Make it handle

[robnolimit]

mongocanfly is 100%. Driveshafts and U-joints can go side-to-side, just like up & down. Many Ford and Chevy axles are offset for axle length, tank clearance, .....

[Rob Fisher]

I have a 1964 GMC Long box with full PB Fab air suspension
The kit came with a stock Mustang power rack and pinion from Summit Racing.
I’m hoping to upgrade to something that handles the weight of the truck and the fat front tires
I’ve looked at a unit that Detroit Speed sells that has been adapted to work with the higher pressure and flow of a Saginaw power steering pump
Do you have any suggestions or know what others are using

[71cheyennesuperlongb]

Hey Rob Fisher.You will be hard to find a solution to your mix up of parts.You do know ROBNOLIMIT sells systems that WORK dont you?With componets from 3 different builders it would be hard to say what would work best.

[Rob Fisher]

Just to clarify, it is a complete front suspension kit from Porter Built that just happens to use a mustang rack and pinion.
I’m looking for a high performance substitute for the re-manufactured stock unit that came with the kit
If Rob from Nolimit has some suggestions on others racks that are available that would be great
Thanks

[robnolimit]

OK OK. A little MII rack info. MII (Mustang II and Pinto) started in '71. the '71-'73 pinto units were the lightest, mostly manual, and prized by drag racers. - Not good for us. The '74-78 MII and 74-81 Pinto we're a little better, but had different mounting than the early racks. These were "Low Pressure" racks, designed for under 800 psi pumps. As a result, when used in hot rods and custom cars with SBC canister pumps, and later the Type II GM pumps, the steering seamed 'flighty' and 'light' - and there were a lot of leaking problems. The aftermarket responded with reduction valves for these pumps, available from Speedway, Hiedts, Summit, ….. and some special built pumps from places like KRC and Turn One. Later, the Fox, SN95 and T-Birds (all '88-'94 span) moved to a rack designed for High Pressure pumps. and the GT racks had a faster ratio.
- BTW, I don't like to use "Ratio" numbers like 12-1 or 10-1, because nobody really knows what this does. I like to know A) Turns lock to lock, and B) Inches of throw L/L. Such as 5.5" @ 2.62 turns. - That's information I can actually use.
I have used the Flaming River MII rack, it is good for high pressure and has 6" throw in 2.75 turns. I have not used the DSE rack, but I am sure it is a good piece, my guess is that the ratio (throw vs. turns) is about the same.
The big issue for Rob Fisher (and others) is that the IFS is based on a C10 spindle, with a 7" long steering arm. OE C10's used 6.9" of throw to go lock to lock. So, a rack with 5.5" or 6" will not turn the spindle as far. (Less steering angle) The long arm does make it easier to turn, requiring less effort from the pump. If you want a true Hi Perf. rack that will go 7+"with a fast ratio, you may need to go to Howe, Sweet or Woodward for a Servo-Drive power rack. If this sounds expensive, it is. Easy 1G+ for a rack with no rods or ends. - And, you will have to build new mounts. - Probably not worth it, as it still doesn't fix the C10 geometry.
If you are in this boat, head to O'Rielly's or Advanced, and get a '94 Fox GT rack. Use adapter fittings from Maxim Motorsports and go drive it.

[Wikid61]

A round of applause & thank-you for this man's answers & expertise here!

[oldman3]

X2...Jim

[Rob Fisher]

Rob
Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding my rack and pinion steering questions.
I would assume i fall into a category that a large number of us belong.
Trying to make a bunch of different parts, from different manufacturers work together.
You start by thinking that you just want to make it steer and brake better and that snowballs into the idea that you can make a 56 year old truck handle like a slot car.
Given the opportunity to do it all over a better solution would have been to buy a complete frame with suspension, brakes and steering, all designed to work happily together.
With all the bad decisions and money wasted on the wrong parts, hopefully you learn something along the way.
All part of the hobby I guess.

[robnolimit]

Originally Posted by Rob Fisher

Rob
Thank you very much for your suggestions regarding my rack and pinion steering questions.
I would assume i fall into a category that a large number of us belong.
Trying to make a bunch of different parts, from different manufacturers work together.
You start by thinking that you just want to make it steer and brake better and that snowballs into the idea that you can make a 56 year old truck handle like a slot car.
Given the opportunity to do it all over a better solution would have been to buy a complete frame with suspension, brakes and steering, all designed to work happily together.
With all the bad decisions and money wasted on the wrong parts, hopefully you learn something along the way.
All part of the hobby I guess.

Very true. what was once lead by the magazine industry is now lead by the net. In the magazine days, most of the editors actually drove the product before the issue went to press. Today, many people champion parts that have never left the garage, so the truth is nobody knows if the parts really work. Or how good or not. And, for the most part, it's not like a hamburger, you don't get to taste everything in town to find the best. - Don't be to disappointed. You are building a cool truck, and it will be WAY better than stock. Keep having fun.

[Stover93]

Sub’d

[RedBeard68]

Okay first off hello everyone! I have been building my C10 like most...as time and money permits. With that comes change in initial plans as usual. To get to the point I am looking at getting one of the bolt on front coil over kits for our trucks and interested on peoples opinions of the brands. While I would love to go full on wide ride or any of the other many nice complete crossmember kits that's just not in the cards. Also as much as I'd like to say I want to autocross a bunch or road race it would be more of a canyon Carver and fun parts grabber.

The truck is a 68 lwb that is going to stay a long bed...for now. Has a 383 built up with efi and a t56 trans. 12 bolt rear with 3.42 posi. Going to have 17x10 275/40 front and 17x12 315/35 rear wheels and tires. I acquired through trade a set of ride tech coil overs that I am going to build a rear set up (adjustable trailing arms, coil over mounts, etc.) for. In the front I was thinking about the QA1, ride tech, cpp or performance online kits. I am leaning towards Qa1 or Ridetech but curious peoples opinions.

I will probably do some autocross at some point but as of now who knows if I am any good at it so figure If it really bites me I can learn on a decent set up and upgrade down the road if I so choose.

Thanks in advance for any info. If covered already would appreciate what page and I'll refer to that.

[Rob Fisher]

Would anybody have any suggestions on what a good brand of Upper and lower ball joints would be.
Thank you

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by Rob Fisher

Would anybody have any suggestions on what a good brand of Upper and lower ball joints would be.
Thank you

Moog for stock replacement @ your local auto parts or through Summit for better prices. HOWE Racing or QA1 for tweaked parts.

[doug_p]

Rob-

I have a 62 c10 (long fleet), and like many of the others have posted, I have collected a few odds and ends over the years I am getting ready to install - not all from 1 manufacturer. I have been eyeing your rear outboard shock mounts (for 63 and up of course), and it appears, your upper mounts should be able to be installed on my 62 frame? My trailing arms already mount the shocks outside the frame, but the angle at which my shocks lay rearward (4" drop springs) is ridiculous. What are your thoughts on adding the upper mounts to my box-style frame - think they'd work?

Thanks,
Doug

[vet57air]

Looking for some input. I am building a 66 C10. Had a frame made. Front track width is 59". I had a 9" built at 59" (flange to flange) and then had wheels built to fit. I plan to autocross. Yes the 22"s are not optimal but I like the look.
My rear wheels are 22 x 12 with 7" of backspace. My question is having the front and rear track width the same good for handling or does it not matter?

[nikwho]

Hey guys,
I'm trying to get my '59 Apache to handle a bit better. Want to do a little autocross racing, etc. Firstly, Rob(Robnolimit), I read, copied and pasted much of your info early in thus thread and printed it, as a guide for my suspension planning, building,, tuning, etc. Ill tell you where I'm at right now, along with my goals. I've got my short bed '59 Apache. 383 sbc, TH-350, GM 10 bolt.

Years ago I bought your No Limit Engineering DVD to swap Camaro IFS into the '55-'59 trucks. Went soo smoothly with that DVD! I was extremely thorough, everything was squared and leveled perfectly, anti-dive angle set carefully, the sub-frame went in so smoothly. I went with 2.5" drop spindles, QA1 tubular upper control arms, polyurethane bushings and new ball joints in the factory ('79) Camaro LCA's. Went with Eibach's lowering springs and Bilstein shocks. All new factory replacement Moog steering components, center link, tie rods,etc. Factory Camaro front sway bar.

18" wheels, 245/275 width BFG G-Force street tires.

Have cheapo shocks and leaf springs in the rear. And a 4" Notch. After putting 340 miles on my truck driving down to a classic Chevy truck show in Glendale this weekend (Dino's Git Down), it is definitely time to address my crappy rear suspension! I pulled a few leafs out of the original '59 rear spring pack, flipped the axle on top of the springs, did a 4" C-notch and threw on a set of cheap shocks. I am preparing to remove my bed, bend up some c-channels as you described early in your thread, for the center section of the chassis, and then it's "time to make triangles", as you said. Ill follow your guidance there. I've been playing with a suspension geometry calculator in my laptop.

I built a 3-link for my '53 GMC that was on an S10 chassis, but I am unsure which direction to go with my'59. Im leaning towards a parallel 4 link, with a long panhard bar, but still intrigued by triangulation 4 links and 3 links. Which way would you reccomend going?

I'm curious how you would spend the next $3,000 or so on this trucks suspension, to improve its handling? I've already got a bit of DOM tubing, to build link bars, panhard bar, triangulation, etc. Also have all of my heims, bugs and polyurethane bushings to build my 4 link. So, I basically need to build or buy brackets for my 4 link, and look into sway bars, shocks, etc. I was going to go weigh my truck as it sits, to get front and rear end and total weight. Then I was going to buy the adjustable QA1 front Camaro coil over kit, and the rear universal coil over kit that matches my truck rear end weight. That would be roughly $1,000, leaving me with roughly $2,000 in the near future to spend on additional upgrades! Primarily looking at front and rear anti-sway bars, possibly some tubular front lower control arms. Perhaps rack and pinion steering? Looking for the best bang for your buck improvements.

I would like to also ask about desirable figures relating to 3/4 links, but that's getting too far ahead, at least for right now!

Oh, my truck also has 4 wheel disc brakes. Factory Camaro type single piston aftermarket calipers, standard pads, and all four rotors are new cross drilled and slotted. Has the "LS1" rear disc brake swap on the 10 bolt. The "LS1" brake swap is merely factory or factory replacement rear disc brake parts for LS1 era Camaro's. Has power brakes, with adjustable proportioning valve.

Any guidance that you could give, I would be eternally grateful for!

Nik

[nikwho]

To approach a different way; Rob, what do you think about me purchasing the following:

No Limit Engineering FatBar kit
https://nolimit.net/products#!/Fatba...tegory=6157546

NLE X-Member Kit
http://nolimit.net/products#!/X-Memb...tegory=6157546

No Limit Rear Sway Bar
http://nolimit.net/products#!/Rear-S...tegory=6157546

In addition to your parts listed above, if that is what you reccomend, I was thinking that I would purchase these, to finish up this stage of my suspension, then allow my bank account to recuperate for a bit. ��

https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...-springs-pair/

RideTech MuscleBar for '79 Camaro:
https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...e-shocks-each/

Again, thank you for any and all guidance and knowledge that you are willing to share! I would like to thank you by purchasing any parts that I need/can afford from you!

Or, should I just hold off on the front, and wait to purchase coilovers? I had cut my Eibach springs up front in the name of getting the truck low, but now my sub-frame will periodically bottom out on the road.

I'll add a couple of pictures. The old '59 is ugly, but sure a riot to drive!

Nik

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by nikwho

To approach a different way; Rob, do you think that I should start buy purchasing this kit:
No Limit Engineering FatBar kit
https://nolimit.net/products#!/Fatba...tegory=6157546

I looked at your 3 link kit, but feel like there is no way that my large diameter aluminum driveshaft would fit that crossmember.

Also looking at these parts:

X-Member Kit
http://nolimit.net/products#!/X-Memb...tegory=6157546

No Limit Rear Sway Bar
http://nolimit.net/products#!/Rear-S...tegory=6157546

Your Fatbar kit, X-Member kit and rear sway bar kit would account for roughly $2045 of my $3,000 budget. If these three pieces would be a good fit for my application, what front (1979 Camaro) sway bar would you reccomend? What else would you invest in to improve the handling? I'm pretty well stuck (welded) with the Camaro sub-frame. What front springs are best suited for use in this truck? Or do you reccomend coilovers?

