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.

just another homemade shackle flip bracket

B

bboy

Registered Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Posts
37
Reaction score
0
I used part of a front spring hanger and part of a rear shackle hanger to create this shackle flip bracket. i've installed 56" springs on the rear with the pin to the back moving the rearend back 4". i will be relocating the fenderwells this week. i will try to take pics. bboy
100-0010_IMG_2.jpg
 
NICE!!! /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
so you used both the stock front and rear hanger on a k5??

[/ QUOTE ]

that is correct. the outer tab and support gussets are a portion of a front spring hanger. the inner tab and backing plate are a portion of a rear shackle hanger. the original strengthening bracket that was riveted to the bottom of the frame still fits in the new location. bboy
 
How much lift did you get out of it? switching 56's only makes 3" more wheelbase /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
How much lift did you get out of it? switching 56's only makes 3" more wheelbase /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[image]
100-0009_IMG_2.jpg
[/image] [image]
100-0006_IMG.jpg
[/image] actually the wheelbase thing can vary. it depends on how much forward movement you get by going from a tension shackle to a compression shackle. the pin on the springs going from a 52" to a 56" is different by 4". vehicles using a 52" or 56" rear springs have a common front spring hanger location.
the lift gained i did not measure exactly. it sits about the same height as it did with the 4" lift springs.
it sits almost perfectly level with the 52" springs in the front and the 56" springs in the back. it has zero rates in the front and overloads in the back for now.
some of you may recognize this jimmy it belonged to a guy named brian glass that used to frequent this board. bboy
 
[ QUOTE ]
some of you may recognize this jimmy it belonged to a guy named brian glass that used to frequent this board.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, tx85gmcguy was his username..

looking good. /forums/images/graemlins/thumb.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much lift did you get out of it? switching 56's only makes 3" more wheelbase /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

[image]
100-0009_IMG_2.jpg
[/image] [image]
100-0006_IMG.jpg
[/image] actually the wheelbase thing can vary. it depends on how much forward movement you get by going from a tension shackle to a compression shackle. the pin on the springs going from a 52" to a 56" is different by 4". vehicles using a 52" or 56" rear springs have a common front spring hanger location.
the lift gained i did not measure exactly. it sits about the same height as it did with the 4" lift springs.
it sits almost perfectly level with the 52" springs in the front and the 56" springs in the back. it has zero rates in the front and overloads in the back for now.
some of you may recognize this jimmy it belonged to a guy named brian glass that used to frequent this board. bboy

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh okay. Thanks for correction me /forums/images/graemlins/waytogo.gif Looks real good /forums/images/graemlins/peace.gif
 
Have you considered the pinion issues caused by running asymmetrical springs backwards? In the normal orientation, the axle is on the front of the arch and will point upward a bit as the spring droops (increasing the arch). With it reversed, the pinion will rotate downward when drooped and may result in the joint breakage due to binding.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Have you considered the pinion issues caused by running asymmetrical springs backwards? In the normal orientation, the axle is on the front of the arch and will point upward a bit as the spring droops (increasing the arch). With it reversed, the pinion will rotate downward when drooped and may result in the joint breakage due to binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's an excellent point, it never really crossed my mind. i hope it doesn't turn the pinion down too much for it is too late to turn back now i removed the inner fenderwells last night. if i leave the rearend where it is now the fenderwells will have to be move back 3.937" to be centered over the axle at ride height. do you guys think i should cheat them back a little more for the rear axle movement during compression. i think the rearend will still clear the gas tank.
if anyone else has ever run 56" springs backwards i would like to hear how yours reacts in droop.
thanks, bboy
 
bboy,
I run my 56's backwards and I love them, no probs what so ever. good drop and ride. Haven't had any issues with hop off road, but I'm carefull with the clutch on road. I'm on 42s too.
 
[ QUOTE ]
some of you may recognize this jimmy it belonged to a guy named brian glass that used to frequent this board. bboy

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I remember him. I remember when that rig was stock, had 32s on it, and it was his daily driver. /forums/images/graemlins/histerical.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
bboy,
I run my 56's backwards and I love them, no probs what so ever. good drop and ride. Haven't had any issues with hop off road, but I'm carefull with the clutch on road. I'm on 42s too.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the info. bboy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom