Build Thread - 1-ton Chevy Swap

[Hahnsb2]

Sweet, nice to see that thing on the ground

 

[koda6966]

I'm sitting here in pure bliss imagining it running over a Honda..

Ahhh.. that's the good stuff.

 

[JohnnyU]

Its not too terribly high. I think it'd be about perfect without the body lift. I assume you have your adjustable buckets as low as they'll go. How much adjustability do you have with them? I thought you'd be able to dial in the ride height a little better with the 4+ inches of adjustability

The rear springs were the deal breaker. The front coils are not really right for this application, the correct coils would make a world of difference, but I don't care that much right now (at least not before the end of this month), so that search will continue into the winter so I'm ready come next spring.

 

[bradz71]

Looks great John! Glad to see you got it done in time for the 25th!

I'd say it looks nice with the slight 2'' rake its got. That body lift needs to come off whenever you get around to it.

 

[danger88ranger]

Looks good john, now go have some fun with it.

 

[KELLY88]

Man that thing is lookin sweet. Can't wait for some action shots. One quick question though, maybe it's just the perspective of the picture but is the front axle wider than the rear?

 

[JohnnyU]

One quick question though, maybe it's just the perspective of the picture but is the front axle wider than the rear?

Yes it is, and that's usually the case. A wider front track width helps with stability. The rear axles WMS-WMS is 67" and the front is 69", so it's only 1" per side.

 

[KELLY88]

Yes it is, and that's usually the case. A wider front track width helps with stability. The rear axles WMS-WMS is 67" and the front is 69", so it's only 1" per side.

I learn something new everyday. So theoretically swapping in a rear axle with the same width or wider as the front, would that help with stability even more or not make a difference?

 

[Ranger44]

Looking very good. I'm also glad to see it up on it's own.

 

[JohnnyU]

I learn something new everyday. So theoretically swapping in a rear axle with the same width or wider as the front, would that help with stability even more or not make a difference?

Actually, that can reduce the stability, if the rear is narrower, it tends to "follow" the front axle better. This is especially true for low traction situations such as snow, rain and mud. On an off-road rig, it's less critical.

One more tidbit of information.... The 88 Suburban driveshaft uses a 1310 joint, and the D60 uses a 1330C joint. In order to make this transition, I needed to buy two ujoints. The first is the 1310-1330 conversion joint NAPA: PUJ353. The NAPA PUJ434 was also needed to swap caps on the 1330 portion of the conversion joint. The 1330C yoke uses caps with an OD of 1.125" instead of the standard 1330 OD of 1.063".

 

[Bray D]

Actually, that can reduce the stability, if the rear is narrower, it tends to "follow" the front axle better. This is especially true for low traction situations such as snow, rain and mud. On an off-road rig, it's less critical.

Hmm, interesting theory. Not to question it, but do you have any other info or real life applications to back that up? I would think a narrower track width (whether front or rear) would cause a vehicle to be less stable. Taken to the extreme, like a 3 wheeler.

Good tech on the u-joints, I'm sure it will prove helpful for someone looking to do a similar swap.

 

[bradz71]

Yes it is, and that's usually the case. A wider front track width helps with stability. The rear axles WMS-WMS is 67" and the front is 69", so it's only 1" per side.

Was the rear out of a 2wd truck? IIRC--they have a different width than 4x4 models, but I'm can't remember for sure.

 

[Dishtowel]

Hmm, interesting theory. Not to question it, but do you have any other info or real life applications to back that up? I would think a narrower track width (whether front or rear) would cause a vehicle to be less stable. Taken to the extreme, like a 3 wheeler.

Not only does the rear follow as Johhny says, but as for the tippy-ness side of it....

Walking is just falling down and catching yourself, right? Turning is just tipping over and catching yourself.
When you turn your vehicle you 'remove' your front axle from under the center of gravity, I know, only to a slight degree, but enough to make the outside tire heavy and the inside tire light. (I know their weight dosn't change, forces change, i'm useing slang)

ON FLAT GROUND, you would have to turn an incredibly sharp, incredibly fast corner to bother a reverse three wheeling. (two front, one back)

Traditional trikes are a veryvery poor design, the front tire 'leaves' and there is nothing there to 'catch' the center of gravity, thus. Tip.

 

[JohnnyU]

Hmm, interesting theory. Not to question it, but do you have any other info or real life applications to back that up?

Racecar Vehicle Dynamics by Millikin. Read it. Learn it. Like it.

 

[Bray D]

Like I said I wasn't questioning it, just interested in the physics behind it. Thanks for the insight guys.

Dishtowel - Looking at the Can-am trike, the center of gravity is nearly centered over the front axle, this would allow the front end to 'catch' the bike as you said. Depending on the location of the center of mass as well as acceleration/deceleration through the turn, I believe a 4-wheeled vehicle would be more stable. I'm sure that trike is more than safe enough to ride though.

John - I searched their website and wouldn't mind getting my hands on a copy (900 pages ). You wouldn't happen to have one would you?