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.

Hard Top roof removal...

H

hawkeye649

1/2 ton status
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Posts
848
Reaction score
0
Location
New Hamp-shi-ah
If body flex is a problem with cutting off the tops of our trucks, has anyone thought of a fexable truck? How well do you think a renforced floor, with mobile body mounts under the front cowl and maybe the tail gate would work? Ones that could compress and extend, but did infact and indeed, tie the truck to the frame. Not just unbolting them... hmmm.
 
hawkeye649 said:
How well do you think a renforced floor, with mobile body mounts under the front cowl and maybe the tail gate would work?
Click to expand...

not nearly as well as a full cage would.

j
 
I understand this. But if you had a cage, I'm sure these mounts wouldn't hurt. But I really don't want a cage in the way of my view either. I've never had my truck even close to the point of rolling it over, and probably never will. It would have about as much chance as anyone's vette out there... Also if rene says the flex is in the fire wall, why not brace where the flex is? Hmm....
 
I guess the logical question would be: if you aren't going to really wheel it... a) why chop anything off? and b) why worry about body flex?

In any case, I think you got so little response to your post because people are confused by your word usage. I have no idea, for example, what you mean by "mobile body mounts"...

If you just want to stiffen up the body on your rig, adding additional factory-like body mounts would certainly work... if that's what you're asking.

j
 
How about, shock-like body mounts that can compress and sag about 1 in, letting the body remain more "in shape" while the frame does it's flexing. It was just an idea I had, and decided to throw out there. I'd assume at some point in my life my truck would get a roll cage. Why would I want a full convertible? Strange question to my ears, why wouldn't I want one?
 
I'd say its an attempt to fix GM's piss poor attempt at solving whatever problem they thought they might have from a strong frame/body.

Suspension flexes, bodies and frames should not. Stiffen the body and frame, make the suspension work, and there is no problem. Kind of like all new vehicles. :)
 
There was a truck in an offroad rag a little while ago with springs on the body mounts. Truck or Blazer not sure. Any ways just full cage it. Ever notice a difference with just the cap off a 76 up Blazer I have, prehaps its because my floors are weak but I think they need a cage no matter what if you want to flex. Espically if its full convertible. Just my opion, and opions are like arseholes everybody got one.
 
I agree on getting the frame and body as rigid as practical and letting the suspension do the work. The firewall/cowl flex mostly applies to half cab K5's that have had the half cab cut off...

Rene
 
Well this is what I'm thinking rene, I like your rig and i have the parts to do it. I've asked around and been told there was re-enforcement on the body in the old full verts, but my 75 doesn't have the stock channels any more (bad bad hack job rot repair) and the fire walls on my 74, 77, and 90 all look very similar, a piece of flat metal. It's probably just a rube goldberg fix, but I was bored and had a spout of verbal diarea.
 
dyeager535 said:
Suspension flexes, bodies and frames should not. Stiffen the body and frame, make the suspension work, and there is no problem. Kind of like all new vehicles. :)
Click to expand...

a) say what you want about old cars, at least they don't have computers (which eventually break) in control of EVERYTHING on the car. The 'puter on my moms minivan went tits up and crazy **** was breaking down all over the car... it was madness.. and expensive. They are even talking now about giving the computer full control of the brakes for "better safety"... uhhh, no thanks!

b) I haven't seen a "new vehicle" that had a suspension on it that did much of anything. Most of them are so stiff, so low and so anti-sway-barred, that they are pretty much useless to everyone except lawyers worried about lawsuits as a result of rollovers.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur, but I'll take the old school rig, flexy frame and all. At least I can fix that with steel, a welder and some bolts.

j
 
I was pointing out that no new vehicle has a flimsy frame. Not the thread to talk about electronics in rigs.

You are telling me that a truck is better off for flexing having a flimsy frame than having suspension that actually travels while the body and frame stay solid? You can honestly say that a new Monte Carlo or Corvette (for instance) when compared with same vehicle from 20 years past HAVEN'T benefitted in performance with a stiffer platform? Come on. :) I know those are cars, but I'm talking about technology, not platforms. (and they are the only things left in GM's aresenal with even a semblance of what they used to be)

It's hard to compare the same with trucks...they abandoned solid front axles (GM anyways) before rigid platforms made an appearance. I haven't ridden in a new SFA rig yet, but I wholly expect them to ride a lot better than ours do, and stock for stock, handle suspension travel better to boot.

So tell us, why waste time with great suspension design when popping body panels and a frame that deflects 5" can do the same thing? It has nothing to do with materials, it's how they are constructed.

If the old chassis theory works better, then quad shocks must too! :)
 
hawkeye649 said:
Well this is what I'm thinking rene, I like your rig and i have the parts to do it. I've asked around and been told there was re-enforcement on the body in the old full verts, but my 75 doesn't have the stock channels any more (bad bad hack job rot repair) and the fire walls on my 74, 77, and 90 all look very similar, a piece of flat metal. It's probably just a rube goldberg fix, but I was bored and had a spout of verbal diarea.
Click to expand...

Well, my truck is not the typical example when it comes to body stuff and how bad the body flex's without the half top. I cut and spliced the rear half of a 73 onto the front part of the '81 i started with. I have yet to add a few key stiffener plates underneath. Sooo, when I chopped my top the flex was really bad, even with box tube rockers.

The only solution in my mind at the time was to cage it. We had to use a pair of hi-lift jacks under the tube rockers to get the body basck to where it should have been, then bolt down the '74 hardtop to keep it there. As long as the hardtop was on the doors worked fine and you could really notice how much stiffer the body was.

When i built my cage I again supported the underside of the rockers to get everything back into range, then built the cage with the hardtop on it. The only area that still moves a little is the firewall/cowl which I plan on adressing with some tube and plate forward horizontally from the 'A' hoop at the dash height. I'll probably spigot the ends of those supports so I can easily continue the tubing into the engine bay at a later date.

Once I get into the engine bay with the tube I'll be tying everything into the frame trying to get the tie-in points as close to the fronts and rears of the springs as is practical. This should limit the stress on the frame and hopefully prevent any future cracking...

Without an engineering department at my disposal this is about the best I can do.

I do know several others that have done this swap on an unmolested half cab K5 have not had anywhere near as much trouble as I've had with body flex and stuff...there is some reinforcement under the floor area (partially missing on my truck)

Rene
 
Oh, BTW...I do recall that Red K5 with 8" of lift, severely hacked fenders and 44's that ran a single center mount under the core support. As mentioned it's not the ideal solution but it did keep him from tweaking the body horribly. The bad part was that it still allowed the frame to twist virtually unchecked. Yes, the frame will happily twist many hundreds of times...but each twisting cycle brings it one cycle closer to a failure somewhere. It will eventually fatgiue.

I have also seen spring loaded body mounts under the core support using sbc valve springs...

Rene
 
Yes mine has a Z channel that runs under the front half of the floor, connects to a c-channel, then to another piece that goes up the 6" rise if I remmeber. SO these body shocks were kind of a thought, just until I got a cage really. See I want the full vert, but I remember the person who made the write up about this said he damaged his top on a forest service road. Right now that's about the hardest my truck sees, so I'm just looking to have my sweet truck be sweeter, by being able to enjoy Franconia Notch without a roof in the way.
 
See, that's exactly what I was thinking, that type of spring and all. Only because if you take those supports out, they hardly move. So if the frame is going to flex, let it... but try to isolate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom