Are shackle reversals true rock finders?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

vtcruiser60

SILVER Star
Joined
Sep 23, 2003
Threads
356
Messages
2,570
In posting this question for those with experience, I don't want to encourage a debate about SOA vs. SUA, the effectiveness of SR vs. other suspension mods, etc. The conventional wisdom out there is that a front shackle reversal has a number of benefits, with one of the principal downsides being the tendency to nail tall rocks. What has been your experience? Posted below is front end photo from MAF showing their kit (full bumper visible)

Have at it....

******UPDATED PHOTO*****

I am also appending a photo of Proffit cruiser's SR designed for a sprung under axle (SUA). This photo shows a top down view of a shackle. There is some confusion in the latter parts of this thread that suggests SR is not possible with a SUA.....part of that confusion stems from my use of the MAF photo.
55-21.webp
Perry019.webp
 
Last edited:
Much like the V8/F/2F, SUA/SOA and how much lift is required for xx" tires, this is an unwinable debate. Those who think the stock steering arrangement/springs are superior to a SR play the 'rock finder' card. Those that have a SR feel they are superior for a number of reasons, many times which is no more than a 'my truck has it so it is better' mentality. Arguments can be made for both from both sides so one has to determine what is important to them and run with it.

I think the rock finder name really got it's name from the early SR designs whereas the hanger actually protruded further forward that that pictured. Some have made a good point that with a setup like you show one actually has a 'ramp' for the obstacle, as compared to the stock shackle acting like an anchor.

I know, I didn't answer your question.
 
This is partially my fault as I had already broken a birfield (doing something stupid) earlier in the day and had to pick the line I did. Shackle reversals can get in the way. Tires were 33in with a 4in lift.
P9170067.webp
 
i have the same setup as in the picture..

i agree the "rock finders" name must have originated with the first series of SR kits where it protrudes forward instead of backward..

as far as the kit pictured.. i've definitely seen many shackles up there that stick out more than that.. i don't think they're any more rock finders than anything else.. whatever you have there if you're wheeling it's gonna hit some rocks.. or you're not wheeling hard enough:hillbilly:..
 
yes. I have had to bend mine back straight. I recently added a steel plate across the face of them to provide reinforcement and they haven't bent since.
 
Shackle reversal or not....that location on the frame is a rock finder period....

As stated, the earlier versions of that particular SR, were definite finders..
 
I think it just depends on how you do it.

Stock
DSCN1790.jpg



SR
DSCN5556.jpg

DSCN5632.jpg
 
I think it just depends on how you do it.

Agreed! You do not have to use that style of a kit. I am drawing a blank but a company makes a smoother less rockfinding kit similar to if you simply torched off the rivots on your rear front spring hanger and installed it on the front drilling a hole in your frame........ yada yada yada there are several projects on this site that will demonstrate what i am talking about which is also similar to what Ccolin did in the picture above only you mount a sleeve inside the frame allowing you not to have your shackle hang as low in the rear. This does come with a few other issues such as you need to watch your pinion/caster angle. If you are doing a SOA then your changing that anyway so what the %&* why not!
 
Or you can go with the FJ80 series suspension.. coil over and forget all about....just for write something and get someone Pi .OFF......
 
Question, can you use the stock front drive line with the proffitts kit? can you send me a link to their kit?

Somewhere around here you should be able to find it.

Suspension Systems

I don't know about the driveline. Camcruiser has a good write up on their kit.
 
about an inch more than the bottom eye of the stock shackle eyelet.
The relationship to the ground of the front spring eye and the rear spring eye has to be maintained in order to retain stock caster angles. In other words, if you lower the rear of the spring two inches you would lower the front two inches also.
That is, if you want to maintain stock caster. Most people would prefer to add a couple degrees of positive caster. Unfortunately, with the frame design of the 40, in order to achieve 2 degrees positive
caster without a cut and turn, the front brackets would have to be 3 inches taller than they already are. So a compromise of a reasonable height bracket plus a 4 degree caster shim brought the kit to the result we were looking for. The overal height of the front bracket is about the same as a mild lift shackle but because the spring is flipped, (axle stays in stock position ) and the front spring eye sits about 4" back, your angle
of approach increases about 11~14 degrees, depending on the lift you run.
As a side benefit you gain about 1 1/2" lift, meaning you can run the softer 2 1/2" lift spring in front and get a ride height of a 4" spring.
 
Is it me, or is your axle on backwards? :confused::confused::confused:

my guess he was just makin it rollable.. hadnt put the pearches on yet from the spring over and needed to be able to roll it around.. i kinda hiccuped on that pic too
 
Is it me, or is your axle on backwards? :confused::confused::confused:


It's a optical illusion... I had to get it out of the shop so I just turned the axle so I could drive it out.


You can also recess the back shackle hole into the frame but, it would be harder because of the exhaust being in the way. You would still have the shackle hanging down anyway beacuase you would have to go with a longer shackle so the shackle could move without hitting the frame.

Cut and turn - I did not do it because I extended my front axle 6-7"



Edit: I hit reply without reading all the post, Jake40 is correct.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom