60-72 rear suspension

[62gmc910]

I get a little riled when ever I hear about somebody taking one of the best rear suspension systems (the trailing arm system) out of a truck and replacing it with some "car" set up. Tme highest level nascar "stock cars " run "truck arms for a reason, The 60-72 GM coil trucks with the right spring rates etc and some tires would make most sports cars look like they were driving on ice.
I just had to get this off my chest

[jonzcustomshop]

you can actually buy a kit for a 567 chev car that converts it to a truck arm style suspension. nascar style

[Captainfab]

Hot Rods to Hell makes kits for converting most popular cars to truck arms.

[ChopperDr]

I refer to my 66 as my project with NASCAR suspension.

Chop

[astrochimp]

Nascar doesn't run them because they are best but because the rules say they have too.

[62gmc910]

Originally Posted by astrochimp

Nascar doesn't run them because they are best but because the rules say they have too.

And you got how many years as a chassis builder????

[astrochimp]

Originally Posted by 62gmc910

And you got how many years as a chassis builder????

Perhaps you can explain why the unsprung weight, the panhard and articulation that requires the arms to flex "make most sports cars look like they were driving on ice".

David

[62gmc910]

Originally Posted by astrochimp

Perhaps you can explain why the unsprung weight, the panhard and articulation that requires the arms to flex "make most sports cars look like they were driving on ice".

David

the pan hard can be adjusted vertically for roll center and what ever. I am not going to argue with you all day cause if we can't take it to a track it's all just noise

[SCOTI]

I don't have any years as chassis builder. But, knowing how racing sanctions govern the rules..... NASCAR uses truck arms because they're relatively simple & easy to police.

They also do not use truck arms as an 'absolute' for all cup-car racing. Some classes allow the use of 3-links vs. the truck arm set-up.

[62gmc910]

Not going to argue about it ; it was a fine system when it was built and is still more than adequate

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by 62gmc910

Not going to argue about it ; it was a fine system when it was built and is still more than adequate

You started the dialogue....

highest level nascar "stock cars " run "truck arms for a reason,

It is a "fine system", but that's not the sole reason why NASCAR still utilizes them. As stated, they're simple & easy to police.

[3r!c84]

do any one have any pics what this looks like? on the 60-72 rearends

[62gmc910]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

You started the dialogue....

It is a "fine system", but that's not the sole reason why NASCAR still utilizes them. As stated, they're simple & easy to police.

I argree. my point was these trucks were well suspended the trailing arms are simple as you said easy to tune I didn't say they are the best I just know what one of these trucks is capable of with very little tuning and some tires, My point is for 50 year old tech its pretty hard to beat, I wasn't looking for an arguement but I have run them on the track and they work sorry If I offended someone it was never my intention.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by 62gmc910

I argree. my point was these trucks were well suspended the trailing arms are simple as you said easy to tune I didn't say they are the best I just know what one of these trucks is capable of with very little tuning and some tires, My point is for 50 year old tech its pretty hard to beat, I wasn't looking for an arguement but I have run them on the track and they work sorry If I offended someone it was never my intention.

No offense taken.

The truck arm suspension is as simple & effective now as it was in its infancy. That being said, I like them just fine & choose them over other options knowing there is better available.

[Rich 5150 69]

While we`re debating this issue, I thinking of bagging the rear suspension only but at the rear most end on the trailing arms for ride improvement only over the springs, anybody know the weight capacity of some of the bag kits, my thought is by stretching out the suspension to the rear will make it ride better as opposed the the springs being further up the trailing arms. Anybody have thoughts on this.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Rich 5150 69

While we`re debating this issue, I thinking of bagging the rear suspension only but at the rear most end on the trailing arms for ride improvement only over the springs, anybody know the weight capacity of some of the bag kits, my thought is by stretching out the suspension to the rear will make it ride better as opposed the the springs being further up the trailing arms. Anybody have thoughts on this.

Putting the bags @ the end of the truck arms might not be beneficial because you're moving the spring farther away from the dampener (shock). The stock location works great unless you're trying to lay the frame rails on the ground. Any reason in particular you want to relocate the springs?

[62gmc910]

other than the frame is designed to carry the load on the upper perches but i don't think you would soften the ride any being further from the fulcrum .its bed time I can't think .THe 60-62s had the shock behind the axle don't think it changed much when it was relocated. Did we decide anything??

[Rich 5150 69]

I was just thinking out of the box, and I`m not laying frame, just looking for a way to soften the ride, somewhat, when the box is empty its seams harsh ride and I`m not sure why, original springs so you would think they would be quite a bit softer by now.

[62gmc910]

Originally Posted by Rich 5150 69

I was just thinking out of the box, and I`m not laying frame, just looking for a way to soften the ride, somewhat, when the box is empty its seams harsh ride and I`m not sure why, original springs so you would think they would be quite a bit softer by now.

Some of those trucks had 2 stage springs and the soft stage collapsed leaving you only with the firm stage , when you look at the coils are the bottom 2 rounds touching??

[Rich 5150 69]

Yes I beleive so, so therein lies my issue, going to replace all the bushings anyways i`ll just order springs as well with a drop kit, (4/6) from ECE.

[62gmc910]

now we're havin' fun

[Frizzle Fry]

Moving a spring or bag away from the fulcrum would make the ride stiffer, not softer. What shocks are you running?

[Rich 5150 69]

I beleive they are standard monroe shocks with some miles on them, nothing special. they are not worn as of yet, truck settles right down. I would have thought that stretching out the suspended weight would soften the ride...!

[Frizzle Fry]

They may not be worn but they may be too heavy for the application. Shocks make a huge difference in ride quality, especially the rear.

Look at the TA as a lever. The closer to the fulcrum the spring is the more mechanical advantage the truck's weight has over it. So the spring compresses more with a given load. This is the same effect you get with softer springs. The inverse is also true.

[Rich 5150 69]

That makes sense Mike, maybe I`m just looking at this too hard, going to change springs/ shocks anyways, i`ll see what they have to offer...