1961 - 1966 F-100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
Discuss the Slick Sixties Ford Truck
Welcome to Ford-Trucks Forums!
Welcome to Ford-Trucks.com.
You are currently viewing our forums as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Ford-Trucks Forums community today!
I have seen this statement so many times & still do not understand it. The suspension clearly fits under the truck. There are way too many trucks running around to try to prove that incorrect. My wheels are at least 2" inside my fenders on each side. So please clarify for me what is too wide since I have no issue with my truck having almost 2 yrs on a CV IFS swap. My wheels are still inside my fenders.
Originally Posted by garbz2
Stock width is 59 inches and the CV is around 64. This regulates you to the use of major negative backspace modern metric wheels to fit in the wells. Unless the billet bling look is what you are looking for?. This also means you need to hunt for a correct rear to match the width as a stock nine inch is way to short. The stock CV 8.8 is way to wide with tires attached to fit under the wells of the bed.
What? If the IFS will work up front there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the rear axle will not work. What is way too short? I take it you have never seen a Prostreet build. Are you unaware of companies that build custom wheels from scratch based on requirements? For the record my IRS is far more narrow than my CV IFS. I plan on having steel wheels built specifically for the truck. Once again there are people out there who have put the CV rear axle under their truck and all seems just fine.
Originally Posted by garbz2
Also depending on the wheel combination you choose it can limit how low you can go as the tires may rub on the fender tops or edges.
Isn't this true of all suspension choices? Why must it be slammed to qualify as acceptable? If you take standard principles in suspension geometry there is only 1 ride height no matter what type of suspension you have. This height varys with suspension design.
Originally Posted by garbz2
Another aspect is just how much aftermarket support does the CV have? No one makes anything for them other than stock parts. No shops are installing any. If it was the Schnizz there would be shops everywhere installing them bagging and offering drop spindles. I hear crickets in that regard......
Once again it appears you are misinformed concerning the CV and parts availability. Eaton Detroit offers drop springs with either 1" or 1 1/2" drop. Bag kits are also available. The primary reason there has been such a low offering for this suspension is when in the car 1 1/2" drop is more than enough. Now that it is becoming more & more proven as a very good inexpensive swap choice I expect to see other offerings.
Originally Posted by garbz2
Welding all the cross members in place may help with some of the flex but it will still be there in the frame and a matter of time untill failure.
Look up a plane called the de Havilland Comet, this commercial jet( one of the first in service) had a small issue early on with aluminum and flex from pressurization of the cabin. Basic same principal Rigid structure meets non rigid structure and the engineering failure and mayhem it caused.
Just how much time is required to prove? This suspension was used under police cars for 8 years. That in itself should more than prove it's ability to handle a pickup. If one examines the car chassis we find a standard chassis design from all the way back into the '60's. Boxed to the firewall & then again starting right in front of the rear axle. Ford had no problems out of the cars suspension wise. The chassis design has been used by both Ford & GM for decades. One could reasonably assume matching a frame box of similar style should yield same results within reason.
The Powerblock show boxed a Ranger frame from front to rear & took out over 2" of flex. The result was 3/8" flex end to end. Same basic IFS design although they built theirs from scratch. Still a coilover type with upper & lower control arms. They stuck a Cobra IRS under the tail which is the same basic IRS I have under my truck.
The evidence against what you attempt to say is pretty much overwhelming and growing daily.
"I have seen this statement so many times & still do not understand it. The suspension clearly fits under the truck. There are way too many trucks running around to try to prove that incorrect. My wheels are at least 2" inside my fenders on each side. So please clarify for me what is too wide since I have no issue with my truck having almost 2 yrs on a CV IFS swap. My wheels are still inside my fenders."
I notice by you avatar and profile your truck is a 70 bump side. You are aware you posted in the 61 to 66 forum? I did not say it was to wide for a bump. I said it was to wide for a slick. I assume you are aware of the interior reveal and fender width differences of the bump verses the slick? About three inches narrower on the interior, this makes it kind of close.
