Aim/DJM lowering kit thread
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 3
From: Alton, MO
I know some of you really want to modify the suspensions of these trucks and have every right to do so. But stop and think about what was involved in the design of these vehicles. Ford hired some of the brightest engineers to make a truck that was capable of hauling, towing and general driving that sported good handling qualities with safety. When you raise or lower a truck you jeopardize the handling qualities and safety of you, your passengers and other motorists around you. The rear axle I see in the picture is sitting on the over travel bumper and will be just one bump away from out of control rear end hop.
In the aircraft business we need engineering approval to make any modifications and for good reason.
In the aircraft business we need engineering approval to make any modifications and for good reason.
I have driven many of these trucks over the years and pulling the I Beam suspension was a no brainer to me. The handling, ride, stopping are all superior to what Ford originally put on the truck. Mine came down 6 1/2". With minor mods my truck would still be capable of towing what it was originally specked to tow. The mod would be air bags which they are using on new trucks for just that. I have full suspension travel.
What you state is your opinion. If you can show me what you state is factual I will conceed. Like William's truck mine has been retired from service as a truck. I don't like the bump stop situation on his truck but it's not my truck. With your logic we would still be using brakes that were actuated mechanically. I tell everyone to take 5 seconds before speaking. It appears you do not subscribe to that concept.
We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 884
Likes: 13
From: Bassett Virginia
WilliamWilliam,
I have a 67 F100 and I purchased the same beams that are on your truck. I've been having problems with the tie rod relocator. My mechanic can't get it right or I didn't receive all my parts. I saw photos of your beams and they look and it sits real nice. Is it possible you can email me photos of your beams connected to the spindles? I'm hoping I received all my parts. The box was torn open because it was not packed/shipped right from the company. Thanks!!! JohnDavid
I have a 67 F100 and I purchased the same beams that are on your truck. I've been having problems with the tie rod relocator. My mechanic can't get it right or I didn't receive all my parts. I saw photos of your beams and they look and it sits real nice. Is it possible you can email me photos of your beams connected to the spindles? I'm hoping I received all my parts. The box was torn open because it was not packed/shipped right from the company. Thanks!!! JohnDavid
like someone stated above, there's always a right way to do it in a wrong way to do it. this is of course being 1 of the right ways to do it. and also like I mentioned above I have yet to have my truck bottom out in the rear. I also do not use this truck as a truck. I also don't use it as a race car. when I want to drive a little faster, I'll break out my boss 302 mustang. LOL.
Senior User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Williamwilliam,
I had messaged you on the other board, and you directed me to this thread. I went ahead and ordered the entire AIM set up, part number for part number. So, I just got a shipping confirmation, and it will arrive on Friday. (1/20) I hope to get everything installed, in the next 10 days or so. I will definitely post up some pics, and overall opinions. I hope mine looks as good as yours!
I had messaged you on the other board, and you directed me to this thread. I went ahead and ordered the entire AIM set up, part number for part number. So, I just got a shipping confirmation, and it will arrive on Friday. (1/20) I hope to get everything installed, in the next 10 days or so. I will definitely post up some pics, and overall opinions. I hope mine looks as good as yours!
New User
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Beam Photos
Thanks!! Photos would be great!! Just like you said, My truck won't be used to dragrace, tow or anything like that. The most my truck will haul will be chairs and a cooler 
. Front and rear photos of yours would be nice. It's been a long time coming with my truck and I have to get it right for Spring time. 
. Front and rear photos of yours would be nice. It's been a long time coming with my truck and I have to get it right for Spring time.
Senior User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: Oklahoma
I have stopped and thought about it and believe within reason we improve with each change in design. I remember doing many a frozen king pin so I welcomed ball joints instead. I have never seen a ball joint freeze. You want a dangerous situation? Someone driving one of these trucks with a frozen pin. I personally believe rack & pinion superior to a standard steering box (reticulated (spelling?) ball type) for light duty driving.
I have driven many of these trucks over the years and pulling the I Beam suspension was a no brainer to me. The handling, ride, stopping are all superior to what Ford originally put on the truck. Mine came down 6 1/2". With minor mods my truck would still be capable of towing what it was originally specked to tow. The mod would be air bags which they are using on new trucks for just that. I have full suspension travel.
What you state is your opinion. If you can show me what you state is factual I will conceed. Like William's truck mine has been retired from service as a truck. I don't like the bump stop situation on his truck but it's not my truck. With your logic we would still be using brakes that were actuated mechanically. I tell everyone to take 5 seconds before speaking. It appears you do not subscribe to that concept.
