Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

rear springs

Discussion in '1969-1972 K5 Blazer | Truck | Suburban' started by JTB, Oct 26, 2001.

  1. JTB

    JTB 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2000
    Posts:
    192
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA
    The rear springs for our Blazers are different than the ones for 73+ Blazers right? Im trying to sell my four inch springs and need to know if they will fit a 78 Blazer. thanks guys
    Jeff
     
  2. Burt4x4

    Burt4x4 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    6,854
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    California (Modesto area)
    Just measure eye to eye then eye to center bolt bothy ways. Most likly they are the same! I am running SuperLift rear springs made for 73+ P/U....
    Good Luck

    72K5[​IMG]Led Zeppelin[​IMG]Rock ON![​IMG]
    <a target="_blank" href=http://www.geocities.com/baja/5099>www.geocities.com/baja/5099</a>
     
  3. californiak5

    californiak5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Posts:
    820
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oceanside, Ca. 92056
    The rear springs are the same 52" springs. It is the front springs that are different on our K5's than the 73-91 K5's. So if you are just selling the rears you should be just fine.

    See Ya,
    Keith

    [​IMG] <font color=green>Born to Drive My K5</font color=green> [​IMG]

    <a target="_blank" href=http://coloradok5.com/gallery/californiak5>CaliforniaK5's Pictures</a>
     
  4. R72K5

    R72K5 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Posts:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    central IL
    i thought all 71-79 front springs were 44" ?!?!

    Oh, and on 2wd 73-80 the springs are 55 eye to eye, I just measure out of reasons like boredom and insomnia.

    Wonder why GM made 4x4 springs 52"long on 73- up 4x4 also.
    And why they lengthened them only 3" more on the 2wd 73-up?
    Odd....

    '72 K-5 4x4, CST, 3.07, 4 speed, NP 205, 31' x 10.5", Olive green and primer, rusted out, rice smasher!
     
  5. californiak5

    californiak5 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2000
    Posts:
    820
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Oceanside, Ca. 92056
    You might be right about the fronts. I just thought I remembered hearing from Stephen(ORD) and a few others (suspension shops) that this was why the kits are sold as 69-72 and from 73-91. I have been wrong before thou.[​IMG]

    As far as two wheel drive goes I really don't know. I would assume (or ass-u-me) that the 55" measurement was either a 52" spring that has flatened out or a 56" (some 3/4 tons and all 1 tons) spring that is very new. But these are just random thoughts since I haven't heard of 55" springs. But, then again I didn't know the difference between a D60 and D44 before I found this place. [​IMG]

    See Ya,
    Keith

    [​IMG] <font color=green>Born to Drive My K5</font color=green> [​IMG]

    <a target="_blank" href=http://coloradok5.com/gallery/californiak5>CaliforniaK5's Pictures</a>
     
  6. R72K5

    R72K5 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Posts:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    central IL
    very interesting, gotta love learning new info.
    I suppose they made different lengths for different ride characteristics...

    '72 K-5 4x4, CST, 3.07, 4 speed, NP 205, 31' x 10.5", converting to 2wd and pickup body(I did not want to do this- rust made me do it)
     
  7. Steve_Chin

    Steve_Chin 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Posts:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Foster City, CA, USA
    Yup... A longer leaf with the same number of leaves, leaf thickness, and leaf width will be softer in rate than the shorter one.
     
  8. R72K5

    R72K5 Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2001
    Posts:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    central IL
    what about when it comes to wheel hopping ? Do you think the shorter length springs would control hoping better than the softer longer springs ?
    Reason I ask is because I dunno if I want to retain the 52" on the back of the 72 chassis, I want the rear to squat good on accelration, but dunno if short springs would allow this as much as say 55" springs would. but with longer springs I may have a wheel hop issue to deal with.

    opinions/info ?


    '72 K-5 4x4, CST, 3.07, 4 speed, NP 205, 31' x 10.5", converting to 2wd and pickup body(I did not want to do this- rust made me do it)
     
  9. Triaged

    Triaged 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2001
    Posts:
    3,808
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CA (LA/OC area)
    I don't think that the longer springs would contribute much to wheel hop seeing as the extra length is behind the center pin.

    '71 Blazer CST w/ a 400sbc, 4" lift, 36" Supper Swampers, and alot of rust
    <a target="_blank" href=http://community.webshots.com/user/triaged>See it Here </a>
     
  10. Steve_Chin

    Steve_Chin 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Posts:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Foster City, CA, USA
    Squat is detrimental to traction when accelerating. I'd rather have a suspension that's designed to plant the heck out of the tires by pressing the springs back up against the body. Think about Newton's first law of physics (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - if you let the body move downward on acceleration, part of the available traction is being used up in that downward pitch, if you use the suspension to push up against the body, the tires are planted harder on the ground). FWIW, axle tramp can be caused by an insufficient amount of anti-squat dialed into the rear suspension. Anti-squat is determined by the CG height of the vehicle, the longitudinal instant center of the rear suspension, and the center of the contact patch of the rear tires.
     

Share This Page