"Once again there are people out there who have put the CV rear axle under their truck and all seems just fine."
Who, Please name them so i can be schooled. As for the 03 up CV rear even carcrafter in the bump forum abandoned this as it was to wide for the application and went with a narrower axle.
"I plan on having steel wheels built specifically for the truck."
Which proves my point that custom wheels are required to make it work with the stock nine inch. Most persons do not want this added expense as they have been told this **** will work, it all fits, even a monkey can do it it is so easy.
The IFS come's in a few width flavors depending on the app. Mustang, T Bird, or Lincoln. I have one in my T bird so i am slightly aware of them. Hell i even know where to get the mounts to put it in one of my trucks if i wanted to. wait, i thought you had this up and running for two years?
"I take it you have never seen a Prostreet build."
Nope, what is Pro Street? Is it like pro touring on only straight roads?
PS here is one i worked on. A mere 700+HP. I worked on this truck as a professional suspension and car/truck fabricator at Industrial Chassis in Phoenix. I build my first pro street truck in the late 90s. Back when FTE was run out of Kens house.
"Once again it appears you are misinformed concerning the CV and parts availability. Eaton Detroit offers drop springs with either 1" or 1 1/2" drop. Bag kits are also available. The primary reason there has been such a low offering for this suspension is when in the car 1 1/2" drop is more than enough.
Please contact Eaton and ask them what their Crown Vic drop coils are rated for in a truck or any application other than what EDS manufactured them for. Call the bag place and ask what the warranty or liability is for use in truck application using a CV. I and the forum await the reply from the vendors.
"Now that it is becoming more & more proven as a very good inexpensive swap choice I expect to see other offerings"
I would not hold my breath..........
"This suspension was used under police cars for 8 years. That in itself should more than prove it's ability to handle a pickup."
Really? A car with a 50/50 bias designed suspension has the innate ability to suddenly handle an additional load of 20 percent due to a 70 30 bias! And this is all all due to it being a cop car? Dodge Darts and Chevy Celebrity's were cop cars. So by your logic we should all use the "proven" suspension components of these cop cars?
"If one examines the car chassis we find a standard chassis design from all the way back into the '60's.
Apparently you are unaware of Fords full redesign of the panther chassis to accept the new aluminum assembly. It in no way is a standard back to the 60s design, in fact it is pretty radical off shoot from the traditional full car frame (Volvo used a similar removable suspension design in the early 80s on a steel unitized body). The frame is radically stiffened to remove ALL flex. You are also aware of the heavy forged steel stiffener installed inside the frame in a plasticized foam that picks up the all the main bolts and rear a arm mounting point? I assume you duplicated this critical item on your install?
"One could reasonably assume matching a frame box of similar style should yield same results within reason"
Wow, you fully expect to have a backyard or garage builder adhere to this, next we will be talking of having ASME stamps on welds. So much for cheap.
Here is the last thing i will provide on this. You and others can prove Darwin correct. I will politely stand aside and wait for the mayhem.
The CV main cross member is a aluminum casting, not a forging. It has the same metallurgy as a valve cover or head. Its enemy is flex. Flex will cause it to fail, PERIOD. Can flex be stopped? Yes it can be minimized, But not in the standard Backyard/Garage build with a ladder type 61 to 66 frame. By the time you add all the additional boxing and such it is no longer the Cheap suspension.
I notice you push these quite often, even in really, really pathetically bad builds. I take this as you are advocating that it is safe and nothing will ever happen due to the lack of skill on the installers part due to porous welds, bad steel, no inner crush selves between the rails or even unseen crash damage to the junkyard parts that was not apparent as it was not xray or dye penetrate inspected. Remember, you said it can be done and is safe. Lawyers will have a field day with you as the deposition will say "elgemcdlf" said it was safe and to do it like this.
I am clearly saying that i garbz2 would never advocate adding a cast aluminum suspension attachment designed to be mounted on a fully rigid chassis to a ladder type truck frame, even if it fits like a glove. There is to much personal risk involved.
