YotaTech Forums

YotaTech Forums (https://www.yotatech.com/forums/)
-   Offroad Tech (https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f31/)
-   -   3rd Gen, increase rear articulation? (https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f31/3rd-gen-increase-rear-articulation-16503/)

RTdawgs 08-28-2003 10:58 AM


Originally posted by Mad Chemist
If you'd read the posts above, you'd see that's what we've been talking about...:roll:


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

if you would have searched, you wouldve seen this has been discussed about as much as the deckplate mod :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

justinh 08-28-2003 11:44 AM

has anyone with a bodylift considered simply relocating the gas tank up a couple inches to offer more room for the d-shaft. I know that there are a few guys with x-terras that have done this with their body lifts (x-terra's have the tank in the same place and have clearance probs as well). As for the early pathfinder tank, i remember discussing this with steve a long time ago and i thought it was concluded that the tank would simply hang down way too low due to the size of it. Those tanks are fairly large at 22 gallons.

sschaefer3 08-28-2003 12:01 PM


Originally posted by justinh
has anyone with a bodylift considered simply relocating the gas tank up a couple inches to offer more room for the d-shaft. I know that there are a few guys with x-terras that have done this with their body lifts (x-terra's have the tank in the same place and have clearance probs as well). As for the early pathfinder tank, i remember discussing this with steve a long time ago and i thought it was concluded that the tank would simply hang down way too low due to the size of it. Those tanks are fairly large at 22 gallons.
I still think it would work, but it would be a huge amount of work. With a body lift you could tuck it up there pretty good.

I even went to a Junk Yard that supposedly has a 95 Pathfinder tank, but they did not, after that I guess I lost interest.

justinh 08-29-2003 06:19 AM

if anyone wants to try it i should still have access to a wrecked 1995 pathfinder i just gave away. i am much more likely to try to just move the tank up some with a body lift instead of relocating it completely. however, the extra 4 gallons of capacity would be very nice.

ravencr 08-30-2003 06:29 PM

It would be great to have a lot moe travel either up front or in the rear, but it seems to me that in the rear a lot more would have to be adjusted to compensate for more lift, like a longer driveshaft, longer brake lines, etc.

Chris

jruz 08-30-2003 08:14 PM

Chemist,
When you get back from AK...let me know and we'll have to visit the WATTORA garage and see what's hanging up your flex.

All this info has made sense so far...I guess I just don't have a clear idea of what it looks like under a 3rd Gen.

Jim

cruizin01 09-11-2003 01:55 PM

flame me here if I sound stupid but how much longer are the ome shocks than the stock shocks. I gained about 3-1/2 inches with my ome leaf packs but I think my shocks are limiting my flex. But if I understand you guys correctly I cant flex anymore becuase of the gas tank correct? So longer shocks wouldn't help me any only cause problems?:help:

Mad Chemist 09-11-2003 03:14 PM

I'm not sure on a Tacoma where your gas tank sits in relation to the driveshaft. You likely don't have the same problems as a 4runner.

jruz 09-11-2003 05:16 PM

Cruizin...I have the same problem as you. It's definitely the OME shocks. One of these days I'll figure out the lengths and get a longer set in there.

The OME leaves flex real nice though...much better than an AAL would. :D

Jim

ravencr 09-11-2003 05:23 PM

For OME lengths versus stock and bilsteins go to Steve Schaefer' site at: http://fastq.com/~sschaefer/rear_shocks.html

Chris

cruizin01 09-11-2003 06:38 PM

So yeah according to Steve's sight the OME's are only 1 inch longer than stock. I was thinking thats about what they were when I put them on (I thought that was strange) So in reality if the springs give you 3.5 inches of lift like they did me I have 2" of less flex than I did with the stock setup :dunno: Doesn't look like there is anything on Steves sight that would work except for the 7000 series bilsteins that are an inch longer than the OME's. Thats not enough for me to swap out. especially since im a 90% pavementpounder :pat: Damn work and all those other responsibilties.

ravencr 09-11-2003 08:01 PM

Actually if you reread Steve's site, the OME's are about 2" longer than stock and 1" longer then the Bilsteins. It is definitely worht your while for adding 2" of droop, don't you think?

Chris

Jeff the marmot 09-11-2003 08:02 PM

One of you Tacoma guys - how much rear wheel travel do you get with the OME setup? How about when stock?

On a 4Runner it's 15" with the OME 891 coils and N86 shocks. That's with my rear swaybar connected, but greatly fatigued. It's exactly the same as with the rear swaybar disconnected. I know that Tacos don't have a rear swaybar.

jruz 09-11-2003 08:34 PM

If Schaeffer says the shocks are about 2" longer...than I'd say the flex is 2" more than stock.

The leaves, stock & OME, both flex very nicely. But they hit that characteristic stopping point...just suddenly not flexing anymore.

Jim

Jeff the marmot 09-11-2003 10:01 PM


Originally posted by jruz
If Schaeffer says the shocks are about 2" longer...than I'd say the flex is 2" more than stock.
Not true. The shocks are quite a ways inboard of the outermost point of the wheels where you would measure wheel travel. So 1" increase in shock travel might be 2" increase in wheel travel.

Stock 4Runner shocks only had 7" of travel. OME N86 shocks have 8" of travel. I don't remember stock rear wheel travel, but it was something like 12" on a 4Runner.

jruz 09-12-2003 05:52 AM

Damn, now you're making me remember geometry...? :nerd:

I'll try to do the math and see what it would be. Actually I will probably have to measure a bit, since I'm not sure what it would measure when fully compressed.

Well, at least I do know the change in front wheel travel...

Jim

cruizin01 09-12-2003 08:59 AM

That extended travel might be true if your at stock height but I dont understand how a 2 inch longer shock and 3.5" of lift can yeild more flex???:dunno:

Mad Chemist 09-25-2003 04:17 PM

Okay, so let me see if I got this straight. With the "normal" amount of flex, the axle movement left to right is minimal, and will not hit the gas tank. However, with longer shocks, is it the panhard rod that ends up pushing the axle into the gas tank under flex? I'm thinking that the rear suspension consists of the springs, shocks, panhard rod, control arms, and axle. If you had longer shocks and the axle moved straight up and down relative to the frame, hitting the gas tank wouldn't be a problem, but when you're getting twisted (one tire up, one down) there is enough movent side to side to cause the axle to come in contact with the gas tank? Sorry to revive an older thread.

ravencr 09-25-2003 07:19 PM

In my opinion, the stock location for the panhard bar actually pulls the axle to the passenger side of the vehicle regardless if one tire is up or down or both are down. If you think about it's design, the panhard bar is at more of an angle when the truck is lifted, so it actually pulls the entire axle to the passenger side, and away from the gas tank. To say the panhard bar would pull the axle to the driver's side would require the panhard bar to be attached on the driver's side frame, which it's not.

This is why the panhard drop bracket from Steve helps to realign the rear axle, so the bar is relatively horizontal and parallel with the ground. This recenters the rear axle.

Chris

Mad Chemist 09-25-2003 07:34 PM

Sorry- was at work when I posted that and couldn't remember which way it pulled. I'm just trying to figure out how the driveshaft hits the gas tank with longer shocks.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:04 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands