69POLARA383

I'm taking my car to the closest track to me, an 1/8 mile strip...ick I know but my question is I have a bracket on the rear connection to my leaf springs that has two more holes below it , I guess to in effect raise the back of the car about an inch each hole. (Sorry I dont know a lot of names or terminoligy, hence why I cant just look this up on the internet because I dont know what its called, but Im workin on it.) But would attaching the back of te leaf springs to the lowest selection be better for me to drag with, Im guessing yes since I should be able to squat more and put more downforce on the tires...Thanks

Archer

69 -

They are call shackles. Main use was to raise the rear for tire clearance. Others may have different experiences, but it usually doesn't help ET wise, since you're not changing the spring tension/pre-load. May also make the rear less stable.

Since it does raise the rear, you "may" get less air under the car.

Archer

440roadrunner

Those AFTERMARKET so called "extended shackles" are JUNK Get rid of 'em. One thing you must understand is that the seemingly simple leaf spring rear suspension MUST not be taken lightly. When you "jack up" the rear of the car with those extended shackles, several things can happen, not the least of which is VERY POOR CORNERING. This is because the now "too long" and "too sloppy" shackles, "lean" with the force of a turn, allowing the leaf springs to twist and move to one side.

Most of the time, they don't do 1/8 or 1/4 track times any good, either. They ruin weight transfer, at the very least

The BEST (non factory) shackles are "boxed" that is, the two sides of each shackle are tied together to stiffen them from moving

Here's one example, just a generic photo I stole from Al Gore



This setup was used on IHC Scout 4x4's, and had what amounted to a leaf spring that went clear across the front of the rig to keep the shackles "in line." I adapted this scheme to my old 340 powered FJ-40 Landcruiser, and IT REALLY WORKS

In the case of front solid axle, leaf spring 4x4s, what happens is, that ANY movement of the springs and axle side-to side due to road crown, cornering, etc, acts against the steering drag link AND ACTUALLY steers the vehicle off the intended path.

We used to have a straight stretch of county road, and "much as it pains me," a couple of times !!! I felt perfectly comfortable doing 80 down that stretch in the old FJ. Goodrich All Terrain Radial T/As

bremereric

I would see if they make an adjustable snubber for your Dana 60. That way you could dial it up higher at the track and lower it for cruising around the streets. And yes I would get rid of the extended rear shackles. I found you different styles at Mancini Racing.

Archer

440 -

We had another way of doing it back in the day ...

Archer

440roadrunner

Archer, that's the basis of the "IHC SCOUT" style shackles. On my LC, I just installed the "bolt" end facing in, and replaced the "strap" with a piece of angle. Drilled the outer face, and took an old piece of spring leaf and bolted it across.

Archer

440 -

So in your opinion, would that kind of set up be a plus or minus on a B-Body?

Archer

69POLARA383

Arch, is that a kit or did you fab it up yourself? I like the way it looks and doesn't seem like it should be too expensive compared to replacing a whole bunch of suspension parts. Plus I LIKE old school.

Coronet 500

Chrysler and Landy did testing on the late 60's B-bodies to find raising the front slightly with the rear stock height made to accomodate full rear suspension extension E.T.ed the best and was all made at the launch. I don't know how this translates to a '71 and newer B's. Asphalt is evil and must be punished. Good Luck.

Archer

69 -

Home made. 1/2" x 6' threaded rod, cut to length and with the appropriate washers and nuts. The trick was to lock up each side of the shackle.

Combined with the traction bars, the rear was pretty solid.

Back then, I also used independent air shocks, as a cheap way of dialing in height and L/R balance

Coronet -

That would get me a little nervous, since the later B-bodies were known to have problems with air lift. That's why the front air damn was introduced.

Archer

Coronet 500

I know what you mean Archer, me too. The thinking was to lower the front to overcome that 100mph dance, I'm sure we all have experienced, and gain aerodynamic stability and top end speed, but it slowed down. Going the other way, higher than stock, helped the launch and overall E.T.s. When I found this out about the Chrysler racers, I had that much more respect for them.

Archer

Coronet -

It makes sense, since you're shifting the balance rearward, helping the rear to squat on launch.

I figure that since I didn't have a dedicated race rig, a slight rake cooled cool and I hoped gave a little more high speed stability. (Not that I ever tried that ...)

Archer

MrOldart2U

Back in my younger days, i used airshocks for 'lift' for tire clearance, and to look cool, ( it was the late 70's early 80's lol ) but come time to get it on, air down the shocks and get after it.. I never was a fan of the extended shackles altho a few of my buds used them, but did have horrible hook up experiences. I'm not saying I didnt have issues either but I had a hand up on most, had a posi and the old style Lakewood Beam Traction bars... the car would try to plant so hard the car ended up with the nick name the Frog... and Hell it wasnt even green... lol Rear would raise appx as high as the shocks would lift it... ( 6-8" ) So the whole car raised as far as it could, and thats still with wheel spin. If I had ever ran any kind of stickies on it I am almost for sure it would have carried the front end...

Mr.Duster

lol thats basically what i have on mine with wheel spacers

MrOldart2U

Kinda got off on a tangent there... How did the track sessions turn out??? How did you do and how did the car do?