Re: [ihc] Slight lift to older Travelall

[Tom Mandera <tsm1@xxxxxxxxx>]

John M. Adams wrote:

> > The factory put a lift block between your rear springs and the rear axle.
> > You can swap this out with a taller block - do not *stack* the blocks, but
> > you can replace it with a taller one.
> >    
> So I like this idea better. But... where would I find one? Would the lift
> block from a 3/4 ton model be taller? Or is it just more leaves that give it
> its extra clearance?
You can buy lift-blocks from any "4x4 shop" or customizer.. or from 
Summit Racing or 4WheelParts, Napa even.  You need a "x inch" lift block 
- STEEL ONLY - for a 2.5" wide spring.  Then you'll need longer U-bolts 
to match, of course.


> > If you grind the rivets off, and punch them out, you can slide the
> > shackle mounts rearward about 2", and then bolt it back into place.
> >
> >    
> This is an intriguing idea. I've noticed that pattern aft (and a little
> below) of the one in-use. I always assumed it was for use with a longer
> spring pack, maybe an earlier design. But rather than that mod and a Chevy
> lift kit, why not go with the 3/4 ton swap in front (taller spring pack),
> like you suggest below for the rear? Is there some reason you'd avoid that?
> Or do the 3/4 ton springs use that same pivot point that the Chevy kit would
The 2wd trucks used a longer spring, which is what the second mount is 
for.  It just happens that the 2wd springs are within 1/2" or so in 
length from the can't-turn-around-with-out-falling-on-one 73-87 Chevy 
trucks.

You could also swap in a 3/4T IH front leaf pack for a little bit of 
lift, but if you wanted more, you can't run lift-blocks in the front, so 
you're looking at combining a few spring packs (and I bet the ride ends 
up rather harssh) or swapping to another spring pack altogether.. which 
is why I offered up the Chevy idea.  If you want more than 1-2" (from 
the IH 3/4T springs), then your best bet is to go to Chevy springs.

Chevy lift kits are CHEAP, and you can get 'em up to 12" if you really 
wanted to. :D

In the rear, you can just go with the different lift blocks without a 
lot of bad side effects (go too tall on the lift blocks, and you may get 
more rear axle wheel hop)


> Wouldn't this (raising the frame at the rear of the assembly, as opposed to
> at the center) tend to improve the pinion angle? I'm likely not going to
> attempt the cut-and-invert idea, but am still trying to visualize the
> geometry...
I don't believe in "Improving" pinion angle.  The pinion angle should 
always be either "equal and opposite" from the transfer case yoke, or 
pointed right at the t'case yoke (in the case of a CV style driveshaft 
like all Broncos used).

"Relieving" the pinion angle (making the pinion point up a bit  from 
"level") is NOT "improving" it.  It's making it out of phase with the 
transfer case output, and will lead to vibrations.  Note that the angle 
*is* less, and it won't "break" from too much angularity (while pointing 
the pinion towards the dirt will likely exceed the operational 
angularity and start breaking stuff - the zerk fittings tear off first, 
in my experience), but it will vibrate (whether you notice it or not, I 
can't say).




> This is why the front pack is flat, almost a reverse arch? I've always
> wondered about that: "is this by design, or are my springs dead?" So this is
> called tension vs. compression? Articulation will be less important than
> load-bearing in back, so I'll keep the rear orientation as-is.
>  
I'm using "compression" to mean that the spring sits below the shackle 
mount.  With weight on it, the spring is trying to "shorten" the shackle 
and compress it up into the frame.

In the rear, the tension shackle, when you load the spring, the spring 
is trying to stretch the shackle away (above) the frame.

The springs are more or less flat up front, but that's to keep the ride 
height low, while keeping the spring out of the frame some.  You 
generally want to avoid negatively arching the springs (so they bow up 
in the center).  They used the tension shackle in the rear of the T'all 
so when fully loaded, the springs will only be flat, not negatively 
arched.  This helps the springs support the load better and live longer.

On the subject of axles... I think the easiest to find and swap in, will 
be a 73-77 Chevy 6-lug front end from a 1/2T pickup or Blazer or 
Suburban.  You can buy some F150 hubs and rotors rather inexpensively 
and swap them onto the Chevy Dana 44 to get 5 on 5.5 bolt pattern with 
disc brakes.

The Chevy front end should easily slide under the front of your 
Travelall.  A Custom draglink, new brake lines, a new mastercylinder 
(for disc brakes) and proportioning valve, and away you go.

Far easier to find than a 73 open knuckle drum, or 74-75 disc front end 
from an IH.

You could also swap an 8-lug Chevy front end under if that's what you 
wanted.  I'm putting a Chevy 8-lug front under my '74 100 4x4, along 
with a Dana 60 rear from a 200 4x4 I parted out.  I'm putting a Dodge 
Dana 60 under the front of my crewcab.

-Tom Mandera, Helena MT
http://www.tmcom.com/~tsm1/scout
'72 1110 4x4 T'all on 33s
'74 100 4x4 pickup - needs motor
'74 200 2wd 1T long-box 4dr - waiting for the leaf-spring and 4x4 conversion
'77 SII - SOA, full width racer on 31s
'77 SII - 4" lift, sawzall, 36s - trail rig
'72 SII - resto/street project someday
'68 V8 800 - hers