Re: Make it handle
 

Rob, I know this is an old post but I would like to ask, I was was thinking about putting the 8.8 out of my mustang under my truck till I realized that the pinion was offset. Is this not an issue if you center it up off the wheel hubs? Gotta say Im hopping for its not, cause it all ready has gears, and disc brakes.

Re: Make it handle
 

welcome....
the offset is no problem...just center the axle...make sure of your pinion angle as well

Re: Make it handle
 

mongocanfly is 100%. Driveshafts and U-joints can go side-to-side, just like up & down. Many Ford and Chevy axles are offset for axle length, tank clearance, .....

Re: Make it handle
 

I have a 1964 GMC Long box with full PB Fab air suspension
The kit came with a stock Mustang power rack and pinion from Summit Racing.
I’m hoping to upgrade to something that handles the weight of the truck and the fat front tires
I’ve looked at a unit that Detroit Speed sells that has been adapted to work with the higher pressure and flow of a Saginaw power steering pump
Do you have any suggestions or know what others are using

Re: Make it handle
 

Hey Rob Fisher.You will be hard to find a solution to your mix up of parts.You do know ROBNOLIMIT sells systems that WORK dont you?With componets from 3 different builders it would be hard to say what would work best.

Re: Make it handle
 

Just to clarify, it is a complete front suspension kit from Porter Built that just happens to use a mustang rack and pinion.
I’m looking for a high performance substitute for the re-manufactured stock unit that came with the kit
If Rob from Nolimit has some suggestions on others racks that are available that would be great
Thanks

Re: Make it handle
 

OK OK. A little MII rack info. MII (Mustang II and Pinto) started in '71. the '71-'73 pinto units were the lightest, mostly manual, and prized by drag racers. - Not good for us. The '74-78 MII and 74-81 Pinto we're a little better, but had different mounting than the early racks. These were "Low Pressure" racks, designed for under 800 psi pumps. As a result, when used in hot rods and custom cars with SBC canister pumps, and later the Type II GM pumps, the steering seamed 'flighty' and 'light' - and there were a lot of leaking problems. The aftermarket responded with reduction valves for these pumps, available from Speedway, Hiedts, Summit, ….. and some special built pumps from places like KRC and Turn One. Later, the Fox, SN95 and T-Birds (all '88-'94 span) moved to a rack designed for High Pressure pumps. and the GT racks had a faster ratio.
- BTW, I don't like to use "Ratio" numbers like 12-1 or 10-1, because nobody really knows what this does. I like to know A) Turns lock to lock, and B) Inches of throw L/L. Such as 5.5" @ 2.62 turns. - That's information I can actually use.
I have used the Flaming River MII rack, it is good for high pressure and has 6" throw in 2.75 turns. I have not used the DSE rack, but I am sure it is a good piece, my guess is that the ratio (throw vs. turns) is about the same.
The big issue for Rob Fisher (and others) is that the IFS is based on a C10 spindle, with a 7" long steering arm. OE C10's used 6.9" of throw to go lock to lock. So, a rack with 5.5" or 6" will not turn the spindle as far. (Less steering angle) The long arm does make it easier to turn, requiring less effort from the pump. If you want a true Hi Perf. rack that will go 7+"with a fast ratio, you may need to go to Howe, Sweet or Woodward for a Servo-Drive power rack. If this sounds expensive, it is. Easy 1G+ for a rack with no rods or ends. - And, you will have to build new mounts. - Probably not worth it, as it still doesn't fix the C10 geometry.
If you are in this boat, head to O'Rielly's or Advanced, and get a '94 Fox GT rack. Use adapter fittings from Maxim Motorsports and go drive it.

Re: Make it handle
 

A round of applause & thank-you for this man's answers & expertise here!

Re: Make it handle
 

X2...Jim

Re: Make it handle
 

Rob
Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding my rack and pinion steering questions.
I would assume i fall into a category that a large number of us belong.
Trying to make a bunch of different parts, from different manufacturers work together.
You start by thinking that you just want to make it steer and brake better and that snowballs into the idea that you can make a 56 year old truck handle like a slot car.
Given the opportunity to do it all over a better solution would have been to buy a complete frame with suspension, brakes and steering, all designed to work happily together.
With all the bad decisions and money wasted on the wrong parts, hopefully you learn something along the way.
All part of the hobby I guess.

