View Single Post
Old 01-19-2020, 07:07 PM   #19
ElKotze
Registered User
 
ElKotze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Southwest Kansas
Posts: 306
Re: trailing arms: Goodmark vs. ECE vs. OEM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI View Post


Define "bad"? The T/A set-up is basically a triangle right? When looking @ it from a birds-eye view, it utilizes horizontal front mounting points & angled c-channel links that are solidly attached to the rear end/rear mounting point.

If the rear mounting points are @ different heights (driver side goes up 3" & the pass side droops 3") vs both sides moving equally up/down in relation to the front mounts (which remain constant to each other), the triangle needs to be able to flex somewhere to allow the changes. Where does the flex occur to allow the different heights for each side when the suspension cycles?

The C-channels can twist slightly along their length (not bend up/down or side/side). That's why I-beams are used. That ability to twist plus the front mounting points encapsulated w/rubber allows the flex. The aftermarket rigid bars/arms don't allow the flex along the length. Poly bushings limit the ability to flex. Stack the two together & it's worse.
Dear fellow enthusiast, please allow me to respectfully disagree. You say: "the triangle needs to be able to flex somewhere to allow the changes", and that's where I think you are wrong. That kind of flex is unwanted, why else would one install a rear anti-sway bar? Just my opinion, correct me if I'm wrong. P.S. I'm planing on fabricating my own T/A out of square tubing.
__________________
'64 C10 LWB, 283, 5speed
'68 C20 LWB, 327, 4speed
'69 C20 Custom Camper Longhorn, 350, 4speed
'72 C20 Cheyenne Super, 396, TH400
'66 C60, 292, 4speed

Last edited by ElKotze; 01-19-2020 at 07:28 PM.
ElKotze is offline   Reply With Quote