What's new
By:
Filters

1988 Samurai Turned Buggy

Noticeably bigger than a 35 Zilla. When I stuck one next to a 37 Trep the Trep was on a race prepped 4800 car and the 37 Zilla was loose. It was a schoshe taller. My guess is loose they’d be the same. From my scientific gatherings the Maxxis tends to run pretty close true to size.
 
The 37 Treps are 10-ply and are not the choice for a lightweight rig. Had them on my 2-seater transaxle buggy and I ran them with no air in them.

Here is a comparison of a 37 on the buggy (with zero psi) and one propped up next to it (with probably 8-10psi).

2016-05-02 175439-2183563.JPG


Would definitely run the 37 Rockzilla stickies on a lightweight rig before the 37 Trep stickies.
 
FleshEater are you doing the Tacoma slip on rotor for front brakes or the poor man mount the caliper on the wrong side of the ears? I did the later with solid rotors on IFS hubs back in the day
 
SKULLYOTA said:
FleshEater are you doing the Tacoma slip on rotor for front brakes or the poor man mount the caliper on the wrong side of the ears? I did the later with solid rotors on IFS hubs back in the day
Click to expand...

Probably going to run Tundra brakes, but yes, slip over the hub as opposed to bolting to the rear of the hub.

I need to source new, longer wheel studs for that, though.
 
Been slow and frustrating working on these links. Byro’s been giving me ideas and tips. I’ve read the suspension thread three times and watched all the Busted Knuckle films about setting up links and just feel like :homer: taking this on.

Anyways. First set up my alternator was getting in the way. I looked it over many times and said screw it and started setting up my links. I realized quickly the alternator killed my up travel. So today I made a new alternator bracket and moved it up and out of the way.

If my estimates are correct I have around 5” of up travel now. However, I’m really nervous about getting my lower links flat at ride height. Right now they’re around 3 degrees. I also had to mount the axle side lower below the axle housing.

Also had to cut up the adjustable upper link mounts I bought to make them work. Oh well.

Seems like a give and take no matter what doing this. Not done, just figured I’d update this.

IMG_2991.jpeg

Modified upper link bracket.
IMG_2994.jpeg
IMG_2995.jpeg

Installed.
IMG_3007.jpeg

Raised alternator bracket.
IMG_3008.jpeg

Clearance it gave me.
IMG_3009.jpeg
IMG_3010.jpeg
IMG_3011.jpeg

IMG_3012.jpeg
IMG_3013.jpeg
 
I feel like with the lowers triangulated it makes the outside of the belly a rock anchor.

Also, I wouldn't worry about the lowers being perfectly flat, most rigs aren't even close to that. Uppers should be pretty flat though.
 
YotaAtieToo said:
I feel like with the lowers triangulated it makes the outside of the belly a rock anchor.

Also, I wouldn't worry about the lowers being perfectly flat, most rigs aren't even close to that. Uppers should be pretty flat though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but is it enough to justify not doing a double triangulated 4 link front end?
 
FleshEater said:
Yeah, but is it enough to justify not doing a double triangulated 4 link front end?
Click to expand...

I think so.

Seems like people used to be really hard up to do double triangulated, but I'm not even sure what the huge advantage is for a lightweight rig, as I haven't read on links in forever.
 
YotaAtieToo said:
I think so.

Seems like people used to be really hard up to do double triangulated, but I'm not even sure what the huge advantage is for a lightweight rig, as I haven't read on links in forever.
Click to expand...

I’ll have to turn the tires full lock and snap a pic. I know if I’m turning into the rocks they won’t end up there. But turning out of them it could catch.

The benefit of double triangulation is to eliminate or minimize flex steer. At least, I think that’s the biggest benefit. I feel like a lightweight rig would suffer from that more than a heavier.
 
FleshEater said:
I’ll have to turn the tires full lock and snap a pic. I know if I’m turning into the rocks they won’t end up there. But turning out of them it could catch.

The benefit of double triangulation is to eliminate or minimize flex steer. At least, I think that’s the biggest benefit. I feel like a lightweight rig would suffer from that more than a heavier.
Click to expand...

Flex steer isn't a big deal in the front and even in the rear it's usually pretty manageable if set up right.
 
