• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

WH leaf spring width question

377

Sr. Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
372
Loc.
The Bluegrass State
I am trying to find out the width of Wild Horses leaf springs. I am thinking about switching my spring perches to Ruff Stuff's +2 perches. These perches are for 2 1/2 wide leaf springs. So I need to find out the width of the WH leaf springs. Thank you in advance for the help.
 

GloNDark

Full Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
393
I have a set of leafs that just came in from Wildhorses this week. They are 2.25 wide without the bushings.
 

stevenson44

Full Member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
233
I've had this thought as well, I read that there is enough clamping force to keep everything in place, can anyone confirm or deny?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
48,108
What is the question? About using a perch that is not the same width as the spring?
Then yes, there is plenty of clamping force to "keep things in place" at least. Plenty of instances of people doing either narrower or wider around here. But wider is not actually "correct" even though it's probably not dangerous for most users.
But for the long term, I'd rather see perches that are either the same width as the springs, or just a fraction narrower.

Keeping the u-bolts and plates square to the spring and axle tubes is a good thing. Splayed is not, and the more splayed they are the worse. The nuts don't sit flush on the top plate, the bolts might get stress risers from being clamped over the edge of the perch and coming through the holes crooked.

I realize that an 1/8" per side is barely enough to register. Just saying that "in theory" it's not the right way to do it. But yes, it's been done many times.
If you can open up the holes in the top plate just a tiny bit to the outside, you might be able to completely compensate for any odd working angles.
The fact that the bolts are not butted up against the springs anymore is also not the best scenario, but I don't know what kind of side forces would be at work, or even if so, to what level that could be considered a detriment.

It's all not a big deal to most. It's just not how the factories normally do it.
I think the rocking motion is minimal, but it's likely linear with how hard you drive it and how much articulation you put the suspension through by going off roading. On the street? Not so much probably.

But again, it's not factory, so it's good to question it. Maybe those here that are engineers and stress-savvy thinkers can add anything to, or debunk the myths I just touted.

If it was me though, I'd go with 2.25" wide perches. Or if I could not find any, I'd err to the narrow side and go 2" rather than 2.5".
Should be easy enough to find too. If Ruff-Stuff doesn't make them, others do. I thought we got ours from RS, so maybe they're there somewhere. Or else we're having them special made to fit the odd width of the Broncos.

Paul
 

stevenson44

Full Member
Joined
May 17, 2010
Messages
233
Good stuff Paul, thank you. My main concern was not having the bolts butted against the spring...you have given me more to think about.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
48,108
Oops. I should have brought that up as well, so thanks for highlighting the point. You're absolutely correct that you do not want the bolts to contact the springs.
There should always be at least a tiny gap. My comments about the slightly narrower perch being better than a wider one are based on still having the proper hole pattern in the top plate.
A good u-bolt installation is primarily handled by the hole spacing in the top retainer plate, in addition to the proper width of the perch.
A correct top plate can compensate for a too-narrow perch, but it can't do anything for a too-wide perch unless you elongate the holes outward. Which is just compensating for compromising.

That last can certainly be done, but it's just stacking one compromise on top of another in place of getting a correct perch.
The best case scenario is a perch that is just a tiny bit proud of the spring, and a top plate hole pattern that matches. Straight vertical bolts butted up against something hard (other than the flexing leaves of course) is what you're shooting for.

Paul
 

DirtDonk

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
48,108
Speaking of wider u-bolt spacing, one reason we don't like to do it with stock-ish top plates is that the farther you get away from the edge of the springs the weaker and more prone to bending over the plate will get.
If the plate is much thicker and stronger, that's one thing. But a stock top plate will start to bend over the edges at probably under 100 lbs u-bolt torque even at it's stock hole spacing. Push those outward and use larger u-bolts that take more torque than the stock ones, and it's just another compromise in strength.

Probably encourages bolt loosening pretty quickly.

Paul
 

sykanr0ng

Bronco Guru
Joined
Aug 11, 2014
Messages
5,363
My plan is to use some 5/8 inch ID x 7/8 inch OD DOM tubing over the bolts as a spacer. (0.120 inch wall = about 1/8 inch)

0.120 inch each side will take up most of the 1/4 inch difference.

The RuffStuff plates are much thicker than stock.
 
Top