The Stovebolt Site Forums The Parking Lot '60-'66 Trucks Lowering a Front End ?

I'd like to make my '65 Stepside a "California Style" truck w/ the rear end higher than the front. I don't want it to be a drastic slant (like a cat in heat), but maybe just a couple of inches difference. My questions are: 1. Do I need to lower the springs and spindles in the front or just one or the other? 2.Will this change anything with how is steers? Thanks, Janine

In the LMC catalog they define ways to lower your truck. page 83

If you go with spindles you will have to also upgrade to disc brakes. If that isn't something you want to do then of the two options you listed, springs and/or spindles, springs are your option.

Using front drop springs decreases the amount of front end travel. The front rubber bump stops can be trimmed if need be to gain some additional travel.

Lowering springs will not effect steering as they really do not change any steering geometery and really isn't any different than the truck would be with a heavy load.

The rake you are after can also be "accentuated" by using bigger diameter tires in the rear.

Hope that helps.

John

Maybe you can help me understand something.

WHY?!?
I never "got" that look. Especially on a truck. It just looks like you're carrying 2 tons in a half ton truck.
Or, as the expression goes, "8 pounds of sh*t in a 5 pound bag."

It's her truck, she can do what he wants w/it, IMO. Sounds like she wants the rear higher than the front-I've seen lots done that way.

"Some men see things as they are and ask why I dream things that never were and ask why not." Robert F. Kennedy

Variety is the spice of life K10. What the heck, try something different once in a while... you might even like it!

Also, try 5 lbs of $hit in an 8 pound bag. Less wear and tear on everybody and everything involved. :-)

I put 2" lowering springs on my 65 front & rear...the truck has a slight rake when not loaded. If you want more, you should start with the spindles (2-1/2").
Good luck.

cm

I'd change the spindles and go for the power disc brakes. Makes a great difference in the truck and obviously you are not concerned with having a pure stock/original truck. Check out

http://www.classicperform.com/6092chevtrk.htm

Yes, I want to lower the front, not the back. Looks like the way to go is to upgrade to power front disc brakes, and drop spindles (2 1/2". I'll leave the back stock. Thanks for all the great answers, it helps a lot. I'll post some pics when I get a lot further along w/ it, right now I'm still working on the de-rusting the frame. BTW...I'm a girl not a guy. Janine

Hey JD,
On my 64 fleet. i used 215/75/15 on the ft with the stock wheels, and 235/75/15 onthe rear with 8" wide wheels and achieved the same look. The truck is stock ride hieght.
Just my 2 cents.
Chris

I have to disagree with the statement that "lowering springs will not change the steering geometry". That is untrue. Anything that changes the ride hight not only affects the steering geometry, but also the suspension geometry as well. You will need to have the alignment reset, regardeless of which way you lower the front, and compensation will have to be made for the reduced ride hight in the camber and caster specs, especially if the rear is higher than the front. The caster will have to be laid back more to compensate. This will be true with either a lowered front suspension or a "rubber rake" (different front and rear tire sizes).

What LONGBOX says! Almost everything affects the alignment,
Scott

Any commercial-type vehicle including pickups will have variable alignment specifications depending on ride height, sometimes pretty radically different ones. At a bare minimum, most truck alignment specs include a "frame angle" check. I'm always amazed at how much misinformation there is out there about wheel alignment, and how dangerous some of the supposedly "no problem" modifications can be. I've worked on suspension systems and taught wheel alignment for many years, and I'm pretty convinced that any change in ride height over about 2" will induce changes in steering geometry that cannot be corrected by wheel alignment adjustments. On the round track race cars I've built, we always had to relocate control arm pivot points to get the correct suspension geometry when altering ride height, and all we had to worry about was "go fast- - - - -turn left!" Making a vehicle handle under street driving conditions requires an understanding of 3-axis trigonometry that very few hobbyists have. Most professional mechanics don't get that deep into alignment theory!
Jerry

My most humble apologies. I read it as front higher than rear. Actually apparently all I saw was Cali style and that led to the front higher than the rear look. But it was cool to elicit JFK quotes and all for my inappropriate comment.
I'm all on board with the rear-high hotrod style. Sign me up.

That would be Gasser style, which is actually quite popular at this time. Most, if not all, Gasser style rods are built with a straight axle, though.
Jerry is absolutly correct about the pivot points and frame angle. Frame angle is one of the first measurements I take when aligning a truck, as it affects the entire alignment process.
Other things to consider are the operating angles of the balljoints and tie rods. This goes for lowered and lifted suspensions. Anyone familiar with the late model IFS 4x4s has heard of the balljoint problems with that style suspension when they are lifted. Most of the time, it's due to running them at an angle they were never intended to operate at.
So what you might consider, for the sake of least amount of geometry problems, but still get the look, is to do a combination of lowering the front no more than 2", and do a rubber rake with larger tires in the rear. I would advise against going smaller in the front, you could get into load capacity issues if you go too small.

Gasser Style ... not that radical.

In the late 40', 50's and early 60's it was quite popular to have the rear end lower than the front for street customs, they were called "taildraggers".

But that tail draging stance was nowhere near what a gasser stance would be.

Glad you're all adding info to this thread, it helps a lot and I agree that changes to height alignment do change the steering geometry, that's why I asked to confirm my thoughts. So now I think I'll go with the front disc, power brakes, stock spindles and tire/wheel change method this sounds like it will save a lot of $$ and wear & tear down the road.
BTW...I don't really care for the tail-draggin'-gasser style either. JD

I lowered my front 2 1/2" in front with dropped spindels and added the disk brakes. The truck has never stopped so good. The back I dropped 4". I have 235-70-15 tires in the front and295-70-15s in the back. Get lots of compliments on the stance

JD, I too like the forward rake and that is what I did to my C10 like we did in the late 60's/early 70's, except instead of heating the coils I used 2" drop springs. What a difference in then and now, it rides I think better than normal springs, I think I have pretty much full travel in my suspension. I changed to disc brakes also at this time and used the cheaper springs as opposed to drop spindles, and yes I had it aligned at this time. Brakes do make a huge difference in stopping. I used P215/70R17 in the front and P275/60R15 in the rear. Hope this helps.
Taclem
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/192/dsc5866p.jpg/

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/dsc5855v.jpg/