Lightning

New front suspension on the way!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 03:22 PM
  #1  
SpeedJunky's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Downey, CA
Thumbs up New front suspension on the way!

So I met with Tim yesterday who didn't have any reservations about truck's low stance and crappy, out-of-control, bouncy suspension.

Tim, being the suspension guru that he is , immediately diagnosed the problem: too low, coils too soft, shocks blown.

No later than I arrived at home, I took out my shocks and determined they were indeed blown. According to DJM, their 2" coils are 15% stiffer than stock F150 coils (not Lightning), assuming the F150 coils are much less stiff that stock F150s, I'm probably running some 600-650 coils up front....to soft indeed.

Atop of all this, my fenderwell to wheel center measurement is 14.5" or 4.5" drop.

Using the DJM arms, 1915 coils and stock coil isolator, Tim achieved 15.5" or 3.5" drop.

Onward to the new setup. Today I ordered a set of Hotchkis 1915 coils (960lbs.) and matching Hotchkis Bilsteins. Total cost $287.

Since Tim achieved a 3.5" drop with this kit, I figure I will get a net drop of 4" w/o the use of the stock coil isolator. This would translate to a solid 1/2" raise in my front suspension while still maintaining a nice level look (I have flip kit in the rear = 6").

A 1/2" may not sound like much, but it means the difference between not being able to slide a jack under my truck without the use of 2x6 planks and/or Rhino ramps.

Making a decision between Ruslow's coil/QA1 combo and Hotchkis's kit was very difficult, but I figured I could not go wrong with the Hotchkis setup for now.

Unfortunately, there are no 1915's in stock, so I will have to wait a week or two before I do the install and post pics.

-Monty
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 05:12 PM
  #2  
ShadowBolt's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 0
From: Olympus
You could get the Roush springs (if they will sell them by themselves) and the Roush valved Bilstein's. I doubt the shocks are much different. Someone posted they thought the Roush springs were 950 lb. springs. If you call Roush ask for Eric. When I bought my stuff a year ago he was the only one that new what day of the week it was.

Jerry
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 05:18 PM
  #3  
SpeedJunky's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Downey, CA
Originally posted by ShadowBolt
You could get the Roush springs (if they will sell them by themselves) and the Roush valved Bilstein's. I doubt the shocks are much different. Someone posted they thought the Roush springs were 950 lb. springs. If you call Roush ask for Eric. When I bought my stuff a year ago he was the only one that new what day of the week it was.

Jerry
Jerry, since the Hotchkis coils are 960lbs and are paired with Hotchkis valved Bilsteins, I should be in the same ball park as Roush in regards to performance. I will just be sitting a little higher with this kit than I would with the Roush.

-Monty
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 05:24 PM
  #4  
Suavy's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,840
Likes: 0
From: Bridgeport, MI
speedjunky, is your set up for road racing or for drag racing? I would like to start researching front suspension items for the drag strip.


Suavy
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 05:28 PM
  #5  
SpeedJunky's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Downey, CA
Originally posted by Suavy
speedjunky, is your set up for road racing or for drag racing? I would like to start researching front suspension items for the drag strip.


Suavy
It's geared more towards road racing. I plan on tearing my stereo equipment and interior apart next summer and getting serious about doing some hardcore road racing.

-Monty
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 05:30 PM
  #6  
Tim Skelton's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,928
Likes: 1
From: The People's Republic of Los Angeles
14.5" indeed. Monty's truck could be used as a snowplow. With the blown shocks, we would bottom out running over a leaf.

Looks damn good, though. I think that he visually gets away with that sick drop because of the black wheels.

He is resisting me, but I am trying to get him back up to 16" or higher.

The main thing is, though, that we have eliminated bump steer/bushings/etc as the source of his suspension woes. The main culprit was definitely the blown-out Toxic Shocks, followed closely by a bad alignment. Maybe some other issues will be apparent after the coil/shock swap/alignment, these will at least restore the truck to driveable.

What a sweet-looking truck, though. I'm not a fan of custom audio/video systems or "show trucks," but this one is really done tastefully and well. The smoothed-and-painted everything in particular looked super.
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 05:47 PM
  #7  
SpeedJunky's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Downey, CA
Originally posted by Tim Skelton
14.5" indeed. Monty's truck could be used as a snowplow. With the blown shocks, we would bottom out running over a leaf.

Looks damn good, though. I think that he visually gets away with that sick drop because of the black wheels.

He is resisting me, but I am trying to get him back up to 16" or higher.

The main thing is, though, that we have eliminated bump steer/bushings/etc as the source of his suspension woes. The main culprit was definitely the blown-out Toxic Shocks, followed closely by a bad alignment. Maybe some other issues will be apparent after the coil/shock swap/alignment, these will at least restore the truck to driveable.

What a sweet-looking truck, though. I'm not a fan of custom audio/video systems or "show trucks," but this one is really done tastefully and well. The smoothed-and-painted everything in particular looked super.
Thanks for the compliments sir.

For now, a 15" to 15.5" with the Hotchkis kit should give me back my driveability while still maintaining the "bling" factor. When I get ready to convert it to a road race machine, the "bling" factor will definitely go out the door.

Heh, I foresee a naked interior (and empty bed of course) with nothing but a pair of Sparcos, roll cage, some harnesses and a custom-made simple gauge cluster attached to the roll cage to keep a close watch on the vitals. Dash? Bah, who needs one.

-Monty
 

Last edited by SpeedJunky; Jun 28, 2004 at 05:52 PM.
Reply

Trending Topics

Old Jun 28, 2004 | 06:42 PM
  #8  
Jubelands's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Monty, i recently installed my DJM upper and lower control arms with hotchkis 1939 coils (which i believe are the new revised ones, 830 lb spring rate) with the thin urethane spring isolator instead of the stock rubber one. I also have the hotchkis revalved bilsteins.

Well after the install was done my truck was undriveable. My tires were constantly rubbing on the inside of my fenders and i could barely leave my driveway. So the next morning i put the DJM spring in with the stock rubber isolator which brought the truck up an inch or so. Do you know if there is a difference in drop from the 1939 VS the 1915 coils because i would really like to know.

The truck rides great with the revalved bilsteins and the djm springs but the springs are definately not stiff enough. The ride is identical to stock. The problem is that if i take a hard 90 degree turn the springs compress too much and the tires hit the fender.

I actally calculated the DJM springs to be 644 lb spring rate.

I'm trying to find a spring with a rate in the 900's that would maintain the drop i currently have. I would really like to know if the Hotchkis 1915 coils work out for you because if they do i will be sending my 1939's back.

-Mark-
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 06:50 PM
  #9  
SpeedJunky's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Downey, CA
Originally posted by Jubelands
Monty, i recently installed my DJM upper and lower control arms with hotchkis 1939 coils (which i believe are the new revised ones, 830 lb spring rate) with the thin urethane spring isolator instead of the stock rubber one. I also have the hotchkis revalved bilsteins.

Well after the install was done my truck was undriveable. My tires were constantly rubbing on the inside of my fenders and i could barely leave my driveway. So the next morning i put the DJM spring in with the stock rubber isolator which brought the truck up an inch or so. Do you know if there is a difference in drop from the 1939 VS the 1915 coils because i would really like to know.

The truck rides great with the revalved bilsteins and the djm springs but the springs are definately not stiff enough. The ride is identical to stock. The problem is that if i take a hard 90 degree turn the springs compress too much and the tires hit the fender.

I actally calculated the DJM springs to be 644 lb spring rate.

I'm trying to find a spring with a rate in the 900's that would maintain the drop i currently have. I would really like to know if the Hotchkis 1915 coils work out for you because if they do i will be sending my 1939's back.

-Mark-
Thanks for the info Mark....good stuff. Did you get a chance to measure the DJM coils side by side with Hotchkis units? If you did, what was the difference in height between the 1939s and the DJM coils? If not, can you do me a favor and measure the distance from the fenderwell to the center of your wheel?

The 1939s are supposed to yield a 1.5" drop.
The 1915s are supposed to yield a 1" drop.

The 1915's have a 960lb. rating while the 1939's have an 825lb. rating.

-Monty
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 06:52 PM
  #10  
Jubelands's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Just got off the phone with hotckis. Apparently the new springs which i have, the 1939's are half and inch lower than the older 1915's. Great customer service for hotchkis by the way. Well i'm off to ship the 1939's back and get a pair of 1915's.
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 06:55 PM
  #11  
SpeedJunky's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Downey, CA
Originally posted by Jubelands
Just got off the phone with hotckis. Apparently the new springs which i have, the 1939's are half and inch lower than the older 1915's. Great customer service for hotchkis by the way. Well i'm off to ship the 1939's back and get a pair of 1915's.
Nice! What shocks are you running?

-Monty
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 09:43 PM
  #12  
Jubelands's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Originally posted by SpeedJunky
Nice! What shocks are you running?

-Monty
I'm currently running the Hotckis HPS 1000 shocks, they are the revalved bilsteins. The shocks are great and the guy i spoke to at hotchkis told me that they are valved for the 960 lb springs so they should work really well. I'm still waiting for the rear shocks though, they are on backorder.

He said they would ship the springs as soon as they recieved mine so the 1915's are apparently not on back order.

-Mark-
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 10:03 PM
  #13  
SpeedJunky's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
From: Downey, CA
Originally posted by Jubelands
I'm currently running the Hotckis HPS 1000 shocks, they are the revalved bilsteins. The shocks are great and the guy i spoke to at hotchkis told me that they are valved for the 960 lb springs so they should work really well. I'm still waiting for the rear shocks though, they are on backorder.

He said they would ship the springs as soon as they recieved mine so the 1915's are apparently not on back order.

-Mark-
Thanks Jube. I had the coils confused with the shocks.

Did you measure the Hotchkis and DJM coils after you took them?

If you haven't already shipped the 1939s, can you take a quick measurements of the distance between the center of your wheel and the fenderwell?

Thanks!

-Monty
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 11:35 PM
  #14  
Jubelands's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
The thing was i had the Hotchkis 1939's in with the urethane isolator and i literally could barely leave my driveway, it was constantly rubbing. The tires were completely tucked in the fender, about 1/2 an inch of the top of the tire was in behind the fender. I took them out right away and didn't measure because it was 12:00 am and i put in almost 20 hours into the install of the control arms( things kept going wrong).

After i took them out i installed the DJM springs with the stock rubber isolator. It raised the truck a good inch and now there is about a 1/2 inch gap above the tire. I think the drop now is perfect, i just hope the 1915's will be similar in drop.

I still dont know whether i should use the urethane isolator or the stock rubber one with the 1915's, but i guess trial and error will help me figure that out.

I'll try to get the measured drop i have right now with the DJM coils and rubber isolator for you.

-Mark-
 
Reply
Old Jun 28, 2004 | 11:46 PM
  #15  
Tim Skelton's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,928
Likes: 1
From: The People's Republic of Los Angeles
Originally posted by Jubelands
. . . I still dont know whether i should use the urethane isolator or the stock rubber one with the 1915's, but i guess trial and error will help me figure that out. . .
Not to insult you, Jube, but you do realize that the DJM upper arms can be taken loose for a coil swap by just removing the (4) 1/2" bolts that attach the upper ball joint?

Removing the stock upper ball joint was the most difficult job in removing the stock arms.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 AM.