What's new
By:
Filters

getting classy chappy .... Class Act Fab Buggy *2

chaplinfj60 said:
fair point for sure. most likly will be SD
i was reading about 10inch gear yesterday and i thought they could be put in the regular SD housing with a bit of grinding but now i can find where i read that .
Click to expand...
No grinding or clearance issues on 10in gears.
 
chaplinfj60 said:
fair point for sure. most likly will be SD
i was reading about 10inch gear yesterday and i thought they could be put in the regular SD housing with a bit of grinding but now i can find where i read that .
Click to expand...
It'll fit with 0 grinding.
If you want you can even put a HP70 gearset in the sumbitch.

If the drop of a factory SD axle works for you, I wouldn't touch anything else.
 
I was going to say that, if you think the SD60 will work, just run it as is.

Dale Larsen beat the fuck out of a SD60 with rcv's and seemed to hold well.

The currie hp70 gears are sweet, but are only 4.88s or 5.38s iirc.
 
I vote keep the current buggy usable till you absolutely need parts off it. And really think about what you want different with the wheeling you have done since the v8 swap. Sitting down to make a list of pros/cons, likes/dislikes then take those and turn into a build plan. I have notes apon notes of what I want my new buggy to be/do that take so many cues from the old blue one.
 
you are 100 per cent correct. unofficially i have been doing the pros and cons. and as of last night there is less and less coming off the buggy as far as big ticket items that will take me out of the wheeling season.

some things that may change

205 magnum may not move to new chassis, may get an atlas 3.8 or 4.3 been wheeling here lately just using 2.76 range all day and turns out that is a very good. when i would go to low low 5to1 i would be on the rev limit in 1/4 seconds with nothing to show but broke parts. so running 3.8 all day and high side in between trails may give me the perfect spot. i say may because the next full moon i may see things different. who knows. but really leaning toward 3.8

all the steering will go over but the ram, because if i recall the SD axles can use 9 inch ram. but still on the fence about it because sharper steering is harder on ujoints. just things that go through my mind

my cons and bunch of minor ones, but they all lead to a shit ton of rework. but i will tell you the number one thing that i feel like messed up on is. i should have just started out with two new frame rails and built from scratch when i did the 4 link. i reused a chunk of the factory frame and it really made everything harder than it should have. the width of that frame is close to 37 inches, that is 37 inches dead center that always hangs down and i drag over everything on it. sure its flat. .

but i really like the idea of the list and if nothing else its a good plan :beer:
 
Logical approach for sure.

Previous rig had a 6.0LS, TH400, and 3.8 Atlas with 5.13 gears. Loved that combo with the 3.8 Atlas for southeast trail riding with the only exception being access trails. EDIT: With this combo I only used low and 1st to crawl one creekbed type trail at Harlan when it was dry. Otherwise, I usually had to use low and 2nd for anything that required a "Tennessee bump" to crawl anything.

Current rig is ZJ based so 4.0, auto, and NWF Crawl Box/231 combo with 5.13 gears. I miss the extra 1.1x lower gearing of the transfer case in single low, but not enough traction around these parts for double low.
 
Last edited:
here in iowa we kinda got to build to every type of terrain. we go east then its mud and hills with big rocks to make sure you dont forget how to drive like AOP. then you head to RMR and the majority of that is rock so you get to crawl double low for the win. then you stay local and its a wet muddy hill. wheel speed is your friend. and just talking all this out as a type it sells itself to stay with magnum. and as the world turns.

hardest thing to not get sucked into for me is building for one scenario. like when i get my ass kicked at a park i want to do A B and C to fix that. but then i loose C D and E on another place. so this is one of my struggles i deal with...

anyway back to our regularly scheduled program...
 
You will like a 3.8 Atlas and 5.13's. That's what I ran and loved it. I'd consider going 5.38's too but you are farther east than me so stick with 5.13's.

Also once you have 50 deg steering you will wonder how you wheeled without it. Its certainly worth a new ram and machined shafts to have!! I get budget.....but build for !! that way its easy to upgrade to later as long as the links and chassis aren't in the way!!
 
Blase said:
You will like a 3.8 Atlas and 5.13's. That's what I ran and loved it. I'd consider going 5.38's too but you are farther east than me so stick with 5.13's.
Click to expand...
I find it wayyyyy too low.
3.0 and 5.13 for a low power rig is good.
3.0 and 4.88 if you got the juice is where it's at.
 
Bebop said:
I find it wayyyyy too low.
3.0 and 5.13 for a low power rig is good.
3.0 and 4.88 if you got the juice is where it's at.
Click to expand...
over the morning been going back and forth.

4.88 * 3 = 14.64
5.13 * 2.76 = 14.15
on paper the mag/ord is where its at. just like bebop said axle and tcase reduction of 14 is a nice place to live . and for me with the 5.13 is i am right there. i like where this is going.
 
