layin frame?

[64shortc10]

Ok how low can you go? Can someone show me how low on stock trailing arms, Kp notch, and a lowering block, and bags(stock location or not)Will it lay frame on 20's? Someone show me their truck on this combo! What would it take to lay on trailing arms? Thanks Later

Tony from Norcal

[PrerunnerRob]

Originally Posted by 64shortc10

Ok how low can you go? Can someone show me how low on stock trailing arms, Kp notch, and a lowering block, and bags(stock location or not)Will it lay frame on 20's? Someone show me their truck on this combo! What would it take to lay on trailing arms? Thanks Later

Tony from Norcal

You are talking about the stock rear trailing arms right?

[64shortc10]

Yes Prerunnerrob the rear trailing arms! I guess I should have made that part clear, sorry. I wanted to see pics of trucks bagged, blocked, Kp notched, modified or purchased trailing arm crossmember, on 20's to see if the are layin frame or how close to layin frame they are. Thanks for the help! Later

Tony from Norcal

[PrerunnerRob]

Originally Posted by 64shortc10

Yes Prerunnerrob the rear trailing arms! I guess I should have made that part clear, sorry. I wanted to see pics of trucks bagged, blocked, Kp notched, modified or purchased trailing arm crossmember, on 20's to see if the are layin frame or how close to layin frame they are. Thanks for the help! Later

Tony from Norcal

I hate to break the news to you, but a KP notch is only half of the problem you are dealing with. I bought my truck thinking I could just weld in a notch make some bag mounts and call it done. The problem is the rear trailing arms come into contact with the frame before the rest of the truck can lay out. I'm running a 235/75/15 tire, which is 28.9" tall, 9.25 inches wide, so that puts overall tire height and width within a comparable 20" tire range. To get my truck to lay out, I had to start a notch right behind the front bed mounts. I built a frame clip on a bench out of 3x4 3/16 wall, positioned it, and welded it in place. After the rear clip was in, the rear trailing arm crossmember would hit the ground before the rest of the truck could lay out. I pulled the rear crossmember out, flipped it over to raise the trailing arm pivot point, and cut off the top and bottom surfaces. I replaced them with plate, transfered all of the mounting holes, and my truck finally laid out.
Here are some pictures.








So, since i"m going to do this all again, I would weld in a notch, and 2 or 4 link it. Trying to save the stock trailing arms is more work then it is worth, and by the time I had finished placing the bags, I would have to box the lower arms anyway. Where are you located by the way?

[SCOTI]

Z-ing the rear frame 'clip' (from about the back of the cab) raises the frame rails to allow further drop w/o interference. You'll still need the c-notch/step-notch clearance. But if the rear clip is raised, you won't need as much of one.

It would prob be easier to just 4-link it. But. if you want the proven performance of the trailing arms & the rails to hit the dirt, it's going to take some work.

[gringoloco]

You will not even come close to laying with the bags in the stock location. I did this on my Blazer and with a step notch I am still about 3" from laying.

You can move the trailing arm perches towards the center at the axle. This will allow them to clear the frame. Keep in mind, this will also push the rear axle back a few inches so you will need to move the crossmember forward to re-center it in the wheelwells.

[Spray-Bomb]

Couldn't he just add some blocks at that point ???

Isn't that what you did Gringo ???

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by gringoloco

....You will not even come close to laying with the bags in the stock location. I did this on my Blazer and with a step notch I am still about 3" from laying.

3" was the number I remember when I played around w/my 67 in the garage. This is why I figure a 3" or greater 'Z' behind the cab could theoretically allow the rails to sit on the ground & still utilize the GM supplied trailing arm configuration. Some aftermarket round=tube style arms might help w/additional clearance but the cost would off-set the benefit (aftermarket arms prob cost as much as a weld-in, basic style 4-bar kit).

[gringoloco]

Originally Posted by Spray-Bomb

Couldn't he just add some blocks at that point ???

Isn't that what you did Gringo ???

I am using a 3" block just to get it that low. That is pushing the ragged edge of what is safe with a lowering block IMO. My trailing arms are within 3/8" of hitting the framerail at full dump.

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Some aftermarket round-tube style arms might help w/additional clearance but the cost would off-set the benefit (aftermarket arms prob cost as much as a weld-in, basic style 4-bar kit).

True, plus the fact you will need a custom length panhard or watts...

