Re: trailing arms: Goodmark vs. ECE vs. OEM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCOTI
So we respectfully agree to disagree.
Yes & no.... Flex beyond articulation is unecessay. Flex for articulation is quite necessary & the triangle (the rear T/A susension on C10's) used the original material choices for that. No flex for articulation means binding. Binding vs. smooth articulation can unsettle the suspension. A suspension that gets disturbed @ the wrong time is unpredictable.
On the subject of rear sway bars.... Rear bars are used for specific reasons. Many install a rear sway bar 'because'. Because why? Because it's necessary? Because other guys have one? Because different vehicles have them & this GEN of C10 didn't so adding one is 'better' vs. not having one? If you install a rear sway bar, what size bar are you specifying?
A rear bar if needed is supposed to compliment the front so the size up front matters when deciding what rear bar. Adding a sway bar to a T/A set-up that utilizes solid tube arms & non-flex style front bushings won't hurt simply because the set-up is already limiting articulation.
It's your truck so use whatever you think is best (solid tube arms, poly bushings, & add a rear bar). Normal driving down the street to the burger joint, Cars & Coffee, or local show won't stress the suspension enough to notice a difference.
|
Good points, and I agree in part. For my next build I was planing on tube arms because in my (simple) mind they would partly act like a sway bar IF used with poly bushings, regular rubber would support binding, as you stated. This pickup will be a street truck, no off-road use, that can go down the straight line slightly quicker than stock . And I agree, a binding suspension would be undesirable in any circumstance, while a rather stiff rear end would (hopefully) enhance traction.
__________________
'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
|