OK...I' have been brainstorming over the idea of relocating the angle of the rear shocks... I feel the angle at which they are on are one of the reason's the trucks ride like they do... This is just my theroy.. So..feel to shoot me down if you know better!! I have a pretty good Idea on how suspension works... For insatnce, if you lay down a shock it will yield a softer ride given it has a axis point to pivot off of.. Like a swingarm on a non linkage dirtbike... But on these old trucks, they really don't have much articulation in near stock form.. So, having the shocks at a angle like they are I feel are acting like a support or a truss more so than a shock when the axle moves upward and back a little... I have taken my shocks off and it rides like a dream, currently I am running one shock and it is tolerable... So, I'm thinking a nice set of soft shocks and a little shock relocation and it will be golden!!

So, I have been studying different trucks rear shock placement, and from what I have been finding... Most are pretty straight up and down with a little lean either front or back.... So, that is my next project... When I get back in town on Tuesday, I'm gonna fab something up to test it out... So...what are some of your thoughts??

 

When you say you took all the shocks off are you talking about the front as well or just the back?

 

It's going to make the shocks less effective (softer) in both compression and rebound. Seems like the real problem is that the shocks are valved too stiff.

 

Took the shocks just off the back, the front end doesn't yield to bad of a ride..

Dave.. I was able to get a feel of a set of Rancho Adjustables at Summit this weekend and on the soft setting they felt pretty good.. I had them pull a set for the back end of our trucks and I adjusted them and compressed them by hand and they felt nice... So.. I am gonna try the relocating then maybe get those shocks for the back..

 

i have often wondered about our factory shock position... im with you dnr i think they should be moved. i actually plan on doinig it when i get around to it. just my two cents

 

i noticed some newer trucks have 1 shock angled forward and one angled towards the rear of the truck. I have driven ones like that(ford) and they rode decent

 

If you look at jeep cherokee's, they pretty much have the shock placement like ours, the only difference is that the drivers shock is behind the axle and the passenger is in front of the axle. But they are both angled to the center of the vehicle.

Just throwing that out there.

 

Look at the second gens shock angles, one forward and one back. Probably a 60* angle.

They do ride better than the 1st gens.

1st gen

2nd gen

 

With the shocks angled, that basically means that there is more pressure on the shock when it is moving. Which would mean the shock could be stiffer while still yielding a softer ride, as well as more articulation.
On my truck, there looks like there is only about 2"s of travel on the shocks. Im pretty sure Im getting more than 2"s of spring travel, but I could be wrong, the ride is pretty stiff.
Since these trucks have a major amount of axle wrap because of the huge blocks (which you dont have anymore, duh) I would suggest putting the shocks forward and backwards like the chevys.
Also, the more outboard, the more they will act for stabilizing.

My point, side to side angling = articulation, front to back angling = axle wrap reduction.

 

Shock angle makes a big difference in the ride. I have a 65 Plymouth Satellite that I wanted to run a rim on the rear that only came in a 15x8.5 with a 3 3/8 backspacing and would not fit with the stock with rear end. I narrowed the housing and moved the springs to the frame I think it was about 1 1/2 a side boy did that firm up the ride Ken

 

Don't forget that 2nd gen springs are also longer.

We ran our one 93 that has a utility body on it without shocks for a while and I have to say the ride was terrible, bouncy as could be. Constantly bouncing off the helper springs. Put shocks back on and its fine.

DNRCustoms,
I think your empty truck will ride fine with one or no shocks, but put some weight in the box and it'll probably be bouncing around like ours was.

 

Well, with both shocks on and about 1k in the box it rode ok... But I don't want to drive around with Ik in the box all the time!! Both shocks off an no weight it is to bouncy to yield a safe ride, But it is nice!! I am gonna try the shock deal this week and get back to ya guys... Don't know unless I try it I guess!!

 

The reason these trucks ride so rough is not the Shocks, Toyota ran a nearly identical rear setup for years and it worked fine. The problem is the short springs, the newer trucks ride better because their springs are longer.
Personally I'm going to 64" Chevy ones and airbags for load capacity. I'm probably going to need an antiwrap bar with said much flexier springs, but that's a small price to pay.

 

the 2nd gen position of one shock in front and one shock in back is much better at controlling axle wrap than the 1st gen design.

An additional benefit of the 2nd gen design is that it does allow longer shocks. This will also enable a softer valve design.

When you lay a shock down (make the shock more horizontal) you have essentially lowered it's effectiveness. You basically have to value the shock stiffer than is required if the shock was in line with the motion of the axle to obtain the same effectiveness. This effect is somewhat offset by the fact that you're able to make the shock longer, increasing the distance that the shock must absorb the ride motions.

But in another vein, I'm with 82F100 on this one. The springs in these trucks are really stiff. I personally would rather be able to tune a suspension by getting away with the softest spring allowed and controlling the ride motions with good shocks (ride), links (traction bars - to control hop) and airbags to control heavy loads .... but that all costs cash.

 

I think it was "Hoss" who poured a couple inches of concrete in his bed in order to smooth out the ride.

https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...=hoss+concrete