The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > 47 - Current classic GM Trucks > The 1967 - 1972 Chevrolet & GMC Pickups Message Board

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2020, 07:07 PM   #1
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
Old 01-19-2020, 08:13 PM   #2
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,917
Re: trailing arms: Goodmark vs. ECE vs. OEM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElKotze View Post
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.
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.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2020, 08:34 PM   #3
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
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
ElKotze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2020, 10:26 PM   #4
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,917
Re: trailing arms: Goodmark vs. ECE vs. OEM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElKotze View Post
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.
I'm no expert but in a track application, I wonder if any binding impacts the ability to tune the set-up? So if I was doing tubular T/A's, I'd use a Delrin or Spherical set-up on the front mount so it pivots freely & both rubber/poly don't. There are also guys putting down sub 1.50 60ft times w/the factory T/A's. I'd make a decision to use tubular vs OE on any possible weight difference.
__________________
67SWB-B.B.RetroRod
64SWB-Recycle
89CCDually-Driver/Tow Truck
99CCSWB Driver
All Fleetsides
@rattlecankustoms in IG

Building a small, high rpm engine with the perfect bore, stroke and rod ratio is very impressive.
It's like a highly skilled Morrocan sword fighter with a Damascus Steel Scimitar.....

Cubic inches is like Indiana Jones with a cheap pistol.
SCOTI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2020, 10:39 PM   #5
stsalvage
Scrapper 1
 
stsalvage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Riverside Calif
Posts: 1,649
Re: trailing arms: Goodmark vs. ECE vs. OEM

This is a funny one for most people that don't know what is what. Most hot rod builders go with them style Arm's thinking there better then factory Almost all custom builders say the factory stuff is stronger than the aftermarket.

If you're going for look's go custom if you're going to pound on it and use it for work stay with the factory.
stsalvage is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com