The bed is mounted solid to the frame. The movement you see is because the cab
is mounted on rubber. It's actually the cab moving.
Doug Fedeli
"Mr. Plow" wrote:
> The main reason why it shouldn't be done is because i think there is
> supposed to be some flex built into the movement of the box in relation to
> the cabin. Like if you've got a heavy load in the back, i'm sure the box
> would sit slightly lower than the cabin. And when you go over bumps and
> what-not there is definitely a difference in the motion of the bed compared
> to the cabin.
> But, if you never plan on carrying anything too heavy back there, and just
> use the Dak as a sport truck, then maybe i wouldn't be a bad idea???
> But personally, i don't think it is the best route.
>
> The Adam Blaster
>
> >
> >Alright, I've been throwing this idea around in my head for a while and I
> >figured I'd see what you guys thought. I've noticed that when I'm driving
> >and taking corners that I can see that the bed moves side to side in
> >relation to the cab. Now, I'm thinking this probably isn't great for
> >handling (duh) and I've seen that x-brace that they have out there. What I
> >was wondering is what would happen if one were to connect the cab to the
> >bed, maybe weld in some stuff between there or something. Would having the
> >bed and cab connected have adverse effects? I'm assuming that there must
> >be
> >a reason why they aren't connected. Any thoughts? If this turns out to be
> >a good idea, it's not patented, feel free to make it :-)
> >
> >Sorry it was kind of long,
> >
> >-Chris
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:59:15 EDT