We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.
I have driven many of these trucks over the years and pulling the I Beam suspension was a no brainer to me. The handling, ride, stopping are all superior to what Ford originally put on the truck. Mine came down 6 1/2". With minor mods my truck would still be capable of towing what it was originally specked to tow. The mod would be air bags which they are using on new trucks for just that. I have full suspension travel.
What you state is your opinion. If you can show me what you state is factual I will conceed. Like William's truck mine has been retired from service as a truck. I don't like the bump stop situation on his truck but it's not my truck. With your logic we would still be using brakes that were actuated mechanically. I tell everyone to take 5 seconds before speaking. It appears you do not subscribe to that concept.
We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.
Search for a Recall | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
04V596000
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 3
From: Alton, MO
How many 1000's of Dodge dakotas were recalled due to the possibility of their ball joints seperating? I had the recall done on my 03 just after they started popping. Not a single instance, but many.
Search for a Recall | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
04V596000
Search for a Recall | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
04V596000
1000's when balanced against ? Ball joints have been used since ? Was it in the '60's or '50's when started. On how many different makes and models? Even if every single ball joint put in a Dakota failed you still have a very small number percentage wise when balanced against the whole. Of course what is also being pointed out here is engineers don't always get it right.
Back to ball joints 1,116,409 is the number of sold Dakotas total since '99. That makes 4,465,636 total ball joints used in Dodge Dakotas. In 1967 alone for the Camaro usage was 883,624 or roughly 20% of all Dakota usage. Stir in 1968 and we have a total for the Camaro of 1,824,212. Starting to see the picture? That is only 2 yrs Camaro compared to all Dakotas. What now if we stir in all vehicles of every make and model that incorporate ball joints when compared to Dakotas? The Dakota number becomes next to nothing overall. We have assumed 100% failure for all years Dakota in this example. From '67-'69 Chevrolet produced 1,325,464 2WD trucks. 3 yrs production against 13 for the Dakota.
5 seconds is really all it takes.
Thread Starter
|
Laughing Gas
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 884
Likes: 13
From: Bassett Virginia
Sorry guys, I didnt get to go to storage this weekend. I will go this coming friday for sure and take pics of the install, front and back, and post them up for you.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 6 Best Deals Available on New Fords & Lincolns Right Now
Brett Foote
This Hennessey Takes the Expedition Tremor's Off-Roading Capability to the Next Level
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
New User
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
tie rod relocator
WilliamWilliam,
I just looked at my tie rod relocator and the front tab is not connected to anything. This just can't be right!! It looks like from your photos, it should be connected to the spindle. The spindles on my '67 are off a 1976 F100 with disc bracks. What spindles do you have? This is bugging the mess out of me and I gotta get this fixed.
Thanks!! JohnDavid
I just looked at my tie rod relocator and the front tab is not connected to anything. This just can't be right!! It looks like from your photos, it should be connected to the spindle. The spindles on my '67 are off a 1976 F100 with disc bracks. What spindles do you have? This is bugging the mess out of me and I gotta get this fixed.
Thanks!! JohnDavid
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 3
From: Alton, MO
WilliamWilliam,
I just looked at my tie rod relocator and the front tab is not connected to anything. This just can't be right!! It looks like from your photos, it should be connected to the spindle. The spindles on my '67 are off a 1976 F100 with disc bracks. What spindles do you have? This is bugging the mess out of me and I gotta get this fixed.
Thanks!! JohnDavid
I just looked at my tie rod relocator and the front tab is not connected to anything. This just can't be right!! It looks like from your photos, it should be connected to the spindle. The spindles on my '67 are off a 1976 F100 with disc bracks. What spindles do you have? This is bugging the mess out of me and I gotta get this fixed.
Thanks!! JohnDavid
Posting Guru
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,867
Likes: 3
From: Alton, MO
I didn't ask you what you have. I asked you what you bought. I understand you bought these parts for your 1967 pickup but you no longer have a 1967 pickup when it comes to certain parts up front.
New User
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
What I bought were the AIM/DJM Drop Beams, same thing WilliamWilliam has on and in his photos of his '68 F100. I'm converting from drum to disc. Attached to the beams are '76 spindles, discs and calipers. The tie rod relocator is connected and in the correct possision but the tab on the relocator doesn't appear to be able to attatch to anything.