![]() |
spring/shock mounting theory
ok, im trying to get answers from you guys so i dont have to waste my trial and time.
option 1:i have 4 progressive springs and 4 stiff springs on the lowest setting on the arm and middle setting on the shock tower, option 2:if i was to change springs to all 8 progressive springs and set on the middle setting on the arm and middle setting on the shock tower, and since the 8 progressive springs are not as stiff as option 1, it sits exactly the same, but if i was to lift up the truck with my fingers, itll raise higher than option one since its now on a higher ground clearance setting. so now my question is, will i be able to trample over taller things, such as mounds of rocks, street curbs, etc...with option 2? im thinkiing yes, because even though they both sit the same height at its rest state, when im going over tall objects, the object will push the arm or bottom of my chassis causing to raise my springs. but with option 1, the object can lift up my truck any higher because its already at its highest state. is my theory correct? i really dont wanna have to change out all 8 springs and try it myself , and then have to change them back because my theory was wrong. thanks |
You are correct. The progressive-rate springs should also (depending on the rate) keep the truck from bottoming out like the hard springs do. Since they are softer to start you'll have better control on (relatively) smooth surfaces since the suspension can respond more quickly.
|
since there was only one reply, i went ahead and did it. i decided to mount all 8 progressive springs on the highest setting instead of the middle.
ground clearance results were: i gained 1 inch on the rear, and 1 inch on the front. but get this! since these springs are not as stiff, when i push the truck down and let it rise on its own, now it actually sits LOWER than the stiffer setup on the lower position. the results were this: it sits 1/2 inch lower on the rear, and sits 1 full inch lower on the front! so now the front and rear axles are actually at a decline, its not even parallel to the floor (i hear thats how you want if for best handling). its sitting like a lowrider truck. i was very skeptical and didnt like how it looked but nows for test. i layed my truck down and walked to the exact same curb that i wasnt able to go up on option one. surprisingly, it went up. so then, i pressed down on my truck to let it sit on its rest state (lowrider time) and it still went up the curb. so final results are, you are able to go climb up more things even when the truck sits lower with the not so stiff springs. but now i have to test to see how it handles!!! im all out of batteries so testing wont be untill later on tonight or tomo. hopefully it will handle at least the same as option 1. im kinda worried tho, because the way its sitting sooo low and how the arms and axles are declined like that..... |
You will need to watch your speed in the turns. The truck will want to roll more with the (initially) softer suspension.
|
ok this new setup ran like crap! haha. it actually rolls more on turns now even tho it sits waaay lower. i was thinking the softer suspension would just let it squat as i turn but ill just roll. the extra ground clearance is not worth the crappy handling! so back to the option 1 but this time ill put the shock mounting (shock towers) on the outside hole instead of the middle to gain like a few mm's hahah. and ill keep the lower mounting (A arm) on the outside.
this little adjustment wont make my truck run crappy again would it? should i just leave the shock tower in the middle hole? im just trying to gain as much height possible... |
If you want, look into some longer shocks. As in long enough to give you full extension of the suspension while mounted in the outermost holes of the shock tower and the arms. Throw in some stiff springs and your good!
|
good idea. but i really dont wanna spend money on some new shocks.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.