Nothing Special Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 .... But, is there much reason to prefer either ball joints or king pins?.... Conventional wisdom is that kingpins are stronger, but ball joint Dana 60s aren't exactly weak. Another difference (that Shaun also mentioned) is that the ball-joint axles also had different brakes. I think people feel that the newer brakes are easier to service. And some people seem to feel that the newer brakes are a bigger improvement that kingpins, and therefore prefer the later axle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 Conventional wisdom is that kingpins are stronger, but ball joint Dana 60s aren't exactly weak. Another difference (that Shaun also mentioned) is that the ball-joint axles also had different brakes. I think people feel that the newer brakes are easier to service. And some people seem to feel that the newer brakes are a bigger improvement that kingpins, and therefore prefer the later axle. Bolt on calipers v/s the older style pins with a rubber core to retain them. My preference would be kingpins because ball joints are such a pain to change out. But, to each his own. Ask Bill which he prefers, since he has kingpins (albeit 2wd) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 .... But, is there much reason to prefer either ball joints or king pins?.... Conventional wisdom is that kingpins are stronger, but ball joint Dana 60s aren't exactly weak. Another difference (that Shaun also mentioned) is that the ball-joint axles also had different brakes. I think people feel that the newer brakes are easier to service. And some people seem to feel that the newer brakes are a bigger improvement that kingpins, and therefore prefer the later axle. Real kingpins, not tapered roller bearings are pretty well indestructible if you grease them regularly. Darth's are 33 years old and 142,000 miles and still have no side play, up and down yes, side to side no. If I were going to go to 4WD I would damn sure find a way to keep my front coil springs, granted it's no Lincoln, but still rides way better than a leaf spring front end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
85lebaront2 Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 Bill - Thanks. What is the deck height for 1972+ engines? I'll want to check BB's deck height against that spec to see if it has been decked and that they didn't use taller pistons. We shall see what the mongrel setup looks like as I pull it apart and envision installing the FI heads. Gonna resemble Johnny's Caddy. Gary, deck height 1968-1970 were 10.3, 1971 went to 10.310 and 1972 up are 10.322, you can see from the piston information I posted where Ford raised the compression height from 1.760 to 1.770 to make up for part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted May 8, 2019 Share Posted May 8, 2019 Real kingpins, not tapered roller bearings are pretty well indestructible if you grease them regularly. Darth's are 33 years old and 142,000 miles and still have no side play, up and down yes, side to side no. If I were going to go to 4WD I would damn sure find a way to keep my front coil springs, granted it's no Lincoln, but still rides way better than a leaf spring front end. A leaf spring front end with RSK and super duty springs is supposed to be pretty plush. I've driven a few F-350's with RSK and they are already light years ahead of the ride and turn radius of my truck. Super duty springs are longer, so it makes a difference where you attach the shackles to the frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Lewis Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 A leaf spring front end with RSK and super duty springs is supposed to be pretty plush. I've driven a few F-350's with RSK and they are already light years ahead of the ride and turn radius of my truck. Super duty springs are longer, so it makes a difference where you attach the shackles to the frame. Bill - I don't want to have to engineer anything, so expect to be going with leaf springs. But, the D60/SD/RSK approach sounds quite interesting. As for the deck heights, I'll refer back to your post when I get the engine out and apart. Jim - Do you have guestimates for the ride height increases for what I think you folks have said the options are, like these: F350 stock springs F350 springs and RSK SuperDuty springs SuperDuty with RSK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Bill - I don't want to have to engineer anything, so expect to be going with leaf springs. But, the D60/SD/RSK approach sounds quite interesting. As for the deck heights, I'll refer back to your post when I get the engine out and apart. Jim - Do you have guestimates for the ride height increases for what I think you folks have said the options are, like these: F350 stock springs F350 springs and RSK SuperDuty springs SuperDuty with RSK To the best of my knowledge (and I am not expert) a D60 swap with 350 springs will net you about 2" over a stock F-250 TTB. The RSK will gain another *correction 2-2 1/2"* depending on how the rear shackle mounts are attached. When I was looking into it I saw that Sky had two templates to drill the mounts, giving this range of lift. I really don't know where Superduty springs would put you because I've never driven one, but have a look around their website. The documentation and instructions are there for the '85-'91 kits for OBS and Superduty springs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 To the best of my knowledge (and I am not expert) a D60 swap with 350 springs will net you about 2" over a stock F-250 TTB. The RSK will gain another *correction 2-2 1/2"* depending on how the rear shackle mounts are attached. When I was looking into it I saw that Sky had two templates to drill the mounts, giving this range of lift. I really don't know where Superduty springs would put you because I've never driven one, but have a look around their website. The documentation and instructions are there for the '85-'91 kits for OBS and Superduty springs After reading SORD's Superduty RSK instructions it states the use of stock rear spring mounts will result in a 3" lift over stock F-350 (but with bad shackle geometry) and using their low profile brackets you get the standard 2" RSK lift with much improved shackle angle. There are side by side pictures for the two in their instructions. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Lewis Posted May 9, 2019 Author Share Posted May 9, 2019 After reading SORD's Superduty RSK instructions it states the use of stock rear spring mounts will result in a 3" lift over stock F-350 (but with bad shackle geometry) and using their low profile brackets you get the standard 2" RSK lift with much improved shackle angle. There are side by side pictures for the two in their instructions. Hope this helps. Thanks. Reading that helped my understanding a bit. And 2" of lift, coupled with dropping the rear about the same would make the truck look better - and ride dramatically better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArdWrknTrk Posted May 9, 2019 Share Posted May 9, 2019 Thanks. Reading that helped my understanding a bit. And 2" of lift, coupled with dropping the rear about the same would make the truck look better - and ride dramatically better. Well, 2" of lift going from a 250 to 350 front end, and another 2" for the RSK. I'm guessing that the difference between 350 and Superduty kits is the projection of the front brackets because they mention in the Superduty kit instructions having to notch the lower rear edge of the front bumper. This must be where they accommodate the longer Superduty spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts