Mad Chemist

Forgive me for asking a dumb question, but here it goes- I know that without going SAS, IFS vehicles have a limit for articulation in the front end. However, what prevents increased flex in the back? It seems like I'm always getting a rear tire up in the air when crawling down hill and off camber, which may be because the OME HD coils don't have enough weight on them at that angle to compress very well.

Are we better off going with a softer spring + spacer combo, that will still allow us to achieve ~3 inches of lift, but allow for better flex?

Is it pointless to have alot of flex in the back if you're still IFS in the front?

Suspension Gods, hear my plea!!!!

rowan

i dont know but im with you on that. it seems like my rear shocks don't have enough travel... so i might have to get some of those new bils with the resevoir on the side.. 5150's i think...

well anyone got any ideas?

rimpainter.com

It's the bumpstops. But they are there for a reason. A total rear supsension re-vamp would yield more articulation - up to the limits of axle travel of course.

Mad Chemist

So, what are the choices for longer shocks/springs? Am I looking at having to weld new shock/spring mounts?

TDiddy

Coil springs in the back have something to do with it too, right?

Over articulation could mean the risk of having a coil fall out, That's why they have limiting straps. At least that's what I thought...

Mad Chemist

You're right Tom. Just think about how easy it is to pull out the stock coil when the axle is dropped to install the OME's. We'd need to find a spring that under load, would still only yield about three inches of lift, but could extend farther to compliment a set of longer shocks?

TDiddy

leaf springs maybe?

00Runner

Or coil overs? Then the spring can't go anywhere.

Mad Chemist

Yeah, I initially thought going over to leaf springs, but JRUZ pointed out that alot of the hard core rock buggys use springs, so our vehicle is already set up for that system. As far as coilovers, does anybody make them for the rear of our vehicle?

TDiddy

Hmmm.....this would probably be a good one for the pirate boys. Not to post mind you, but I bet a search over there would turn up some good stuff.

Mad Chemist

Yeah, I'd have to throw on my flame-retardent suit...This would be the first step towards making a "serious" offroad vehicle, could imagine going SAS after that. I suppose I should finish paying for the vehicle first....

TDiddy

Hehe, yes I'm in the same boat. Not too much more to go though!

Robinhood150

On 2nd gens, converting to leaves in the rear is pretty standard when doing an SAS. The reason the rear suspension is scrapped is because the stock links can't handle the angles needed for the kind of articulation those guys need. If you want to increase rear articulation then just follow what schaefer did, he's already done the research for the 3rd gens.

But if you're going to convert to leaves, then you might as well do an SAS.

sschaefer3

You have to move the gas tank to do better than the OME N86 shocks. Springs/spacers are all fine, it comes down to the shock lenght and the Prado rear shocks are the longest possible.

Mad Chemist

So its a matter of relocating the tank to prevent the axle from hitting it? That makes sense.

sschaefer3

Drive shaft. Not the axle, the drive shaft.

Mad Chemist

Yikes, meant to say shaft.

Relocating the gas tank doesn't sound like a trivial task. I wonder if you'd have to go to a smaller, narrower tank, plus some customized protection for it, to get it out of the way.

sschaefer3

Early 90's Nissan Pathfinder, put it where the spare tire was.

RTdawgs

if one uses any longer of a shock than the ome prado, the drive shaft will collide with the gas tank at extreme flex.

Mad Chemist

If you'd read the posts above, you'd see that's what we've been talking about...


Sounds like its not a trivial task. Rerouting the fill tube, welding new brackets to hang the tank, protecting...