How low can you go ??

[kens65fb]

How low can you drop the front of a 65 C10 without air bags?

How low, is too low, or what is the minimum clearance for the suspension, on the front.

Any advice

[SkinnyG]

My daily-driver '77 C10 (basically same suspension) is 3.25" at the bottom of the front control arms. 3" BellTech spindles, and cut 1-ton coils. Tires taller than 245/60R15 will need the inner fenders altered. I can make it over any speed bumps, but have snagged header collector flanges on occasion.

If you're willing to cut and weld, you could pancake the front crossmember about 1.5" and cut less off the spring - this would ride low but increase ground clearance.

My '61 Apache is 2" pancake, 2" spindles, and sits 5" off the ground. Yes, it's bagged, but when the novelty wears off, I'll go back to cut coils to maintain the ride height.

[SkinnyG]

Any part of the vehicle hanging below the rim is dangerous. So.... run taller rims.

[forestb]

I have a 4 inch drop up front. It will scrape if I go over speed bumps too fast I and have bottomed out my lower a arms going too fast over some dips in the road. When I had a 6 in drop in the rear the axle would bottom out on the frame. I now have a 5.5 in drop in the rear.

[kens65fb]

Originally Posted by SkinnyG

My daily-driver '77 C10 (basically same suspension) is 3.25" at the bottom of the front control arms. 3" BellTech spindles, and cut 1-ton coils. Tires taller than 245/60R15 will need the inner fenders altered. I can make it over any speed bumps, but have snagged header collector flanges on occasion.

If you're willing to cut and weld, you could pancake the front crossmember about 1.5" and cut less off the spring - this would ride low but increase ground clearance.

My '61 Apache is 2" pancake, 2" spindles, and sits 5" off the ground. Yes, it's bagged, but when the novelty wears off, I'll go back to cut coils to maintain the ride height.

Right now I have 2 1/2 drop spindles, 2 inch drop springs., with CPP Tubular Control Arms.

Control arms have been on a few years, drop springs and drop spindles, have about 10 miles driven, since installed, prior to 2 years at paint shop

Truck will come home from painters next week

Tires are 245/45/18

I think that 1 more inch drop would look better.

[forestb]

Originally Posted by kens65fb

Right now I have 2 1/2 drop spindles, 2 inch drop springs., with CPP Tubular Control Arms.

Control arms have been on a few years, drop springs and drop spindles, have about 10 miles driven, since installed, prior to 2 years at paint shop

Truck will come home from painters next week

Tires are 245/45/18

I think that 1 more inch drop would look better.

I agree but you are being really mean by only showing us that much of your truck.

[kens65fb]

Originally Posted by forestb

I agree but you are being really mean by only showing us that much of your truck.

Many more pictures to follow next week !!

[kens65fb]

Originally Posted by kens65fb

Many more pictures to follow next week !!

I would like to drop the rear a little too, any suggestions.

Right now I have a C notch, 4 inch drop springs, rear shock relocation bracket

with drop shocks, and 1 inch lowering blocks.

Any suggestions ??

[SkinnyG]

This is how it all starts.

"just one more inch...."

[forestb]

I would go for a 2 inch block for staters. That’s the easiest and cheapest way to do it and you won’t have to get different shocks.

[MT65]

I used coilovers on all 4 corners, no issues with speed bumps, stock front spindles on the 86 front end that was installed

[61hawk]

If you're going to lower it that much you might as well put hydraulics on it and paint it with boat level metallic flake.. maybe orange and green. But that's just me.

[forestb]

Originally Posted by 61hawk

If you're going to lower it that much you might as well put hydraulics on it and paint it with boat level metallic flake.. maybe orange and green. But that's just me.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

[kens65fb]

Originally Posted by 61hawk

If you're going to lower it that much you might as well put hydraulics on it and paint it with boat level metallic flake.. maybe orange and green. But that's just me.

Thanks for the stupid response.

[EricS76]

I think you could go an inch lower in the front. I have 2.5 drop spindles & cut a coil out of the stock springs with 235/75R15’s on my truck and it looks about an inch lower than yours. Probably my old springs are compressed a little more. As for the rear, I went 5 inch drop springs & 2 inch blocks to get it level. No problem with a c-notch.

[theastronaut]

My old '66 was as low as you can reasonably go up front. On medium bumps the tires would rub the inner fenders and on big bumps the crossmember would bottom out on the ground. It had 215/75-15 tires, drop spindles, and 1.5 coils cut off the stock springs. The bump stop brackets were completely cut off and the shocks were relocated to regain full travel. The rear had a 2" deep pipe notch with relocated shocks and never bottomed out. Any lower would need a step notch and raised bed floor to keep enough travel to keep from bottoming out.

[AcampoDave]

Have you considered getting a tire with a bit more sidewall Ken? A little more side rubber would fill the opening a bit and bring the fender closer to the tire. I'm just saying that you have a mighty nice truck to risk driving it at highway speed with your undercarriage barely above the pavement.

The roads where I live are not good, rolling along with cut bump stops and avoiding obstacles in the name of style may work most of the time, but it's also nice to have a smooth ride and feel at ease behind the wheel. Stuff happens out there.

[forestb]

You could always put Some weight in the front to lower it down an inch and then see if you start scraping on things. I think if you go any lower you are probably going to start scraping on stuff.

[SCOTI]

The front x-member needs to be minimum 3" off the ground w/4" being better to limit contact.

Aftermarket front 'raised' x-members shine here but add complexity/cost because they need matching arms & the swap to R&P steering.

'Z-ing' the frame is best for a old-school/budget build approach. Combine it w/drop spindles & springs & you can yield close to 7" front drop while keeping the x-member close to 4" off the road. There is still complexity but it comes @ different areas vs requiring different parts.

There's also sectioning (pancaking) a stock front x-member. It fits somewhere in between the above choices & can be an easier solution complexity wise.... but it has compromises.

Having done all three options.... I'd do a frame-Z. Properly done, it yields the same results as an aftermarket x-member while using the tried & true OE chassis set-up.

4/6 dropped trucks drive around w/o issue & work well. Going to that next level of drop is where it get's complicated. The 'Z' would utilize the same proven 4/6 parts combo but get you that much lower. It all comes down to each guys specific needs/wants.

[short&wide65]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Aftermarket front 'raised' x-members shine here but add complexity/cost because they need matching arms & the swap to R&P steering.

Having done all three options.... I'd do a frame-Z. Properly done, it yields the same results as an aftermarket x-member while using the tried & true OE chassis set-up.

For me, the aftermarket front crossmembers correcting the poor factory geometry while converting to rack & pinion is what makes them so attractive. Their only downside is cost.

[forestb]

Based on the photos you took of the truck after it came back from paint in the other thread I think that the height looks Great. What helped reassure me that my truck is a good height is seeing someone else drive it. While I watched. For some reason that made me realize how good it looks. What also helps is bottoming out on stuff. That always keeps me from lowering more.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by short&wide65

For me, the aftermarket front crossmembers correcting the poor factory geometry while converting to rack & pinion is what makes them so attractive. Their only downside is cost.

You can tweak the factory stuff to correct the Geometry. Tall BJ's, Caster mod, perf alignment vs stock spec, a new/faster ratio steering box, & lower center of gravity change things completely.

R&P set-up's are nice but again significantly add to the cost/complexity vs whats already there.

[short&wide65]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

You can tweak the factory stuff to correct the Geometry. Tall BJ's, Caster mod, perf alignment vs stock spec, a new/faster ratio steering box, & lower center of gravity change things completely.

R&P set-up's are nice but again significantly add to the cost/complexity vs whats already there.

It would still be just tweaks that make it slightly better than stock so I disagree that it would change things completely.

I should add that I'm setting my truck up for autocross use so handling is paramount to me.

[verdell]

Originally Posted by AcampoDave

Have you considered getting a tire with a bit more sidewall Ken? A little more side rubber would fill the opening a bit and bring the fender closer to the tire. I'm just saying that you have a mighty nice truck to risk driving it at highway speed with your undercarriage barely above the pavement.

The roads where I live are not good, rolling along with cut bump stops and avoiding obstacles in the name of style may work most of the time, but it's also nice to have a smooth ride and feel at ease behind the wheel. Stuff happens out there.

Very good point here. I switched from a 245-45-18 on the front to a 235-50-18
and it works great.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by short&wide65

It would still be just tweaks that make it slightly better than stock so I disagree that it would change things completely.

I should add that I'm setting my truck up for autocross use so handling is paramount to me.

You can disagree but tweaks made to the original 63-87 C10 geometry can change things completely; it just depends on one's definition of 'tweaks'.

There is nothing 'wrong' w/the stock set-up. It's not ideal vs. what's offered under current performance cars/trucks but neither are the aftermarket x-member kits being sold to achieve aggressive drop heights. R&P steering set-ups are an improvement over the original equipment steering box/set-up but only when everything is set-up & dialed in w/o compromise. Otherwise, it's just R&P steering that's easier to adapt to the raised x-member arrangement. A new perf spec steering box would also make a big difference in steering function.

If you're building something for autocross, using a Porterbuilt, GSI, Choppin Block, or Thorbeck Bro's raised x-member style set-up seems like a poor choice vs other more specific options. The aftermarket x-member kits do have updated geometry but again the OG stuff can be tweaked to rival the those offerings.

Autocross would benefit from a No Limit Engineering, Detroit Speed, SpeedTech, Scott's, or something from Roadster Shop (or maybe one of the very recently released to market QA-1 set-ups). These would be more aligned w/purpose built driving w/a nod toward autocross ambitions. They're also an even bigger investment vs. the aftermarket raised x-members.

So.... My question would be what do you consider to be 'just tweaks'?