Bagged NBS Thread (99-07c) Pics & Discussion 123123

Almost wrecked it that day lol, we all ready have ice on the roads up here, had to find out the hard way haha, that damn hurricane fucked with out weather badly!

its about time to put it back away and finish it, now that the weather is here and the wheels are figured out, I will probably start a build thread of the tear down and assembly again, then the paint.


god why ruin it with an ss bumper cover?
Click to expand...

Yea SS bumper cover and 30 series tires on a 24 in that pic, there both a terrible look for these trucks. The bumper ive been working on for it should look pretty cool, sectioned the width and depth of a 06 chevy, but replicated into steel. I have a sectioned width and depth SS bumper as well, and i might run that, it seems to flow better, but the all sheet metal bumper flushed looks good as well, we will have to see with the new color what looks best. That and im ditching the 30 series tire, they look terrible in my opinion, there just too damn small, and look awful.
 
Can't wait to see pictures of it.
Click to expand...

Im debating on re-doing the whole front end as well, considering doing a setup like i built for the trailblazer ss, not sure yet tho. Either way, once i start cracking back on this, im sure i will post up a build thread on here or SSM, and you can check it out there also.


Tukn4s said:
on 10" wheels, they will look that way.
Click to expand...

To each their own, i guess.

if its wider than 8.5" it needs bigger than a 275-30. They just look to terrible on anything larger to me personally, i dont think i could let myself drive a truck every day like that.

I had a 275-30-24 on a 24x9 on a 300c even and it still was just too damn small, ended up with a 295-30-24 to make it look driveable, and it still seemed kind of sketchy. I think my brothers has a 275-30-24 on his colorado, and it dosent look too bad, seems to fit the truck well, its also a 24x8.5 wheel, and a pretty small truck.



Taylor
 
Jeebus@MMW said:
Im debating on re-doing the whole front end as well, considering doing a setup like i built for the trailblazer ss, not sure yet tho. Either way, once i start cracking back on this, im sure i will post up a build thread on here or SSM, and you can check it out there also.




I think my brothers has a 275-30-24 on his colorado, and it dosent look too bad, seems to fit the truck well, its also a 24x8.5 wheel, and a pretty small truck.



Taylor
Click to expand...

What the current setup on the cc? any pics of the colorado?
 
Jeebus@MMW said:
if its wider than 8.5" it needs bigger than a 275-30. They just look to terrible on anything larger to me personally, i dont think i could let myself drive a truck every day like that.

I had a 275-30-24 on a 24x9 on a 300c even and it still was just too damn small, ended up with a 295-30-24 to make it look driveable, and it still seemed kind of sketchy. I think my brothers has a 275-30-24 on his colorado, and it dosent look too bad, seems to fit the truck well, its also a 24x8.5 wheel, and a pretty small truck.



Taylor
Click to expand...

i agree with that. love my 285/35/22's. some day i might join the 24's club haha
 
Zach. said:
What the current setup on the cc? any pics of the colorado?
Click to expand...


Just a basic setup on the crew cab. One of the complete front kits we offer up front. RE8 bags up front. In the back, just a basic notch and a 2link with the bag on the bar, RE8 bags, and another set of bags on the axle with a seperate set of valves hooked to it for when i have a trailer hooked onto it. Fox shocks, front and rear. pair of viar compressors pair of 5 gallon tanks. Raised stock gas tank, that im considering swapping with a fuel cell, but not sure yet. Watts link that im considering swapping out to a pan hard bar, but not sure.

I plan to change a bit out back when i finally get it on the road after it gets taken apart and coated. Nothing majior because i really like how it rides right now, and how it functions. When i put the 26s on, i want to narrow the rear end a bit more also, right now its only 1.5" on each side. It would clear still, but i think im going to narrow it a bit more to match the front better.


agree with that. love my 285/35/22's. some day i might join the 24's club haha
Click to expand...

Yea, i prefer to run a 35 series tire when i can. Most of my trucks on 24s run a 295-35 or 305-35. This is the first time ive ever put a 30 series on a 24, bassicly just so i could get some suspension bugs worked out before the snow flew and i brought it back in to take apart and coat everything, it just looks awfull to me.

Im nearly regretting running a 30 series tire on my 26s, but it will atleast be a 305-30, so i will just have to deal with it haha
 
can you post pics of how the rear is? I've always kind of wanted to do that to the rear of mine, bag on bar and boa. I figured you would've had a tri-4 and fuel cell on it along with something crazy lol. wasn't expecting a two link.
 
Zach. said:
can you post pics of how the rear is? I've always kind of wanted to do that to the rear of mine, bag on bar and boa. I figured you would've had a tri-4 and fuel cell on it along with something crazy lol. wasn't expecting a two link.
Click to expand...


Yea, i will post a picture of it when i start getting into it this winter. I dont run any triangulated 4links on my own stuff, only at customer request. If i run a 4-link, its all ways a parallel 4-link, with a watts. But over the last year, i have gotten countless emails from customers about offering a budget rear end kit, of 2link and panhard setup, probably recieved 50+ emails about offering a kit like that, so i designed one up, and applied it to my own truck, to give it a shot. So fat i love it, and dont have an issue. Im not normally a 2link guy really, but i wanted to give it a try, so i could have a opinion of it based from experience, not just theroy.
 
Jeebus@MMW said:
Yea, i will post a picture of it when i start getting into it this winter. I dont run any triangulated 4links on my own stuff, only at customer request. If i run a 4-link, its all ways a parallel 4-link, with a watts. But over the last year, i have gotten countless emails from customers about offering a budget rear end kit, of 2link and panhard setup, probably recieved 50+ emails about offering a kit like that, so i designed one up, and applied it to my own truck, to give it a shot. So fat i love it, and dont have an issue. Im not normally a 2link guy really, but i wanted to give it a try, so i could have a opinion of it based from experience, not just theroy.
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums up the difference between a skillful, and honest company, and one just out to make profit.
 
from my experience with a 2-link, they suck. cause you to have a smaller ride height range and after 50,000 miles of driving tear the driveline apart. It happened to me before I learned what I know now.

the amount of work to make a 2 link into a parallel 3 link is minimal, costs under $50, and creates a much better rear setup that allows the pinion angles to be matched all the time. the use of a panhard bar or watts link is already being used on to center the axle.
 
On my rear setup on this particular truck, or really on any truck ive had in the past, i only actually drive the truck within a 6" suspension range, because i allways have shocks directly on the axle or very near the axle, im not a fan of levering shocks or sticking them more than a few inches from the axle. I dont drive at every selectable heigh option my truck has, becuase really all i do is drive. The rear of the suspension only gets about 10" of travel, and I typically only drive somewhere within 6" of it. Ive had bagged trucks for about 15 years now, never had a 2-link before. I run parallel 4links and watts links typically, but i can absolutely see why a customer would like a 2-link, and the benefits of offering it, it is such a brease to install and setup and install.

What were you required to tear your drive line apart for?


Taylor
 
I didn't tear it apart. The 2 link did. The area I live requires m to drive at a bunch of different heights, especially on my s-10 that I had the 2 link on. I bought it for the exact reason you just said, cheap and easy since I was 16 at the time.

At 50,000 miles after bagging it, I ha replaced both u joints at the tranny and the differential and then the tranny started having issues.

Researched and read absolutely anything suspension I could an realized the 2 link was my issue. Immediately scrapped it. Rebuilt the tranny and did a parallel 4 link with a Panhard bar and boa. Loved it and never had a driveline vibration for the entire stroke of the suspension. Then went bba after riding in a few trucks and loved it even more. Then went to a parallel 3 link with bob and was the best.

That truck taught me more than anything else has ever about the benefits and burdens to different setups. It is the very reason I hate a 2 link and never recommend them to anyone.

The extra $50 and half a day to put the 3rd parallel link between the muffler and driveshaft off the gas tank crossmember to top of the axle and have every advantage to 4 link suspension geometry is a no brainer to me.
 
Tukn4s said:
I didn't tear it apart. The 2 link did. The area I live requires m to drive at a bunch of different heights, especially on my s-10 that I had the 2 link on. I bought it for the exact reason you just said, cheap and easy since I was 16 at the time.

At 50,000 miles after bagging it, I ha replaced both u joints at the tranny and the differential and then the tranny started having issues.

Researched and read absolutely anything suspension I could an realized the 2 link was my issue. Immediately scrapped it. Rebuilt the tranny and did a parallel 4 link with a Panhard bar and boa. Loved it and never had a driveline vibration for the entire stroke of the suspension. Then went bba after riding in a few trucks and loved it even more. Then went to a parallel 3 link with bob and was the best.

That truck taught me more than anything else has ever about the benefits and burdens to different setups. It is the very reason I hate a 2 link and never recommend them to anyone.

The extra $50 and half a day to put the 3rd parallel link between the muffler and driveshaft off the gas tank crossmember to top of the axle and have every advantage to 4 link suspension geometry is a no brainer to me.
Click to expand...


The fact is, it is just another instance where its your personal opinion and personal preference. My personal preference is with a parallel 4link and a watts link, if it has to be done, a triangulated 4link is fine also. On that same note, i know dozens of people personally with well over 100k on their 2link, coat to coast and have yet to ever experience a problem. You having to change your drive line after 50k is all subjective to your truck and your install. Some people probbaly experience problems earlier really.

What i hate most about the typical 2link, is how poorly they are constructed.
 
Jeebus@MMW said:
The fact is, it is just another instance where its your personal opinion and personal preference. My personal preference is with a parallel 4link and a watts link, if it has to be done, a triangulated 4link is fine also. On that same note, i know dozens of people personally with well over 100k on their 2link, coat to coast and have yet to ever experience a problem. You having to change your drive line after 50k is all subjective to your truck and your install. Some people probbaly experience problems earlier really.

What i hate most about the typical 2link, is how poorly they are constructed.
Click to expand...

I totally agree on that, but I'm just telling you why I feel the way I do. as long as you stay within a small suspension range, like you do, you can go for a long time with no issues; but the owner needs to understand that. also the longer the bars, the bigger that range can be. To me though, I like to be able to use any point in my suspensions travel without any worries.

it's when someone doesn't get the right suspension build for the way they expect to drive it, that causes issues. I didn't have anyone to tell me these type of things, so thats why I give my opinion on them.
 
Redoing my backhalf soon, what thickness metal do you guys think I should go with? Right now it's 2x4 x 1/4". Was going to drop down to 3/16" but I was looking on art Morrison's site and their mandrel(?) bent frame corners that they sell are 2x4 x 1/8" I believe. I don't plan on towing since it'll be bag on bar and bodied 3". The uppers & lowers will mount to a 2x4x1/4" crossmember and that'll be welded about 6" past where the backhalf starts and a 23 ish gallon aluminum fuel cell & 5 gallon steel air tank will be at the rear of the frame. The 2x4x1/4" was $140 for 20ft iirc. I don't mind spending the money but if that size isn't needed then I'd rather not spend the extra.
 
I dont see a need for anything larger than .1875 wall on the back half of a light duty truck. I personally would not use .125 wall for any back half in the shop, unless it was in fact a mandrel bent frame, then i would have no problem. If you are miter cutting your frame rails, and welding them up, go with .1875 or .250 so you can bevel your edges, and put a nice weld on it, and have plenty of metal to absorb the heat while your doing it. With .125 wall material and miter cut frame rails, by the time you bevel the edge to get a good channel to weld in, your not left with much bulk afterwards.

If your TIG welding it, go with whatever you feel more comfortable with welding, because you wont need as much of a bevel to get the same weld strength as you would with MIG.



Taylor
 
Thanks, after I posted that I realized 1/8" would be too thin for my liking. Will go with 3/16". All the edges will be beveled and welded with a Lincoln mig.
 
WJTPq.jpg


suspension/fab gettin finished over the next 2 weeks...im excited...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom