• Forum membership has its advantages....

Shock dilema

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
I am considering building a new truck for JeepSpeed's 3750 Class, soon to be the 2700 Class. I originally started with the idea that I would use a core vehicle that I own already, a 1976 Dodge W100 4x4. Under 116" wheelbase, the rules allow 4 corner coil-over, and 116" and over, require rear leaf springs. Travel limits are 12" in front, 14" in rear.
My plan was to convert the leaf spring/ solid axle(D44) to coil-over and radius arms. The issue for me is can I get a competitive shock set-up with this truck or do I choose a late model Dodge, with the longer wheelbase, with rear leaf springs, but with a more robust shock package.

Because I would have to convert the 76 to coil-overs, the rules limit me to 1- 2" shock and the choice of a 2.5 bypass or 3" smooth body.

If I were to use the late model Dodge, with the factory style coil spring in front, the choice is one 3" bypass or a 4" smooth body.

The only real drawback to using the late model Dodge is the core cost. The early Dodge's, particularly the 80's are a dime a dozen.

So back to the shocks..... Also bumpstops are permitted.

So my question to the peanut gallery, is the shock package of the early truck at a much of a disadvantage to the late model?

And if you were doing the early one, what shock package would you choose and why? Although it was suggested to me that using the 2" as the coil carrier, and a 2.5 bypass, would be "fine", my gut tells me otherwise.
My inclination would be to run the 3" smooth body instead of the 2.5 bypass, and add the biggest bumpstops available.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
smy edit window closed, but upon a re-read, I want to add a couple of items. The early trucks have 115" wb, that's why they are good candidate for conversion to four corner coil-over.
If I left the rear end suspended by leaf springs, and at limit of 14" of travel, leafs are a good option, then I get the choice of a 3" bypass or a 4" smooth body. Again, bumpstops are allowed. So which shock do you pick?
And given that I'd like to ditch the leafs, is it worth the trade off to link the rear, and be limited to 2" and the 2.5 bypass or 3 sm body.
 
Last edited:

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Best answer gets a case of beer to be paid at the Mint. Change that, a drawing from the best answers will given a case of beer at the Mint 400. Beer choice must sponsor a racecar. Deadline for posting must be before Jan 1.
 

partybarge_pilot

Well-Known Member
2" CO with valving and a 3" unmarked king IBP with the reservoir out the bottom.........

Also might consider the clicker on the CO to help with cavitation, your going to need all the help you can get.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
2" CO with valving and a 3" unmarked king IBP with the reservoir out the bottom.........

Also might consider the clicker on the CO to help with cavitation, your going to need all the help you can get.
We get to run hyd. bumpstops, so I'm guessing that you would be in favor of the 2.5"body with 4" of travel versus the 2.0 body?
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Best answer gets a case of beer to be paid at the Mint. Change that, a drawing from the best answers will given a case of beer at the Mint 400. Beer choice must sponsor a racecar. Deadline for posting must be before Jan 1.
Must not be many beer drinkers that know suspension. Maybe if I lived in Colorado, I could offer some pre-rolled specials.. Seriously, who's going to be sporting the first legal weed sponsorship ??? He's really smoking now !!!
 

Chris_Wilson

Well-Known Member
Don't build a racer on leaf springs! Especially a heavy full size truck. The maintenance time and cost of prepping and rebuilding leafs is demoralizing after a while. You can make a vehicle work very good within the 116" wheelbase restriction. As far as shock choice, if you are limited to a 2" coilover plus a choice of a 2.5" BP or a 3" non-BP, I'd run the 3" shock. You can make it work very good without bypasses by playing with air bumps and coil spring transfer positions and rate changes.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
Don't build a racer on leaf springs! Especially a heavy full size truck. The maintenance time and cost of prepping and rebuilding leafs is demoralizing after a while
That's why I am building an early Dodge, because under 116" it can be four corner coil-over, so I am ditching the leaf springs.

And since it's public record at this point, I have been advocating for SCORE for ten years to open the spring rule in Class 3, so we don't have to deal with this issue. One simply rule change that no one can agree on. It's pathetic.
 

Chris_Wilson

Well-Known Member
Our race bronco was designed so we could put leafs or coils on the rear and we do not really see much difference in performance between the two (since we had floating leafs that had the same travel as our coil setup). Up front cost is higher to do links and sway bar (for coils) but it pays for itself in just a few races. I'd like to see SCORE allow coils on all 4 corners in Class 3 regardless of what OEM was. The leafs are such a PITA that it took the fun out of it. And if it's not fun, why bother? It's not like any manufacturer cares about the class.
 

retroblazer

Well-Known Member
We're on the same page, but I have an opportunity to build a new truck for JeepSpeed with coil's on all four corners. It's my Blazer, without the leafs, and a Mopar for motorvation, with 8" of extra wheelbase. The tough part is what I'm going to do for the 50th Baja. Moss has declared that they intend to be there with the black Bronco, one more time. We'll see how things go at this year's Mint, for the Blazer's return, but of course I'd like to battle it out one more time.
 
Top