...
The third shock damps, not prevents, axle wrap up.
Yes, the extra shocks are of certainly the same intent as the 5.0 Mustang "Quad" shocks from a few years ago.
stock
aftermarket
The 4 cylinder Mustangs didn't have, or need, the extra shocks. But they were a V-8 performance necessity.
Ram is perhaps getting ready for kickin' a lil' butt? ๐
TRIVIA:
My Mazda B4000 3/8 ton truck also had the normal off-set staggered rear shocks as many other vehicles did for the exact reason rjstractor states above. Earlier in this thread, BenK mentioned that he thought GM had this shock "arrangement" patented for a while, probably true. My Mazda was an off-road special and had large OEM tires and factory "lift blocks" between the axle and leaf springpack. This "cheap lift" tends to accentuate the tendency for all axles to "wind up" since the axle gains bending torque leverage over the springpack.
Consequently, when I added real smaller diameter Mud & Snow grips to the Mazda truck, it developed a case of axle tramp while pushing deep snow (over bumper height) and not in 4x4. Too much traction for the rear leaf spring ribbon to avoid oscillating/twisting into an "S" shape. It can be reduced or eliminated by adding a solid-but-jointed "traction bar" which connects to the frame/axle almost identically to the 3rd anti-wrap shock. They are often found as a pair mounted below the spring packs for drag racing or off-road. The downside (as always) is the ride binds somewhat since the bar length cannot change like a shock absorber.
My Excursion has a similar arrangement to prevent axle wrap by the addition of "slapper bars" to the front of the springpack. A thick straight steel half-leaf is attached solidly to the axle/spring perch and contacts the upwardly curved main leaf via a rubber bumper to limit "S" twisting.
MORE TRIVIA:
The Mustang owners had this habit of holding high revs on the line and side-stepping off the clutch, so the V-8 soon got the 8.8 inch differential as opposed to the 7.5 inch. The 8.8 inch was used in many 1/2 ton trucks. The car weighed around 3200 pounds.
The 5.0 became popular above the GM Camaro for two reasons.
1) In this case, the Ford engine was easy to get to since it was not under the cowl (not like my V-10).
2) Ford used Mass-Air FI exclusively throughout the 1989-and-up production years. Mass-Air simply measures the amount of air intake to add fuel and is used almost exclusively today. A speed density FI system always injects fuel from a "map" chart, according to what the air should be with OEM parts. Camaro (and Corvette) jumped back and forth between the two systems for years, making successful GM aftermarket development and mod offerings a nightmare.
Thus the Mustang killed the Camaro for quite a while. And herein is a lesson for all OEM's.
Wes
...
The third shock damps, not prevents, axle wrap up.
45Ricochet wrote:
Nice bump :B
Funny they have a thread over on the Cummins site which can't figure out the Bilstein single shock issue. Man they are all over the board as to why. Running out crawling under dealer trucks to figure it out. Some even demanded refunds cause their truck didn't have one.:W
I assume the torque management in the CTD engines mated to the auto's don't require it :H
Hey they did have the new Edge thread though :B I would pass though as you basically loose the EVIC information. Ahh tuners and kids, errrr wait I didn't say that.
rjstractor wrote:45Ricochet wrote:
Funny they have a thread over on the Cummins site which can't figure out the Bilstein single shock issue. Man they are all over the board as to why. Running out crawling under dealer trucks to figure it out. Some even demanded refunds cause their truck didn't have one.
To me it looks pretty obvious- to help prevent axle wrapup and wheel hop. My old Mazda had the rear shocks angled opposite ways for the same reason, although with only 110 ft./lb of torque it was not a big problem. ๐
Yes, the extra shocks are of certainly the same intent as the 5.0 Mustang "Quad" shocks from a few years ago.
stock
aftermarket
The 4 cylinder Mustangs didn't have, or need, the extra shocks. But they were a V-8 performance necessity.
Ram is perhaps getting ready for kickin' a lil' butt? ๐
TRIVIA:
My Mazda B4000 3/8 ton truck also had the normal off-set staggered rear shocks as many other vehicles did for the exact reason rjstractor states above. Earlier in this thread, BenK mentioned that he thought GM had this shock "arrangement" patented for a while, probably true. My Mazda was an off-road special and had large OEM tires and factory "lift blocks" between the axle and leaf springpack. This "cheap lift" tends to accentuate the tendency for all axles to "wind up" since the axle gains bending torque leverage over the springpack.
Consequently, when I added real smaller diameter Mud & Snow grips to the Mazda truck, it developed a case of axle tramp while pushing deep snow (over bumper height) and not in 4x4. Too much traction for the rear leaf spring ribbon to avoid oscillating/twisting into an "S" shape. It can be reduced or eliminated by adding a solid-but-jointed "traction bar" which connects to the frame/axle almost identically to the 3rd anti-wrap shock. They are often found as a pair mounted below the spring packs for drag racing or off-road. The downside (as always) is the ride binds somewhat since the bar length cannot change like a shock absorber.
My Excursion has a similar arrangement to prevent axle wrap by the addition of "slapper bars" to the front of the springpack. A thick straight steel half-leaf is attached solidly to the axle/spring perch and contacts the upwardly curved main leaf via a rubber bumper to limit "S" twisting.
MORE TRIVIA:
The Mustang owners had this habit of holding high revs on the line and side-stepping off the clutch, so the V-8 soon got the 8.8 inch differential as opposed to the 7.5 inch. The 8.8 inch was used in many 1/2 ton trucks. The car weighed around 3200 pounds.
The 5.0 became popular above the GM Camaro for two reasons.
1) In this case, the Ford engine was easy to get to since it was not under the cowl (not like my V-10).
2) Ford used Mass-Air FI exclusively throughout the 1989-and-up production years. Mass-Air simply measures the amount of air intake to add fuel and is used almost exclusively today. A speed density FI system always injects fuel from a "map" chart, according to what the air should be with OEM parts. Camaro (and Corvette) jumped back and forth between the two systems for years, making successful GM aftermarket development and mod offerings a nightmare.
Thus the Mustang killed the Camaro for quite a while. And herein is a lesson for all OEM's.
Wes
...
