Quote:
Originally Posted by special-K
Let us know how they work out.
I don't buy the no flex from boxed arms being bad. I wouldn't use poly bushings since the point of the boxed arms are to give a more positive feel, as well as more strength. The trailing arm is a rigid member of the suspension. If stock are flexing in up and down motion they are also flexing side to side. They are built to be strongest on the vertical plane. For those lowering trucks, it lessens required range of motion anyway. The fact that 3/4t trucks need that plate tells me the design could use a little help. They are one part of these trucks, which I always say were designed so well, where GM cheaped out and that is showing up now even in AZ trucks. I've only ever run stock trailing arms and have only had a few trucks with them. I never had any problems. But if I needed new trailing arms I think I'd consider ECE's better design.
|
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.