Mid Travel vs. Long Travel Off-Road Suspension

Which Is Right For You?

Every truck and its owner are different. While that may sound like stating the obvious, it is very much true, and determines the relationship of how someone drives their pickup. Most folks are more than fine with leaving their truck bone stock, and hardly ever venture far from paved roads. Modern trucks are easy to drive, and are often treated as a regular car—with a handy bed that comes in clutch during those sporadic trips to Home Depot. While this picture comes off as being dramatically domesticated, it’s really not that far off from how it really is, except for the truck owners that have a sharp taste for far more action and adventure. 

Now, the type of action we have in mind here is off-road adventure, and what exactly that means to each individual truck owner. While a good percentage of them tend to lean toward the mild side of things (which isn’t a bad thing at all) there are a slimmer number of truck fiends that crave the most capable, unstoppable setup imaginable. Of course, we’re talking about the timeless debate between mid- and long travel truck suspension systems, and what it really means to build and drive them. 

The Deciding Factor(s)

Which is the right one for you? Well, only you can really answer that question. There’s a lot to take into consideration—some are the obvious cost and labor issues, and others may be less glaring and require careful attention. You’ll have to seriously address the pros and cons of how mid- and long travel suspension systems stand to benefit your particular situation and how they could possibly negatively affect you world as well. 

Materials

While there is no real “negative” surrounding either of these suspension upgrades as they are both far superior than factory specs if you plan on doing any type of off-roading—even in the slightest. Mid-travel setups are far more accessible than their long-travel counterparts, as most basic front kits consist of at least an aftermarket uni-ball upper control arm, a quality coilover with reservoir, an upgraded leaf spring pack, axle flip kit, and a reservoir-equipped shock. All are fairly straightforward to install, and all of these components bolt right into place. 

Mid-travel setups are far more accessible than their long-travel counterparts…

On the other end, long travel setups are far more involved as you’re looking at aftermarket upper AND lower uni-ball control arms, an extended axle shaft, tie rod extension, coilovers with reservoir, and strategic weld-in reinforcements in the way of braces/gussets for optimum strength. You’ll see a beefier leaf spring pack here at the rear, which will be placed underneath the axle. This means that bolting on shocks in their factory mounting points will not be possible. You’ll have to get creative here to make it work, whether that means relocating the mounts somewhere else of going right through the bed utilizing a bed cage. Don’t expect things to be as easy as with mid travel setups here, it’s far more work, but there is a larger payout here once the dust settles. 

Cost

Long travel suspensions cost much more to build, obviously, but in more ways than you might think. Aside from the suspension components themselves, you’ll also have to take factory fender panels out of the equation, and think about wider, fiberglass options instead since the width of the front suspension is extended and the rear travel is extended so much over stock. On the bright side, you’ll be able to run comfortably with 35” tires without having to endlessly cut and trim until there’s nothing left of those original fenders anyway. 

Type of Driving

Think of mid travel suspension good for casual trail cruising, some moderate rock climbing, and increased general access to rougher conditions that wouldn’t otherwise be comfortable in a stock truck. You’ll have a lot more options open to you as far as terrain you’ll be able to take on, but take those options and multiply them—that is the true capability of long travel. But is long travel feasible for daily driving duties? Sure, why not? It’s really a personal preference with the additional width up front and all, but it’s just like anything else, you’ll adapt. 

Bottom Line Pros and Cons

Let’s start with mid travel first. You’ll be able to install the suspension components comfortably at home without any specialty skills or tools. The parts involved are fewer and relatively inexpensive, and you’ll still be able to upgrade tire size—think 33s without having to cut/trim fender wells too extensively. While you’ll be able to comfortable drive your truck daily and still have more confidence off-road, you will still be limited to more extreme conditions that only a long travel will be able to handle.

Long travel suspension parts do add up fast and installation isn’t always for the everyday DIY builder at times. You’ll most likely have to do some welding, so if you don’t have this skillset under your belt, you may have to outsource or wrangle a buddy who can help out. Save part of your budget for replacement fender panels, and prepare to lose valuable bed space for that bed cage and probably a spot to throw your spare. Don’t let all those factors stop you from seeing the job through—once everything is done, the off-road landscape will be your oyster. 

…once everything is done, the off-road landscape will be your oyster…

In the end, you’ll have to make the decision of just which scenario is right for you. Are you down for the higher cost and more in-depth installation of the long travel? Is it really worth the extra money and extra headaches? Are you fine with still being able to having more paths opened to you while still being limited to only where long travel-equipped trucks can travel? Weight it all out, sleep on it, talk it over with your better half, and then start building the truck that is right for your own personal situation. 

Springs vs. Coilovers vs. Bags: What’s the Difference?

Are Springs, Coilovers, or Air Suspension Best for Performance?

It might seem like common sense that having more choices when it comes to just about any decision is a good thing. In many circumstances, that’s true, but when presented with too many options, ‘decision paralysis’ can set in, making it harder instead of easier to choose the right path. Instead of making life easier, it causes anxiety, slows down or even stops decision-making, and can even lead to remorse after the fact as you churn through all the possibilities you didn’t pick. 

When it comes to upgrading a car’s suspension for high performance street or track use, we’ve reached the point where for many popular platforms, there’s no clear winner for every situation out of a wide variety of aftermarket setups. While we can’t guarantee you’ll avoid ‘paralysis by analysis,’ we might be able to help clarify your priorities with the following look at the pros and cons of the three basic categories of mods: Spring and damper replacement, coilover conversion, and air suspension. 

Springs and Shocks/Struts

This category encompasses replacing the factory-spec springs and dampers (whether those are conventional shock absorbers, MacPherson struts, or a combination of the two) with upgraded aftermarket parts.  

Pro:

• Likely to be the least-expensive option, both to buy and to install (if you don’t do it yourself)
• Properly-engineered matching suspension kits take the guesswork out of picking the right spring rates and compression/rebound settings
• Durability is often as good as or better than factory parts
• Some high-end kits offer limited damper adjustment for fine-tuning
• Fewest compromises in ride quality and noise for dual use street/track cars

Con:

• Limited range of spring rates for applications ‘out of the mainstream’
• Systems on the most affordable end of the spectrum usually offer no ride height or damping adjustment

The Bottom Line:

Usually the least-expensive and most-available option, but with significant compromises in adjustability and performance as the tradeoff.

Coilover Conversion

For the purpose of this discussion, we’re going to define coilovers as a complete replacement of the factory spring and damper setup, whether those are individual components or struts, with aftermarket alternatives. This is the most typical choice for serious track applications, but also has a wide fanbase for street/track use as well – partially because of the serious race cred and the ‘hardcore’ aura that goes with the tradeoffs involved. 