IF I was you I would move the axle side lower link mount up to AT LEAST the center line of the axle. No benefit to having it hanging down under the tube IMO. Picking it up would help you get a flatter lower link if that's what you're after.

Mine are on top of the axle tube! Front not quite as much as the rear but the rears are legit smack dab on top of the axle.

As to what YotaAtie Too said bout double triangulated 4 links. My last buggy had them front and rear. I felt like it added to body roll. It wheeled GREAT! I just felt like it bounced side to side going down the trail if that makes sense.

This new buggy will only have a small amount of triangulation in the lower links. 10 deg is plenty enough to minimize flex steer IMO.

Building is ALWAYS a compromise. Just got to pick what matters most to you and hold true to that.
 
The benefit of having the lowers below center line allows the lower link to take pressure off the upper link. If your lower link is above center line of the axle, it now pulls on both the upper link and lower link as the wheels try to rotate. This makes the rig hop as it climbs.
 
I ended up having to completely re-work everything I did, because like I said, I have no idea what I’m doing.

I’m just kind of stuck where I am. The belly tube not being angled out to meet the node really affects the uppers. Since the uppers and lowers are mounted in line with each other, it was a struggle to keep them close to the same length.

I ended up removing the steering stop and the lower link bracket will be the new steering stop (I’m adding gussets). The uppers got pushed out further towards the wheels. Now they’re all at 33.25”. As of right now it will work. It would just be better if my uppers were pushed out in front of the chassis side lower links.

Some random pics. The PVC is nice, but messed up my upper DOM cut, obviously. Now it’s slugged with 1.5” DOM. Just going to do all the uppers like that as I have a ton laying around.

IMG_3020.jpeg
IMG_3021.jpeg
IMG_3022.jpeg
IMG_3023.jpeg
IMG_3024.jpeg
IMG_3025.jpeg
IMG_3029.jpeg
 
Need DOM to finish the one link, but was anxious to see it on the floor.

4.5 degree lower, 1.9 degree upper sitting on the floor. Pretty sure I’m going to have 5” of up travel. Links measure bolt to bolt at 33.25” so debating on 16” air shocks over 14”. Not sure yet.

Pretty sure I messed up something, because my axle is sitting slightly forward…but was level at full bump.

IMG_3045.jpeg
IMG_3046.jpeg
IMG_3047.jpeg
 
Question about carrier bearings: Can I mount a carrier bearing pretty much however? It needs to be higher so my front driveshaft can clear the lower arm. I don’t see a problem with it, but wanted to make sure.

EDIT: Found a good thread over at the old place littered with different ideas dealing with weird driveline obstacles. Where there’s a will, there’s a way applies here, I guess. :laughing:
 
Last edited:
FleshEater said:
Question about carrier bearings: Can I mount a carrier bearing pretty much however? It needs to be higher so my front driveshaft can clear the lower arm. I don’t see a problem with it, but wanted to make sure.

EDIT: Found a good thread over at the old place littered with different ideas dealing with weird driveline obstacles. Where there’s a will, there’s a way applies here, I guess. :laughing:
Click to expand...
So I did mine I had to go a little bit to the out side and then back toward the diff. I have a basic you tube vid I can send you so you get the idea.
 
I’ve seen some pretty creative mounting.

Remember that if there is a slip in the mid shaft the carrier can be mounted solid.
If it’s a solid shaft it must be mounted so it moves with the motor/trans assembly.
 
Another thing I did because this is what I read end the carrier bearing intermediate shaft at the same place or the same plane as your upper link Mount so they can pivot together so the driveshaftCan pivot at the same angle as the links
 
I was originally wanting a slip into the carrier. Just wanted to make sure I had options, which I see I do now, before solidifying my link setup. I really don’t want my lower links on the chassis side dropped below my tubing.
 
Easter Sunday Byro text me a steal of a deal on FB for a PSC full hydro kit. I missed out on it, but the guy also had a brand new, in the box, TG full hydro kit.

So I snagged that and 4 new Fox air shocks 2.0x14” off him for $2,400.

It’s as if the big man upstairs AND the Easter bunny loves wheeling and building as much as we do. :laughing:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh