revised lower shock mount? (1 Viewer)

Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
229
Hey there. I have figured out the top modifications to run the shocks I want, but has anyone revised the bottom to drop it 3~4 inches and change to eye? Either coilover or bushing mount?

I am thinking I would either have to run a mount from behind the knuckle, or drop a bracket down from the spring bucket (existing formed piece)


I am wanting to go to a 14~16" shock, and with the 2 inches up top, then 3~4 on the bottom, I should be good with 4" of spring without modding the bumpstops.


Fronts BTW

Thoughts?
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,419
Location
Trumansburg, New York
 
 
 
John, I guess you're talking about the front since the rear lower mounts are as low as anyone would ever want ;)

I think before you go modifying the front lower mount you should flex your front end out with no shocks and see how much travel you can get with the stock control arms + panhard. Now if you're loosing those then I'm way off base but I think you'll never get 14" of travel with the stock setup. Mostly you're stuck with lowering the upper mounts. Prove me wrong though so I can copy :grinpimp:
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
229
I do alot of rock, and it's all about the forced compression. I have found over the years of wheeling weak axled vehicles (rovers) that compression is critical, and forced articulation is next. I will probably be removing the front sway, and drilling the front frame side bushing, or going through dave to come up with a softer bushing for the frame side, if I don't switch to a rose joint.

The idea is to remove the front spring cones, and replace the front bumpstomps with softer ones or leave alone. Similar to Christo's front. Retaining the springs of course. That will make up for the sway, and also stores energy to make the opposite diagonal end work harder.


I need the length to run true 14" shocks. BBCW's or Rancho's. The compressed length is too long to just mod the top, and so , I need to lower the bottom.
 
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
2,419
Location
Trumansburg, New York
 
 
 
John, I think you might want to consider a body lift then if you're going after greater forced compression. I have a 1" body lift and AMMO has a 2" one and neither of us have issues putting 35" or 37" tire all the way into the wheel well. It's the downward articulation that gets bound up. My front control arms can rotate completely on the frame side, and even without shocks I'm hard pressed to get even 29" from shock mount to shock mount as a max distance. Just from that you can do the math and see I wouldn't get the full travel from even a 14" shock. My min distance between shock mounts was just at 17" so I was petty much hitting the 12" travel of the OME-L shocks.

Granted that's not on a trail, forced, crossed up, etc but enough for me to rethink going to any greater lengths (especially shocks) with the current 2-link w/panhard. When I go to put in the Longfields I'll try this again with no shocks and no panhard just to see how much of a difference the panhard makes. Mine is Slee's adjustable one though and it "should" rotate on its axis if under that kind of torsional load. At that time I'll grind the tops of my front bushing mounts too.

Good luck. Also, have you considered the Bilstein short body w/res (7100).
 
Joined
Apr 25, 2005
Messages
229
never really like bilsteins. $$$ for what you get, and the valving doesn't really match 6200lb trucks that see dual duty, and a pain in the arse to rebuild/valve.

It's funny the resistance points in the system. The stud style shocks will bind more than eye stylie ones.

You spaced your front bumps though right? That two inches at the fulcrum side is huge on the other wheel. (droop side) I bet you haven't retained your springs either.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom