Cj-5 Verses Cj-6 Ride Quality

Only two problems I can think of with shackle reversal.
1) Nose dive when braking from high speed when on road.
2) Increased off road speeds because of the smother ride leads to increasing damage.

 

Are the c-shackles set into the frame at the rear mount?

Suggest it's a cost-reduction move. The military config was likely more expensive and time-consuming to produce than the familiar front-shackle mount with the stamped steel shackle plates. Plus it "solves" the dive-on-hard-braking problem, which may have been worrisome to civilian drivers. Possible the original rear shackle config was more about durability (ie no bent springs) and the better ride was only coincidental. Anyway, purchasers expected a Jeep to ride like a buckboard in those days. Military wrap went away too, as I recall. Part of continuing de-mil.

 

I believe that my early 6 with shackles in the rear of the spring for the front, rides better than my 5. Could be wheel base, both have stock springs that I am sure have seen their better days. All possible contributing factors?

 

De-mil to cut costs. Uncle Sam has deeper pockets and different priorities than the civilian purchaser. Different incentives for the two markets.

 

Fyrmn,
You have a very early CJ-6 with factory shackle reversal ?
I expect those were only around in 1956 and 1957 ???
Now that’s a rare frame indeed and I would certainly expect that it should give the best possible ride for a leaf spring Jeep.
Maybe put a new set of BDS leafs on it and some soft shocks and wow that should be real nice on the road.

 

Yes, it is titled as a 56. And had BDS on it for a short while. It sat nose down because of the reverse shackle. You loose a few inches in front due to the reverse shackle set up, being in the frame. The ride was good with bds, just didn’t want to go to the work to weld new spring perches on the rear front to level it. My stock spring packs are, 11 and 13 iirc.

 

Awesome !
I’m pretty sure the reversed shackles were all gone by 1957…
1956 was the first year for CJ-6 and also the first year for the original rock crawler transmission ( Borg Warner T98).
That might be the rarest of CJ’s if it had a T98A.

If I was to build a reversed shackle cj-6 then I’d opt for a Dauntless and T18 Tera Low D20 with center flanged D44 in the rear. A truly road worthy and expedition over lander.

 

This is interesting. I have a '56 CJ6 with factory shackle reverse. I've been considering putting the BDS 2 1/2" lift spring and shock kit on it. I wasn't aware that the front end would be so nose down.

When you say, "didn't want to go to the work to weld new spring perches on the rear front to level it", can you help me understand what that means?

Also, are you using aftermarket stock springs or did you go back to the original factory springs that where on it?

Thanks. Jack

 

The left image of a 56 cj6 with front spring “reverse” shackle. Note that the pivot point is in the frame.
The right image, 64 cj5 with “standard “ shackle” both pictures are of the front spring, the rear shackle.
As Charles stated the “reverse” was around in 56 and gone by 57, or at least it changed. The solution would be to purchase and weld the attachment point to the bottom of the frame as in the bottom image. My guess is that since this difference only occurred for a short time, the spring companies were not aware of it, or chose not to address it. IIRC there is about a 3”’difference from the top to bottom image, in height. I chose to go back to the stock springs. Now with all that said. I don’t claim to be an expert, so it is entirely possible I have missed something. All I can say is that secondary to installing the bds springs, my front sat low. Welding the perch on the bottom of the frame is a quick fix, I just didn’t want to go there.
I swear, with this stock set up and reverse shackle it rides pretty darn well. I hope this clarifies, that somewhat. Top=left. bottom=right. I guess it matters if your logged in or not.

 

I notice that the 1956 has a set of the original “Eaton” springs.
These two pics show that the distance from the bottom edge of frame to the pivot center appears to be essentially the same.
Yes the reversed shackle design was changed after serial # 57548-25559 for cj-5
and # 57748-12044 for cj-6.
More importantly these early frames used different
front leaves than those on the later frames.
Presently I don’t know why they changed the suspension design and also the front leaf spring.
I would have expected that the same front spring would suffice but apparently not…

If anyone has an early cj-5/6 with original leaf springs we would like to know about those springs and how they differed from later front springs.

 

Thanks for the great reply. I was thinking that was what you meant, now I understand. I appreciate the pictures.

I have a Jeep with the BDS kit on and really like the way they ride. I have another one with a different brand of 2 1/2" lift springs that are horrible, ride like a buckboard. The springs that are currently on the "6" are pretty well shot, plus some homemade extended shackles by a p.o.

Thanks again! Jack

 

My 64 Cj5 are grooved but not military wrapped. I believe them to be original to the jeep.
Question, were not the m38a1 “reverse” also and wouldn’t those springs interchange with the early civilian models with front “reverse”. ???

 

My '56 CJ6 is 57748 10xxx. It's led a pretty hard life so I'm not sure if the springs are original. I'll get some pictures next time I'm up there. Jack

 

The original springs with a groove or channel through middle of the leaf are always Eaton brand springs.
Personally I do not like the Eaton springs for a couple reasons.
I very much liked the Mather springs.
Yes military m38-A1 are reverse shackled so the springs would be interchangable to early cj-5/6 springs but likely be stiffer; having more leafs.

 

Not sure if any of this matters, but here are the numbers that were on the springs of the 56 cj6

 

were the fronts originally grooved? I have grooved springs in the rear, and non-grooved in the front of my 56, the grooved ones seem to have held up better, the flat ones definitely are sagging, no sure if they are original or not.