What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

1991 Crewcab front coil over input

mckustomfab

mckustomfab

1/2 ton status
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Posts
317
Reaction score
306
Location
Carrollton, Tx
So with the way my project crewcab has been snowballing I decided to find some bigger axles than the current D60/14bolt. After some searching and research I decided on some 2008 Ford F550 axles, D60 super front and Spicer S110 rear axle. The axles are massive and the rear will be straight forward but the front is what I am seeking help on. My plan is to utilize the Ford radius arm mounts but use some fabricated links. I am looking for input from anyone who is running a front link setup or anyone with helpful input on link setups. Here is the rig the axles are going onto and a few of the axles.
full


full

full

full


My current tentative plan is to use some of ORD frame side link mounts and use a axle swap kit similar to the one below. With the planned use and sheer size of my truck I am not super concerned with tons of articulation or travel. With that said I have not decided on what link layout I want to use... Originally I wanted to use a radius setup but I have been leaning toward a 4 link (w/ panhard). Hit me with some knowledge!!
full
 
I have driven lifted Ford radius arm and 4-link dodge stuff . I prefer radius for real use and if flexy stuff then link .

Now if money is no object i would LOVE to try a full front & rear ORD 4-link setup .

Dont forget KISS method And price point .
 
Ryan's cummins k30 runs 350/350 for coil rates on his 4 link. I think your plan is pretty good as long as you can fit that trac bar and a sway bar.
 
Radius arms are simply and easy. And can flex just fine. I'd likely design my own stuff using the factory mounts on the axle. I don't like how much clearance those stock arms give up. Likely you'll have to fab your own bracket on the frame for the upper mount
 
sweetk30 said:
I have driven lifted Ford radius arm and 4-link dodge stuff . I prefer radius for real use and if flexy stuff then link .

Now if money is no object i would LOVE to try a full front & rear ORD 4-link setup .

Dont forget KISS method And price point .
Click to expand...

Flex is not a real concern and that is why radius arms are still a option. I plan on mocking it up on a spare frame to see what lays out better. As far as the KISS method, I wanted to keep my ORD leafs but the more I measured the more clear it became that it wouldn't work. I have thought about running coil springs but it will depend on packaging, plus coilovers are easier to set up but expensive....

obijuank5 said:
Ryan's cummins k30 runs 350/350 for coil rates on his 4 link. I think your plan is pretty good as long as you can fit that trac bar and a sway bar.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the numbers! I was going to hit up ORD and see what they has to say about spring rate. Packageing will be the big hurdle but hopefully with the amount of lift I need it it creates a little more room. I am also going to try and keep the swaybar I currently have setup
 
I'm no help here, just wanted to say badass rig. I'd love to put an M1010 ambulance box on my crew.
 
Desert_K5 said:
I'm no help here, just wanted to say badass rig. I'd love to put an M1010 ambulance box on my crew.
Click to expand...

A bit of warning, the big boxes make tires looks small... With that box and 37's it was almost comical, 42's still looked odd, I think the 46's finally have the right proportions.
 
blazinzuk said:
Radius arms are simply and easy. And can flex just fine. I'd likely design my own stuff using the factory mounts on the axle. I don't like how much clearance those stock arms give up. Likely you'll have to fab your own bracket on the frame for the upper mount
Click to expand...

Simplicity is the main reason that the radius arm option is still on the table, my main concern is that the link will need to be fairly flat. The factory radius arms will go into the scrap pile in favor of some arm that should line up with the frame rail. The cast radius arm mounts on the axle are about 1" wider per side than the chevy frame rail and I would like to bend the links so they can line up with the frame. Here is a drawing of how I would like it to be setup, this drawing has the 4 link (w/ panhard) but a radius arm setup would be very similar.
full
 
Easy easy to do radius arms like that. Just bring that lower arm to the upper arm and be done. Like you said flex is not a huge concern. But with radius arms that long it should still flex decent. As long as your not using bushings everywhere.
 
blazinzuk said:
Easy easy to do radius arms like that. Just bring that lower arm to the upper arm and be done. Like you said flex is not a huge concern. But with radius arms that long it should still flex decent. As long as your not using bushings everywhere.
Click to expand...

So my plan for joints is to run the Johnny Joints (good enough for ORD, good enough for me) at the frame side and the OEM bushings on the axle. I think my main reason for keeping the 4 link as a option is that i have heard that it allows the pinion angle to change relative to the axles travel. That being said, I don't know if it will effect me enough to warrant the added complexity. I am probably way over thinking this...
 
mckustomfab said:
That being said, I don't know if it will effect me enough to warrant the added complexity. I am probably way over thinking this...
Click to expand...

It won't and you are! Lol.

Thinking alot about a linked front end is a good thing. But start reading. There is lots if info out there. The reason you need to search out several sources is, well it's the internet, there is plenty of wrong info. The correct info usually ends up being repeated several times. And typically makes more sense
 
blazinzuk said:
It won't and you are! Lol.

Thinking alot about a linked front end is a good thing. But start reading. There is lots if info out there. The reason you need to search out several sources is, well it's the internet, there is plenty of wrong info. The correct info usually ends up being repeated several times. And typically makes more sense
Click to expand...

Yeah, I tend to over think/plan projects...

I have done some searching, mostly on ford forums and they seem to echo what I am hearing here. This is the drawing I did with the radius arm setup and also some pics a SD axle swap that was done on a Bronco with radius arms that is very similar to what I am trying to accomplish.

full

full

full

full
 
mckustomfab said:
Yeah, I tend to over think/plan projects...

I have done some searching, mostly on ford forums and they seem to echo what I am hearing here. This is the drawing I did with the radius arm setup and also some pics a SD axle swap that was done on a Bronco with radius arms that is very similar to what I am trying to accomplish.

full
Click to expand...

Right there you fell into the radius arm trap. Radius arms like to be really flat and flat with that system means that the frame side attachment point is right behind the center of the axle tube. That's generally terrible for ground clearance so they get built steeper and then a LOT of vehicle details start coming into play like what you have for joints, roll center height, CG height, swaybars and probably more. Roll steer is the problem and it can be solved by not letting the body roll but that requires an axle that doesn't articulate well or a swaybar that will keep it friendly on the road but also limit it a lot offroad. In general we try to make the truck drive decent without swaybars and then use them to limit body roll and/or tune handling. Typically a 4 link will have less roll steer. It's probably not a surprise that I like your first mockup better with the 4 link system. Or drop the radius arms another 4-ish" below the frame to help flatten them out.
 
Stephen said:
Right there you fell into the radius arm trap. Radius arms like to be really flat and flat with that system means that the frame side attachment point is right behind the center of the axle tube. That's generally terrible for ground clearance so they get built steeper and then a LOT of vehicle details start coming into play like what you have for joints, roll center height, CG height, swaybars and probably more. Roll steer is the problem and it can be solved by not letting the body roll but that requires an axle that doesn't articulate well or a swaybar that will keep it friendly on the road but also limit it a lot offroad. In general we try to make the truck drive decent without swaybars and then use them to limit body roll and/or tune handling. Typically a 4 link will have less roll steer. It's probably not a surprise that I like your first mockup better with the 4 link system. Or drop the radius arms another 4-ish" below the frame to help flatten them out.
Click to expand...

Stephen, thanks for the input. When you guys were designing your 4 link system what were the deciding factors (if any) to go 4 link and not radius arm? It looks like due to my lift height my frame side bracket will have to be about the same height whether I go with 4 link or radius. Can you see any reason why the handling on a setup like your 4 link would change a lot if i were to use the F550 axle with the radius arm bushings on the axle side?
 
I daily drive my K10 with radius arms. It works well! I rarely hit the rocks but when I do I just pull an upper arm and now it's a 3 link. Pop it back in at the end of the trail and shred the mountian road back home! What's nice is daily driving it I don't need a sway bar and it handles very well. Very little body roll and obviously more comfortable.

IMG_20180512_175723_008.jpg

IMG_20180708_122600_824.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom