has anyone ever done this....

Not necessarily. The Mac strut design uses the shock as the locator for the wheel. It just so happens to be a damn convienient place to mount the spring too. There are obviously some bolt on systems that use a bag with hole in it to mount over the strut. But in my oppinion any bag with a hole in it is just asking for probs. I'm sure that they work well, but with a lack of axles, there is plenty of room for a bag on the lower arm. If you coose to use the bag-over-strut system, just make sure that the mount is strong enough, not only to hold the truck up, but to bottom out on a big dip or pothole too.

Originally posted by BioMax



Not necessarily. The Mac strut design uses the shock as the locator for the wheel. It just so happens to be a damn convienient place to mount the spring too. There are obviously some bolt on systems that use a bag with hole in it to mount over the strut. But in my oppinion any bag with a hole in it is just asking for probs. I'm sure that they work well, but with a lack of axles, there is plenty of room for a bag on the lower arm. If you coose to use the bag-over-strut system, just make sure that the mount is strong enough, not only to hold the truck up, but to bottom out on a big dip or pothole too.

So you are saying bag it like a mazda would be bagged right? lower arm mount, and frame mount? MII/Mazda and whatever else that uses that style mounting for front bags, and run a shock off the spindle. I believe that's what your saying, atleast that's what im getting from it haha. Obviously, this is out of question as of now, but I hope in the future I will be able to work with something like this.

Yeah. Just use the strut as the shock and find a cozy new home for the bag.

So really it would be like baggin a truck normally, and having an odd placed shock at that point right? The frame would be taking most of the force, and not the shock support.

The bag would only be supporting the vehicle. The top strut mount would still be keeping the tire from falling over and absorbing the braking and cornering forces.

the reason no one has done it is because its a settlement issue, guys with macpherson setups have to settle for them because they dont want to cut up their car and make a custom a arm setup or any of the above, so there is no good reason to use them except to be different and try something new, other then that i would say, dont settle for em if you dont have to but good luck.

Originally posted by NO1LOWR



the reason no one has done it is because its a settlement issue, guys with macpherson setups have to settle for them because they dont want to cut up their car and make a custom a arm setup or any of the above, so there is no good reason to use them except to be different and try something new, other then that i would say, dont settle for em if you dont have to but good luck.

While I appreciate your comment, what reason other than "to be different" do people use cantiliever setups for? None of them are running around with all 30 inches of lift out back, sky high. They do it cuz it's trick as hell to look at. Same reason I was thinking of this. Pop the hood, chromed out motor, chromed out support bracing, and a killer setup that really, hasn't been done before with the exception of a few...on a truck anyways.