Dodge RamCharger Central banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anybody see any problems with having a 1' longer wheelbase on a RC? I'm figuring the less overhang giving better approach and departure angles outweighs the increased wheelbase. Stock Dodge rear springs on the front to move the front axle fwd about 4" and either the same Dodge rears or 56" Chevy springs turned around with the short side aft and move the rear axle back about 8" which puts the shackle near the end of the frame rail.

Stock RC wheelbase is 106" and stock shortbed PU is 115", so that puts me only 3" longer than the shorbed and still quite a bit shorter than a longbed PU I imagine. I'm not worried about body fenderwell mods, I'll cut and rebuild new inners as reqd.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,070 Posts
That's not the way to do it, there are reasons the springs are different lenghts on each half, in a post here somewhere i explained it in fairly good detail, if you're gonna move it do it by moving the spring mounts. That post may be on the next page, keep in mind that you make the turning circle bigger moving everything out
 

·
Founder
Joined
·
25,731 Posts
My rear axle sits 4" further back on my RC then stock. I used late model suburban 4x4 springs, used a shackle flip bracket for the front spring hanger and did the 3/4 elliptical setup. The departure angle is awsome.

Really I don't think the front axle needs to be moved. I originally was going to do that, but have decided against it. A Ramcharger doesn't have a bad approach angle when you go with large tires, it is the departure angle that sucks on a RC. Moving mine 4" back made a huge difference.
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Evildriver-3 said:
That's not the way to do it, there are reasons the springs are different lenghts on each half, in a post here somewhere i explained it in fairly good detail, if you're gonna move it do it by moving the spring mounts. That post may be on the next page, keep in mind that you make the turning circle bigger moving everything out
Yeah, I've read the post I believe you're referring to and understand that things change with different lengths of springs. I'm going to be moving every single spring mount on this thing and using my own fabbed ones as replacements regardless of the springs themselves. As far as the turning radius is concerned, that's why I was comparing it to a standard shorbed PU. Up until last spring I had a regular cab longbed PU and as long as I know my wheelbase is shorter than that I'm not going to worry about it (at least for a while).

So, you are saying that running a spring on the rear with the short segment aft would be a bad idea? Keep in mind that this is strictly a trail only rig and there will be no block between the springs and axle, except possibly a degree shim if reqd.

Thanks for the input :)

RCC_SaMiaM said:
My rear axle sits 4" further back on my RC then stock. I used late model suburban 4x4 springs, used a shackle flip bracket for the front spring hanger and did the 3/4 elliptical setup. The departure angle is awsome.

Really I don't think the front axle needs to be moved. I originally was going to do that, but have decided against it. A Ramcharger doesn't have a bad approach angle when you go with large tires, it is the departure angle that sucks on a RC. Moving mine 4" back made a huge difference.
I really like your setup Sam. The main reason my front axle is moving fwd is so I can use the longer Dodge rear spring up front to gain some lift & flex and still keep the shackle at or near the same location. That terrible departure angle is what is making me want move the rear axle as far aft as possible. I hate dragging. I may shoot for somewhere around 116" to keep the shackles a couple inches inside the ends of the frame rails. This weekend I'm going to remove the fuel tank so I have more room to work back there. It's also going to get relocated above the frame rails for more ground clearance.
 

·
Founder
Joined
·
25,731 Posts
Since moving my axle back, and running the 36" military hummer tires, I haven't hung up on anything yet. I have don't alot of rocks so I have diffenetely been in the situations where stock would of hung up.

I am contemplating chopping the top off the RC and bobbing the rear. I am thinking of running 39.5" tires, which should improve my approch angle greatly. I don't have the stock bumper anymore, I have a raised winch mount holding on to my warn 8274. It is almost at a 45 degree angle (brackets to the frame), so I think that heled a little in the approach department.

I do as I am now I can come up to a 4ft verticle ledge and climb it with no problems, so the larger tires should pretty much fix any problem I could have with approach angles.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,452 Posts
ratitude said:
Anybody see any problems with having a 1' longer wheelbase on a RC? I'm figuring the less overhang giving better approach and departure angles outweighs the increased wheelbase.
Or you could keep the stock wheelbase (and it's advantages) and just bob the rear body section. That would be cool. 8)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,070 Posts
If you turn the spring backwards you're removing the control end and promoting wheel hop and losing traction in the spring since it will absorb it before transfering it into the body and the body transferring it to force, truck springs aren't that great for traction to begin with, not to mention that will be pointing the pinion down
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I believe I'm going to have to limit myself to 33" tires until I get better running gear but I want plenty of room for bigger tires so when I do get the better axles I don't have to change anything else. Right now I've got a 9-1/4 rear and a full-time D44 front, both with 3.55 gears and the 5 on 4.5" bolt pattern. Bigger tires are out of the question for the moment.

I wouldn't hesitate at all to bob it but it doesn't really seem feasable due to some of my self-imposed restrictions.
  • I have to have the back seat for my kids
  • I need a top to enclose the cab for inclement weather
Bobbing it certainly requires moving the fuel tank above the frame rails but then it requires some of the space that the back seat currently occupies and I'm not willing to give that up. The top I could probably deal with but I don't see a way around the tank/seat interference other than a smaller fuel cell but that is not in my current budget and certainly doesn't take precedence over better axles.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top