3rd Gen, increase rear articulation?
10-08-2003, 06:52 AM
#121
Contributing Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 5,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Mad Chemist
What about a narrower/stronger driveshaft? Would you be able to shave off enough to make a difference without having to relocate the gas tank?
What about a narrower/stronger driveshaft? Would you be able to shave off enough to make a difference without having to relocate the gas tank?
It sticks out the furthest.
12-25-2003, 05:28 PM
#122
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Deep Gap, NC
Posts: 4,697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming the stock gas tank was removed, new control arms were in place, how much more travel could be extracted from the rear suspension just by relocating the shocks to allow for the same up travel but a lot more downtravel? I'm guessing in the 6" range, but what do you guys think? I thinking that with the shocks mounted at a tad more angle and closer to the center of the vehicle, this could easily be achieved, but I'm wondering mostly about the panhard bar and driveshafter issues that might arise.
Chris
Chris
12-26-2003, 07:05 PM
#126
Contributing Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do have a 3-link design that will work without moving the tank. But I'm planning in relocating my tank and going to a converging 4-link design, just because it more stable on the street. What I may do is get a frame from a salvage yard with a diff housing to do the actual set-up. From the looks of things I'll probably just have a tank fabricated. I'm still not 100% sure on exactly which route I'm gonna take, but I do know what piviot joins I'll be using. http://www.offroadjeepparts.com/purc...at=167&sub=375
2" JOHNNY JOINT WITH WELDED STUD AND HARDWARE, then I'll get spidertrax to make up the control arms.
2" JOHNNY JOINT WITH WELDED STUD AND HARDWARE, then I'll get spidertrax to make up the control arms.
12-26-2003, 08:35 PM
#127
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce,
Yeah, that looks like an awesome joint. I hadn't seen the version with the 3/4" threaded rod welded off the side of it. Spidertrax also sells Johnny Joints, but not with that rod as an integral part of the joint. That's nice that it's 3/4" rod. You might make sure that the thread is 3/4"-16 RH, which would be exactly the same as the threaded insert in the Spidertrax arms that a few of us are using.
One note is that the stock control arm bolts are M14 (or 14mm) grade 10.9, which is very close to 9/16" grade 8 in English units. The 2" johnny joints that you mentioned only use 7/16" bolts. I'm never a fan of downsizing from stock equipment. You should re-examine if the 2.5" johnny joints have a chance to fit width-wise, since those use the same 9/16" through-bolt. You could spread the frame mounts a little. I'm interested in hearing what you learn (if the 2.5" will fit). The stock bushings are the same at both the axle and frame.
When I designed/spec'ed the custom Spidertrax control arms, I knew that the Johnny Joint was superior to heims, but they wouldn't fit inside the stock frame mount and wouldn't allow enough room for it to flex. Double check it, but you might have a great find there. I'd still suggest using the stock rubber bushings on one end to reduce transmitting road vibrations, like the way that Spidertrax has built them. The heim or Johnny Joint on one end still has enough angle to accommodate all the angular flexing of the axle.
Yeah, that looks like an awesome joint. I hadn't seen the version with the 3/4" threaded rod welded off the side of it. Spidertrax also sells Johnny Joints, but not with that rod as an integral part of the joint. That's nice that it's 3/4" rod. You might make sure that the thread is 3/4"-16 RH, which would be exactly the same as the threaded insert in the Spidertrax arms that a few of us are using.
One note is that the stock control arm bolts are M14 (or 14mm) grade 10.9, which is very close to 9/16" grade 8 in English units. The 2" johnny joints that you mentioned only use 7/16" bolts. I'm never a fan of downsizing from stock equipment. You should re-examine if the 2.5" johnny joints have a chance to fit width-wise, since those use the same 9/16" through-bolt. You could spread the frame mounts a little. I'm interested in hearing what you learn (if the 2.5" will fit). The stock bushings are the same at both the axle and frame.
When I designed/spec'ed the custom Spidertrax control arms, I knew that the Johnny Joint was superior to heims, but they wouldn't fit inside the stock frame mount and wouldn't allow enough room for it to flex. Double check it, but you might have a great find there. I'd still suggest using the stock rubber bushings on one end to reduce transmitting road vibrations, like the way that Spidertrax has built them. The heim or Johnny Joint on one end still has enough angle to accommodate all the angular flexing of the axle.
12-26-2003, 09:30 PM
#128
Contributing Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I was at the salvage yard today, I talked the guy into selling me a bent 4runner frame cheap with an empty rear housing, but the past few weeks I've spent past my budget, so I'll have to wait a month before I can pick it up, so I can start fabricating my set-up, using the frame as a jig.
The major reason for the johnny joints is they are a ball pivoting inside a urethane bushing, thereby reducing transmission of road noise. I thought about the larger 2 1/2" joints but they have 1" threads, I guess I can find out if Spidertrax can make control arms to fit. Another possibility is have them just use the weld on joints in fabricating the links. I just like the ability to be able to do some fine tuning with the threaded links. As for the mounts those will be totally removed and new one's in new locations added.
The one thing I don't like about the stock suspension is the panhard bar. if you took out the shocks and springs, then did a flex test you'll notice that the right side will droop further than the left. What's happening is the panhard bar is causing the suspension to bind. With a converging 4-link you can eliminate the panhard bar, but then you get a new problem that is additional body roll and would be more noticable at higher speeds. By reducing the roll center, with longer links, you can eliminate some of the sway. I have a variety of 1 1/4 tublar swaybars that I used in my GT3 racecar that can be easily be adapted for use in the back, to control the lean even further. Disconnecting the bar for offroad use would be made, so the links can be attached to a fixed spot preventing it from clanking around.
The major reason for the johnny joints is they are a ball pivoting inside a urethane bushing, thereby reducing transmission of road noise. I thought about the larger 2 1/2" joints but they have 1" threads, I guess I can find out if Spidertrax can make control arms to fit. Another possibility is have them just use the weld on joints in fabricating the links. I just like the ability to be able to do some fine tuning with the threaded links. As for the mounts those will be totally removed and new one's in new locations added.
The one thing I don't like about the stock suspension is the panhard bar. if you took out the shocks and springs, then did a flex test you'll notice that the right side will droop further than the left. What's happening is the panhard bar is causing the suspension to bind. With a converging 4-link you can eliminate the panhard bar, but then you get a new problem that is additional body roll and would be more noticable at higher speeds. By reducing the roll center, with longer links, you can eliminate some of the sway. I have a variety of 1 1/4 tublar swaybars that I used in my GT3 racecar that can be easily be adapted for use in the back, to control the lean even further. Disconnecting the bar for offroad use would be made, so the links can be attached to a fixed spot preventing it from clanking around.
12-27-2003, 03:50 PM
#129
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Thornton, CO
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah shoot, I didn't notice the 1" rod on the 2.5" joint. I think Spidertrax only stocks up to 3/4" inserts but not sure. I think they used much of their largest stuff on my links. You might have to ask the shop where you buy the joints to see if they also sell the threaded inserts and the size of tube the inserts are intended for.
I think you're smart to do the triangulated 4-link. It's just a pain (and potentially expensive) because so much stuff needs to move or be fabricated. I've also done my share of reading the POR threads about roll center, roll axis, anti-squat, jacking, etc. The change in sway with the triangulated 4-link is a minor issue compared to the problems that I've seen with other suspension designs.
You do still have swaybar connections available on your new front lower A-arms, right?
Any additional sway would be an argument to not angle the rear shocks. Vertical shocks are better to limit sway but you'll easily run out of room below the body at the compression of a longer shock.
On another topic...
I'm still baffled at what's my next direction for longer (or different) rear shocks. I happen to like how well my 285's stuff into the rear wheel wells. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I really LIKE my current up travel and don't want to add longer bump stops which could raise the center of gravity on some awkward obstacles. Here's an old pic of me messing around. You can see the rear wheel stuff. That's just stock 2000 bump stops with OME rear springs/shocks. Same tires/wheels as I have now.
Has anyone seen anything that can be used as a new upper shock mount for the rear that could be welded next to or in place of the "cup" that drops down for the shock upper stud now? It would be cool to have a "loop" top on a shock and also raise the top mount of the shock a few inches. The extra few inches would allow use of a longer shock so we can still compress to the same point (13" with OME plus any raised amount) but have that much more shock down-travel. I've previously fatigued and broken off the top studs on the OME shocks, so I'd greatly prefer the more common loop mounts on both top and bottom anyway, which would freely allow shocks to change angles without fatiguing anything and also provide more shock choices.
I think you're smart to do the triangulated 4-link. It's just a pain (and potentially expensive) because so much stuff needs to move or be fabricated. I've also done my share of reading the POR threads about roll center, roll axis, anti-squat, jacking, etc. The change in sway with the triangulated 4-link is a minor issue compared to the problems that I've seen with other suspension designs.
You do still have swaybar connections available on your new front lower A-arms, right?
Any additional sway would be an argument to not angle the rear shocks. Vertical shocks are better to limit sway but you'll easily run out of room below the body at the compression of a longer shock.
On another topic...
I'm still baffled at what's my next direction for longer (or different) rear shocks. I happen to like how well my 285's stuff into the rear wheel wells. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I really LIKE my current up travel and don't want to add longer bump stops which could raise the center of gravity on some awkward obstacles. Here's an old pic of me messing around. You can see the rear wheel stuff. That's just stock 2000 bump stops with OME rear springs/shocks. Same tires/wheels as I have now.
Has anyone seen anything that can be used as a new upper shock mount for the rear that could be welded next to or in place of the "cup" that drops down for the shock upper stud now? It would be cool to have a "loop" top on a shock and also raise the top mount of the shock a few inches. The extra few inches would allow use of a longer shock so we can still compress to the same point (13" with OME plus any raised amount) but have that much more shock down-travel. I've previously fatigued and broken off the top studs on the OME shocks, so I'd greatly prefer the more common loop mounts on both top and bottom anyway, which would freely allow shocks to change angles without fatiguing anything and also provide more shock choices.
12-27-2003, 05:54 PM
#130
Contributing Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the Total Chaos design on their LT kit doesn't have any provisions for a swaybar. For now I don't run one and my cornering has a bit more body roll with oversteer, compared to stock, but not to the point where it's unsafe. Actually, I like the slight oversteer over the stock understeer. When I do the rear suspension, I'll work on my sway bar designs. Since the lower A-arms do have the ability to install a second shock, I can also use this location to connect a sway bar if needed.
You can run the shocks at an angle, just need stiffer valving. I don't want to cut through the bed so my design will need the shocks angled. I'm not planning on coilovers in the rear, because of the space constraints, so it'll be separate springs.
As for now all that's done on the rear of my rig are the addition of OME shocks and springs. The stock bumpstops are just fine and I don't think they'll be changed. It would be easier to weld new mounts to the round tube that runs across the frame and then mount longer shocks there. Your idea on stuffing the wheels in the well, that's the same approach I took. My thinking is get as much travel as possible, but keep it as low to the ground as needed.
The only real challenge is in moving the fuel tank, if I recall, it has 4 lines comming out of it. Like I said I'll get all this figured out on the jig I set-up before hand, that way when I go to install it on my rig, it'll go real smooth. Trying to get another vehicles tank to fit in place of the stock one sounds simple, but getting the fuel system set-up afterwards may no be so easy, by fabricating a whole new tank might be just as quick.
You can run the shocks at an angle, just need stiffer valving. I don't want to cut through the bed so my design will need the shocks angled. I'm not planning on coilovers in the rear, because of the space constraints, so it'll be separate springs.
As for now all that's done on the rear of my rig are the addition of OME shocks and springs. The stock bumpstops are just fine and I don't think they'll be changed. It would be easier to weld new mounts to the round tube that runs across the frame and then mount longer shocks there. Your idea on stuffing the wheels in the well, that's the same approach I took. My thinking is get as much travel as possible, but keep it as low to the ground as needed.
The only real challenge is in moving the fuel tank, if I recall, it has 4 lines comming out of it. Like I said I'll get all this figured out on the jig I set-up before hand, that way when I go to install it on my rig, it'll go real smooth. Trying to get another vehicles tank to fit in place of the stock one sounds simple, but getting the fuel system set-up afterwards may no be so easy, by fabricating a whole new tank might be just as quick.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RedRunner_87
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners (Build-Up Section)
84
06-01-2021 01:51 PM
FS[PacSouthWest]: 2- 8"3rd members:4.88 ratchet lockers,new setup kit, rear axle rebuild kit,diff armor
jerusry
Axles - Suspensions - Tires - Wheels
1
10-19-2015 05:28 PM
