Future of KOH 4400 chassis/car development?

Zg86 said:
I hope they dont, i think the desert **** is boring. At least to me as an east coast rock guy. Everyone else probably disagrees with me. Im sure its fun as hell to do but it sucks to watch.
Click to expand...
No, no, we agree. I meant I'd rather see an ultra nasty rock bypass as an option instead of existing desert miles, that would be sweet. And I'm sure it would add a whole 'nother level of race day strategy. Racers that can really drive in the rocks and winch proficiently just might gain a huge advantage. Or the rocks might claim all who try.
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
Screenshot_20250210_120849_Samsung Internet.jpg
Click to expand...


I’d like to know how CT is advertising that knuckle that it will bolt to a stock chassis.

A 35” Zilla doesn’t have that much clearance on a factory knuckle, I know because I grooved the center tread to half depth on more than 2 dozen 35 Zillas for the Millers and other drivers to keep the tire from growing and rubbing the knuckle at 100mph and scrubbing 10mph out of the car. (Yes 10mph slower from it rubbing.)

So that being said by my eyecrometer that knuckle is easily 3-4” taller than a factory unit, you don’t have to be a suspension whizz to know changing the knuckle height that drastically without moving the chassis side mounts up and equal amount is going to change the geometry considerably.

I can also tell you the upper arms are not a factory unit either, they are a fabricated steel unit. I was pretty impressed with the machine work on the balljoint clampy piece when I seen it under the tent next to the stock 4900 car.


Kyle is an absolute wheel man, I’ve watched him come from dead last to first in short course quite a few times, so to hear him say he couldn’t hang with a solid axle car in the desert absolutely warms my heart.
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
Just when we had to throw that last part in, didn't ya. :laughing:

I'm looking forward to the debut of the KOH winning chassis/car you design and build on your first try. 😘
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, the pompousness knows know bounds with you. You asked people for their opinions on improvements to 4400 cars and it has sparked discussions. Treefrog mentions one thing about bulkhead weight and that’s your response?

Honestly, I would pay to watch Kyle Chaney run you over with his UTV at 100 mph. You can look at my posts, 99% of the time I am respectful when engaging in conversation with others but I have zero respect for you and your horrendous attitude.
 
Jarod said:
No, no, we agree. I meant I'd rather see an ultra nasty rock bypass as an option instead of existing desert miles, that would be sweet. And I'm sure it would add a whole 'nother level of race day strategy. Racers that can really drive in the rocks and winch proficiently just might gain a huge advantage. Or the rocks might claim all who try.
Click to expand...
Now that i am on board with,
 
Byro said:
I’d like to know how CT is advertising that knuckle that it will bolt to a stock chassis.

A 35” Zilla doesn’t have that much clearance on a factory knuckle, I know because I grooved the center tread to half depth on more than 2 dozen 35 Zillas for the Millers and other drivers to keep the tire from growing and rubbing the knuckle at 100mph and scrubbing 10mph out of the car. (Yes 10mph slower from it rubbing.)

So that being said by my eyecrometer that knuckle is easily 3-4” taller than a factory unit, you don’t have to be a suspension whizz to know changing the knuckle height that drastically without moving the chassis side mounts up and equal amount is going to change the geometry considerably.

I can also tell you the upper arms are not a factory unit either, they are a fabricated steel unit. I was pretty impressed with the machine work on the balljoint clampy piece when I seen it under the tent next to the stock 4900 car.


Kyle is an absolute wheel man, I’ve watched him come from dead last to first in short course quite a few times, so to hear him say he couldn’t hang with a solid axle car in the desert absolutely warms my heart.
Click to expand...

Thanks for filling in that info.... I was under the impression that it was a stock chassis with minor adjustments to fit 37s. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
(NOT laughing at you Byro)
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
You add a considerable amount of weight going with another drivetrain right off the bat. The 344lb weigh of a complete assembly is hard to beat.
Click to expand...
True, kinda to what others are saying, the can am won this year but I wonder what the true hybrid of a UTV and 4400 is

Can am drive train with bigger tires and suspension? Or bigger drivetrain with can am tires and suspension?

With someone mentioning portals, would that gear reduction help UTV diffs and shafts survive 40s?

What if you do the ol turn the motor sideways and run the transaxle as the transfer case??
 
Jarod said:
No, no, we agree. I meant I'd rather see an ultra nasty rock bypass as an option instead of existing desert miles, that would be sweet. And I'm sure it would add a whole 'nother level of race day strategy. Racers that can really drive in the rocks and winch proficiently just might gain a huge advantage. Or the rocks might claim all who try.
Click to expand...
I like this idea a ton!
 
Tech Tim said:
Thanks for filling in that info.... I was under the impression that it was a stock chassis with minor adjustments to fit 37s. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
(NOT laughing at you Byro)
Click to expand...

4400 cars;

Full chassis
Billet front knuckles
Fabricated upper and lower front arms
Fabricated rear trailing arm with separate C/O & bypass
Rear knuckles appeared to be factory
Diffs appeared to be factory, they weren’t fancy billet pieces
Slight boat sides

4900 cars;

(From the best of my recollection, I don’t care about SxS’s so I don’t pay particular attention to them.)
Stock bottom half of car (IIRC I don’t think they were full chassis)
Stock cast front knuckles
Stock ally front upper arms
Fabricated front lower arms
Factory appearing diffs, again, no fancy billet
Stock cast rear knuckles


I wish I would have taken more mental pictures of them, I spent some time under the tent with Hunter dialing in his tire setup. Again though, the SxS’s don’t excite me so I don’t really pay a ton of attention to what they’re running, I’d rather study a Miller/Bomber/UFO/Campbell car.
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
So now let's move the topic of this thread along......

If IBB were to build a 4400 car based around the Maverick R drivetrain, what design changes do we make to the chassis and suspension to bring it to the next level?

We would want a better designed chassis for obvious reasons, but do we still use the Mav R suspension design? Change up the front only and leave the rear as is?

Would portals improve the performance or hurt it? My vote is they don't need them because they have huge amounts of ground clearance as is, and the weight of the assemblies would hurt them in the going fast stuff.

Test 40" UTV tires, see what breaks in the drivetrain and upgrade?

Id say there is a decent amount of room for improvement with the current KOH winning car, especially if you take the Can-Am sponsorship and say on what attributes they want built into it out of the equation.
Click to expand...

4400 car based around the Maverick R drivetrain:

Pretty much a smaller version of the fun havers cars

only keep the Mav R engine/trans/diff assembly and throw the rest away
turn the powerplant around and use the rear diff as the front and the front output becomes a rear output with a driveshaft that goes between the seats (this would let you do front digs by putting the tcase in "2WD")
IFS with 2 gear portals upfront & live axle rear
I would stick with single shocks and work with fox on a custom livevalve deal to make it work. Bypasses are heavy and I'm not sure they're needed.
37" tires

Pretty much a 7/8th version of this :

1739419184161.jpeg


More inspiration here:
www.drivingline.com

Fun-Haver Off-Road 2021 Ford Bronco 4400 Race Trucks

Two of the Most Ambitious Ford Broncos to Tackle Ultra4 Racing
www.drivingline.com www.drivingline.com
 
Last edited:
Bebop said:
4400 car based around the Maverick R drivetrain:

Pretty much a smaller version of the fun havers cars

only keep the Mav R engine/trans/diff assembly and throw the rest away
turn the powerplant around and use the rear diff as the front and the front output becomes a rear output with a driveshaft that goes between the seats (this would let you do front digs by putting the tcase in "2WD")
IFS with 2 gear portals upfront & live axle rear
I would stick with single shocks and work with fox on a custom livevalve deal to make it work. Bypasses are heavy and I'm not sure they're needed.
37" tires

Pretty much a 7/8th version of this :
Click to expand...

So you've come around on the idea :flipoff2:

snivilous said:
I've wondered about that and not sure of a good way. I've thought about flipping the engine around and put it up front, and then the normally front driveshaft would become the rear driveshaft to a solid axle, and the CV outputs off the trans would go to the IFS. It'd spin backwards so put some 2 gear portals on and you're good to go.

I have a X3 that doesn't see much use so these ideas float around my head :laughing:
Click to expand...
Bebop said:
You like to complicate your life it seems lol
Click to expand...
 
3.5 Ecoboost will make 800HP+ with the dial turned up. Multimatics GT Mk IV has that setup. No idea how it'd live in the desert, but it is possible.

CT Chassis (with some revisions to prevent breaking) with a wrecked Mav R driveline would make for a pretty sweet trailrig. Wouldn't be cheap, but would actually check a lot of the boxes for me personally.
 
So to move forward in what would be a hybrid or the next evolution, we need to discuss a few things.

The reality:
KOH is won in the desert and lost in the rocks, but you can throw that all out the window if your car doesn't stay together.

Observations from history:
4400 LA cars are more nimble in the rocks than 4400 IFS and faster in the rocks and dez than the UTVs.
4400 IFS cars are faster in the dez and nuisance rocks than 4400 LA.
4400 UTVs are slower in the dez and rocks, but due to lighter weight, lower power and great drivers they can be competitive (if they don't break in half on lap 3 or far apart a couple miles from the finish line... Joking, so lighten up Francis)(but not really joking, because that is the reality of it).

Information needed for baselines:
Wheelbase, WMS or track width, weight and HP of:
4400 competitive live axle cars: Miller and Slawson (two most successful)
4400 competitive IFS cars: UFO, Fun Haver, Scherer
4400 UTV: Chaney, Miller cars

This isn't about building up a UTV or stripping down a LA or IFS 4400, this is about the next evolution, a hybrid, somewhere in between the two.
 
Tech Tim said:
Yo Artie, compared to what?
Click to expand...

What the big 4400 cars are running.

westracing01 said:
3.5 Ecoboost will make 800HP+ with the dial turned up. Multimatics GT Mk IV has that setup. No idea how it'd live in the desert, but it is possible.
Click to expand...

There isn't much wieght savings, if any over an aluminum LS, with a 3.5tt once you add the turbos, piping and IC.

SLOWPOKE693 said:
Gag gag gag
Click to expand...

Dude read what he said, 4900, not 4400. Not to mention he even said hes not paying attention much.

The 4400 can am couldn't have had stock knuckles front or rear and cleared 37s anyway.
 
YotaAtieToo said:
Dude read what he said, 4900, not 4400. Not to mention he even said hes not paying attention much.

The 4400 can am couldn't have had stock knuckles front or rear and cleared 37s anyway.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on letting us know how stupid you are continually? It's not a good look for you.

He may not have paid full attention but Byro is also not a stupid guy so I'm sure hes got a good idea of what hes talking about and looking at. so what exactly are you trying to imply with that statement you made?
 
And please explain why stock rear uprights won't clear 37s. The mental gymnastics you're are going to have to use to explain it is going to be priceless and I look forward to your response. :lmao:
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
Why do you insist on letting us know how stupid you are continually? It's not a good look for you.

He may not have paid full attention but Byro is also not a stupid guy so I'm sure hes got a good idea of what hes talking about and looking at. so what exactly are you trying to imply with that statement you made?
Click to expand...

Jesus you are laying it on thick. Coming from the person who made a comment about stooping to insults when they have nothing to say.

You've literally went from "it's mostly stock" to "it's a full custom everything except engine and diff housings" and back to stock how many times?

SLOWPOKE693 said:
And please explain why stock rear uprights won't clear 37s. The mental gymnastics you're are going to have to use to explain it is going to be priceless and I look forward to your response. :lmao:
Click to expand...

You're the expert here, do they clear or not?

ZomboMeme 12022025090825.png
 
I am in Tims camp on fully poor welding techniques and lack of gussets. In welding, I have the tools but not the technique. I have to make up for it by overthinking and gussets. I am sure the Chassis builder saw that and actually replied that they had, and learned. We all learn. (See the last youtube link)

BUT... One thing I noticed in their Chassis was the narrow front "bulkhead" There was very little to contain side loads. I think there should have been some tubes to the outside corners of the cab area.

One of the things that I noticed about the new CanAm geometry is that the tires travel sideways a TON. Looks like almost 4" from straight across axles to moving inside at full stuff/droop. If the wheel/tire was up against a rock at droop the suspension would push the front bulkhead sideways on returning to straight across. With the hundreds of thousand possibilities in a KOH race...S is going to get flexed. . The suspension has no or minimal camber gain which we know is faster in the rocks and turning. Someone did mention caster and maybe caster gain instead of camber gain in turns. Plus the possible retreatng of the wheel when hitting a rock (like a set of moto forks). In the past, this retreat was nixed on crawlers as the wheel did not want to lift the front against a rock (traction)(I think this retreating is one of the features of the SA in the rear that adds to it's preference....But it is known to go too far.)

One of the chassis builders for Score trucks was writing an updated builders tech manual. That CAnAm chassis (#1 ?) would have never passed for several reasons at that/those nodes. (JEHC) MAbe I can find the video??