Pro: 

• Short of a completely re-engineered suspension right down to the control arms and chassis attachment points, coilovers offer the best possible handling and the widest range of adjustment, as well as more precision and repeatability when changing settings
• Good coverage from multiple manufacturers for the most popular car applications
• Narrower coilover units can offer more clearance for wider wheels and tires without fender modification
• Adjustable ride height without altering spring rates
• Dampers available in configurations from non-adjustable to 4-way (high/low speed compression and rebound)
• Relatively simple and easy to change spring rates with ‘universal’ springs to suit different track conditions

Con: 

• A very, very wide range of quality/price, from pro level down to “I bought this off of Wish – why doesn’t it fit?”
• A whole new form of decision paralysis – lots of adjustment often means more ways to get it wrong
• Systems intended for track use can be noisy and harsh on less-than-perfect pavement
• Expect to either replace or rebuild the dampers on a regular basis, as they are usually designed with longevity as a lower priority
• Less-common performance cars may need to have coilover sets pieced together from components if ‘all in one box’ kits aren’t available

The Bottom Line:

Not the best choice for comfort or street driving, but the de-facto standard for full-race use. Beware of pitfalls in quality at the low end of the scale, and excessive complexity at the high end.

Air Suspension

Commonly referred to as “bags,” today’s performance-oriented air suspension systems are a far cry from the lashed-together rigs that pioneered the technology. Once strictly an option for “stance” and car shows instead of performance, it’s now a solid contender for track-oriented builds.

Pro:

• Adjustable ride height is the main attraction here – modern air springs offer a wide range of spring heights selectable simply by adding or reducing pressure, and clever design of the air bags themselves achieves this without significant changes in spring rate
• Compatible with multi-adjustable race-spec dampers for suspension tuning
• Systems with quality air springs rival conventional factory steel springs for durability
• A great choice for cars that will see use on both the race course and the street, making low ride height that would be a disaster with a ‘static’ coilover suspension achievable in a car you can still drive to and from the track
• Complete, ready-to-install kits are available for more applications every day

Con: 

• Trends towards the expensive end of the scale compared to anything but full-race coilover systems
• Additional hardware like compressors, tanks, solenoids, and pressure gauges required for adjustment on-the-fly, which adds expense and weight
• Modern air springs only allow changes in ride height while spring rate remains the same, requiring complete replacement of a relatively expensive component to alter it
• Like coilovers, less-popular applications may require ‘a la carte’ component selection instead of an off-the-shelf solution

The Bottom Line:
The king of adjustability, at the expense of additional weight and cost. Limited (but growing) off-the-shelf choices.

Wrapping it Up

There’s no one-size-fits all solution to picking the right path for the suspension on your project car or daily driver, and the wide variety of choices (made worse by conflicting advice from all directions) doesn’t help. Hopefully we’ve made it a little bit easier for you to organize your priorities, from the cost involved to the complexity of installation and tuning to your personal intended use (which often turns out to be somewhat different from where you actually end up in practice). Relax, take a deep breath, and consider the options we have set before you as a starting point in your search for the perfect suspension.

Understanding Independent Front Suspension (IFS)

Early 4 wheel drive trucks used a solid axle up front because it was simple, and strong. However, the solid axle has downsides. One of which was the ride quality. Anything that disturbs one side of the axle affects the other side too. With an independent suspension, both sides work independently from each other. IFS was designed in part to provide a smoother ride, but like everything else on a vehicle; it has its strengths, and weaknesses; we’ll explore both.  

In order for the axles to articulate when the suspension moves up and down, the IFS uses constant velocity joints (CV’s). The CV’s get their name from their function. As they move, they maintain a constant velocity unlike your standard cardan or universal joint. CV’s do not need to be timed like a universal joint, and opposing CV’s can work at different angles without causing a vibration. 

CV’s are constructed from a splined “star” that slides over the splines on the axle shaft. The star has deep grooves on the outside diameter that provide a bearing race for several large ball bearings (typically 6). There are other designs that use square parts with needle bearings, but the most common CV’s use round balls. The round balls are contained in a ring that has holes through it where the ball bearings sit. The ring is called a cage. The cage and bearings then fit into the outer housing that has the same deep grooves of the star in its inside diameter. The star drives the bearings that in turn drive the outer bearing housing. The cage simply holds the ball bearings in place.

The result is an assembly that drives the axle shaft while allowing it to articulate in any direction. There is a limiting factor to the articulation; a maximum angle that the CV can move. If the axle shaft exceeds that limit it can bind, or come apart. All that motion of the balls creates a lot of friction (heat), so proper lubrication is a must. That’s why it’s also critical to keep dirt out of the CV; that is the job of the CV boot. The boot needs to flex with the CV while keeping the grease inside, and water, and debris out. Boots are made from rubber, silicone, or plastic. Heavy duty leather boots are also available, but those are mostly used for racing. One of the shortcomings of CV’s is when the boot gets damaged, the grease escapes, and it doesn’t take much foreign matter to destroy the CV joint. 

An IFS has more moving parts, and more points of failure than a solid axle. Each a-arm will have a pivot or two with a bushing on the chassis end, and a ball joint or spherical bearing at the upright that allows the suspension to move up and down and to turn at the same time. All these points create friction so they will wear over time, and can fail. There is also a packaging problem with IFS. Fitting shocks, steering, and axles into a space tight enough to still allow tire clearance at full lock can be daunting. The other issue is the CV’s maximum angle. It will limit the amount of suspension travel available.

Most independent suspensions use an upper and lower a-arm, and a spindle or upright as many call it. The exception to this is Ford’s Twin Traction Beam Suspension, or TTB. The TTB is unique in that it has what is typically a solid axle with a universal joint in the long side axle which allows both sides of the housing to articulate. It’s a solid axle with a pivot in the middle. It does offer independent motion of both wheels, but it has more of the properties of a solid axle than an independent suspension using a-arms, and CV joints. 

The independent suspension has a differential just like the solid axle, but with CV’s on both ends. The differential is mounted to the chassis which decreases the unsprung weight of the vehicle. Unsprung weight is the weight of the moving components of you suspension. Sprung weight is the weight of the vehicle that the suspension is holding up. The less unsprung weight you have, the less work your shocks need to do to control the suspension. Your suspension is much more responsive to the terrain without needing huge amounts of damping in the shocks. When combined with fewer tendencies to transfer suspension inputs to the other side of the vehicle like a solid axle does, the result of IFS is a much more comfortable ride. 

