I can't answer your question, but am wondering who is promoting moving the spring perch outboard?  Seems this could impact the spring contacting the tire, and trouble aligning with the front and read frame mounts.

6sally6 wrote:

famous poems about nature and life

Other than instant tire-scrub........wonder'in what else would be accomplished.......
6sal6

 
You would have use reversed rims and wheel well cut outs similar to WVA Tacoma pick up trucks😱

We’re talking front suspension right?

Bentworker wrote:

We’re talking front suspension right?

I BET YOU'RE RIGHT!!.........
Funny how just one word change the entire post!
6s6
 

Therefore, a lower spring rate in the revised location can perform the same work.

Thus less weight ( and mass) on the front suspension as well as quicker response.

Am I looking at these benefits correctly?

50vert wrote:

That's my take on it Dan. In your case with the coil overs, you're only benefit is height adjustability. Coil overs mounted to the LCA are usually done with an improved motion ratio.With only two extra holes in the UCA, you'll get most of the benefits of a LCA setup.
I've got drilled and offset UCAs sitting on a shelf along with progressive springs. Was thinking bout trying some 6 cyl springs but decided on the progressives.
Height will raise by about what you lose with the Arning drop, but that won't worry you.

 

so did it raise your car with the progressive springs?

 

BILLY WALTON from GEORGIA wrote:

50vert wrote:

That's my take on it Dan. In your case with the coil overs, you're only benefit is height adjustability. Coil overs mounted to the LCA are usually done with an improved motion ratio.With only two extra holes in the UCA, you'll get most of the benefits of a LCA setup.
I've got drilled and offset UCAs sitting on a shelf along with progressive springs. Was thinking bout trying some 6 cyl springs but decided on the progressives.
Height will raise by about what you lose with the Arning drop, but that won't worry you.

 

so did it raise your car with the progressive springs?

Ask me when they get off the shelf Billy ..... don't hold your breath in the meantime though.

Nos681 wrote:

Thanks Barry…missed visiting with y’all this year.

When I was rebuilding/modifying the suspension 2 years ago, I did add the outboard holes 1”.
Just made a simple sheet metal template to add new holes.
I did mock it up to see the static change.

Still using stock location.
Wanted to see differences with just the coil over setup first. (350# springs for small blocks)
No regrets.

Thanks Josh, found some stuff to read up on.

Yeah, it's tough missing two Bashes in a row. I hope Di enjoyed her first as much as you, (and I) did.
I should'a realised you would'a covered as many bases as you could, when you did the viking upgrade. 
If and when you move it, run the 350# till you can form an opinion then try something lighter for awhile.
Easy to swap springs on your setup is a bonus.
I haven't seen a results review done that way with coil overs similar to yours, I'd be interested in hearing your results.

Moving the mounting point outboard improves the motion ratio.  Makes your shocks more effective, changes the actual spring rate.  Seems like many of the coil over setups do it.  If you have the room it should make your shocks and springs a little “stiffer”.

Actually…I was looking at the forces on upper control arm at mid span.

At stock location and at revised location.

Not like tire width was an issue back in 65.

I also have the understanding that the further away from vertical, more spring is required to perform same work…or is this just the shocks?

Last edited by Nos681 (11/11/2021 6:00 PM)