The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > General Truck Forums > Suspension

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-17-2014, 12:24 AM   #26
CRGRS 66
Registered User
 
CRGRS 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,771
Re: Static VS bagged

It would be wise to use DOT approved NTA air fittings and tubing. Picture is of a brass push on style fitting, some manufacturers nickel plate these fittings, so they pretty much look like stainless steel fittings. These fittings are used on the air brake systems on big rigs, very, very reliable connections. The tubing is available in several colors, the most common is black.
Attached Images
  
__________________
Craigerrr

My build thread, CRGRS 66 Winter Build: http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...09#post5638709
CRGRS 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 12:58 AM   #27
DLW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Union City, CA
Posts: 384
Re: Static VS bagged

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
I started off the 1st 2yrs w/rear bags on my 68 & rarely had to adjust for leakage. I also leak test everything before final installation.
Thanks. I'll be pulling out the bags and checking the fittings. I sealed them up pretty good but something is letting air out somewhere. Lesson learned, check all fittings for leaks before installing ..

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRGRS 66 View Post
It would be wise to use DOT approved NTA air fittings and tubing. Picture is of a brass push on style fitting, some manufacturers nickel plate these fittings, so they pretty much look like stainless steel fittings. These fittings are used on the air brake systems on big rigs, very, very reliable connections. The tubing is available in several colors, the most common is black.
Thanks, will be looking into them.
DLW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 01:03 AM   #28
CRGRS 66
Registered User
 
CRGRS 66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,771
Re: Static VS bagged

Try a heavy vehicle supply house, or a fluid power distributor. I sell these fittings and tubing so have easy access, at very good pricing (not soliciting sales here). Cheers.
__________________
Craigerrr

My build thread, CRGRS 66 Winter Build: http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...09#post5638709
CRGRS 66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 11:19 AM   #29
BRASSHEAD
Registered User
 
BRASSHEAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 188
Re: Static VS bagged

I have done both static and bagged. I am currently running bags and they are nice for a smooth ride and for that cool layed out look, but for a performance ride, static is the way to go. You can set your ride height where you want it then change the stiffness with spring rates. With my bag setup to get a stiffer ride I have to add air which raises my ride height and kills the look.
BRASSHEAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 12:01 PM   #30
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,910
Re: Static VS bagged

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRASSHEAD View Post
I have done both static and bagged. I am currently running bags and they are nice for a smooth ride and for that cool layed out look, but for a performance ride, static is the way to go. You can set your ride height where you want it then change the stiffness with spring rates. With my bag setup to get a stiffer ride I have to add air which raises my ride height and kills the look.
Technically, you should do the exact same thing w/bags if setting it up w/a performace agenda. The bags would need to be set-up to yield the optimum pressure @ the targeted ride height. This would be similar to setting the ride height & changing the stiffness w/spring rates.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2014, 01:35 PM   #31
LVPhotos
Registered User
 
LVPhotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,851
Re: Static VS bagged

I plan on Accuair e-level. I got help getting a shop rate. But found this in magazine.

http://www.littlelarrys.net
__________________
1962 shortbed 408cui small block, TKO 600 5-speed, bagged Porterbuilt suspension. 18" Salt Flats
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/332579...t-c-k-pick-up/
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=560081
LVPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2014, 10:56 AM   #32
chris1044
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: MI
Posts: 56
Re: Static VS bagged

Fairly sure I'm going to do either static all the way around, or static up front with bags in the rear should I decide I want to use the truck to carry stuff. I'm on the fence about using it to carry more than 3-400 pounds or the occasional motorcycle.

Front I've decided on CPP modular spindle - which will allow bigger brakes when I'm ready; trying to decide on going to a 5 lug and new rims now or just doing a 6 lug for now. I'll probably stick with 6 lug and spend the $$ on some control arms VS rims/tires since the truck already has decent aluminum 6 lug rims.

Any recommendation on spring manufacturer? GMCPaul springs actually change rates for various motors, and Hotchkiss only offer 67+; but if I did the control arms I could use their stuff.

For the rear I'm thinking new trailing arms, a sway bar, 6" springs and a notch
chris1044 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2014, 11:53 AM   #33
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,910
Re: Static VS bagged

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris1044 View Post
Fairly sure I'm going to do either static all the way around, or static up front with bags in the rear should I decide I want to use the truck to carry stuff. I'm on the fence about using it to carry more than 3-400 pounds or the occasional motorcycle.

Front I've decided on CPP modular spindle - which will allow bigger brakes when I'm ready; trying to decide on going to a 5 lug and new rims now or just doing a 6 lug for now. I'll probably stick with 6 lug and spend the $$ on some control arms VS rims/tires since the truck already has decent aluminum 6 lug rims.

Any recommendation on spring manufacturer? GMCPaul springs actually change rates for various motors, and Hotchkiss only offer 67+; but if I did the control arms I could use their stuff.

For the rear I'm thinking new trailing arms, a sway bar, 6" springs and a notch
The Hotchkis springs would work on your 64. The front x-members are basically the same from 63-72.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2014, 12:42 PM   #34
LVPhotos
Registered User
 
LVPhotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,851
Re: Static VS bagged

Everything is on sale! My inbox is full off sales. CPP, Brothers, and so on.
__________________
1962 shortbed 408cui small block, TKO 600 5-speed, bagged Porterbuilt suspension. 18" Salt Flats
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/332579...t-c-k-pick-up/
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=560081
LVPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2014, 11:56 AM   #35
bearmedic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: LONGVIEW, TX
Posts: 3
Re: Static VS bagged

I have been looking into putting a 4/6 on my '66 with coilovers. currently my truck has a 4 link on the rear and am considering just going to the PB four link. I would like my truck to be used as a daily driver with the option on drag use. what do yall think?
bearmedic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2014, 12:33 PM   #36
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,910
Re: Static VS bagged

Quote:
Originally Posted by bearmedic View Post
I have been looking into putting a 4/6 on my '66 with coilovers. currently my truck has a 4 link on the rear and am considering just going to the PB four link. I would like my truck to be used as a daily driver with the option on drag use. what do yall think?
Sounds like a decent plan.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2015, 10:37 PM   #37
chris1044
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: MI
Posts: 56
Re: Static VS bagged

ECE 1.5" springs and some drop spindle in the front, along with new arms when budget allows along with ECE 6" sprints and super track bar in the rear is what I ended up with.

I don't have the adjustability of air, but I got a decent deal on the parts (bought second hand) and if I end up needing it I can always swap down the road...
chris1044 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 12:08 PM   #38
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,910
Re: Static VS bagged

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris1044 View Post
ECE 1.5" springs and some drop spindle in the front, along with new arms when budget allows along with ECE 6" sprints and super track bar in the rear is what I ended up with.

I don't have the adjustability of air, but I got a decent deal on the parts (bought second hand) and if I end up needing it I can always swap down the road...
Rear shock relocators? With 6" drop springs they're definitely needed to maintain shock performance.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 08:35 PM   #39
chris1044
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: MI
Posts: 56
Re: Static VS bagged

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post
Rear shock relocators? With 6" drop springs they're definitely needed to maintain shock performance.

Yep. Rear relocators along with the extensions for the front to reduce the angle. I think this plus cab mounts should improve the ride quality of the truck 1000%. Broken front coils and blown out shocks mean there's only one direction it could go
chris1044 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2015, 08:48 PM   #40
LVPhotos
Registered User
 
LVPhotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,851
Re: Static VS bagged

My stock shock mount to the rear and new forward spot and stem welded to Porterbuilt arms. Newly installed Porterbuilt crossmember and rack.
Attached Images
    
__________________
1962 shortbed 408cui small block, TKO 600 5-speed, bagged Porterbuilt suspension. 18" Salt Flats
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/332579...t-c-k-pick-up/
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=560081
LVPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2015, 07:56 PM   #41
NEWFISHER
Registered User
 
NEWFISHER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,303
Re: Static VS bagged

^^^^ nice!
__________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
NEWFISHER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2015, 12:52 PM   #42
par4tom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kingsburg CA
Posts: 581
Re: Static VS bagged

I am running a 2.5" McGaughy's drop spindle in the front and just decided to ditch the springs in the rear of my 61 and do bags. Does anyone have a picture or a thread of how the upper cups for the rear need to be made? I'm having trouble finding good info.

My upper mounting plate is 6" in diameter...do I just take a 6" pipe, cut it about an 1 1/2" and then weld it to the upper member leaving room to tighten the bolts and run the air line?

Tom
__________________
My Build Thread
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=705185
How to Get Audiophile Sound in 60-66 Trucks
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...=1#post7236896
Building Your Own Speaker Kick Pods
http://http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=730495
par4tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2015, 06:34 PM   #43
LVPhotos
Registered User
 
LVPhotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,851
Re: Static VS bagged

From Ride Tech. Takes the two bolts makes a rem9vable center post that spins on in stock location.


__________________
1962 shortbed 408cui small block, TKO 600 5-speed, bagged Porterbuilt suspension. 18" Salt Flats
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/332579...t-c-k-pick-up/
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=560081
LVPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com