When designing an IFS, room for the differential housing in the chassis has to be taken into account. The front end already has tons of stuff occupying space like the engine, fan, and radiator. Some designs simply drop the chassis down in the center of the frame to mount the differential. This can cause ground clearance problems. Instead of an axle that can move, you have solid frame making contact to the ground or rocks. If the IFS is properly designed, it can actually increase ground clearance in front, but moving the differential up too high can lead to excessive angles on the CV joints, a definite limiting factor. That’s why many rock crawlers prefer a solid axle in front. The solid axle will lift the entire front end up and over rocks. With an independent front design, you need to keep the tires on the rocks as one side of the suspension will go up and over the rock, while the chassis and opposite side are not affected. When it comes to the rocks, the solid axle has some advantages over IFS. 

When talking about an IFS you also need to discuss the steering. Most IFS designs use rack and pinion steering. The rack is a long rectangular piece with straight gears cut into it. It is held in mesh with a pinion gear that comes in perpendicular to the rack. As the steering wheel is turned, the pinion gear moves the rack back and forth. On each end of the rack are steering shafts that connect to the upright on the other end. Care must be taken to keep the length and angle of the steering shafts similar to the a-arms. If the motion of the steering shafts are not on the same arc as the a-arms, you will experience bump steer. Bump steer is when the up and down motion of the suspension pushes or pulls on the steering shafts causing the wheels to turn, or toe in or out. A drawback to the rack and pinion is that when a load is put on a steering shaft, that load goes to the teeth on the rack, and the pinion gear at the point of contact. If you continuously encounter these loads, the teeth on the rack can hammer against the pinion gear causing it to wear out or break.

Breakthroughs in CV joint designs, as well as other IFS parts and assemblies have pushed 4 wheel drive IFS to high levels of durability.

It was already mentioned that the IFS gives a smoother ride, it has other attributes as well. Because of the way the upper and lower a-arms travel in an arc, the upright maintains nearly perfect camber throughout the suspension travel. Where a straight axle will have the tires on an angle when it articulates, the IFS will keep the tread of the tire parallel to the ground. That maximizes the contact patch of the tire, giving you maximum traction for acceleration, braking, and steering control. It also saves the sidewalls of your tires from possible damage. Because both tires move independently, and with less input on the chassis, the vehicle tends to be more stable; especially at high speeds. Both tires are free to move up and down, and remember there is also less unsprung weight, so the vehicle remains level and constant. With more traction, and better steering control, there is less understeer in the corners. Understeer is when the vehicle resists steering input and the vehicle momentum overcomes traction. It causes the vehicle to push straight ahead in the turn. With an IFS you can push harder into the turns, and accelerate sooner because the front will turn better. While the straight axle might be better suited to slow speeds in the rocks, the IFS shines at high speeds in rough terrain. Impacts that will upset a straight axle suspension will be soaked up with ease by the IFS. 

Breakthroughs in CV joint designs, as well as other IFS parts and assemblies have pushed 4 wheel drive IFS to high levels of durability. Pro-4 racing on the track, and Ultra4 racing offroad has refined the parts needed to apply the horsepower and torque that is available today. So much so that Unlimited Trophy Trucks, the biggest and baddest trucks racing in the desert, are now being built with 4 wheel drive. The drive assemblies are so reliable that the extra complexity is worth it. The benefits include less possibility of getting stuck in the silt, quicker acceleration out of the turns, being able to drive deeper into the corners, and less wheel spin so your tires may last a little longer. New designs with portal axles to reduce CV angles, and provide additional gearing options will push performance ever farther. There have been several 4 wheel drive Trophy Trucks in the past, but they seemed to be burdened by the complexity of 4 wheel drive. Now that the bugs have been worked out, 4 wheel drive IFS has become the wave of the future.   

Leaf Springs vs Suspension Links

Let’s be specific, and talk about leaf springs versus suspension links with a solid axle. You may have a straight axle in one end of your 4×4 or both, and it could have a combination of links with leaf springs, all leaf springs, or all links front and rear. Both leaf springs and suspension links have their strengths, and weaknesses. Depending on several factors, either design might be right for you, so we’ll take a look at both. 

There are all kinds of link configurations in use. Links can take the form of radius arms, be used in a combination of 4 links, or 3 links, and include wishbones, or panhard bars to center the axle. There is even a unique watts link design, but it is rarely used on a 4×4 because of its limited suspension travel. The job of the links are to locate the axle; that’s it. Some designs will have the shocks and/or springs mounted to the link, but that’s an added function. The link’s main role is to attach the axle to the chassis, and allow it to articulate. 

Linked designs use a coil spring to support the weight of the vehicle. Coil springs can be mounted independently of the shock, or they can be combined in a coilover shock. The coilover shock is a fantastic design because it is compact, and easy to mount. There are no spring retainers or coil buckets needed, only a single bolt on each end. The distinction of a coil spring is important because a coil behaves much differently than a leaf spring. First let’s talk about spring rate. The amount of weight it takes to deflect a spring one inch is the rate of the spring. If it is 100 pounds then for each inch the spring is compressed, it generates 100 more pounds of resistance. To compress it 2 inches, it takes 200 pounds of force. If the coil is wound consistently throughout its length, then it is a single rate coil. Its spring rate is linear. The 100 pounds per inch does not vary. 

Linked designs use a coil spring to support the weight of the vehicle.

There are progressive rate coil springs too. They have a few closely wound coils at one end and then wider, equally spaced coils at the other end. The closely wound coils compress at a different rate than the widely spaced ones. Dual rate coil springs are used in some factory based designs. With coilover shocks, the way to create a progressive spring rate is to stack them together. A short stiff spring stacked on a longer, more flexible spring will give you a spring combination that changes rate as it compresses. It’s easy to swap coils to fine tune the rate. You can also adjust the spring rate by introducing preload to the coil spring or springs. If you compress the coil one inch in our 100 pound example, the resistance will already be 200 pounds while the vehicle is at rest.  

On a leaf spring, the rate is progressive due to the multi-leaf design. The more you compress it, the higher the rate goes. Leaf springs work together as a single unit. Each spring is designed to work with the next leaf in the stack. It’s much more difficult to adjust them without the entire leaf pack being removed, and disassembled. Leaf springs can also suffer from spring wrap. Under hard acceleration or braking, the spring can wrap around the axle causing the axle to twist. The twisting can negatively affect traction, and abruptly changes the pinion angle which strains the driveshaft u-joints. A linked suspension will resist this condition because the links don’t flex. With leaf springs, there is no way to introduce preload to the spring. For ease of tuning, the coil spring wins.    

Leaf springs have been used since roman times so they are well understood.

The use of a coil is a huge advantage in the link design, but a linked suspension is much more complicated than the leaf spring design; especially if you are retrofitting it onto an existing leaf spring vehicle. It will take extensive fabrication, and a good understanding of suspension geometry. If you are building a 4 link design, the links take up a lot of space which means you will be doing extensive cutting, and relocating to make room. Most people who do a link conversion in the rear cut the entire back half of the frame off, and rebuild it from scratch to work with the link geometry. You can also forget about hauling much in the bed as that space is now taken up by the upper links. It depends on the link design you are using, but typically the longer the links are, the more suspension travel you can get. The linked design also offers more articulation. These attributes affect other assemblies on your vehicle like the steering linkage and the drive shaft, so they all have to be designed to work together. From a purely performance standpoint, the linked design wins again. 

It would seem like a linked suspension is the way to go, so why are leaf springs still in use? Leaf springs have their own benefits that make them desirable. Leaf springs are simple to produce, and easy to mount. Leaf springs have been used since roman times so they are well understood. Not only do they support the weight of the vehicle, but they also locate the axle housing. They are very compact when compared with a link design. They are mounted towards the end of the axle housing for stability, so the room between the springs can be used for other components like the engine up front, and gas tanks in the rear. Those components can be located lower in the chassis to keep the center of gravity low to the ground. It also means that a truck bed or cargo area of an SUV can be roomier inside. Because of the leaf springs progressive spring rate, they are much better suited to supporting varying loads. If you drive your truck empty all week, but use a slide in camper on weekends, leaf springs can handle the variation with little or no modifications. The same goes for towing. The stability that a leaf spring design provides helps substantially while towing. 

If you want a performance based vehicle for rock crawling, or high speed running in the desert, a linked suspension is your best bet. If you need utility for towing, or hauling heavy loads, leaf springs are the way to go.       

Purist Build

To Cut or Not to Cut—That Is the Question.

There are as many different opinions about building, rebuilding, customizing, or hot rodding cars as there are butts for the seats of those cars. Twenty or even ten years ago, collectors and restorers would cry out foul when somebody cut up a restored, original car to make some kind of hot rod out of it—didn’t matter if it was a ’32 Ford, a Mustang, a Mopar or a Porsche. But as we are beginning to see significant changes to the hobby, as we know it, people care less and think, well, I might as well cut it up. Others think, well, if I cut one up it will make all the others that are left more scarce and therefore more valuable. Others might think, there are not many survivors; I’d better restore it.

I guess I’m on the fence a little as I love modified cars of all kinds but I can also see and appreciate folks who prefer it as the factory delivered it—the purist outlook. Just take the Porsche market. Before Rod Emory’s Emory Motorsports started building “Outlaw” Porsche 356s more than 20 years ago in 1996, nobody dreamed of cutting up and customizing a Porsche, especially not a 356. Pretty soon, other companies such as Rob Dickinson’s Singer Vehicle Design were doing same to the revered 911. Prices of these re-imagined Porsche have escalated to over $1 million. Who’d a thunk it?

Of course, Porsche is not the only marque to succumb to the cutting torch. I was watching an auction show on TV recently and watched as two customized Ford Bronco’s crossed the block at well over $100K each. What suddenly made the Ford Bronco so valuable if it wasn’t for what companies such as Icon and ASC Bronco have done to elevate their desirability?

Look at the flip side of the coin though. It wasn’t that long ago that owners and restorers of early Fords such as Model Ts, Model As and ’32-’34 Fords totally frowned on anybody cutting up and hot rodding those cars. There were some who wouldn’t even sell a car to a known rodder. Now, most of the people who liked stock early Fords have passed or, are too old to care. Consequently, there’s a glut of those cars on the market and prices have fallen drastically. So, one could ask, did their protectionism matter in the long run? No, because in reality there are many, many more cars than there are people who want to cut them up.

Consider all the classic cars that lay rotting in fields, yards, and garages. Their owners saying, “I’m going to restore it someday.” Well, someday came and went and now the car has rotted into the ground. Which is worse? To let the car rot or to let it go to somebody who can restore or modify it and enjoy it because all the hoarder has done is destroy it.

I take equal umbrage with those restorers who are anal about so-called factory overspray and the like. Talk to anybody who worked a factory line in the fifties and sixties and they will tell you there was no specific factory overspray pattern. It came out the way it came out and to give or take judging points for something as subjective as overspray is, in my opinion, asinine.

“What I like to do is use factory reinforcement pieces such as those from a convertible model; torque boxes and frame connectors, etc., as a way to strengthen a chassis.”Steve Strope, Pure Vision Design

When looking at the pureness of a build one also has to take into consideration the state of the donor vehicle. I know of several guys that have started with little more than a rusty frame and firewall and they have spent thousands of dollars fitting new panels when they could have replaced the whole body more easily and for less money. “But,” they say, “It’s not original.” Well, you’ve replaced almost the entire car so what makes that more original than a new body?”

Another thing to take into consideration when deciding what to do is progress. Compare whatever it is you drive every day with a car of the fifties or sixties. It’s night and day, black and white, good and bad. A modern car with all its convenience and connectivity is amazing to drive. Yet a stock, classic-era car that is 50 or 60 years old can be an absolute pig to drive with drum brakes, no power steering, no real air conditioning, no retractable seat belts, no cup holders, no USB port and no connectivity. Some people love it but my guess is, most people don’t.

I have a friend in England, Dan Clare, with a funky Model T Ford hot rod that to see driving on the street is magical because it’s so out of place. It’s like seeing a punk rocker at a bus stop in Los Angeles. It’s an anachronism that is kind of amusing. But talk to Dan about driving his rod and he says, “Sixty miles is about the max I can drive. It just flat wears you out.” You would never say that about a modern car that you can jump in and drive 1,000 miles with little or no thought.

Because those classic cars are what they are and drive as they do is why people modernize them with stronger frames, better suspension, better brakes, more power. I spoke to Steve Strope of Pure Vision Design, a well-known builder of highly modified cars. Steve has cut up some of the best from Mustangs to Road Runners—nothing is too sacred, however, in his opinion he likes to retain the stock frame where possible because, “The stock frame fits and as long as it’s up to the task of the power we’re adding, I don’t see any good reason to change it. You know the body will fit without modification and will not need hacking.

“What I like to do is use factory reinforcement pieces such as those from a convertible model; torque boxes and frame connectors, etc., as a way to strengthen a chassis. These are simple mods a guy can probably do at home and not degrade the integrity of the car. That’s what we did on the recently unveiled PGA ’73 Challenger.

“The addition then of aftermarket suspension components from somebody such as Hotchkis will improve the suspension for probably less than the cost of restoring the stock suspension. With a new kit, the work is already done and you will get a new, stronger, improved suspension and your old car will handle and stop like a modern car with no significant loss of integrity.”

I have to agree with Steve, I like a stock frame, as long as it’s sturdy that has been updated to accept modern suspension and brakes. However, when the frame is rotten or weak then a new frame is totally acceptable.

It doesn’t get more pure than a Shelby G.T.350 so what can be wrong with taking a boring stocker and re-engineering it into a pure-bred, road-going racecar?

One question often asked when builders are sinking money into a project is, is it worth it? I know several guys that have invested mucho dinero into a show car project only to not win. That’s a gut-wrenching, disappointing feeling that nobody likes and to make matters worse the car can now possibly be somewhat devalued. It didn’t win; you overbuilt the neighborhood, as realtors say, and invested too much in a project that is not worth the investment.

Call me cheap but I just don’t get the idea of investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into a project that ends up being worth 10 cents on the dollar—makes no “cents” to me. That said, to some people cost doesn’t matter and bless them, they are building cool cars that inspire and excite us and help keep a hobby, industry, and lifestyle afloat which is, after all is said and done, what it’s about.

Consequently, you have to pick your car. Take for example that of OVC Mustangs who take old ’65 Mustangs and turn them into Shelby G.T.350 Mustangs. It doesn’t get purer than a Shelby G.T.350 so what can be wrong with taking a boring stocker and re-engineering it into a pure-bred, road-going racecar? And, the value of that new G.T.350 would far exceed that of the stock Mustang.

In ten or twenty years, the hobby, industry, sport, call it what you will, will have moved on. Change is inevitable. What’s hot today will probably not be hot tomorrow. So, in my opinion, it doesn’t matter if we cut up cars or not—no matter how special they might be. There are lots to go around. Unless, of course, that car is really rare, a one-off or a very special model that by modifying it you destroy both its integrity and its valve.

The Jeep: From Willys to Wrangler

How the World’s Most Famous Go-Anywhere Vehicle Earned Its Stripes

If you had to pick a single candidate for “the most American car ever,” there are a lot of potential candidates. The Corvette would be near the top of the list—it’s always been “America’s sports car” from the original C1 racers at LeMans through the iconic split-window 1963 model and the C3 that defined the Apollo Era of American exceptionalism (and endured the dark days of smog restrictions and gas lines), all the way up to today’s C7 and upcoming mid-rear-engine C8 supercar.

You could also make a case for the Ford Mustang that launched the Pony Car wars and spawned the Camaro and Challenger, or the “shoebox” Chevy sedans that became a favorite of hot rodders. The original muscle car, the Pontiac GTO, would also be on the shortlist, and even the Ford Model T would be a strong contender, thanks to the way it put car ownership in the reach of the working class and created the impetus for America’s shift from roads designed for horse-drawn conveyance to ones better-suited for cars and trucks.

But out of all the possibilities, in the end there’s only one vehicle that truly deserves the title—the Jeep. In continuous production (and continually popular) since 1941 and showing no signs of ever falling out of favor, the iconic off-roader is the one motor vehicle that stands above the rest. Born in the shadow of looming global conflict, the original Jeep served admirably in the Arsenal of Democracy, transitioned to civilian life as a workhorse for farmers and ranchers, and evolved into a status symbol that never lost its off-road credibility.

While “Jeep” grew from a single, scrappy 4×4 light scout car into an entire brand that has encompassed multiple different platforms over the years, including today’s unibody SUV and crossover vehicles, what we’re really interested in is the MB, CJ, and Wrangler models that are first to mind when you hear the name “Jeep.” Here is their story.

Flat Fenders

The vehicle we know today as the Jeep began its existence as a US Army specification for a “Truck, ¼ ton, 4×4” just prior to America’s entry into the Second World War. Post-WWI, the country’s armed forces had been significantly drawn down and reorganized, and many experiments were in progress to determine how new technology would make the next conflict different from the static trench warfare that characterized the Great War.

…the original Jeep served admirably in the Arsenal of Democracy, transitioned to civilian life as a workhorse for farmers and ranchers, and evolved into a status symbol that never lost its off-road credibility.

Light trucks and cars had shown promise toward the end of that war as a way to conduct reconnaissance, quickly move troops, artillery, and supplies, and generally, replace the large numbers of horses that had previously done most of the heavy lifting. The Army had a number of vehicles already in development or production that ranged from a half-ton to 7.5 tons in payload capacity, but a need was recognized for a smaller, more agile vehicle in the quarter-ton capacity range for the reconnaissance and liaison role.

American Bantam, a manufacturer with a somewhat-troubled history of bankruptcy but plenty of experience with small cars, and Willys-Overland, another faltering Depression-era builder and seller of small cars, endeavored to produce prototypes to meet the somewhat-unrealistic specifications set out by the Ordinance Technical Committee: 4-wheel drive, a crew of three, a 75-inch wheelbase and 47 inch track width, a fold-down windshield, 660-pound payload, and an engine with a minimum of 85 pound-feet of torque, all weighing in at a scant 1,300 pounds empty. Oh, and by the way, bids were required in 11 days, with a deadline of 49 days for the first prototype and 75 days to deliver 70 test vehicles.

While Willys was the low bidder, they were passed over in favor of Bantam when they couldn’t commit to the incredibly short deadline, and the Army moved ahead with the project. Over the course of development, Willys and eventually Ford became involved, as Bantam didn’t have anything close to the production capacity that would be required for full-scale manufacturing. The specification evolved from the ridiculously-light 1,300-pound weight goal to a more sensible 2,160-pound maximum, and Bantam ended up being edged out of the project as the Willys MB and Ford GPW became the definitive production models, with the US Army securing the patent for what would be known as the WWII Jeep in 1942.

Over the course of the war, Willys would manufacture more than 360,000 MBs and Ford would build another 280,000-plus GPWs. Ford being Ford, while parts were mostly interchangeable between the two, many of the parts produced by Ford would be stamped with a stylized cursive capital letter “F” in the same font as the Ford logo.