If I order your Fatbar kit, do you suggest going with the RideTech or Viking coilover shocks?

In addition to your parts listed above, if that is what you reccomend, I was thinking that I would purchase these, to finish up this stage of my suspension, then allow my bank account to recuperate for a bit. ��

Ridetech dual rate springs: (long ago I cut a coil off of each of my Eibach springs, and now the truck sits too low. Looks good, but suspension not in the "sweet spot"! And, in my 340 mile trip to Phoenix area and back, my truck crossmember bottomed out on the freeway 5 times! 🤯 Makes a little racket, but definitely got some attention when it shot sparks everywhere after dark. I don't want to start a fire, damage roads, or get hurt, so I need to correct my ride height!

https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...-springs-pair/


RideTech MuscleBar for '79 Camaro:
https://www.ridetech.com/product/197...e-shocks-each/

That would pretty well spend $3,000! But seems like a bunch of high quality, well matching pieces, that would compliment one another. Thoughts?


Again, thank you for any and all guidance and knowledge that you are willing to share! I would like to thank you by purchasing any parts that I need/can afford from you!

I'll add a couple of pictures. The old '59 is ugly, but sure a riot to drive!

Nik

Nice build. You might reach out to Rob/NLE directly for a faster response. While he does respond here, it sometimes takes a minute. The direct approach might help get the info quicker.

[nikwho]

Originally Posted by SCOTI

Nice build. You might reach out to Rob/NLE directly for a faster response. While he does respond here, it sometimes takes a minute. The direct approach might help get the info quicker.

Thanks! Ill give it a few days, then give him a call.

Nik

[Dagobah]

Hey Rob, I just wanted to get your advice on my 69 swb pickup. I've read through quite a bit of this thread, but most of it is oriented towards track and autocross.

Is there a setup you recommend for a daily driver? I'm thinking the most demanding scenario my truck is ever going to see are mountain roads.

I'm looking for a reasonable drop, 3 and 5, give or take without notching the frame. Less drop is ok if that's the way it needs to be. Thanks for yours and really anyone else's input. My brother and I have been looking at Hotchkis, CPP, QA1 and Performance Online.

[UncleMatt]

Wow what a fantastic read! Thanks so much for the wealth of knowledge shared!!

My question regards frame boxing & bracing with a current daily driver (not a bare frame). Is it okay to do the welding on a twin post lift? (wheels drooped) Do we need to be concerned about frame flex from it hanging?

Thanks!

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by UncleMatt

Wow what a fantastic read! Thanks so much for the wealth of knowledge shared!!

My question regards frame boxing & bracing with a current daily driver (not a bare frame). Is it okay to do the welding on a twin post lift? (wheels drooped) Do we need to be concerned about frame flex from it hanging?

Thanks!

I would not weld on or box the frame w/it suspended in air from a twin post lift. The frame needs to be properly supported @ all areas along it's length to alleviate stress/distortion before making modifications. I would only consider it if that can be accomplished.

[UncleMatt]

Hi Rob,

Can you give us guys without access to a track some real world street tests we can use to track our progress? As we make changes it would be great to have some benchmark tests we can do on the street or in a parking lot to compare the results. I plan to do many of your suggested changes to my ‘69 short bed but want to take your advise and do 1 at a time. And test the results each with each step.

Thanks!!
Posted via Mobile Device

[67_ShortFleet]

Is there an advantage of having a steel floor in the bed verses a wood floor as far a rigidity of the rear of the truck?

[SCOTI]

Originally Posted by 67_ShortFleet

Is there an advantage of having a steel floor in the bed verses a wood floor as far a rigidity of the rear of the truck?

Having had one of each, I would say yes as far as w/stock trucks. The solid steel floor definitely helps solidify the bed area.

For my 64 that's under construction, I'm gusseting & triangulating the bed supports w/each other so that the mounting structure/s firm up the bed assembly like a steel floor would w/the wood merely being on top for visual purposes.