Re: Make it handle
 

Very true. what was once lead by the magazine industry is now lead by the net. In the magazine days, most of the editors actually drove the product before the issue went to press. Today, many people champion parts that have never left the garage, so the truth is nobody knows if the parts really work. Or how good or not. And, for the most part, it's not like a hamburger, you don't get to taste everything in town to find the best. - Don't be to disappointed. You are building a cool truck, and it will be WAY better than stock. Keep having fun.

Re: Make it handle
 

Sub’d

Re: Make it handle
 

My 65 is already on a 62 frame.
I've banged around putting it back on its correct frame, but it sounds like I should just keep it on the 62 frame?

Re: Make it handle
 

Okay first off hello everyone! I have been building my C10 like most...as time and money permits. With that comes change in initial plans as usual. To get to the point I am looking at getting one of the bolt on front coil over kits for our trucks and interested on peoples opinions of the brands. While I would love to go full on wide ride or any of the other many nice complete crossmember kits that's just not in the cards. Also as much as I'd like to say I want to autocross a bunch or road race it would be more of a canyon Carver and fun parts grabber.

The truck is a 68 lwb that is going to stay a long bed...for now. Has a 383 built up with efi and a t56 trans. 12 bolt rear with 3.42 posi. Going to have 17x10 275/40 front and 17x12 315/35 rear wheels and tires. I acquired through trade a set of ride tech coil overs that I am going to build a rear set up (adjustable trailing arms, coil over mounts, etc.) for. In the front I was thinking about the QA1, ride tech, cpp or performance online kits. I am leaning towards Qa1 or Ridetech but curious peoples opinions.

I will probably do some autocross at some point but as of now who knows if I am any good at it so figure If it really bites me I can learn on a decent set up and upgrade down the road if I so choose.

Thanks in advance for any info. If covered already would appreciate what page and I'll refer to that.

Re: Make it handle
 

Would anybody have any suggestions on what a good brand of Upper and lower ball joints would be.
Thank you

Re: Make it handle
 

Moog for stock replacement @ your local auto parts or through Summit for better prices. HOWE Racing or QA1 for tweaked parts.

Re: Make it handle
 

Rob-

I have a 62 c10 (long fleet), and like many of the others have posted, I have collected a few odds and ends over the years I am getting ready to install - not all from 1 manufacturer. I have been eyeing your rear outboard shock mounts (for 63 and up of course), and it appears, your upper mounts should be able to be installed on my 62 frame? My trailing arms already mount the shocks outside the frame, but the angle at which my shocks lay rearward (4" drop springs) is ridiculous. What are your thoughts on adding the upper mounts to my box-style frame - think they'd work?

Thanks,
Doug

Re: Make it handle
 

Looking for some input. I am building a 66 C10. Had a frame made. Front track width is 59". I had a 9" built at 59" (flange to flange) and then had wheels built to fit. I plan to autocross. Yes the 22"s are not optimal but I like the look.
My rear wheels are 22 x 12 with 7" of backspace. My question is having the front and rear track width the same good for handling or does it not matter?

Re: Make it handle
 

So let's see the chassis?

Re: Make it handle
 

Chassis and other build pictures here.
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=785046

Re: Make it handle
 

Yes, typically, we want a "square" truck. Really, we are talking about the Track width (center of tire to center of tire), not Tread width (outside to tire tread to outside of tire tread) So at 59" front and back you are pretty close.

We used to think we could improve the trucks by making the front track a little wider than the rear, to eliminate the push. It works to a point. But, with better tires over the last 10 years, stability is less of a factor. And, the end (front or rear) that is wider gets less mechanical tire loading. In the end, the 'wider' end will loose grip (all else being perfect) first. So, Square is the rule.

Re: Make it handle
 

Thank you

Re: Make it handle
 

I thought the lbj was moved 1.oo forward, 1/4 out??

