Why Leaf Springs ?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Oct 18, 2005 | 12:41 AM

#16

Ford_Six

Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2002

Posts: 18,488

Likes: 22

From: The Big, Oregon

While I will agree that most railroad equipment does use coil springs, how much suspension travel do they have, and how many coils do they use? The last one I looked at closely had maybe 6" of travel, and 12 coils per side, for a total of 48 coils under the car.
A lot of the reason for leafs instead of coils is packaging. Both are tunable, both can be heavy duty, but only the leaf spring can both locate the axle and hold it down on the road. Plus, leaf springs are flat. You can have a lot more wheel travel with a lower bed height, which is an important consideration.

Oct 18, 2005 | 12:57 PM

#17

jimandmandy

Post Fiend

Joined: Jun 2001

Posts: 5,228

Likes: 5

From: Running Springs CA

Chevy used coil rear suspension on the 10 and 20 series from sometime in the early 1960's to 1972. The odd thing is that GMC had leafs the same model years.

I owned a 1971 C10 and one of the best things about it (other than styling) was the ability to go fast on dirt roads. That rear suspension really soaked up the bumps and kept the axle more controlled. The downside to this long-travel setup is that there is much more deflection under load. The difference in hight loaded vs. unloaded was much greater than a leaf setup. I think that, plus possibly cost and commonality with GMC, is why chevy went back to leafs in 1973. Cost had to be more, with the trailing arms, panhard rod, and bushings. It was like having factory traction bars.

Jim

Oct 18, 2005 | 04:39 PM

#18

qaswq

New User

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 11

Likes: 0

What about rear coils, with the airbag in the middle to stiffen them up. That would be a good compramize. Expensive tho.

Oct 19, 2005 | 03:10 AM

#19

85 F-350CrewCab

Senior User

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 128

Likes: 0

From: Michigan City, Indiana

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLK94F150

It's KISS man, Keep It Simple Stupid. Leaf springs are cheap, simple, and they flat out work. Plus, they don't ride that bad.

Mike

couldnt say it any better

my 1ton rides great! ive took it on a alot of long road trips

Oct 19, 2005 | 06:00 AM

#20

stevef100s

Posting Guru

Joined: Mar 2004

Posts: 1,099

Likes: 0

From: Destin/Ft. Walton Beach,

I've seen a 67 F100 side by side with a 67 C10, loaded down with the exact same load. Brand new trucks, and the Ford was barely lower in the back. The Chevy back bumper was nearly draggin on the ground. It was no secret back then that Chev had a better ride, but Ford could haul a bigger load.

Oct 19, 2005 | 11:19 AM

#21

jimandmandy

Post Fiend

Joined: Jun 2001

Posts: 5,228

Likes: 5

From: Running Springs CA

Like I said, the coil setup has a lot more travel than leafs. That means that it will look higher unloaded and lower fully loaded. That does not mean that the actual load capacity is any different, it just looks different. When a leaf setup is abused by overloading, such as one of my friends does to his Ranger, the leafs bend or break.

Jim

Oct 19, 2005 | 03:59 PM

#22

ghunt

Postmaster

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 3,724

Likes: 0

From: Clarksburg WV

Quote:

Originally Posted by desperado_18_2000

Maybe with time i'll come to accept that. Which will probably be around the same time they come out with a truck with a full 8 foot bed, with front wheel drive only. And thats the day i'll stop looking at new trucks.

If the ridgeline wasn't AWD, we'd already have that...minus the 8 ft bed, since it's based off the Accord chassis

. That's not a truck, as far as I'm concerned.

Oct 19, 2005 | 07:01 PM

#23

go_racing84

Laughing Gas

Joined: Aug 2004

Posts: 964

Likes: 1

From: Roseburg, OR

I could say that anything that doesn't have at least an 8-foot bed isn't a truck... but I think some would take offense to that. I'm sorry, but if I can't put two dirt bikes back there and close the tail gate.......