Hello,can someone tell me the cheapist and simplelist way to lower my 1955 f-100 I would like to get it down 2 or 3 inches without messing up the steering Thanks Mike

 

Reverse the eyes on the springs.

 

The cheapest way to lower your truck would be to remove some of the leaves from each spring pack. Look at Mid Fifty Ford Truck catalog for a detailed description of which springs to eliminate. I don't know if this will give you as much drop as you are looking for? but it is a start and won' cost much. Cheap, Easy, and won't mess up the steering.

 

Ok, I'm confused - which is better? I would think that reversing the eyes would be. What affect does taking out spring leaves have on the spring strength/durability, etc.?

 

Unless you are planning on hauling heavy loads softening the springs will not only lower the truck, but make the ride more comfortable at the same time. Remember the springs were engineered to support an extra 1000# of load over very rough roads and farm fields. Reversing the eyes is not as inexpensive as removing leaves nor will it drop it as much. peruse the afore mentioned MF catalog for a chart of lowering methods and the resulting drop They also list reversed eye main leaves, lowering springs and HMW plastic spacer strips that really improves the ride as well as long as you have the springs apart. This topic has been discussed many many times, start another topic telling us about your truck and plans for it. Do it in a lot of short posts and when you reach the magic # of posts (20 or 25 now) the search function will be made available to you. Meanwhile, if you take your springs apart, clean the leafs by sanding or wire brushing in a lengthwise direction ONLY and DON'T paint them!

 

Mono leaf springs with reversed eyes is another alternative. You can get a set for a reasonable price from Durant Enterprises in Huntington Beach, CA

 

Sorry John I have to disagree, please DON'T use monos they are the worse suspension idea since Corvair swing axles.

 

AXracer - thanks for the input. Makes a lot of sense. I have some spring issues anyway - the main leaf in my RF spring is broken so I won't be doing anything (other than strapping a U-bolt around it!) anytime soon. The back, however, is much too high for me - would like to at least even them out so that the wheel-fender spacing is the same front-back.

Prior to suspension, I have to get the dern thing running first. I wasn't going to post a lot unless I really had an issue, but didn't realize the search function was disabled until X number of posts so I'll go start a new thread. :-)

 

Would you care to explain you aversion to mono springs? What's wrong with them? I have a set on my 52 F-1 and haven't had any problem with them whatsoever. If you recall many General Motors cars back in the late 60's and into the 70's used mono leaf springs on the rear and those obviously weren't a problem otherwise they would not have continued there use. What was wrong with the Corvair swing axle as compared to the Volkswagen swing axle? Aren't they both similar in design and function? If they were so bad why then did Volkswagen continue to use that particular setup for many years? No offense but you need to explain yourself or at least provide some examples before you go running something down.

 

Can't speak for Ax but eaton detroit spring has an interesting article on the subject.

Mono Leaf vs. Multi Leaf Springs

 

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers John. For every generality there is always at least one exception, and you are likely to be one of those, especially if you are a casual cruiser, not a performance driver. That makes all the difference in the world.
Eaton's article says it more definitively and with more authority than I could with a couple addendums of my own:
Most monoleafs offered as replacements on our trucks are of the single thickness or mildly tapered design rather than GM's heavily tapered shape (whic was designed and engineered for one vehicle only. This makes manufacturing much easier, and you wave the manufacturer of all liability for failure when you buy them, so cost and profit margin are definitely their first consideration, not safety or longevity.
The inherent nature of a long flat spring is that it wants to bend in an S shape when stressed, commonly called spring wrap up. When it reaches the maximum flex of the material or the tire coeffient of friction can no longer resist the turning force the S curve is generating, that stress is suddenly released, bouncing the vehicle into the air like the arrow thrust by a recurve bow. In the case of the rear axle that lifts the tires into the air breaking traction. When the tire returns to contact with the pavement it will suddenly impart an increased rotational force on the spring causing the bouncing to repeat. We call that wheel hop. Under hard braking the same can happen at the front axle. This cyclic breaking of traction can cause loss of control and the spring's wrapping into the S shape adds significantly more stress and work hardening to the spring (thus increasing the potential for earlier failure) than simple bowing. GM quickly saw the errors in it's ways and abandoned the monoleaf as a failed experiment.
No swing axle could ever be classified as a good idea. The physics and geometry rockets the rollover potential skywards. That design was also abandoned by GM in the second generation Corvair, but the damage was done and it was too late to save it's reputation from the likes of Mr Nader's scathing expose, and the ( somewhat rightfully) fearful public stopped buying the car ending another potentially revolutionary american car design. The Corvair was targeted at the VW beetle, and much of it's design was heavily "borrowed", but the VW's swing rear axle is one part that should have been left to the Germans. Another example of the beancounters influence destroying a good idea. The beetle's anemic little motor, and tall skinny tires could not generate the lateral G's needed to show up the weakness of the design. My brother had a 61 Corvair station wagon that broke an axle on the expressway which resulted in the wheel and axle and the car parting ways. Fortunately it slid in a relatively stright line and there wasn't much traffic that late at night, so what could have been a major tragedy end up as a major inconvenience and harrowing story to be told instead.
Enough for now, if you would like even more reasons, just ask, I typically only make assertions when I have real facts to back them up.

 

Thanks AX for the explanation I appreciate it. You didn't ruffle my feathers I was just curious as to your animosity toward mono springs, but I certainly understand now that you have explained it. My springs are not just the flat uniform thickness they are of the tapered design that's why I went with Durant as opposed to others. I liked there design and approval rating by different organizations. I did plenty of research before I went this route. And you are correct I only drive my truck maybe 500 miles a year and don't drive it like it's come kind of race truck because it isn't.

 

Thanks for your replys I thought I would go with removeing leafs one question I looked at springs and the back has some arch but front seem to be pretty straight will removeing leafs from front make spring de-arch ?? also does carburater on 6 cylinder have a accelerater pump when I look in carb no squirting gas have to pure in gas to start thanks,Mike

 

They should not dearch. Can't tell you about your carb for sure but most carbs have some sort of enrichening system to prevent stumbling when you suddenly hit the throttle and let in all that air.

 

Leafs/brackets from a Ranger will lower the rear I have pics in my first two galleries with Ranger springs. I just bolted the brackets to my 55 frame.