Post-War Production

With the Second World War drawing to a close, and all of America’s manufacturing corporations eyeing the future beyond the massive expansion they’d experienced since 1941, Willys-Overland was keen to find a way to turn the MB into something that could be sold on the civilian market. In 1944 with victory in sight, they began to work on prototypes for the “Civilian Jeep,” or simply CJ, mainly consisting of removing military-specific details like blackout lights and adding a tailgate. The initial conversions would later be referred to as the CJ-1, though none have survived and details are scant. The follow-on CJ-2 prototypes would be another limited experiment with only a few scores produced for internal company testing of more civilian-friendly modifications, and a few still exist today.

These led to the CJ-2A, the first true production civilian Jeep, which introduced the now-trademarked 7-slot vertical grille (previous models had 9) and was primarily intended for the agricultural market with a wide range of factory accessories like winches, snow plows, mowers, and even welders powered off of the engine’s PTO mount. More than 200,000 were sold between the end of the war and 1949, in a bewildering array of possible configurations that have become a collector and restorer playground/nightmare.

The next model, the CJ-3A, debuted in 1949 and included more detail changes to improve the transmission, axles, and suspension, and was adopted to replace the now-elderly wartime MB and GPW Jeeps in US military service as the Willys MC, designated the “Utility Truck, M38.” 130,000 or so were produced before being replaced by the CJ-3B in 1953, with more minor changes. Kaiser (yes, the same car manufacturer that eventually spawned the healthcare company) bought Willys-Overland that same year, and licensing of the Jeep design was expanded from Mitsubishi (who had produced the 3A in post-war Japan exclusively for police and other government use) to also include Mahindra in India, who would continue to grind out CJ-3B-based vehicles all the way through 2010.

The CJ-4 moniker was applied to a stillborn concept project in 1950-51, so the next Jeep model the world would see was the CJ-5. In various versions, it would remain in production from 1955 to 1983, and it soldiered on through many changes – not the least of which came when Jeep was sold to American Motors Corporation in 1970. In military service it would be known as the M38A1, and in 1972 AMC engaged in a major revision to the platform that increased the wheelbase by 3 inches, added overall length, and increased the size of the engine bay to accommodate both a 304 cubic inch V8 and 3.8 and 4.2 liter straight six engine options.

…Jeep fans absolutely lost their minds, with the YJ being panned by hardcore enthusiasts as an unworthy successor to the legendary CJ series.

AMC’s marketing increasingly targeted mainstream buyers instead of the agricultural and utilitarian appeal previous Jeeps had cultivated. Multiple appearance, accessory, and performance packages were offered, leaning heavily toward the stickers-and-stripes design ethos of the 1970s and early ‘80s.

A stretched-wheelbase version of the CJ-5 was designated as the CJ-6 and was produced between 1955 and 1981, but most of the 50,000 or so units made ended up overseas, with US availability ending in 1975. As a hint of things to come, a 4-door version was available, but never caught on domestically. The definitive “Civilian Jeep” model, the CJ-7, debuted in the 1976 model year in the US in production that overlapped its predecessor. It was visually distinctive from the CJ-5 primarily due to different door cutouts, but also featured changes to the ladder frame beneath the bodywork that allowed wider placement of the rear leaf springs for more chassis stability—the CJ-5 had been somewhat unfairly faulted for being dangerous in sudden obstacle avoidance maneuvers, and the suspension improvements were intended, in part, to address that issue. As the last of the classic Jeep models that could draw their lineage directly to the original WWII MB and GPW, almost 380,000 were built before the sun set on the CJ series in 1986.

Meet the Wrangler

For 1986, AMC (now owned by French auto conglomerate Renault) introduced a mostly-clean-sheet replacement for the CJ-7 named the Wrangler, with the internal chassis code YJ. The redesign continued the trend toward more safety and comfort features, but retained the Jeep essentials—leaf-sprung live axles front and rear, body-on-frame construction, a folding windshield and removable doors, and a strong bias toward off-road competence over everyday practicality. Nevertheless, Jeep fans absolutely lost their minds, with the YJ being panned by hardcore enthusiasts as an unworthy successor to the legendary CJ series. The distinctive square-headlight Wrangler continued in production through the purchase of the Jeep brand by Chrysler in 1987, with total production topping 685,000 units before the final 1995 production year.

Remaining 1995 YJ production models continued to be sold through the “missing” 1996 Wrangler model year, and the new TJ made its debut for 1997. Bowing to the power of nostalgia, the new Wrangler went back to round headlights, but introduced a major change to the suspension in the form of coil springs in place of the front and rear leaf spring setup that dated back to 1940. Once again, Jeep purists were enraged, but the Wrangler gained another major improvement in everyday on-road practicality in exchange for essentially no loss of off-road competence. The top engine option remained as a modernized 4.0L version of the venerable AMC straight-6, with 4-cylinder power in base models. A “Wrangler Unlimited” model, still retaining the 2-door body configuration but stretched 10 inches in wheelbase and 15 inches overall compared to the standard TJ, debuted for 2004, offering better room in the back seat and greatly improved towing capability.

TJ production wrapped up in 2006, and Jeep introduced the JK Wrangler for the 2007 model year. While still retaining live axle suspension and styling that was very similar to the TJ, the JK was a complete redesign that was wider and longer in wheelbase (though shorter overall) than its predecessor. Most importantly, the Wrangler Unlimited, AKA the JKU, introduced a true 4-door option with a 20-inch longer wheelbase while being less than 3 inches longer overall than the previous TJ Unlimited. This decision turned out to be hugely successful, with the overwhelming majority of JK buyers opting for the 4-door Unlimited model. Finally giving in to the inexorable march of progress, hardcore Jeep fans have embraced the JK/JKU, and the aftermarket has shown incredible enthusiasm for the third-gen Wrangler with an enormous variety of suspension, engine, and body upgrades.

For the 2018 model year, Jeep introduced the JL, which continues the tradition of body-on-frame construction and live front and rear axles, with more concessions to the luxury and comfort features buyers of the increasingly-expensive Wrangler have come to expect. While it remains the most competent off-road domestic vehicle you can buy off the showroom floor, especially in “Rubicon” trim, today’s Wrangler has come a very, very long way from the tiny “go-devil” known to US troops in WWII. Over the past eight decades, Jeeps have gone from a thrown-together way to haul a few soldiers and their gear across inhospitable terrain to luxury mall-crawler and every point in between. In the process, they’ve become the most uniquely American form of transportation, recreation, and personal expression, and there’s no end in sight.

Chevy C10

The New Lil’ Deuce Coupe

There are certain vehicles that at some point in the earth’s rotation of the sun catch the public’s attention: The ’32 Ford, the ’55 Chevy, the ’64-1/2 Mustang, the ’67-’71 Chevy C10 trucks. Wait. Chevy trucks? Yes, the ’67-’71 Chevy C10 trucks are hot, in the spotlight, getting their day in the sun. Right now they’re killing it.