I have the opposite opinion on gearing. Dads is a stroker ls in the 500hp range with 3.0 and 5.13s. It seems to work well and he can still rock crawl well with the torque of the stroker motor. If you like to rock crawl and dont have 500hp, this is too high of a gear ratio. Mine is a 3.8 and 4.88s with normal ls power... 6.0, hot cam, etc and its tits. Rock crawls great and plenty of party if needed. For reference, we are southeast. 3.0 isnt low enough for control in big rock with traction.
 
I might agree with you if there was a 4L80 involved.

But on connector trails, I'd rather be in 1st high with 5.13 than 3rd low with 3.8 & 4.88.

I think I've mentioned that too, but it took me 3 torque converters to get to the good one. It makes a huge difference.
 
got the superduty axle stripped and mostly cleaned up last night
with a hypertherm 65 it took less than 2 hours with two of us working it.

cut off some of the casting on the short side and noticed the plugs were not really even plug welded
so putting a couple cuts in the casting with the zip disc and grinding down till the sparks change colors and the get under it with a air chisel they pop right up and bam done.

1722514814516.png


1722514890144.png
 
Started to work on the truss. 2x3x3/16 wall. Should end up close to 9.5 inches or ten for link separation.

And what's the consensus on caster. We were thinking 4 for a starting point. That put the pinion at 9 inch off the floor in the pic. Changed it to 2 and that raised the pinion up another 3/4 of an inch.

Only thing that is tacked is the truss it's only laying on the axle. Just brain storming.

Another idea is use 1.5 "x3" x 3/16 for the truss.

1000000318.jpg
1000000318.jpg

1000000320.jpg
1000000320.jpg
 
4-7º is usually the factory setting for most axles. I may be totally wrong, but I believe more caster is better for road going vehicles. Off road only probably doesn't matter all that much.

Are you going to end up sitting higher than you want b/c of the thickness (2") of the truss? I've used 1/2"x3.5" cold rolled in the past and tied it to the cover to get lower. Of course, you still have to plate it all in.

You can sort of see the start of it in this pic.
 

Attachments

  • 2nd Buggy Big (2).jpg
    2nd Buggy Big (2).jpg
    444.1 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:
Sean said:
4-7º is usually the factory setting for most axles. I may be totally wrong, but I believe more caster is better for road going vehicles. Off road only probably doesn't matter all that much.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree on the caster. I don't understand why what was used from the factory could possibly have any relatable bearing on what we are building. Any of us. You guys are building tube chassis buggies that have absolutely zero in common with a bone stock factory truck..................which is where the factory caster #'s come from. Everything is different...................literally everything. WB, CG height, track width, F&R weight %, suspension geometry, tire size, full hyd steering, ect, ect.

I don't think there's a downside to running 10.....12....15 degrees of caster. But there are upsides.
 
We are planning on putting the link mounts on top of the truss and that will set us at about 9 and 1/2 to 10 in apart from the bottom to top bolt. We don't really know for sure where the engine's going to sit, but I feel like this will be a good spot for now to start and we're not even tacking them on until after the chassis all together and we start to roll the axle underneath but that's the plan I guess
 
gt1guy said:
I have to disagree on the caster. I don't understand why what was used from the factory could possibly have any relatable bearing on what we are building. Any of us. You guys are building tube chassis buggies that have absolutely zero in common with a bone stock factory truck..................which is where the factory caster #'s come from. Everything is different...................literally everything. WB, CG height, track width, F&R weight %, suspension geometry, tire size, full hyd steering, ect, ect.

I don't think there's a downside to running 10.....12....15 degrees of caster. But there are upsides.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong....

The question then becomes, "What's the formula for determining the proper caster with all those variables?"....
 
chaplinfj60 said:
We are planning on putting the link mounts on top of the truss and that will set us at about 9 and 1/2 to 10 in apart from the bottom to top bolt. We don't really know for sure where the engine's going to sit, but I feel like this will be a good spot for now to start and we're not even tacking them on until after the chassis all together and we start to roll the axle underneath but that's the plan I guess
Click to expand...
Provided the engine is far enough behind the front axle, it hopefully won't matter....and you'll be able to get that 9.5"+ of vertical separation.
 
Personally, for a buggy, I'd be more concerned about getting the pinion angle as good as it can be if I weren't going to cut/turn the knuckles to get the caster I wanted. The last two KP D60s I did, the car sat low enough that the pinion angle was good and the caster was 4º on one and IIRC 6º on the other with the pinions pointed up about 8-10º (without a cut and turn).
 
gt1guy said:
I have to disagree on the caster. I don't understand why what was used from the factory could possibly have any relatable bearing on what we are building. Any of us. You guys are building tube chassis buggies that have absolutely zero in common with a bone stock factory truck..................which is where the factory caster #'s come from. Everything is different...................literally everything. WB, CG height, track width, F&R weight %, suspension geometry, tire size, full hyd steering, ect, ect.

