anyone running 2.5t rocks under their CUCV?

[FlatlinesUp]

Considering keeping the 6.2 w/the cucv frame (going to have M715 body) and running 395's or bigger on 2.5t rocks.

anyone running something similar? opinons on drive-ablilty etc? does the 6.2 have enough umph w/the gearing to turn big tires?

Thanks for the advice

 

[Alredneck]

Whenever I get the M1008 down from SD I was going to throw a set of rockwells under it and run some 395s. My thinking is it will move but you wont be breaking any speed records. I would build it to play with not a daily driver. I was thinking 8in springs, cut the fenders, and steering mods, brace the steering box and then make some driveshafts using deuce shafts as donors.

 

[jimmy-90]

Never heard of anyone putting anything less than 44"s on a pickup truck with rockwells. I'd say go ahead and put a huge lift on it since you are gonna use that type of axle. If you don't use enough lift a rockwell front axle will bust a hole in your oil pan or rip it off the motor. anyhow the rocks should have low enough gears to allow the 6.2 diesel to turn 44" tires. And also with rockwells driveline angles are never usually a problem at a foot n a half of lift or so.

 

[Alredneck]

Its roughly 9in of room being taken up by the top loaders, you can get away with a shorter lift by using bumpstops that limit your up travel while letting droop be free. 395s are 46in tall and tame the 6.72 gears fairly well for the cost. Another consideration will be the need to fab up some type of ladder bars or similiar front and rear as axle wrap will be a issue!

 

[12vctd]

Or you can use a 4link suspension and move the axle forward. And have a low lift. I have never used rocks in a 6.2 powered rig but I have used them with my buggy and cab truck, with 54 boggers and 46 in claws. But I had a 22re turning all diff options of tires, and it worked fine for my purpose. But then again I rarely ever drove that truck on the street.