This is the video link. A few years ago he did several so feel free to look at others. I think the only thing that might not be covered is the latest tech at welding a root pass and then a cover pass that helps the HAZ, etc.



Edit:
I bet the UTV diehards on here would have fireworks for sale. OK with a SXS RESTO MOD winning KOH....... As in all the races.
 
snivilous said:
So you've come around on the idea :flipoff2:
Click to expand...
I did. Now makes sense to me.
I'm slow to understand sometimes lol

YotaAtieToo said:
ZomboMeme 12022025090825.png
Click to expand...
Chris / Slowpoke is my friend. So I shouldn't laugh. But I did. :laughing:
A little bit of humor and light hearted-ness won't hurt nobody in this discussion. We're bench racing to the max here.

wvracer821 said:
IMG_5105.jpeg
Click to expand...
Already said it, but this thing is sick. :smokin:

Isdtbower said:
One of the things that I noticed about the new CanAm geometry is that the tires travel sideways a TON. Looks like almost 4" from straight across axles to moving inside at full stuff/droop. If the wheel/tire was up against a rock at droop the suspension would push the front bulkhead sideways on returning to straight across. [...] The suspension has no or minimal camber gain which we know is faster in the rocks and turning. Someone did mention caster and maybe caster gain instead of camber gain in turns. Plus the possible retreatng of the wheel when hitting a rock (like a set of moto forks).
Click to expand...
That Mav R geometry is far from ideal. It seems to be as close to neutral numbers as possible. 0 KPI, 0 camber gain, 0 caster gain etc...
 
Last edited:
Bebop said:
That Mav R geometry is far from ideal. It seems to be as close to neutral numbers as possible. 0 KPI, 0 camber gain, 0 caster gain etc...
Click to expand...
With the taller spindle, it might have gained a small bit of camber gain. If they didn't raise the upper arm mount too.

What it gained in rock speed, it lost in desert speed.
 
bdkw1 said:
With the taller spindle, it might have gained a small bit of camber gain. If they didn't raise the upper arm mount too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking about the factory design.
 
Let's say they moved the upper ball joint up 3" from stock. If the car has zero camber gain before this modification, how much (estimated) camber did it gain after?

And how does going from no gain to having a bit of camber gain slow it down?
 
[/QUOTE]
Bebop said:
4400 car based around the Maverick R drivetrain:

Pretty much a smaller version of the fun havers cars

only keep the Mav R engine/trans/diff assembly and throw the rest away
turn the powerplant around and use the rear diff as the front and the front output becomes a rear output with a driveshaft that goes between the seats (this would let you do front digs by putting the tcase in "2WD")
IFS with 2 gear portals upfront & live axle rear
I would stick with single shocks and work with fox on a custom livevalve deal to make it work. Bypasses are heavy and I'm not sure they're needed.
37" tires

Pretty much a 7/8th version of this :

1739419184161.jpeg


More inspiration here:
www.drivingline.com

Fun-Haver Off-Road 2021 Ford Bronco 4400 Race Trucks

Two of the Most Ambitious Ford Broncos to Tackle Ultra4 Racing
www.drivingline.com www.drivingline.com
Click to expand...

That was idea #1




Idea #2 is more like a small red dragon.
Single seat front engine with the engine next to the driver.

ProR engine/trans
IFS using the pro R rear diff upfront / portals / live rear axle
37" tires
single shocks

Pro R engine/trans
1739458508983.png


Red dragon engine location
1739458528949.png


Chassis layout
52A90D80-A13E-4741-8555-33742E174FD8.jpeg


More info for inspiration
www.drivingline.com

Breathing Fire: An In-Depth Look at Loren Healy's Red Dragon

We peel back the layers on the winningest car in Ultra 4 Racing.
www.drivingline.com www.drivingline.com
 
SLOWPOKE693 said:
Let's say they moved the upper ball joint up 3" from stock. If the car has zero camber gain before this modification, how much (estimated) camber did it gain after?

And how does going from no gain to having a bit of camber gain slow it down?
Click to expand...
It's not so much slowing it down in the rocks but making it potentially see higher stress if it increases wheel scrub. Usually you cheat scrub out with the camber curve. Being thar this thing has such long arms, I'm not sure how much lateral scrub it has. It might make it better, it might not. Would need real measurements instead of my calibrated eyeball guessing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh