Under instead of over the rear end

[kswindell]

So I see that everybody raises the rear frame rails over the rear end to get low. Why does no one ever go under? Then you always have unlimited down. Only a limit on the up.
Posted via Mobile Device

[19666Trucker]

That sounds like a lot of work when building bridge is easier, instead finding the right levers or trailing arms to work right
Posted via Mobile Device

[kswindell]

I don't really see how anything changes. Other than the route the rail takes. Without a bridge you don't have to adjust the bed other than for the housing.
Posted via Mobile Device

[DURG]

You still need something up there or built up from the frame to mount the top of the shocks, upper spring seats, and all the structure for the bed floor mounts to, so it doesn't seem like it would be easier or lighter anyway. I used to run an under slung frame on my circle track car but you still had the rear cage tubing to mount the coilovers etc from. To me for a regular truck the over the top seems simpler.

[geezer#99]

It can be done but the scrub height gets too low. In order to have clearance for movement of the axle downward (you need about 4" from frame to axle tube) the frame bottom would be below the bottom of the wheel rim. If you're building a donk with 26" rims it might work.

[wayno]

I was thinking the same thing - the travel would be such that anytime you hit a pothole or speed bump you would have some serious issues - my development has these Belgian block curbing at the street and if I couldn't air up I would be picking up pieces.

[concretekiller]

People have done it. It's called under-slung. What happens if you're running big wheels and have a flat? Axle hits the frame before it untucked to get it off. No thank you.
Posted via Mobile Device