like thekid54 And not use cups & just make a flat circular plate that sits in the lower coil pocket, that It'd solve part of the "nose bleed" problem (front sitting higher than rear)

Thanks Joe67, you

Spray-Bomb · 04-19-2007, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thekid54

I didn't use cups. I just made a flat circular plate that sits in the lower coil pocket, no clearance issues what so ever.

Can I get some pics of this, I like this idea
If anyone has pics of the upper being reverse cupped, that'd be great too

I just wanna get as low as I can, without spending much money & I can't afford lower arms or drop spindles (plus I see no reason I can't get as low as I want, by just running no cup on the bottom & if I have to cup the top)

camaro__thunder · 04-20-2007, 03:12 AM

CHECK THESE OUT

jlaird · 04-20-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camaro__thunder

CHECK THESE OUT

Thats what I am in the middle of doing! Slightly different though.

bedsled71 · 04-20-2007, 12:37 PM

my arms use to be like that but i decided to drag them off. now i have stock arms with 1 inch cups.. i ran the re-7s and then switched to the 6.. i ended up having to run more pressure to get less height.. it says its an inch shorter but i think it was alittle more in my case.. either way i still have plenty if height to get over stuff

Spray-Bomb · 04-20-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camaro__thunder

CHECK THESE OUT

I'm love'n those

Do you think that they'd hold water ?

04-19-2007, 12:24 AM	#1
Spray-Bomb Texas Big Wig Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mineola, Texas Posts: 5,620	Any reason not to... Run RE-6's up front ? __________________ Just not low enough... ----------------------------- Sinister Killer

04-19-2007, 07:49 AM	#2
special-K Special Order Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Mt Airy, MD Posts: 85,851	Re: Any reason not to... Wussat? __________________ "BUILDING A BETTER WAY TO SERVE THE USA"......67/72......"The New Breed" GMC '67 C1500 Wideside Super Custom SWB: 327/M22/3.42 posi.........."The '67" (project) GMC '72 K2500 Wideside Sierra Custom Camper: 350/TH350/4.10 Power-Lok..."The '72" (rolling) Tim "Don't call me a redneck. I'm a rough cut country gentleman" R.I.P. ~ East Side Low Life ~ El Jay ~ 72BLUZ ~ Fasteddie69 ~ Ron586 ~ 67ChevyRedneck ~ Grumpy Old Man ~

04-19-2007, 08:07 AM	#3
Orange Licensed to Thrill! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northwest, GA Posts: 1,673	Re: Any reason not to... Yea, RE who? DLB __________________ 1971 GMC.Lowered. Overdrive. Orange. Krue's excellent FAQ Index.

04-19-2007, 10:13 AM	#4
Spray-Bomb Texas Big Wig Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Mineola, Texas Posts: 5,620	Re: Any reason not to... I knew I shoulda posted this in the suspension forum __________________ Just not low enough... ----------------------------- Sinister Killer

04-19-2007, 11:20 AM	#7
DUD2STUD Registered User Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Rohnert park, CA Posts: 139	Re: Any reason not to... In my opinon the RE6 are a little light for your truck I would not run any thing lower than an RE7

04-19-2007, 02:03 PM	#8
jimmydean Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Beaverton, OR Posts: 3,728	Re: Any reason not to... Run the RE7. You need the weight and the added lift is nice too. They both lower the same. __________________ New Project: 1966 LWB C20 Plans: 1/2 ton conversion Dropmember front Dropmember rear Corvette discs Restored raised bed http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s....php?p=4295210

04-19-2007, 03:57 PM	#9
thekid54 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: LA, CA Posts: 296	Re: Any reason not to... Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there only a difference of 100 lbs. between the RE-6 and the RE-7 as far as weight capacity goes? If you're using a stock shock setup up front, you won't be able to use the extra lift capacity of the RE-7, at least I can't. I have RE-6s up front and my shock tops out before the bag reaches max height. The cool thing about the RE-6 is that it's smaller in diameter (obviously), and I didn't have to use cups. I just made a flat circular plate that sits in the lower coil pocket, no clearance issues what so ever.

04-20-2007, 03:12 AM	#13
camaro__thunder Epoxy Primer Friendly Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: South of Houston TEXXXAS Posts: 680	Re: Any reason not to... CHECK THESE OUT __________________ My Project 69 SWB SHAVED BAGGED DOORED Last edited by camaro__thunder; 04-20-2007 at 03:13 AM.

04-20-2007, 12:37 PM	#15
bedsled71 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: yuma arizona Posts: 448	Re: Any reason not to... my arms use to be like that but i decided to drag them off. now i have stock arms with 1 inch cups.. i ran the re-7s and then switched to the 6.. i ended up having to run more pressure to get less height.. it says its an inch shorter but i think it was alittle more in my case.. either way i still have plenty if height to get over stuff



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.