- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- MCAS Miramar, CA (from Fridley, MN)
- Vehicle Year
- 2001
- Make / Model
- Ford
- Engine Size
- 3.0 V6
- Transmission
- Automatic
24" !? Wow!!
Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.
thanks for the compliments! It'll be a while before it's finished. I have an 8 week old son at home so my shop time is pretty limited.Fella you are doin some awsome work, you get that thing built and looking good I'd be sending pics to a few companies I'd be willing to bet that they might be interested in such a truck being they seem to be progressing to more realistic stuff in recent years. just my input. Keep up the good work
What's KPI?I'd get some castor built into those beams. On most cars there is a kick up where the front sispension is mounted to the chassis. This gives the KPI.
Looking good so far.
You may want to make the radius arms a bit longer so you can get the travel you want in your previous drawings.
The radius arms aren't interfering with anything. It's the shock's stroke that is limiting travel right now. The shock will compress completely before the radius arms hit the chassis. I also have more up travel than down so I'm going to even that out a bit.You may want to make the radius arms a bit longer so you can get the travel you want in your previous drawings.
Radius arms don't limit up travel as much as they limit down travel.The radius arms aren't interfering with anything. It's the shock's stroke that is limiting travel right now. The shock will compress completely before the radius arms hit the chassis.
Why not mount them directly on top in the middle of the beam; seems it would be best of both worlds.Also the shocks you might want o look at mounting infront of the beam. It will lessen the travel but should make handleing better.
Do the manufacturers of these long arm kits have any specs on what that deflection might be or what is tolerable? If the radius arm is horizontal to the ground at ride height (assuming you have equal up travel and drop out) then you should minimize how much the beam will move backwards correct? Then of course the longer you can make the arm the larger that radius will be and the less movement you'll have.Correct, the beam will move in an arch to follow the radius arm travel. They will go down and back.
The knuckles have about 7 degrees caster built into them. I could add or subtract some by adjusting the rod ends on the radius arms. I could just run studs out of the front of the radius arms and run those studs through the beams and bolt through. That wouldn't be an issue but I thought having the adjustments might be a good thing? Maybe I'll keep the rod ends for adjustment right now and when the suspension is tuned I'll know what I can make non-adjustable.KPI King Pin Inclination.
Looks as though there may be some built into the C's and the knuckle your using. Not 100% sure. Doesn't look like much. You'll want atleast 10° of castor. or your tires are going to get all wobbly on you. I'd look at making the rad arms part of the Beams. Get rid of the joints. Your not going to need it. or a simple screw through the beam would suffice.
KPIAlso the shocks you might want o look at mounting infront of the beam. It will lessen the travel but should make handleing better.
They are currently mounted on top in the middle of the beam. Those (3) holes towards the top of the beam are all for the lower shock mount. I have it setup so that it's basically in the same plane as the beam's mounting point to the chassis. I'll most likely move the top shock mount back towards the middle of the chassis slightly so they aren't completely vertical.Why not mount them directly on top in the middle of the beam; seems it would be best of both worlds.