Ride Quality Suspension Upgrade - $3k budget

[cjohnson6772]

Working on a 72 C10 and need advise. I am primarily looking for ride quality with some handling improvement being secondary. I would like to spend $3k or less to help fund other project. If costs exceed $3k I will probably just buy the full QA1 or Ridetech coilover set up.

Current state:
Stock suspension
Stock front sway bar
Riveted in factory ball joints
Worn front trailing arm bushings
Worn panhard bar bushing
10 year old Monroe Gas Magnum shocks

Desired state:
Approximately 3/5 or 4/6 drop
Planning CPP modular spindles

The rest is up in the air. I would prefer a new setup of front arms to avoid having to deal with the ball joints and to improve caster.

I have consider NoLimit rear panhard and rear shock relocation brackets. I just don't want to sink a lot of money into a sub par set up if I really NEED coilovers and a $5k suspension to be happy with ride.

I guess what I am asking, is for advise on the most cost effective and highest impact suspension upgrades.

[Greasey Harley]

FWIW The lower they get, the harsher they seem to ride. This especially seems true with a budget such as yours.
There are exceptions, but they will cost you $$$.
I would recommend rebuild everything back to OEM, use good quality parts, soft springs and plush shocks. Should ride pretty nice.

[Rich72C10]

I tell you what, my 72 C10 drives really nice. I have all new stock-ish shocks, new (Moog) frontend, and added a CPP Front Sway bar. Everyone that drives/rides in the truck is amazed how well it drives (this includes my local shop that does work that I am not setup for - like the front end). Which was around 3k for parts / labor / alignment. The shop had a heck of a time getting the old factory stuff off (I warned them they were likely estimating too low of work hours but they mostly ate it). That also included replacing the front flex brake lines, though that added cost was nominal.

I do have a LWB, which I understand rides better than a SWB truck? I am not lowered either - which I am very happy how it looks at the stock height!

[1970 CST Short Wide]

If your thinking about going with the coil over stuff be sure to watch some of the Videos on
U Tube. There’s a bit more to it than just bolt on. For instance a Plasma Cutter comes in real handy. And you’ll most likely go over your $3000 budget
I have QA1 full system on my 70 and really like them

[cjohnson6772]

I think I have settled on the following:

Porterbuilt 1" forward 1"narrowed arms
1" front CPP springs
2.5" CPP modular drop spindle
Ridetech front shocks
Porterbuilt sway bar
NoLimit Engineering rear shock relocation brackets with Ridetech shocks
NoLimit Engineering rear panhard bar
3" CPP rear springs
1" lowering blocks

Should get me maximum performance for minimum cost. To gain much over this set up I would really need coilovers and moving to a new crossmember for improved steering geometry at which point I would be adding at least another $2k in costs.

[HO455]

Did you consider going to a squarebody crossmember to gain the rubber mounted lower control arms?

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by HO455

Did you consider going to a squarebody crossmember to gain the rubber mounted lower control arms?

I am embarrassed to say that I didn't know this was a thing! I thought that 63-87 was all basically the same cross member and control arms and spindles. I need to do some research it seems.

[jimijam00]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

I think I have settled on the following:

Don't forget about all new rubber, everywhere.

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by HO455

Did you consider going to a squarebody crossmember to gain the rubber mounted lower control arms?

OK I have searched and I may have missed it, but what are you referring to specifically? Is there rubber isolating the cross shaft from the cradles on the crossmember? Or something else?

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by jimijam00

Don't forget about all new rubber, everywhere.

If I do all new control arms out, what is left? I need to rebuild steering as well. But other than that, all of the cab mounts etc are new-ish.

[HO455]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

OK I have searched and I may have missed it, but what are you referring to specifically? Is there rubber isolating the cross shaft from the cradles on the crossmember? Or something else?

On 1973 1/2 ton and up GM went from the shaft mounts with solid bushings to rubber isolation bushings to attach the lower control arms to the shaft. There are also larger brake options that are OE bolt on up grades with the later spindles.

[jimijam00]

Rubber bushings and mounts will absorb more NVH than the other ones (urethane, polyurethane, polygraphite, delrin, etc.) therefore giving the driver a smoother ride.

[SCOTI]

73-87 front suspension parts will swap over to the existing 67-72 x-member or the entire x-member can be swapped.
That said, then you also need to add in the cost of rebuilding/replacing all of the rubber bushings (8qty) if you swap to the later arms.

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

I think I have settled on the following:

Porterbuilt 1" forward 1"narrowed arms
1" front CPP springs
2.5" CPP modular drop spindle
Ridetech front shocks
Porterbuilt sway bar
NoLimit Engineering rear shock relocation brackets with Ridetech shocks
NoLimit Engineering rear panhard bar
3" CPP rear springs
1" lowering blocks

Should get me maximum performance for minimum cost. To gain much over this set up I would really need coilovers and moving to a new crossmember for improved steering geometry at which point I would be adding at least another $2k in costs.

