Have 3 inch clerance/new truck/ need 6 for level fiver

dpgllg wrote:

Lilliemae30 wrote:
I am the original poster. Thank you to all those who responded in a helpful manner and so quickly. My hubby asked me to try to find information on this forum while he was on the phone with multiple places to get the best information he could.

We were stressed and nearly ready to return the truck. A lot has changed in the 13 years since we last purchased our old one and of course none of this was an issue then.

We have decided to follow the consensus to hitch up to the camper and go from there as outlined by helpful posters.

We cannot do it until Tuesday when the derails for the existing Reese is installed. I will updAte you all when we find our best resolution.
By the way, I have used this forum for many years and do know about and use the SEARCH button. You have to be pretty specific to find what you are looking for, as I am no mechanic, I did the best I could. Again thAnk you for your responses. They helped relive the pressure on us.

The forums can be your best friend or a nightmare at times. I agree on the search feature use as well not always finding what you are looking for. What others seem to forget is that when your faced with a situation like this you are stressed out and maybe a little panic is setting in. I know I've been there. Chastising the poster because they didn't use the search or because they bought a four wheel drive truck DOES NOT HELP the situation at all and only add to the frustration and stress. Everyone needs to remember the purpose is to help. Go back to what our mothers told us all growing up. "If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all"

I just went through this last spring when I updated my truck from a 2006 Chevy to a 2013 Chevy. My solution was to replace the rear shackles on my truck. I dropped the rear of my Chevy just over 2 inches and it works fine without any trailer mods. The truck rode higher in the rear straight from the factory. It was not all that expensive either to do. I am not familiar with Dodge trucks but you could look into this as a possible solution. I had several posters claim that this would change my headlights to point upward etc. but none of that occurred with me. The mod worked great and I have plenty of clearance between truck and 5th wheel.

I wish you well and enjoy your new truck!
r
Dave

Dpgllg
I left a question in your message box pertaining to the shackle drop. RC

Specularius wrote:

rhagfo wrote:
...

Understand that if you install your old hitch in the new truck, as it came out of the old, and the distance from the bed floor to the rail isn't different between the old and new trucks, you will have the same rail clearance you had on the old truck. The 5er may not be level could be a little nose high, so then we start to deal with that.

The statement in bold is not correct. The depth of the beds on the newer Dodge trucks is deeper, therefore making the clearance between the top of the bed rails and the bottom of the 5th wheel less.

Just how much difference is there now. There is only 1/2" or so between an '83 bed and a '04 bed. That is 21 years age difference.

N-Trouble wrote:
This is one of the most common topics discussed on this forum. SEARCH button is your friend...

Yes I agree and it the one most over thought...level is great in a perfect world but we don't live there!

With only 3 inches out of level...don't worry about it and enjoy camping!! Unless your anal like some are about your camper being level, drop your hitch on your camper to get you 6 inches of clearance on your truck bed and go. I've been over 4 inches out on my toy hauler empty and a bit more with both Harleys in it and have had no issues at all with frig not working or with too much weight on rear axle. There is an equalizer between your axles on the springs if you have leaf springs that take care of having more weight at the rear or the front by equalizing the weight between the axles. If you have a torsion susp then you don't have the equalizing between the axles. Weight could be checked by weighing the camper only when hooked to your truck and then pulling forward until front axle of camper is off of the scales and check your weight then. Subtract that from your combined axle weight and that will tell you what your carrying on the camper front axle. If the rear axle is loaded much more than front then you might have to raise your camper some. If in my opinion if its 500 lbs or less different I wouldn't worry as long as your tires are rated to handle the weight.

That is strange that the springs would be flatter... hmm.. have to think on that one.

Hey we all have our days. :)

I changed deserts, to Arizona! and have settled down to sipping Corona these days LOL :b No dunes out here, but lots of trails and rocks to climb.

Socal
Yes, I need to get under there and look at it but you are correct. Iirc my springs looked to be more flat when I was done which makes no sense because the load is the same. The mistake I made is I should have multiplied radius and perch x 2 because that measurement does swing down under the spring so it has to be counted twice. R + P x 2 + S.
As you said D diameter which is twice the radius + P + P + S = lift. I did mine 2 1/2 years ago so I guess I'm getting rusty. :) I owe you Tequila shots and a campfire in the socal desert. :)

Rjxj, possibly your spring pack thickness and spring pad heights are smaller than the numbers I had used in my hypothetical numbers example.

Maybe your numbers would look something like this...

1/2" spring pad height x 2, plus 1-1/4" spring pack thickness + 2-3/4" axle tube diameter = 5" of lift

Socal
Right on. I don't want to be telling people the wrong thing. I see what you mean when I try to mock it up now your numbers make sense but when I look at my rig I only got 4.5 or 5 in not 7???

I removed my chicken scratching drawing so as not to blind anyone.

rjxj wrote:

SoCalDesertRider wrote:

rjxj wrote:

SoCalDesertRider wrote:
It's not the radius, it's the whole axle diameter, plus the thickness of the spring pack, plus the height of the original bottom spring pad, plus the height of the new top spring pad.

You're moving the bottom of the spring pack from where it is, about 3" below the bottom of the axle tube, to where it will now be, about 1" above the top of the axle tube. This example is assuming both spring pads are about 1" high and the spring pack is about 2" thick and the axle tube is about 3" diameter.

Going from bottom to top, it's the spring pack thickness (2"), plus the bottom spring pad height (1"), plus the axle tube diameter (3"), plus the top spring pad height (1"). This totals 7", in this example. Axles can be all different diameters. Spring packs can be all different thicknesses. Spring pads can be all different heights. So it is entirely possible to end up with a measurement less than or greater than this example.

Another example could be a 2-1/2" axle, 1/2" spring pads and a 1-1/2" spring pack, which would make 5" instead of 7".

No. You're not moving the center line to the bottom edge of the axle. It's still at the center of the tube. Look at the center line of the tube as it swings under. It's all about the center line of the tube. It's all going under the spring so the thickness of the spring pack counts. The perch is still the same thickness and the radius is still the same or the same distance from the spring as it was when up on top. If you measure from the top of the spring surface to the center of the tube and say it's 3 ", when you put it under the spring pack and measure from the bottom flat surface to the center of the tube it's still 3 "and we now have to add the sprig pack thickness for the amount of lift. It will make you scratch your head when you try to picture it but that's what it's doing.

Yes,the axle radius, perch thickness and spring pack thickness numbers can all change but the formula stays the same.

In the interest of not fighting about it, at this point, we will have to agree to respectfully disagree. :)

I didn't know there was any arguing. It's a math question not an opinion.

We are not currently arguing. I said that because we do not need to start arguing. :)

SoCalDesertRider wrote:

rjxj wrote:

SoCalDesertRider wrote:
It's not the radius, it's the whole axle diameter, plus the thickness of the spring pack, plus the height of the original bottom spring pad, plus the height of the new top spring pad.

You're moving the bottom of the spring pack from where it is, about 3" below the bottom of the axle tube, to where it will now be, about 1" above the top of the axle tube. This example is assuming both spring pads are about 1" high and the spring pack is about 2" thick and the axle tube is about 3" diameter.

Going from bottom to top, it's the spring pack thickness (2"), plus the bottom spring pad height (1"), plus the axle tube diameter (3"), plus the top spring pad height (1"). This totals 7", in this example. Axles can be all different diameters. Spring packs can be all different thicknesses. Spring pads can be all different heights. So it is entirely possible to end up with a measurement less than or greater than this example.

Another example could be a 2-1/2" axle, 1/2" spring pads and a 1-1/2" spring pack, which would make 5" instead of 7".

No. You're not moving the center line to the bottom edge of the axle. It's still at the center of the tube. Look at the center line of the tube as it swings under. It's all about the center line of the tube. It's all going under the spring so the thickness of the spring pack counts. The perch is still the same thickness and the radius is still the same or the same distance from the spring as it was when up on top. If you measure from the top of the spring surface to the center of the tube and say it's 3 ", when you put it under the spring pack and measure from the bottom flat surface to the center of the tube it's still 3 "and we now have to add the sprig pack thickness for the amount of lift. It will make you scratch your head when you try to picture it but that's what it's doing.

Yes,the axle radius, perch thickness and spring pack thickness numbers can all change but the formula stays the same.

In the interest of not fighting about it, at this point, we will have to agree to respectfully disagree. :)

I didn't know there was any arguing. It's a math question not an opinion.