Re: Make it handle
 

Hey guys,
I'm trying to get my '59 Apache to handle a bit better. Want to do a little autocross racing, etc. Firstly, Rob(Robnolimit), I read, copied and pasted much of your info early in thus thread and printed it, as a guide for my suspension planning, building,, tuning, etc. Ill tell you where I'm at right now, along with my goals. I've got my short bed '59 Apache. 383 sbc, TH-350, GM 10 bolt.

Years ago I bought your No Limit Engineering DVD to swap Camaro IFS into the '55-'59 trucks. Went soo smoothly with that DVD! I was extremely thorough, everything was squared and leveled perfectly, anti-dive angle set carefully, the sub-frame went in so smoothly. I went with 2.5" drop spindles, QA1 tubular upper control arms, polyurethane bushings and new ball joints in the factory ('79) Camaro LCA's. Went with Eibach's lowering springs and Bilstein shocks. All new factory replacement Moog steering components, center link, tie rods,etc. Factory Camaro front sway bar.

18" wheels, 245/275 width BFG G-Force street tires.

Have cheapo shocks and leaf springs in the rear. And a 4" Notch. After putting 340 miles on my truck driving down to a classic Chevy truck show in Glendale this weekend (Dino's Git Down), it is definitely time to address my crappy rear suspension! I pulled a few leafs out of the original '59 rear spring pack, flipped the axle on top of the springs, did a 4" C-notch and threw on a set of cheap shocks. I am preparing to remove my bed, bend up some c-channels as you described early in your thread, for the center section of the chassis, and then it's "time to make triangles", as you said. Ill follow your guidance there. I've been playing with a suspension geometry calculator in my laptop.

I built a 3-link for my '53 GMC that was on an S10 chassis, but I am unsure which direction to go with my'59. Im leaning towards a parallel 4 link, with a long panhard bar, but still intrigued by triangulation 4 links and 3 links. Which way would you reccomend going?

I'm curious how you would spend the next $3,000 or so on this trucks suspension, to improve its handling? I've already got a bit of DOM tubing, to build link bars, panhard bar, triangulation, etc. Also have all of my heims, bugs and polyurethane bushings to build my 4 link. So, I basically need to build or buy brackets for my 4 link, and look into sway bars, shocks, etc. I was going to go weigh my truck as it sits, to get front and rear end and total weight. Then I was going to buy the adjustable QA1 front Camaro coil over kit, and the rear universal coil over kit that matches my truck rear end weight. That would be roughly $1,000, leaving me with roughly $2,000 in the near future to spend on additional upgrades! Primarily looking at front and rear anti-sway bars, possibly some tubular front lower control arms. Perhaps rack and pinion steering? Looking for the best bang for your buck improvements.

I would like to also ask about desirable figures relating to 3/4 links, but that's getting too far ahead, at least for right now!

Oh, my truck also has 4 wheel disc brakes. Factory Camaro type single piston aftermarket calipers, standard pads, and all four rotors are new cross drilled and slotted. Has the "LS1" rear disc brake swap on the 10 bolt. The "LS1" brake swap is merely factory or factory replacement rear disc brake parts for LS1 era Camaro's. Has power brakes, with adjustable proportioning valve.

Any guidance that you could give, I would be eternally grateful for!

Nik

Re: Make it handle
 

To approach a different way; Rob, what do you think about me purchasing the following:

No Limit Engineering FatBar kit
https://nolimit.net/products#!/Fatba...tegory=6157546

NLE X-Member Kit
http://nolimit.net/products#!/X-Memb...tegory=6157546

No Limit Rear Sway Bar
http://nolimit.net/products#!/Rear-S...tegory=6157546

In addition to your parts listed above, if that is what you reccomend, I was thinking that I would purchase these, to finish up this stage of my suspension, then allow my bank account to recuperate for a bit. ��

https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...-springs-pair/

RideTech MuscleBar for '79 Camaro:
https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...e-shocks-each/

Again, thank you for any and all guidance and knowledge that you are willing to share! I would like to thank you by purchasing any parts that I need/can afford from you!

Or, should I just hold off on the front, and wait to purchase coilovers? I had cut my Eibach springs up front in the name of getting the truck low, but now my sub-frame will periodically bottom out on the road.

I'll add a couple of pictures. The old '59 is ugly, but sure a riot to drive!

Nik