why not do 112" or somthing that way its as close to the 110 you want but then theres no problem if the cab corner doesnt want to play nice
That is an option. If I put the spring in the outside of the frame rail, 115" puts the spring eye center in the middle of the rear most body mount. At 110", it puts the spring eye before the rear most body mount. So those are the two "lazy man" spots to where I won't have to remake that body mount.
Now if I Put the springs under the frame (Like Kyle M) then it'll make life easier. But I've got a feeling that will wind up giving me more lift than I want.
i think i would go for the 115, thats a pretty good number and will save alot of work of trying to make it all work...but that's up to you
keep it up
Im gonna agree with Jon. Since you are bobbing the bed, 115 would give you a great wheelbase for steep climbs and obstacles.
x2 on the 115"
lookin good....can't wait to see it in person.....
l8r, John
Looking at the pictures again with a fresh eye this morning, I'm liking the look of the 115" WB more and more. I think its really going to come down to where things need to line up to keep the truck level
. Any idea how much the Chevy 64's flatten out with weight on them (Stock pack, no overload)?
Time do do some fuel tank shopping today too. I've gone through the old posts about the BII tank and Allan D's post on possibly using the F350/450 rear tank. I'm thinking that the BII tank is the way I'll go, if need be, I'll cut the bed out some to get it up higher. I'm thinking the extra fuel capacity benefit will outweigh the lost clearance issue (Unless someone can talk me out of it quickly).
Thanks for the comments guys, and John, I plan on making it down to TB this year, I'll try to look you up when I do! Or if you're in the STL area, feel free to swing by for a
or