It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly when, how, why and where this trend kicked off but certainly Delmo and Holley Performance Products were right there at the beginning. Canadian Del Uschenko’s Delmo’s Speed and Kustom in Prescott, Arizona, got his start in the hot rod business working for the likes of Troy Ladd’s Hollywood Hot Rods before branching out on his own saying, “I built my own C10 in 2010 and suddenly, it took off and I’m building trucks for a string of customers.”

Patinated, bagged in da dirt—Delmo builds the lowest C10s—and fitted with Del’s signature smooth “Delmo” wheels. “I built the first set from some old CenterLines and factory caps,” said Del. “But now I use Intro Wheels while Mike Curtis Design makes most of my other parts that include coil re-locators, engine kits, and valve cover adapters.” Two of Del’s most popular products are his replacement billet aluminum doors handles and his new inner fender panels.

Recently, Del moved from Burbank, California to Arizona, saying, “There’s a great truck scene here. I have a lot of friends and somehow it’s less competitive than L.A. We help each other rather than fight each other.”

Likewise in 2010, but two thousand miles away in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Holley initiated their own ’67 small-window, C10 “shop truck”. According to Holley CEO Tom Tomlinson, the shop truck featured an LS3 engine and Holley’s HP self-learning, EFI fuel injection.

At that time, that was one of the first aftermarket injection systems for the new aluminum LS3 engine that had been introduced on the Corvette in 2008—it was, at the time, the most powerful base Corvette engine in history. The engine featured big-block Chevy-style, coil-pack covers, and a dual-snorkel air cleaner and, of course, EFI. Tom said, “We wanted to show people that you could have modern reliability and drivability with that vintage look.”

The great stance of the Holley truck was in part due to the six-pin, Halibrand-style knock-off wheels by Mike Curtis Design. To see the Holley truck in action, check out the episode of Jay Leno’s Garage.

“We wanted to show people that you could have modern reliability and drivability with that vintage look.”Tom Tomlinson, Holley CEO

There’s a lot of enthusiasm for GM’s LS-series of hi-performance engines that, despite their ugly coil packs, can be made quite attractive albeit with a lot of makeup. Today, there are several versions including the LSA, a factory supercharged 6.2-liter, along with a host of aftermarket speed and dress-up parts.

For example, we spotted Louie Atilano’s white ’65 at Mick’s Paint in Pomona, California, where they were installing an LS3. “We didn’t start the build or paint Louie’s truck,” said Mick, “However, we are doing final assembly which included the installation of a full tubular front suspension and brake kit from Classic Performance Products. It was a straight forward install and the LS swap is a simple one that we have performed on a lot of sixties vehicles.”

GM began production of the C/K line in 1960 with C standing for 2-wheel drive and K for 4-wheel drive; however, it’s the second-generation 1967 to ’71 trucks that are the most sought after. GM called them the “Action Line” when they began improving comfort levels with coils springs up front and leaf springs in the rear. They were also known as “Glamour Pickups” but that is not to say that the models either side of the ’67 to ’71 sweet spot are not popular, they are an increasingly so.

Production numbers for the ’67-’71 golden years are approaching 1,500,000 total units with just under 300,000 being produced respectively in 1967 and ’71, more than 400,000 in 1969 and just less than 400,000 in 1972. There is a staggering number out there to choose from but as they were built primarily as workhorses, many have suffered. That said there are replacement parts galore from companies such as Brothers Trucks, Classic Parts, LMC Truck, and many more. United Pacific, for example, has nearly 70 items for the ’67 truck alone. The problem is not one of availability; the problem is one of deciding from all the available options. For example, Truck and Car Shop has separate 150-page catalogs for 1947-’59, 1960-’72 and 1973-’87 trucks.

Complete frames and chassis are also available from companies such as Art Morrison, Pro Performance, Roadster Shop, Speed Tech Performance, and Scott’s Hotrods ’n Customs. Kevin Tetz of Paintucation chose a chassis from Schwartz Performance for his latest project “C-Tane” that can be seen on his show “Hands on Cars” on Amazon.

“They’re plentiful, not too expensive, there are plenty of parts available, and they’re easy to work on.”Michael Hope

One young guy starting out in the hobby is 19-year-old Michael Hope who crews on Ron Hope’s AA/Fuel Altered Rat Trap. He’s also the ‘fly-in’ guy for Bobby Hilton’s AA/Fuel Dragster and Tony Lombardi’s 7.0 Pro in NDRL. His ’84 short bed is his first real build and it will be used to support his grandfather’s racecar. “These trucks are a great place to start. They’re plentiful, not too expensive, there are plenty of parts available, and they’re easy to work on,” commented Michael.

Rather than a new frame, Michael decided on Ride Tech tubular A-arm front suspension and No Limit four-link in the rear with Viking coil-overs all round. “The stock frame is strong enough,” said Michael. “I just wanted it lower to look more like Thom Taylor’s rendering.”

The stock power train has been replaced with a Chevrolet Performance 350 crate engine and a 700R4 trans. Still, under construction at the time of writing, Michael plans to hot-rod the motor with Holley’s Sniper EFI assembly including the Sniper ignition system and long-tube headers. “Holley has done all the engineering,” said Michael. “I don’t need to mix and match parts.”

Pre ’67 trucks are likewise popular and we went to check out Dave Keister’s stack injected, gasser-style ’65 being built at Jimmy Shine’s Speed Shop. Up front, it has a drag-style straight-tube axle with power from a Crower-injected 572 ci Dart big-block with a giant Currie rear end and gold anodized American Rebel wheels.

An interesting “concept” truck coming together at Steve Strope’s Pure Vision Design in Simi Valley is a ’67 for Bob Florine of ARP Racing Products. Steve’s what-if question was, “What if Chevy was building their own shop truck and used parts from a 427 Corvette? We found all the right parts including a 427 block, L88 heads, ‘Snowflake’ intake and Tri-power, a date-coded Muncie 4-speed and the ’Vette independent front and rear suspension. It’s even going to be painted Marina Blue by Mick’s Paint.”

In Huntington Beach, California, designer and “Overhaulin” TV personality Chip Foose took a similar but different “what-if” approach with his own ’67 C/28. It began when he found an original Z/28 Camaro 302 engine date-coded to the day to match the ’67 C10 he already owned. Chip then explored what the factory might have done had they dropped the Z/28 302 into a C10.

The 302 was ported, polished, and made to work in a modern environment while the stock chassis was upgraded with Hotchkis suspension and brakes and a unique set of Foose five-spokes.

You can tell, there’s a lot of activity in the C10 world and prices are beginning to creep up. However, at the Kennedy Brothers in Pomona, California, there were three C10s: a ’69, a ’72 and an ’86, all for sale. There was also a ’72 Blazer that belonged to Jay Kennedy’s wife. “She drove it all the time with the roof off,” said Jay. “Now I have to freshen it up before the summer.” 2WD Blazers, especially the ’72 model, is, of course, sought after as the front-end changed dramatically for ’73.

I have too many friends who have made purchases only to find that the “other” side of the truck, the side not shown in the photographs, is not up to par, sometimes not even there.

We came across numerous classic C10s both customized and stock as we drove around Pomona. As you would expect, prices are across the board according to the condition. The first thing to check before you buy is that the truck has a title. Often, these trucks have sat for many years without being registered. You need to know that it has a title before you make the purchase.

There is an I.D. plate riveted to the doorpost that states the vehicle’s gross weight limit (weight of truck plus it’s maximum allowed load) plus stamped digits that give the assembly plant year, size of the truck, month built, and sequential numbers as it came off the production line. These plates are necessary for positive vehicle identification and in some cases registration.

Another thing to beware of is the long bed that has been hacked into a more valuable short bed. That’s not to say that it hasn’t been done properly but you have to get under there and take a look. Obviously, being primarily a work truck you have to consider the condition of the bed and what it might cost in time and trouble to restore or even replace.

Many of these working trucks are being pulled out of the snow belt because they are usually cheaper than trucks from the dry Southwest—many of which have already been picked. Examine the truck all over and especially underneath for signs of rust or hasty repair.  Yes, it’s all fixable and the panels are available, but at what cost? Also, beware of a freshly painted truck or a truck in primer as a primer can cover a multitude of sins, especially if the seller says, “Oh, we were just getting ready to paint it.”

“It’s better to buy a rougher truck that has original paint and even original rust,” said Mick Jenkins of Mick’s Paint. “At least you can see what you’re buying.”

My final piece of advice for a would-be C10 purchaser is to beware of buying a truck sight unseen off the internet. The internet is a great way of finding a vehicle but beware of the unscrupulous seller. Go and look at the vehicle and take a friend for an unbiased, second opinion. I have too many friends who have made purchases only to find that the “other” side of the truck, the side not shown in the photographs, is not up to par, sometimes not even there. Caveat emptor—buyer beware.

Driving on Air: Why You Should Drive on Air Suspension

For anyone who is already into modifying cars, you already know that the possibilities for changing the look and feel of it are literally endless. Everything from replacing the factory wheels, headlights, and taillights to adding aerodynamic pieces like front lips and wings all play a part in a vehicle’s transformation. Lowering a vehicle is one of the best ways to change how your car looks and feels. Not only are you lowering the center of gravity, allowing for better handling (in most cases), it also makes for a more aggressive appearance, since the car itself sits closer to the pavement. This is where lowering springs, coilovers, and air ride suspension comes in.

In this day and age, there are a number of ways to successfully lower essentially any vehicle on the planet. Like @_.b7land.yacht._ (Frank Reichard), many choose to use air suspension as their lowering method of choice, which utilizes compressed air to inflate and deflate individual strut bags. With air ride, a driver can lower his or her car to “undriveable” heights and, in some cases, higher than stock all with just the touch of a button.

Air suspension isn’t always an aftermarket modification though. Many automotive manufacturers like Mercedes and Land Rover incorporate air suspension into their vehicles right from the factory!

“BAGGING” A CAR

As the owner of a bagged vehicle, I can tell you first-hand about the pros and cons of the suspension. I primarily had it installed on my 2005 Subaru Baja Turbo to competitively display at car shows. Aside from the fact that virtually no one was “bagging” this kind of car, I wanted to get the Baja as low as humanly possible without having to semi-permanently leave it at that height. My previous car was a built “Bugeye,” which I had coilovers and, while I could theoretically lower it as much as I wanted, my height choice often resulted in punishing results to the car. For instance, I once had my Bugeye so low to the point where I naively (and stupidly) rubbed the passenger front tire through the car’s main wiring harness. But I digress.

My good friends Rich, Don, and Hans of Tuning Works were the ones responsible for installing air ride on both my and Frank’s vehicles (a 2018 Volkswagen Passat GT), among other customers. Air ride installations make up a substantial portion of their business, and they’ve done hundreds of installations for customers to the point where they can complete one from start to finish in as little as four days.

The guys will tell you firsthand that the actual installation of the strut bags, air lines, compressor(s), tank(s), and wiring is the easy part. It’s the seamlessness of how all of these components are installed along with the creativity in its display that is the real challenge. But with that being said, the guys at Tuning Works pride themselves on consistently completing seamless and creative installations for all their customers.

When it comes to the creativity side of things, the sky is really the limit. So when Frank asked for his trunk display to be Supreme-themed, they accepted the challenge without the slightest bit of hesitation. He provided them with two Supreme Tool Boxes, which were used as housings for the air compressors and water traps – devices used to keep water out of the air tank and lines. Tuning Works had the air tank powder coated Supreme Red and cut a matching Supreme logo sticker for the tank on their vinyl plotter.

In many cases, the challenge of creating a good trunk display lies installing the necessary components while maintaining as much of the vehicle’s trunk space as possible. A good portion of Tuning Work’s customers want to keep some storage space in their trunks and have easy access to their spare tire (assuming they have one).

To retain the functionality of Frank’s trunk, Don fabricated a two-piece floor. The piece sitting closer to the back seats neatly holds the tool boxes, while the piece closer to the trunk lid can be removed so Frank can get to his spare tire. The brain of the air suspension system, Airlift’s 3P Digital Air Management, was conveniently installed on a “plate cover” of sorts, which sits on top of the spare. So if Frank needs to take his spare tire out, his wiring, lines, and compressors won’t be disrupted. To finish things off, both the floor and cover were wrapped in matching trunk carpeting for that OEM look.

None of the aforementioned components can work effectively to inflate or deflate the bags without the air tank though. So to save even more space in the trunk, the team fabricated and installed custom brackets for the tank to sit on that sit nicely behind the back seats. The brackets make it look like it’s floating, which is super cool.

Frank’s Passat GT is (unofficially) the first model “GT” to receive the air suspension treatment, but certainly won’t be the last. With our show season coming back to life in the Spring, many car owners like Frank will be getting air ride and all kinds of other modifications installed on their cars in the coming months. Once the warm weather hits again, it’s showtime!