47-55.1 Danforth Cross Member Install

[Coach529]

Originally Posted by mr48chev

I should note that we lost DWCSR in late 2017 early 2018 when he passed away.

I did not realize that. Thanks for sharing!!

RIP

[1953]

Yeah just wondering i got a speedway motors and its saying 18 1/8 from the front shackle holes so i been seeing what other people has been doing 18 1/2 isnt much of a diffrence

[mr48chev]

Originally Posted by 1953

Yeah just wondering i got a speedway motors and its saying 18 1/8 from the front shackle holes so i been seeing what other people has been doing 18 1/2 isnt much of a diffrence

It is 18-1/8 an not 18-1/2 good catch. That's what happens when you write something and try to remember rather than check your facts first. My bad, I hope it didn't mess you up.

[1953]

I went with 18 1/8 like it said if you was reffering to me.

[51 3600]

Don't mean to hijack this thread but it seems the right place to get some help using a Danforth crossmember. I'm using the front suspension from a 2WD '01 Blazer changing to a tubular upper control arm. As you can see in the pics it ain't working to well. Obviously it's not the right arm yet it is supposed to be. All the less expensive arms I find don't seem to have the bend/drop that the stock arms have at the ball joint. Without spending $300-$500+, does anyone have a link to the tubular upper arms that work? Appreciate any help you might have. (2nd pic is with engine weight on frame.)

[67Mal]

https://www.s10forum.com/threads/tal...p-info.509340/
If this link works, it might help.
I think tall ball joints would help.

[dsraven]

that looks like a recipe for disaster. the ball joint is working at extreme angle and may bottom and snap over a bump where suspension extremes happen. it is basically sitting at the lowest it can go without bottoming out, tearing the rubber boot or breaking the stud of the joint. the angle of the ball joint mount should be more neutral when in the middle of the suspension travel or basically at ride height with lower control arm level, from side to side view.
from a suspension geometry standpoint the upper control arm is going to move the upper ball joint outwards as the suspension goes upward. this is going to cause the wheel to lean out and may cause tire to fender interference. possibly check the upper control arm from a 4x4 blazer or one with a lift, they have a dog leg look to them.

[dsraven]

if using the s10 suspension you may be able to get some drawings from the
gmupfitter
site. that would allow you to do some basic dimensions for upper to lower control arm pivot point and compare with your set up.

[51 3600]

Thanks for the info. A control arm with the dogleg look seems to me to be what’s needed but I haven’t found it in a tubular arm. Trying to keep from using the stock arm as then I have to notch the frame.

[dsraven]

have you seen this site with the dog leg control arms?maybe help you.
the s10 is basically all G body stuff so you could also try the G body forums for advice.

https://www.globalwest.net/1982-02s1...lazer-2wd.html

[dsraven]

you could peruse through here and see if there are some front end geometry drawings. it seems that, by the pics, your upper control arm is too far away from the lower control arm. possibly somebody on here or the hotrodder's or stovebolt forums could help with some dimensions. do you have a pic that shows it close up from the front view, the whole upper/lower control arm configuration assembled?
https://www.gmupfitter.com/files/med...LD_STTruck.pdf

[mr48chev]

Looking at those arms in post 127 are they the ones designed for circle track cars or are they possibly intended to be used with drop spindles? They look like the 50 buck speedway ones. If you have their left side arm it is a half inch longer than stock to jack camber in the circle track car suspension.
https://www.speedwaymotors.com/GM-Me...haft,5584.html

I've seen some guys try to run the circle track A arms because they are so cheap (considered expendable by racers) with mixed results.

[dsraven]

looking at post 127 I would say the geometry is outta whack. the down angle of the upper control arm will result in the tire leaning out at the top when the truck goes over a bump. should it not be more parallel to the lower control arm? the ball joint is bottomed out at that angle so if the suspension droops any more the stud could break. that would be interesting to drive.........
anybody else?

[mr48chev]

That bare rolling chassis is minus about 1200 lbs pushing down on the front suspension. You can't tell how it is going to set until it does have it's curb weight on it.
I see that time and time again where guys fuss because something doesn't look right when they have no weight on the front end to get it down to actual ride height.

[51 3600]

mr48chev your comment about racing application arms is making light bulbs go off above my head. I hadn't heard of racing style arms and the Speedway link you posted looks exactly like the arms I have. I checked another site Southside Performance Machine that has what looks to be the same arm and they list it as "designed for geometry correction" which I guess is another way of saying racing.

In other words that's why these arms aren't giving me the geometry I'm expecting, stock. BTW, the second pic in post 127 is with the engine and cab sitting on the frame. Add the front clip, hood, etc. there'll be more weight but I don't think it will help matters with those upper arms. Another possibility is that the springs are too strong for this old truck application.

May have to go back to stock arms like these to make it all work.
https://www.amazon.com/Detroit-Axle-.../dp/B07GZB3SB3

Thank you all for the edumacation.

[tx99gtp]

So more research on the danforth setup... I have the same tubular arms as seen on the 127 post. I finally got the motor in with some of the body so there is weight and suspension is still jacked up. Granted the wheels I have dont really fit due to backspacing, but the angles are terrible. Taller ball joints may help, plus the front sheet metal. Taller spindles will likely fix it but not about to pay the price. I am really considering selling all these gm metric bolt on parts and ripping out the danforth front in favor of something much better. I've been looking at Scott's (Scotts hotrods....not scott danforth) and really like the setup. I sure wish I knew all this about the danforth front before all this.

[51 3600]

Have to say my sentiments are identical to yours. But I'm gonna stick with the Danforth a little while longer to see if the problem can be solved. Got another fella who's gonna look at it in a few weeks. Keep or scrap we'll see then. Learning curves are always steep.

[Kentyk]

I went through the same thing.

I used the same Speedway upper A arms and the geometry was out just like in the pictures above. I returned to the stock A arms with global west bushings and the front end sat perfectly.

I am now in the process of setting up the steering rack. I am using the 1995 Camaro rack as the Danforth kit came with the supplied weld in brackets for the install.

The Speedway upper arms do not work with the Danforth kit.

Kent

[docrock]

Thanks for posting all this info on this setup. I think I am going to build my own for the next project.