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 1973 - 1987 Chevrolet & GMC Squarebody Pickups Message Board > Squarebody Projects and Builds

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-23-2014, 01:11 PM   #1
monte0185
Registered User
 
monte0185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brighton, TN
Posts: 1,267
Re: My 89 CC Dually: Double Wide

Im just wanting mine low enough to tuck the top inch or so of the tires like the front of mine but I have no desire for it to drag frame. I do alot of pulling trailers and I wanna pull a 5th wheel camper and bigger GN trailer but like you i dont want to sacrafice frame strength by cutting it but at the same time i need to keep all the bed space I can. I was just thinking i could get rid of the leaf springs and swap to bags to get the stance i like but somehow keep my bedspace but seems like its going to be one or the other i guess.
__________________
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the world together.
monte0185 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2014, 03:26 PM   #2
SCOTI
Registered User
 
SCOTI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: DALLAS,TX
Posts: 21,931
Re: My 89 CC Dually: Double Wide

Quote:
Originally Posted by monte0185 View Post
Im just wanting mine low enough to tuck the top inch or so of the tires like the front of mine but I have no desire for it to drag frame. I do alot of pulling trailers and I wanna pull a 5th wheel camper and bigger GN trailer but like you i dont want to sacrafice frame strength by cutting it but at the same time i need to keep all the bed space I can. I was just thinking i could get rid of the leaf springs and swap to bags to get the stance i like but somehow keep my bedspace but seems like its going to be one or the other i guess.
Mine is set-up to be basically an 8" drop & in theory should tuck the top inch or two of the tires @ ride height. The issue is compression.... I wan't 3" minimum clearance before anything touches the bumpstop which meant the bumpstop point of contact needed to be @ the top of the factory frame rail vs it being bolted to the bottom of the rail.

My 68 was bagged w/c-sections & had about 2" clearance w/no bumpstops. It could tow just fine because w/a load I would add extra room but for the ride height I wanted unloaded it made contact way more than I cared for. My 74 was the same but w/a home built AOL. My 90 is just leafs @ this point but it's worse than both of those were & can't carry anything w/o being on the bumpstops. All had stock floors....

This time around I'm not compromising:

No c-sections that consume 2/3 of the frame rails strength while still allowing contact.
No clearance issues & bumpstops installed for safety.
Better ride quality unloaded.
Attached Images
     
__________________
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
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 12:11 PM.


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