98 528I BMW
63 F100 Uni Custom under construction 4" off the pavement and built to drive. DOHC M60 5 Speed
69 M250 Crew Hiboy 472 C6 Ranger, getting a full rebuild.
all valid points, but Garbz I have seen this on a short wide 66 just a couple weeks ago at the Goodguys event in Fort Worth. Wish I had thought to get the older gentle mans name but he was running stock mustang wheels front and rear, using a spacer on the back to offset the wheels and change the bolt pattern. Now before you go off and say that the rear set up is poor engineering, guys with dually trucks run these all the time with no issues on much heavier trucks than ours. Also you must remember the trucks that are getting these mods are not used on the farm anymore. They are street trucks and the only flex they will see comes from the driveway when they leave or get home.
Chrysler has been using k members for years with no issues. That is a bolt in engine cradle, it isn't made from cast aluminum but is a method that has been in use for many, many years.
Wish carcrafter would chime in, he is running this with a small diesel 4, for a couple of years now, and if I recall the only thing about his build he was not happy with was the IRS. Last I recall he couldn't get rid of the wheel hop.
I'll let you know how mine turns out, I too am using diesel power...S
I too plan to go CV on the front. I have an all-new king-pin front end, new brakes, etc, and I now have a truck that works perfectly yet steers and stops like the 56 year-old truck it is. This is not safe in my opinion, nor fun, with fat tires and no p/s. Ill take the chance.
While Im not going to do it.. I'm kinda old school, just have a 75 front swap... I have driven Kevin Mathis's (who posted earlier) truck .. in fact I turned him on to it a couple years ago. But, since he has had it up and running, it drives great... very responsive turning, braking, and as far as I can tell it rides pretty good and runs flat in hard corners. I understand where Garbz is coming from.. but, I have to imagine it would take a fair amount of abuse to see one fail.. as most of these trucks are just very light use or at most a daily driver.. I also know that the quality of any modification relies on the quality of the workmanship that goes into it. heck if it cracks.. you can pick up a new one for 200 bucks at a picknpull and have it installed in a few hours! To Each His Own. you wanna cv .. fine, you wanna mustang 2 .. fine, you wanna camaro fine, you wanna aerostar fine, you wanna buick fine, you wanna turn it into a three wheeler.. fine.. its yours. do what you want! just keep it between the lines. and do the job right. :-)
So I have mine in, crush tubes in and welded. Still haven't boxed the frame but after doing some hoisting on the frame corners I'm not sure there is any flex evident in the area of the cv crossmember, this being said I'm not convinced there is need for the frame to be boxed. Has anyone seen this on the road without the boxing? How well has everything held up?
I have had mine in for almost 2 yrs without boxing & no problems to date. I do plan on boxing the chassis & even have the steel. I plan on doing it when I do the frame off at time for the final bodywork.
BTT with an update on my CV swap. I got this in and it was way too easy. Biggest deal was deleting the old I-beams. Gave $350 for my k-member and sold the I-beams with disk for $400.
Here's the big one, going diesel power on mine and was apprehensive CV would even support the weight of the 6bt, have a 4bt as fall back, or how the engine would sit in place for that matter. Have to admit this was the easiest set of mounts I have ever had to make. I can't post pictures not sure why...but was able to add them to my album. My engine is a first gen and all I did was take the top mount bolt out and swing it so that the mount pad mating surface was horizontal, used a set of original equipment motor mounts, and they aligned with the mount towers cast into the CV k-member. I then used some quarter inch flat stock and added new tads to pick up the upper bolt that was removed earlier.
As far as the springs carrying the weight of the engine, there wasn't any noticeable settle under the weight of the entire engine, minus alternator and ac compressor. I even sat my weight on the bumper, used the bumper to keep the frame in line while adding the k-member, all 260 pounds and that addition made no difference. This even solved my oil pan clearance problem.
The CV is to wide. Stock width is 59 inches and the CV is around 64. This regulates you to the use of major negative backspace modern metric wheels to fit in the wells. Unless the billet bling look is what you are looking for?.
this is what is keeping me away from the cv swap on my 66 so far.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.