Saw this on a popular sales site and was puzzled. I've never seen this done before and while that doesn't mean it won't work it doesn't look very functional to me, any opinions?
An attempt at lowering. Fail. Looks like it's sitting on the bump stops, those leaves above the main leaf aren't doing anything except maybe making noise...
"Customer states there is a loud clunking noise coming from front of vehicle while going over bumps. Inspect and advise." I can't imagine it's not noisy. Looks like they de-arched the main spring or flipped the spring below it, then stuck the whole pack back together without doing anything else. Chances are they removed springs, flipped or de-arched the main or thereabouts, put it back together, then had to blow it apart again to add springs back into the pack because they got it too low the first time. All probably the night before the auction or a big show. Well... either that or it got dropped hard enough to bend both front springs. Ahhh... the things we do for stance.
I wonder if the builder was trying to emulate the overload springs like used on the rear axles of trucks, like 1-tons had. I bet there's a better way...
Looks like an attempt to lower it, by just turning the two main leafs upside down, then putting the other leafs on top, also upside down ! Notice how the main two leafs are bending at the holder/clamp thingy ! Don’t know why the shortest leaf got put on the bottom ? Imagine what else is different on that vehicle………..
I'm once again breaking rank. If it's missing anything, the aux.leaf could use a wear pad. It is after all a straight axle and parallel leaf springs. I'm not sure what you see as a problem. As long as the spring does spring, spring enough, what's the worry. Besides, its Oklahoma, roads are flat as far as the eye can see right?
The short leafs should be under the main leafs in the correct order in that application. I suspect they did it that way because the u-bolts were too long after they tried to take leafs out to lower the truck. If they were too cheap to buy a couple u-bolts I would look very close at the rest of the truck for other short cuts.
I think they were trying to lower the car by removing leaves and used the removed leaves on top instead of a proper packer to make up the space. Or use shorter u-bolts. And yeah, fail.
FAIL, They took the spring stack apart and ***embled it with the two main leaves below the rest of the leaves, there by only using the two main leaves as a sping and the rest to act as a spacer to fill the void left to use the original u bolts. This is not only dangerous but also will make the truck drive like absolute garbage. I saw aguy do basibally the same thing on a 51 F1, and that spring lasted about 8 secs before it hit the bump stop.
Agree with all the comments, pretty poor execution. In addition, with the spring that flat I suspect that the shackles are pivoted against the bottom of the frame or very close.
Well, seems we can agree on one thing, it could have been done better. However, I do think you've also missed the boat on the effectiveness of the system. For starters, the system operates as normal with the bottom leafs. Can we agree on that? So with out any other leafs, what would you have to complain fail about? Seconds, while I agree some of the upper leafs do nothing for damping the ride, what difference does it make if the helper spring bottoms against a spring bottom or in this case the frame if it bounces as much to cause it to hit. I didn't see a problem before but with news of a hill...? Thirds, we don't see the back of the spring clearly to see just what they did. I'm guessing it's a half pack of spring not the full leafs.
If the axle is sitting on the bump stops, the springs are doing nothing but locating the axle fore and aft. It has basically NO suspension. Also consider how the springs will deflect under heavy braking.
The truck featured in this thread is/was on Bring A Trailer, sold today for $23,**x. The rear section of the spring is just like the front view. Apparently the builder wanted a really low stance as the front tires are 195/60-15 …..basically skateboard sized. The rears are 215/60-15. The Panel Truck body is, by contrast, m***ive. Other than the tire sizes and poor front suspension execution, the truck looks to be pretty nicely done. Ray
Seems to me, you folks have two complaints. 1) That reversed spring pack. Would you have preferred a block instead? No block and shorter u bolts? While a bit miss guided, that spring pack is like a helper spring. I don't like the frame rub when it contacts but, it does offer a suspension. Add wear pads, adjust the position of those leaf springs, or not, call it good. 2) Well, I'm not sure. I think it's the chicken effect. One starts pecking and they all want to peck that spot. I have Clem. Guess I'm just not as harsh a critic. In the realm of springs and straight axle, flat ground smooth roads, it'll rumble along, easy over the speed bumps. And if there is a bump stop in the middle, that would explain the short throw and bending of the spring up front. So would braking, I think. But looking at it, maybe it's the fact you want the front end up in the air? Traditional like. Is that what's throwing you guys.
@NoelC The spring pack illustration you show in your post #19 above is the correct ‘stack’ for a so-called helper or overload spring. However, the subject vehicle front spring IS NOT ***embled in that order. The subject vehicle’s upper spring pack is ***embled opposite of the illustration and only has the bottom leaf offering any additional support. The uppermost leaves are merely along for the ride. Further, the lower spring ***embly has a third, and very short, leaf that is minimally useful, if at all. One of the longer useless upper leaves would have been a better choice for that position. I don’t disagree with your opinion that this thread has a bit of a ‘piling on’ feel to it but the criticism of the spring ***embly IS warranted. However, the motivation for your persistent defense of this mess is difficult to understand. Ray
The Jalopy Journal