I don't think there's a downside to running 10.....12....15 degrees of caster. But there are upsides.
Click to expand...
you pose a great conversation for sure.

all i know on my current buggy i just rotated the low pinion 60 up to get a better driveline angle and it pushed me into negative cast correct? the top kingpin is further ahead of the bottom one. i know when i flex out and drop the right tire for instance and turn left i am driving on the sidewall more than the correct way a tire should cycle. so my thoughts were keep it close to factory range and have a fighting chance to not be on the side wall.
 

Attachments

  • 1723665472045.png
    1723665472045.png
    550.1 KB · Views: 2
Didn't guys used to run a lot of caster to help the full hydro systems return to center? With a non-load reactive orbital I'm not sure any amount of caster would matter as far as self centering goes.
 
A little of this and a little of that.

Worry less about the fine points till you get the drivetrain in. Also you can adjust how your angles by how/where you put your monts despite what the trusses angle is.
 
Sean said:
Personally, for a buggy, I'd be more concerned about getting the pinion angle as good as it can be if I weren't going to cut/turn the knuckles to get the caster I wanted. The last two KP D60s I did, the car sat low enough that the pinion angle was good and the caster was 4º on one and IIRC 6º on the other with the pinions pointed up about 8-10º (without a cut and turn).
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm with you on the pinion angle. Bad pinion angle can and will destroy parts. If no cut and turn, pinion angle takes priority. It has to.

I'm just assuming that cutting and turning the C's wouldn't be a big deal for anyone on here to do. Hell, it's grinding 2-4 welds and rewelding.
It's less work than cleaning a axle for link mounts.:flipoff2:


chaplinfj60 said:
you pose a great conversation for sure.

all i know on my current buggy i just rotated the low pinion 60 up to get a better driveline angle and it pushed me into negative cast correct? the top kingpin is further ahead of the bottom one. i know when i flex out and drop the right tire for instance and turn left i am driving on the sidewall more than the correct way a tire should cycle. so my thoughts were keep it close to factory range and have a fighting chance to not be on the side wall.
Click to expand...

Caster turns to camber when you turn the wheels. So in your scenario, the more caster you have the more it will help. Why settle for a fighting chance? Set your pinion angle, then set your caster, two separate processes.


Cause pictures are good. This is my pile. Frame is on jack stands along with the front axle. It's sitting very close to ride height. This is what you get with 12* of caster.

Turning full right, outside tire has negative camber and inside tire has positive camber. That's going to help the tires bite.

IMG20240730180339.jpg


IMG20240730180354.jpg


IMG20240730180401.jpg



I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that you really don't have to compromise. Couple extra cut off wheels, maybe a little burr bit action and 12" or so of weld and you're set.



Sean said:
The question then becomes, "What's the formula for determining the proper caster with all those variables?"....
Click to expand...

It really comes down to trial and error doesn't it. But I'd bet you'd have to get close to 20* where you would start saying that's too much and start backing it down.
 
gt1guy said:
Yes. I'm with you on the pinion angle. Bad pinion angle can and will destroy parts. If no cut and turn, pinion angle takes priority. It has to.

I'm just assuming that cutting and turning the C's wouldn't be a big deal for anyone on here to do. Hell, it's grinding 2-4 welds and rewelding.
It's less work than cleaning a axle for link mounts.:flipoff2:




Caster turns to camber when you turn the wheels. So in your scenario, the more caster you have the more it will help. Why settle for a fighting chance? Set your pinion angle, then set your caster, two separate processes.


Cause pictures are good. This is my pile. Frame is on jack stands along with the front axle. It's sitting very close to ride height. This is what you get with 12* of caster.

Turning full right, outside tire has negative camber and inside tire has positive camber. That's going to help the tires bite.

IMG20240730180339.jpg


IMG20240730180354.jpg


IMG20240730180401.jpg



I guess the main point I'm trying to make is that you really don't have to compromise. Couple extra cut off wheels, maybe a little burr bit action and 12" or so of weld and you're set.





It really comes down to trial and error doesn't it. But I'd bet you'd have to get close to 20* where you would start saying that's too much and start backing it down.
Click to expand...
:laughing: Enjoyed the reference....and for the record, I went ahead and ordered custom 14B f/r for the tow rig...for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which was avoiding cutting the casting.

Anyway...I have to disagree about a cut and turn compared to cutting SD60 casting for link mounts. PITA. Blowing out the weld on the C's isn't all that simple. Most people aren't that skilled with a torch; plasma gouging leaves a lot to be desired and air arc isnt' all that common either. Getting after it with an angle grinder seems like the wrong tool for the job to me....but I've never done it that way, so maybe I'm wrong. Then there's the fairly tight fit on some of the C's to the tube that means porta powering/pressing it off and then needing a lathe to turn the ID or being okay with a sloppy slip fit by hand grinding/sanding it. To each their own of course...I just think it's not as easy as it may sound having helped do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh