All 29 far as I know.
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.
80's short box, "S.E.R.E." Box permanently attached to the cab.
- Thread starter cybrfire
- Start date
-
- Tags
- squarebody-avalanche
All 29 far as I know.
Little bit better shot of the wraptor. Kinda blury.
Some suspension hangers becoming more permanent.
So the body mounts for the box. Didn't want them where the factory put them so all the factory mounting holes were closed off and I drilled new holes and welded tube across the new holes so as to prevent crushing the floor and box cross members.
Basically just welded in a chunk and then chopped it off and moved on to the next hole.
Didn't get shots of it but the box is bolted down now. About 3/8" between the box and cab. Kinda like the gap around the door. Looks pretty nice and put the rear tire more in the center of the wheel well, maybe a tad to the rear. I suppose it helped the departure angle at the same time but pretty minimal in that respect.
Some suspension hangers becoming more permanent.
So the body mounts for the box. Didn't want them where the factory put them so all the factory mounting holes were closed off and I drilled new holes and welded tube across the new holes so as to prevent crushing the floor and box cross members.
Basically just welded in a chunk and then chopped it off and moved on to the next hole.
Didn't get shots of it but the box is bolted down now. About 3/8" between the box and cab. Kinda like the gap around the door. Looks pretty nice and put the rear tire more in the center of the wheel well, maybe a tad to the rear. I suppose it helped the departure angle at the same time but pretty minimal in that respect.
Yours probably is longer and most folks would be. Considering the frame build I was able to plan the location of the crossmember a little closer to the spring hangers than what a bolt on kit can do. It will probably get a little bit shorter yet. As I add weight to the rear of the truck and the rear suspension compresses a little bit, i'll adjust the length of the bar to keep the shackle where I want it.
dirtroadoutlaw
1/2 ton status
Cool stuff! I will have to have a wraptor soon. This thread is good inspiration! I would have a hard time not clearing your frame!
dirtroadoutlaw
1/2 ton status
Well, crap. I've been researching swapping my dodge to a manual and all that missed that about the Getrags. Sorry bout that. That would be enough for me to go the nv4500 route.
Well, I guess you don't need to worry about those falling off.. 
Nice job, Kert..
Nice job, Kert..
The Dodge 29 spline is every bit as strong as the Chevy 32 spline and perhaps a bit stronger. Much cheaper to stay with all Dodge components behind the cummins. The adapters are stupid spendy.
dirtroadoutlaw
1/2 ton status
Agreed. I must have been thinking 31-spline as in the 2wd nv4500. I should have kept quiet in the light of all this transmission/TC stuff rattling around in my head.
I've been looking at NV swapping my tow rig and, looking at the cost of the needed donor, I may be better off spending the coin to have the 47re built with billet upgrades and all.
Problem is, the built ones still shift like a 47re IMHO. Another thing is, my boss (dumbass) had his built like full-competition style and the case cracked in two places as a result. That is why they offer beefier aftermarket cases. Stll, kinda has me worried about the Torqueflight stuff. Why put something like that crap behind an engine that strong?
727 Torqueflight is argueably one of the strongest slushboxes out there....
.....and is still an automatic.
Martin
Martin
dirtroadoutlaw
1/2 ton status
What he said![emoji106]
What gets me is how the TF's have no cooler/converter flow while in park. Always baffled me.
Maybe someone will start a thread discussing the reasons why TF's are not well suited for the Cummins.
NOW, I'm done jacking Kert's thread!
Stomis
Professional Amateur
Rig is looking gooder every day Kert!
One thing I want to mention, I think a longer traction bar would be better than equal length to the spring eye. That short of bar is going to give you a lot of antisqaut, likely way more than you want. The further forward and lower the shackle mount on the crossmember is the less antisquat you will have. Also, your fancy bearing and shackle assembly will eliminate any bind from the difference in the arc length of the two pieces anyway. I understand it won't match the angle of the spring through it's travel, but I would rather it move closer to the angle of the driveshaft anyway, the spring can flex pretty easy.
One thing I want to mention, I think a longer traction bar would be better than equal length to the spring eye. That short of bar is going to give you a lot of antisqaut, likely way more than you want. The further forward and lower the shackle mount on the crossmember is the less antisquat you will have. Also, your fancy bearing and shackle assembly will eliminate any bind from the difference in the arc length of the two pieces anyway. I understand it won't match the angle of the spring through it's travel, but I would rather it move closer to the angle of the driveshaft anyway, the spring can flex pretty easy.
Rig is looking gooder every day Kert!
One thing I want to mention, I think a longer traction bar would be better than equal length to the spring eye. That short of bar is going to give you a lot of antisqaut, likely way more than you want. The further forward and lower the shackle mount on the crossmember is the less antisquat you will have. Also, your fancy bearing and shackle assembly will eliminate any bind from the difference in the arc length of the two pieces anyway. I understand it won't match the angle of the spring through it's travel, but I would rather it move closer to the angle of the driveshaft anyway, the spring can flex pretty easy.
Oh no the great track bar debate again!!!
Well we know its magnetic but Kert did you mic it?
Hahaha
That was epic
I can only add mine works awesomer the way Kert designed and nailed it in!
y5mgisi
1 ton status
I'll join the debate real quick with a thought I have long had. I don't think length of a anti wrap bar like this one really matters. The fact is, with a leaf sprung axle, as it travels straight up and down(like going over a speed up straight on) the pinion angle relative to the frame shouldn't change. If it does, it's in fractions of degrees. Obviously Springs that are of unequal length from the center pin to the fore/aft spring eye would behave slightly differently. But anyway, because the pinion angle never changes, if the traction bar was parallel to the ground, it would remain parallel to the ground as the axle travels upward.
But there's a problem. The shackle end of the bar is staying in the same spot while the bar travels upward. I simple test of this theory would involve nothing more than taking the leafs apart, leaving only the main leaf behind. Bolt the axle back to the main leaf(maybe a good idea to put a spacer back between the axle and main leaf to make up for the rest of the springs being gone). Now note that at ride height the anti wrap bar should bolt right up to the shackle.
Now, with the shackle unbolted from the bar, jack the axle up to simulate a full bump situation. The arm will be several inches above the shackle mount with no possibility of bolting the two together.
Now, with ALL that being said, I feel that the binding doesn't create any real problems in real world operation. I think that if a truck had that type of bar combined with 14" of bump travel and was using that travel constantly, it wouldn't be a good thing. But the fact is, most of us probably only ever use around 5" of straight on bump at most. While I still feel the bar will bind in that situation, it would not be severe enough to cause trouble.
But there's a problem. The shackle end of the bar is staying in the same spot while the bar travels upward. I simple test of this theory would involve nothing more than taking the leafs apart, leaving only the main leaf behind. Bolt the axle back to the main leaf(maybe a good idea to put a spacer back between the axle and main leaf to make up for the rest of the springs being gone). Now note that at ride height the anti wrap bar should bolt right up to the shackle.
Now, with the shackle unbolted from the bar, jack the axle up to simulate a full bump situation. The arm will be several inches above the shackle mount with no possibility of bolting the two together.
Now, with ALL that being said, I feel that the binding doesn't create any real problems in real world operation. I think that if a truck had that type of bar combined with 14" of bump travel and was using that travel constantly, it wouldn't be a good thing. But the fact is, most of us probably only ever use around 5" of straight on bump at most. While I still feel the bar will bind in that situation, it would not be severe enough to cause trouble.
Your's is gooder Dave! Although this is a different topic, GTBD#2!
I disagree with that sentence, but I agree with the rest of what you said pretty much, the length (particularly the location of the shackle attachement to the frame) does matter, because it sets your antisquat. The traction bar is much more rigid than the leaf spring, so the spring will flex to match the angle of the bar without much trouble. Add the more travel the leaf spring has, the more flexable it must be to travel that far. The IC will be the exact spot the bar shackle is attached to the frame. Im my opinion, too much antisquat is worse than flexing the leaf spring a little because the shackle isn't inline with the spring eyes. It may cause you to get wheel hop not from the usual spring wrap, but because lifting of the rear end may cause the whole truck to jump up and down as it gains and loses traction.
y5mgisi
1 ton status
I gotcha. That's true. I guess what I meant was it doesn't matter from a binding stand point. I feel like you explained it much more eloquently than I did!