[PrerunnerRob]

All in all, in my opinion its just not worth doing all the extra effort to save the stock trailing arms. A conventional or triangulated 4 link will work better, allow alot more adjustment of pinion angle, axle centering, and operate smoother. You also dont have to deal with the pinion angle radicly changing throughout the travel arc. If you go with a triangulated, you don't even have to deal with a panhard bar. Just my 2 cents.

PS-my frame clip is getting cut off soon, if the person I told could have it falls through, it's up for grabs if anyone wants it.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by PrerunnerRob

All in all, in my opinion its just not worth doing all the extra effort to save the stock trailing arms. A conventional or triangulated 4 link will work better, allow alot more adjustment of pinion angle, axle centering, and operate smoother. You also dont have to deal with the pinion angle radicly changing throughout the travel arc. If you go with a triangulated, you don't even have to deal with a panhard bar. Just my 2 cents.

PS-my frame clip is getting cut off soon, if the person I told could have it falls through, it's up for grabs if anyone wants it.

Pinion angle on a trailing-arm suspension (as described) is not going to change any more than what a stock set-up does. My modified stock set-up works well & is very stable based on my experiences in the truck. I've driven triangulated 4-bar set-ups that were much less stable simply because of the positioning of the bars based on pkging restraints.

Triangulated 4-bar, parrallel 4-bar, or trailing arm suspensions can all be made to work better than each other. Each has it's benefits; each can have negatives.

[PrerunnerRob]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Pinion angle on a trailing-arm suspension (as described) is not going to change any more than what a stock set-up does. My modified stock set-up works well & is very stable based on my experiences in the truck. I've driven triangulated 4-bar set-ups that were much less stable simply because of the positioning of the bars based on pkging restraints.

Triangulated 4-bar, parrallel 4-bar, or trailing arm suspensions can all be made to work better than each other. Each has it's benefits; each can have negatives.

I'm not going to argue about this, but a properly set up 4 link doesn't have the pinion angle dive that a 2 link(stock style) does, and also allows for more axle movment without binding. But like you said, there are the pros and cons of each style, and the handling of a improperly setup 4 link can be horrendous.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by PrerunnerRob

I'm not going to argue about this, but a properly set up 4 link doesn't have the pinion angle dive that a 2 link(stock style) does.....

I merely responded to what you stated . .....

.....A conventional or triangulated 4 link will work better, allow alot more adjustment of pinion angle, axle centering, and operate smoother. You also dont have to deal with the pinion angle radicly changing throughout the travel arc.

No argument here..... Just stating the fact that the pinion angle doesn't change any more than w/a stock set-up. There's many 63~72's still running around that aren't suffering issues from "radical" pinion angle changes. I'm sure there's more than one board member besides me that likes his trailing arm truck just fine.

[XXL]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

There's many 63~72's still running around that aren't suffering issues from "radical" pinion angle changes. I'm sure there's more than one board member besides me that likes his trailing arm truck just fine.

My truck is in the weeds. However, it doesn't have radical pinion angle changes because it doesn't have umpteen inches of lift in the rear... just the "normal" 8" or so from dumped (can't drive it that low) to fully aired up (don't want to drive it that high). At ride height, I get the same amount of travel (and thus pinion angle change) as a stock truck.

[PrerunnerRob]

Anyway, a correctly set up 4 link will always be superior to a factory 2 link, no if's, and's, or but's. It's not a question of preferance, it's scientific fact. The stock setup works awesome with static suspension compontents that do not have large amounts of travel used to dictate different ride heights. It's when you go from a ride height of 1" off the ground to a ride height of 9" off the ground, the horizontal face of the driveshaft yoke goes through a radical arc, due to it's fixed to a long pivot(trailing arms). Max u-joint operational angle is around 7 degrees if I remember right, and you are close to pushing that with a shortbed truck. A 4 link allows the horizontal face of the driveshaft yoke to travel on a mostly parallel vertical plane, effectively reducing the amount of pinion angle chance throughtout the arc of travel.
Think of it this way, with a fixed pivot, you have to eat all of the driveshaft angle change with one joint, and with parallelogram movement, you can split the angle change between both u-joints.

I've gone the stock trailing arm route already, I am not happy at all with how it works, maybe I'm being too much of a perfectionist.

Also some more bed room would be nice!

[PrerunnerRob]

Originally Posted by XXL

My truck is in the weeds. However, it doesn't have radical pinion angle changes because it doesn't have umpteen inches of lift in the rear... just the "normal" 8" or so from dumped (can't drive it that low) to fully aired up (don't want to drive it that high). At ride height, I get the same amount of travel (and thus pinion angle change) as a stock truck.

I just saw this, and hit the nail right on the head. I'm pushing 16" of lift, and I do sometimes forget that. I guess not everyone rides at 2" high either!

[64shortc10]

I really didn't want to make this a fight about 4 links or 2 links! Just wondered if I could see a pic of a truck airbagged, with a bigger than bolt in notch, and lowering blocks. Thanks for everyones input on the trailing arm topic! Gringo do you have any pics of yours on the ground yet? Thanks again!

Tony from Williams, Norcal

[gringoloco]

There's pics in my "How to:" thread of the rear all the way down. The framerails are about 3" off the ground aired-out, but I am running a very tall tire(295/45-20). You could be as close as 2" with a 28" tire. You could easily put it on the ground by notching the rails for the arms or moving them in a little at the axle. I still have to trim the front fenders to put the front all the way down...

[Kontrol Phreaks]

Here are some pictures of the C10 that I did on 22's, with factory trailing arms, bags off the front of the axle, KP notch. You could go lower with a set of blocks between the axle tubes and trailing arms. This truck didn't have them because the truck was level when aired out and that's what the customer asked for. Plus the 22's were bottomed out up front on the hood hinge and the crossmember was on the pavement.

Good luck with your project.

[Kontrol Phreaks]

If you were looking to go lower, then you could set the notch in a little higher and install the lowering blocks. DJM offers an adjustable lowering block kit which consists of (8) 1/2" thick plates and new U bolts. So you can lower each side anywhere from 1/2" - 2" inches.
You're going to need to relocate the shocks as well now the upper mount will be gone, and the angle off the trailing arms would be radical. The truck shown above uses our rear shock relocation kit and a new shortened pan hard bar with a 3 degree cope on the frame side, and a 3/4 heim joint on the axle side.

Later.

[Scott68-93-97]

Originally Posted by PrerunnerRob

I'm not going to argue about this, but a properly set up 4 link doesn't have the pinion angle dive that a 2 link(stock style) does, and also allows for more axle movment without binding. But like you said, there are the pros and cons of each style, and the handling of a improperly setup 4 link can be horrendous.

Your pinion angle wont dive as long as your 2 link bars are about the same length as your driveshaft, my 97 has a 2 link and it does not go more than 2 degrees from the pinion angle setting throughout the range of travel

Like you said all have pros and cons I prefer properly set up triangulated links, point is you can make any of them work but stay within your range of expierence when it comes to customizing anything

[64shortc10]

Thanks Clint,

How big is the notch on that truck? Is it a full 8in.? How far from bottomed out is the axle from the notch? Thanks for the help and pics! I should be ordering some parts from you shortly! Later

Tony from Norcal

[ChiefRocka]

OK....both of you stop it right now, or you will sent to your rooms !!!!

Guys....this forum IMO has to be the best forum out there, with so far NO hate'n what-so-ever...so lets keep it that way.

I think the stock rear-trailing arms work excellent...combine them with a watts....and you ca lay frame, and run as much lift as you want.

Of course, once you exceed certain limits (of any suspension) then other mods have to be done.

The 4-link is no doubt super trick. I have installed those, parrellels, canti, etc.

They all have pros and cons based on what you want to do.

A super long 4-link is what I will be running on my Rock Samurai.

An air-bar or a Detroit kit is what I might run in my SS Nova.

But for my C-10, I think I might work with the stock trailing arms, and go from there.....either bags or hydros with 24" or more of travel will work great.

For what PreRunner wants to do...especially with his upcoming Super-SICK CrewCab conversion...the 4-link is obviously the way to go.

As to the original question:

Sorry, no pics....

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by ChiefRocka

OK....both of you stop it right now, or you will sent to your rooms !!!!

Guys....this forum IMO has to be the best forum out there, with so far NO hate'n what-so-ever...so lets keep it that way.

No "hate'n" from what I've read.

[XXL]

[QUOTE=Kontrol Phreaks;2509453]Plus the 22's were bottomed out up front on the hood hinge and the crossmember was on the pavement.

The math doesn't work for me... if you've got a 27" tire (ASSuming, based on the 22" wheel), and you're on the stock hinge up front, the xmember isn't on the ground. Am I missing something from your explanation of what was done??