bamachem

because saws suck. done. yer welcome.

Stump1883

I don't want to be "that guy" but how else can I learn. WHY? <--Me

ETN4runner

schaefer, i gotta say that is nice work. Im also curious as to why you would do an sas with spring under and shackles forward when all the others i have seen are exactly the opposite. Its nice to see someone do their own thing but are there any other reasons why you built it like this?

Albuquerque Jim

Yeah right, remember I am a few years behind the rest of you. So I will wait until you all SAS and wheel them to work out the bugs. By that time I might have my truck paid off.

Flygtenstein

Why not use SAW's? Because I think that severely limits the places you can head with the project. A roughly 8" travel coilover is really short. Most trucks head to 14 and get longer from there.

SteveO is next. I have no bucks and big dreams. All bets are off if that job at the adult call center works out.

SteveO, I think links would work well for you, especially for the approach angle and bumper considerations. There is a shop making a kit, but I am not sure if you will buy from them.

Links or leaves, when done right, will offer the same travel. The coilover offers adjustability and tuneability.

Peace, I'm out.

Bighead

I'm with Jim. Of course if I ever did it I'm sure there would be some sort of computer issues to deal with that would make it impossible.

RobT2k

uh, ok that is why some of the best coilover supspended trucks on pirate have them?





Stump-You'd have to use these-


The ones that fit our trucks are way too small. The ones they are using are 14" or 16" with 2 coils w/different spring rates like 400ppi over 200ppi for the front end and 250 over 150's for the rear.

sschaefer3

I talked to alot of people in the industry, not on any BBS, like Randy Ellis and Mark Mason and alot of others and they said all the effort to build links was not worth it in the end. They also said there would be many revisions to get it right.

Mark Mason was one of the first guys with front coil springs on a Toyota SA. That truck/buggie now rolls on leaf springs after a disasterous year or so with SAW's.

Randy Ellis said "HE" could build me a front link system but doubted that I would get it right the first time. He said leafs are a no brainer.

I did spring under to keep the lift low. I also like to think outside the box. I just don't copy everyone elses products and sell them for less. I strive to come up with all original ideas.

I got the motor running today and the 4WD light works again. The ABS has been electonically disabled and the hardware will get pulled as soon as my non-Abs brake lines come in from Japan.

Stump1883

Cheese, thanks for the insight, I knew there had to be a huge reason, I'm just not all up on suspensions beyond IFS.

KING

There goes the list that Steve supplied for any of you that "can" do a solid axle conversion for a grand or under.

schlopecki

Steve,

Congratulations on the SAS!
I have never seen/read about SAS done with so much care to details.
The list of parts is more than very impressive.
We all know that doing all the work yourself (with help of the other noblemen) gave you a lot of pain,
but I would guess a lot of experience too.
I don't know what you do for the living, but... have you ever thought about opening a full-time 4WD Shop?
All the fabrication that you do anyway, now experience in "custom" work...
I see people on waiting list for SAS done to their 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation...
I know, I know, that would be perfect but life is not.
Well, anyway...
I was just wondering what did you do about gears in the rear axle.
As far as I remember you had 5.29 in the rear, now 5.38 in front ... ?

PS
I don't care what people say about under the axle springs setup - I love the stance
and the feel of sturdiness of the whole thing. Way to go!

MellamoPOUND

Steve, I think you should put the frankenstein front end back on. It is much better than any solid axle.

Good work.... can't wait to see it on the trails!

SEAN_at_TLT

Different suspension designs have different motion-ratios. The motion ratio (or leverage ratio) means how many inches does the shock shaft move in relation to the wheel travel. IFS trucks are a linkage type system and they use more leverage to get travel out of a shorter shock than most live axle vehicles. The only live axle vehicles that have an other than 1:1 motion ratio are linked suspensions with the shocks mounted to the links as opposed to being mounted to the axle directly. Then you can decide the motion ratio based on how far up the link the shock is mounted. Any motion ratio under 2:1 is considered acceptable but 1:1 is ideal in terms of damping performance. Our trucks (depending on what shocks are installed) have a motion ratio of about ~1.75:1 FWIW.

You would actually need to decrease the spring rate for a straight axle becasue with a lower motion ratio there is less leverage on the shock. Also the additional weight of the axle itself is unsprung weight so it has zero effect on the sring rate, the springs only suspend the main vehicle's weight (not axles or wheels etc). So where many of us run 550-600# springs on our coil-overs, we could get away with about 350# with a straight axle.

I hope this clears it up for you a little

weldpro

Thought you guys might want to see what the guru had me make up for him today (uh last night I mean).

Steve can tell the story.

weldpro

The finished product came out so well. Trying to keep a shaft true that has to be extended then add to that the flange (also needing to have 0 TR) is quite the chore. I'm happy, and when Steve gets this maybe he'll be able to finally drive!!!!!!!!!
Richard

bamachem

Ummmm, maybe you didn't catch that SMILEY FACE at the end?

I realize that alot of buggys are coilover. I'm not a freakin' noob. However, I also know that the IFS SAWS have a high spring rate. You take that and put it on a SFA and you'll ride like your sittin' on rocks. You need lower spring rates for SFA because the pivot point of the front suspension moves all the way over to the other side of the vehicle. That means less leverage to compress the spring and therefore you want a lower spring rate. Then you get into travel distance issues as well like Cheese mentioned. Why go SAS and keep the same travel distance AND maintain a stiff ride? It just doesn't make much sense either way. The IFS SAWS are for high speed desert racing and street handling. They were NEVER meant for crawling where you want soft, flexy, and LOOONNG TRAVEL. The SA SAWS that are used on buggys ARE menat for crawling and seem to flex well.

Now, back to the regularly scheduled program...

[edit: oh well, i see that sean beat me to the punch]

44Runner

You mentioned the most important stuff but while completely correct you left out another obvious draw back. The stock coilover setup does not really have the lateral movement either required of a coilover SA setup, although this would likely not even come into play with the complete lack of travel this setup would have. Regardless the top mount on the IFS coilover is not correct for a SA setup. Stump1883, look at it and then check out the mount on the buggy pics posted. Huge difference...

SEAN_at_TLT

You're right, I have 8" SAW's in my truck and they have a heim on both ends as do many of the newer bolt-in coil-over's. I think the 2.0" SAW's are one of the only to not have an upper heim.

Stump1883

Oh I knew they would never work, I was more curious as to why, and all the technical reasons behind it, as everyone here has so generously shown. Thanks guys.

Now no more hyjacking, back to Steve's material.

sschaefer3

Shock towers and shocks are on. All I need now is for that steering shaft to get here from CA.