Not sure what the 1" narrowed/1" forward Porterbuilt arms are doing for your cause? While nice, they're slightly overkill for what you originally described on your 'want' list.

Also.... A coil-over swap is not an AUTOMATIC upgrade to better ride quality. They benefit in having the ability to tune if needed by dialing in shock pressure/s & spring rates.
But those changes can impact what the buy-in price is:

*Double adjustable shocks (compression + rebound) offer the most advance tuning @ the greatest cost.
*Single adjustable shocks are less costly but only allow compression adjustment.
*Some entry level C/O shocks are 'fixed-rate' & offer no adjustment.
*Spring rate changes are as easy as buying another set of springs until you get the set-up you want.

There is no "one size fits all" magic w/coil-overs. You need to know what level of shock you're getting if swapping. You also might need to go up or down in spring rate to get the exact ride quality you're seeking.
Also, the complete swap kits replace everything & have updated geometry built into the arms. Ever wonder how much better the current set-up would be w/everything fresh & an updated alignment w/the common Caster mod for the C10 era trucks??
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...ght=caster+mod

Desired state:
Approximately 3/5 or 4/6 drop
Planning CPP modular spindles

The rest is up in the air. I would prefer a new setup of front arms to avoid having to deal with the ball joints and to improve caster.

Okay.... You want to purchase 'loaded' arms. PB 1" forward upper/lower arms do just that (shift the existing spindle C/L 1" forward & narrow the track width). Moving the lower-only a-arm forward changes Caster range (as mentioned in the link above) or building-in additional Caster into the arms. That question needs to be answered.


CPP has loaded arms but they're basically tubular arms w/the lowers shifted forward (which a guy can do w/stock arms). Yes they have BJ's.... but I'm betting they didn't splurge on top of the line quality BJ's. I'm not sure if PB's arms come w/BJ's (mine didn't but he might include them now to ensure fit).

Where the 1" forward upper & lower arm combo really shine is when you're trying to achieve over 5" of front drop & modern alignment specs. The lower you go, the tendency is the spindle C/L shifts toward the cab when trying to dial in decent Caster/Camber using stock/OE placement of the arms. Mild drops usually won't see this (if you notice it @ all).

Again.... The PB arms are nice (I have multiple sets) & I know you'd love their quality. But according to your list quoted above, I'm not sure the full benefit is there unless they are also building in additional Caster into the arms on top of just pushing the spindle C/L forward. The PB arms do utilize Delrin style pivot bushings which will offer the same ride quality as a stock 67-72 front bushing. They should have less pivot related bind which reduces overall suspension bind (which can translate into suspension harshness). Did I mention just how nice they really are???

Your plans for the rear set-up look good. I really like the 'No Limit' shock relocation set-up & their Panhard bar kit. You'll want to replace the T/A bushings (front mounts) w/factory rubber style or switch to a spherical joint if doing an upgrade.

[Thundarr]

I would say get all your bushings replaced and refreshed, first.

I threw out a set of bags on the rear from the PO and put in new springs that lowered 2" front / 4" rear. But the biggest and most dramatic improvement I saw on my SWB was the KYB Gas-A-Just Shocks all the way around. The ride quality is amazing and controls the bounce and rebound as good as any modern vehicle.

[jimijam00]

What kind and size of tires are you running, CJ?

[cjohnson6772]

My understanding from talking with Nate is that the 1" forward arms will add caster. I need to confirm. Absolutely not interested in arms if they don't add caster. I have seen the cross shaft mod and considered it for sure. That could save some coin, but for the logistics of the mod I would probably want to buy new cross shafts and mod them before tearing truck apart. (Too many other long term projects in pieces at the moment and newborn make me very keen to have a straightforward planned out install). The PB arms do have ball joints included as an option.

The other potential advantage to the PB arms in my mind is the 1"narrowed for the front wheel/tire setup that I want......

I want 18s or 20s with a tall tire. In the 29"+ range. Minimum 255mm rear and minimum 245mm front. Looking at availability, my target size is 275/45R20 for for rear which should fit fine. Here is where it gets a little unorthodox. I would like to run the same 275/45R20 on the front. Reality is that it is probably not going to happen. Most run a 245/45R20 on the front but that isn't enough sidewall for me. Maybe a 245/50R20 if I have to. I plan to run Goodyear Eagle Exhilarates. I used to work for Goodyear and still have some contacts. I have 35% off a set through the end of the year which helps. Budget doesn't allow for custom offset wheels so I'm thinking that the narrow PB arms give me the best chance at running my wide tire up front

Totally agree that coilovers aren't inherently better. They just offer height adjustment and packaging to where the spring and shock can be be very leveraged very far out on the control arm.

From everything that I know, I plan to spend up if not overspend on shocks before anywhere else. They seem to be the key. Ridetech seems to be the best game in town although pricey. They KYB option has come up a lot and is interesting though.

For stock trailing arms, who has a spherical front joint? Just Hotchkiss? I really should include the anti-squat bracket flip I suppose.

[cjohnson6772]

I forgot to mention that I believe (yet again need to confirm) that PB upper arms are shorter, netting a different camber gain curve. Handling benefit that is desirable as a secondary benefit to the ride quality benefit.

Plus that would be a few less rivets to remove for the front ball joints.

[cjohnson6772]

So for new ball joints, cross shafts, and bushings from RockAuto it would cost me $238+shipping to rebuild factory upper and lower arms with Moog parts.

[jimijam00]

For the ride, I'd go with the taller sidewall 18s.

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by jimijam00

For the ride, I'd go with the taller sidewall 18s.

That's the rub. I can't find a decent tire fitment for 18s with any options. 265/60R18 has a lot of options, but that is a LOT of tire. Concerned that it will never fit up front.

I would be good with an 18 if I could find a popular tire size between 255 & 275 wide with 28.5"+ tall.

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Okay.... You want to purchase 'loaded' arms. PB 1" forward upper/lower arms do just that (shift the existing spindle C/L 1" forward & narrow the track width). Moving the lower-only a-arm forward changes Caster range (as mentioned in the link above) or building-in additional Caster into the arms. That question needs to be answered.


CPP has loaded arms but they're basically tubular arms w/the lowers shifted forward (which a guy can do w/stock arms). Yes they have BJ's.... but I'm betting they didn't splurge on top of the line quality BJ's. I'm not sure if PB's arms come w/BJ's (mine didn't but he might include them now to ensure fit).

Where the 1" forward upper & lower arm combo really shine is when you're trying to achieve over 5" of front drop & modern alignment specs. The lower you go, the tendency is the spindle C/L shifts toward the cab when trying to dial in decent Caster/Camber using stock/OE placement of the arms. Mild drops usually won't see this (if you notice it @ all).

Again.... The PB arms are nice (I have multiple sets) & I know you'd love their quality. But according to your list quoted above, I'm not sure the full benefit is there unless they are also building in additional Caster into the arms on top of just pushing the spindle C/L forward.

Scoti I have reread your post a few times (I usually do when I see you post on suspension because there is good stuff in there) and I think I may be missing a subtlety in a distinction that you are making: in the first paragraph of this quote you mention that PB might be moving caster range OR building in additional Caster into the arms and that was a question that needed to be answered. I am missing the difference in those 2 things. From my understanding the lower arm only is moved forward 1" and per Nate it would move wheel centerline only around 5/8" implying that the upper arm stays in factory location (albeit narrowed and shorter for camber gain). Moving the lower arm only should net caster, but is there something else I should be asking him?

[cjohnson6772]

Well I have checked through a distributor and I can get Ridetech arms and sway bar for basically the exact same price as PB equivalents. Ridetech for sure has the caster gain built into the arms and the sway bar width is a bit more universal instead if the PB specific width. Plus the RT arms come also coated instead of raw metal which is nice.

So my only decision point between those arms really is if the narrowed width helps my front tire situation considerably.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

Scoti I have reread your post a few times (I usually do when I see you post on suspension because there is good stuff in there) and I think I may be missing a subtlety in a distinction that you are making: in the first paragraph of this quote you mention that PB might be moving caster range OR building in additional Caster into the arms and that was a question that needed to be answered. I am missing the difference in those 2 things. From my understanding the lower arm only is moved forward 1" and per Nate it would move wheel centerline only around 5/8" implying that the upper arm stays in factory location (albeit narrowed and shorter for camber gain). Moving the lower arm only should net caster, but is there something else I should be asking him?

You're reading it correctly.

I don't want to kill a sale to PB as I want to keep him prospering but I also want to help people achieve their stated desire when modding the suspension. Sometimes that means tweaking OE stuff to stretch the budget when that is also part of the criteria.

A quick call to Nate should answer the specific question on the arms:
Is additional Caster built into the 1" Forward arms vs. stock arms?

If so, they def sound like they're ringing multiple bells on your list. And that's correct... The 1" Forward isn't a true 1" as a definitive measured point on a tape measure. If you talk to him, tell him 'scoti' said 'hey buddy' .

With your feedback I get a better idea of your logic. Spending $$ toward those arms is def a better choice since it potentially helps achieve updated alignment numbers, pulls things in enough to run generic/mass BS number that are usually spec'd for most off the shelf wheels, & allows for direct swap of new parts minimizing downtime.

I'm not sold on the uppers being slightly shorter impacting the camber curve. The Camber curve is established via spindle height + upper/lower a-arm pivot points. If you're just bolting his arms to your stock x-member & running the same height spindle.... No change. Spindle gets taller or shorter? A-arm mounting locations change? Then it can impact the camber curve. Changes in length will potentially make it easier to achieve alignment targets (and don't be forced to use 1970's era GM specs).

Tires... I like the 245/275-45's combo mentioned & it seems they're more modern so availability helps you there (I looked them up on Tire Rack).

Hotchkis was the only player making the spherical joint for the front of OE T/A's. This is why I recommend just replacing the rubber if not interested in using (or can't get) the spherical parts.
But.... Nate also sells a nice T/A set-up that has spherical joints & built-in lowering @ the rear (no need for blocks).
Something to think about

[cjohnson6772]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

You're reading it correctly.

I don't want to kill a sale to PB as I want to keep him prospering but I also want to help people achieve their stated desire when modding the suspension. Sometimes that means tweaking OE stuff to stretch the budget when that is also part of the criteria.

A quick call to Nate should answer the specific question on the arms:
Is additional Caster built into the 1" Forward arms vs. stock arms?

If so, they def sound like they're ringing multiple bells on your list. And that's correct... The 1" Forward isn't a true 1" as a definitive measured point on a tape measure. If you talk to him, tell him 'scoti' said 'hey buddy' .

With your feedback I get a better idea of your logic. Spending $$ toward those arms is def a better choice since it potentially helps achieve updated alignment numbers, pulls things in enough to run generic/mass BS number that are usually spec'd for most off the shelf wheels, & allows for direct swap of new parts minimizing downtime.

I'm not sold on the uppers being slightly shorter impacting the camber curve. The Camber curve is established via spindle height + upper/lower a-arm pivot points. If you're just bolting his arms to your stock x-member & running the same height spindle.... No change. Spindle gets taller or shorter? A-arm mounting locations change? Then it can impact the camber curve. Changes in length will potentially make it easier to achieve alignment targets (and don't be forced to use 1970's era GM specs).

Tires... I like the 245/275-45's combo mentioned & it seems they're more modern so availability helps you there (I looked them up on Tire Rack).

Hotchkis was the only player making the spherical joint for the front of OE T/A's. This is why I recommend just replacing the rubber if not interested in using (or can't get) the spherical parts.
But.... Nate also sells a nice T/A set-up that has spherical joints & built-in lowering @ the rear (no need for blocks).
Something to think about

I need to dust off my Herb Adams book but I always thought that the ratio of the length of lower and upper arms played into camber curve. Since the arc of the ball joint and angular rotate of the arm is affected by the length. Good chance that I am off base here. Been a while since I've been through Chassis Engineering or the Make It Handle thread.

I am really torn on PB vs Ridetech arms at this point. Honestly think I would prefer the Ridetech except for the track width. If I go 245/45R20 on front that won't be an issue. But the only chance I have for 275/45R20 on the front is the narrowed arms. This is a significant decision point that I need to mull over.

I was aware that Nate made trailing arms, but didn't know that they had drop built in....seems like I need to have a chat with him about that product as well. More spring height would be awesome and I have plenty of scrub line height with 20" or even 18" wheels. Could also correct pinion angle for the drop like that as well. I hear a snowball rolling lol. May also just start with block and rubber bushings and do the T/A later.

Thanks for all of the feedback.

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by cjohnson6772

I need to dust off my Herb Adams book but I always thought that the ratio of the length of lower and upper arms played into camber curve. Since the arc of the ball joint and angular rotate of the arm is affected by the length. Good chance that I am off base here. Been a while since I've been through Chassis Engineering or the Make It Handle thread.

I am really torn on PB vs Ridetech arms at this point. Honestly think I would prefer the Ridetech except for the track width. If I go 245/45R20 on front that won't be an issue. But the only chance I have for 275/45R20 on the front is the narrowed arms. This is a significant decision point that I need to mull over.

I was aware that Nate made trailing arms, but didn't know that they had drop built in....seems like I need to have a chat with him about that product as well. More spring height would be awesome and I have plenty of scrub line height with 20" or even 18" wheels. Could also correct pinion angle for the drop like that as well. I hear a snowball rolling lol. May also just start with block and rubber bushings and do the T/A later.

Thanks for all of the feedback.

There is impact from the length of the arms. I don't know where on the hierarchy that falls vs spindle height & pivot-point locations as far as 'the curve'. It's def possible it makes the curve more aggressive (more NEG Camber faster).

Both companies are great. Ridetech just kills me on the pricing of some of their stuff though & the costs are only going higher in the next few weeks (annual price increases will hit come Jan 1st).