The stance??

Suspension, steering, brakes, wheels & tires

Moderator: FORDification

Post Reply
User avatar
sport71
Blue Oval Fan
Blue Oval Fan
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:17 pm
Location: Texas, Mission

The stance??

Post by sport71 »

I would like some feed back on what you think of the stance on my truck. :roll:
I'm putting it back together after the wreck. She's getting the full treatment. I'm planning to go with wide trim and adding a pastel yellow..


Image

Image
Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat it.
User avatar
green1970
New Member
New Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:54 pm
Location: Maryville, TN

Re: The stance??

Post by green1970 »

first off, i like your truck!! personly, in my opinion, i would drop that front end down more to sit level with the rear.. it would give a low and mean look!! and the wide trim on your truck would look good also, but the skinny trim looks just fine!!
tyler
fordman
100% FORDified!
100% FORDified!
Posts: 22329
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:17 pm
Location: Kansas, Ottawa
Contact:

Re: The stance??

Post by fordman »

the rear needs to come up. it looks like it is loaded or the springs are wore out. i wouldn't do anything to the body it looks perfect to me.
User avatar
td
Blue Oval Guru
Blue Oval Guru
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Tennessee, Lexington

Re: The stance??

Post by td »

1 round out of the coils would set her down in the front real sweet, but then you may want to find someone to bend your i-beams a little to correct the small amount of neg. camber you'd have :thup:

By the way, super sharp truck!!! :drool:
User avatar
fomocoguy
100% FORDified!
100% FORDified!
Posts: 1548
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:04 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: The stance??

Post by fomocoguy »

Personally, if it were my truck and I had the cash I'd spring for some dream beams and lower the front 3". I think they are around $700 shipped and they retain all the factory steering geometry.

As for the trim and body your truck looks great! I wouldn't change a thing.
Joe

1971 F100 flareside 8ft
1964 Chrysler New Yorker Town and Country wagon
2006 Dodge Ram 2500 cummins
2005 Ford Ranger
fitzwell
Blue Oval Fanatic
Blue Oval Fanatic
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: East of a rock, west of a hard place

Re: The stance??

Post by fitzwell »

drop the front a couple of inches....and don't touch anything else. :thup:
As a metter of fact, i AM trying to keep up with the Jones'
Driving like Parnelli, Drinkin' like George
-------------------------------------------------------
User avatar
sport71
Blue Oval Fan
Blue Oval Fan
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:17 pm
Location: Texas, Mission

Re: The stance??

Post by sport71 »

fordman wrote:the rear needs to come up. it looks like it is loaded or the springs are wore out. i wouldn't do anything to the body it looks perfect to me.
You are right the springs are bent and overloaded. I got an extra pair that I'll be using. I'm goingto flip the front hanger, and install a mustang tank in the back for now that I will have the bed off. In the future I'll put the dream beams. I've learned a bunch here of what works and what don't, thanks guys... :fr:
Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat it.
User avatar
Happy_Camper
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:46 pm

Re: The stance??

Post by Happy_Camper »

First off your truck is really beautiful! :thup: Sorry to hear about it being damaged. Very glad you have the resources to fix 'er up better than before.

The stance of the rear looks perfect to me, My opinion is, the front should come down accordingly to level the truck. Like the stance of TD's truck. I've seen the same stance with everything from 15" to 20" wheels, and they all look really stunning.
Good luck, and please post pictures as you go! :D
Scott
1972 F250 Explorer C/S, 390-2V, Dual exhaust, C6, Goose neck ball in bed
New and improved with Tilt Wheel, Intermittent Wipers, 2005 Bench seat and 5th wheel camper!...
Life is *very* good!
Image
User avatar
mrtleavitt
Blue Oval Fanatic
Blue Oval Fanatic
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:26 pm
Location: Overton, NV

Re: The stance??

Post by mrtleavitt »

Please don't lower it any more! Raise the back end an inch or two so it sits level. Lowering trucks is way over rated! :thup:
User avatar
td
Blue Oval Guru
Blue Oval Guru
Posts: 1007
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:44 pm
Location: Tennessee, Lexington

Re: The stance??

Post by td »

mrtleavitt wrote: . Lowering trucks is way over rated! :thup:

thats :box: words!!!


:lol: just kidding :lol:
Calvin Gunter
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:26 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: The stance??

Post by Calvin Gunter »

A set of DJM Dream Beams will probably put your stance right where you want it.And a plus to the dream beams is the ride of the truck does not suffer,if anything it helps the ride or it did on my 67.Also it's a bolt on thing so if you want to raise it back up you can unbolt it,put the stockers back on and you haven't hurt the truck. LOWERED TRUCKS ARE UNDER RATED!!!!!
1967 Ranger,Short bed,390,C-6,9 inch,4 BBL.,intake,cam,headers,3:55 Posi.,A/C,Power steering,Power Disc Brakes,Automatic trans.DJM dropped I-beams,flipped rear hangers,headlight harness upgrade.ExTang tonneau cover "Old Blue".
http://s508.photobucket.com/albums/s328/BigSxy96/
1967 Base model,352,2bbl.,3 on the tree,short bed,3:25 9 inch "Rusty".
1967 Mustang coupe-show car/garage queen.Small Block,alum. heads,Nitrous,4:11Locker,Areospace brakes "Mystang".
1996 F-250 Powerstroke-Big intake,exhaust,injectors.(Nice Smoke Show) "Big Sexy"
fitzwell
Blue Oval Fanatic
Blue Oval Fanatic
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 2:16 pm
Location: East of a rock, west of a hard place

Re: The stance??

Post by fitzwell »

mrtleavitt wrote:Please don't lower it any more! Raise the back end an inch or two so it sits level. Lowering trucks is way over rated! :thup:

if it's too low...you're too old :lol:


Praise the Lowered :D
As a metter of fact, i AM trying to keep up with the Jones'
Driving like Parnelli, Drinkin' like George
-------------------------------------------------------
User avatar
mrtleavitt
Blue Oval Fanatic
Blue Oval Fanatic
Posts: 767
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:26 pm
Location: Overton, NV

Re: The stance??

Post by mrtleavitt »

Ya I am getting pretty old. 23 is really getting up there! :lol: I know that was a bold statement, but he did ask my opinion. No hard feeling guys, just making a laugh. :fr:
User avatar
67MercM100
New Member
New Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 6:19 pm
Location: Iowa

Re: The stance??

Post by 67MercM100 »

Obviously...she's sittin' too low in the back relative to the front.
I'm a computer programmer. Beyond the 'computer' stuff, my forte is breaking things down.

So the next question is: Do I raise the rear or lower the front?
I'm a "fresh newbie". But I've already figured out that lowering one of "our trucks" with the twin I-beam suspension is a bit more involved that on other (lesser :) ) vehicles.

Now, let me ask - what is the 'purpose' of your truck? Radical custom? Occasional (cool implied) cruiser? Daily driver? Pickup (ie: workhorse)? Mixed parts of some or all of those?

If you're a "custom" or "cruiser" and maybe have the occasional 'light hauling'...AND you think the dough for the dropm I-beams is worth it...then drop the front.
Here's some "geek" for you to consider. (actually...it could be COBOL code)
IF (CUSTOM = 'Y' OR CRUISER = 'Y' OR DAILY-DRIVER = 'Y') AND HAULING NOT > 'LIGHT'
IF DROP-BEAMS = 'WORTH-IT"
PERFORM DROP-THE FRONT
ELSE
PERFORM RAISE-THE REAR
END-IF
ELSE
PERFORM RAISE-THE REAR.

Hopefully someone gets at least a chuckle out of my analysis. :D

PS: Nice truck. what size wheels and tires are on it? i need ideas!
Post Reply