[Gwagensteve]

That’s not all that surprising, but with your current setup, that’s a lot of compromise for 5.5” of usable spring travel- stock samurai front springs have that much travel.

It’s normal for springs for SPOA applications to have relatively little free camber and a high rate, and you could use these springs as they are in a SPUA application, but you’d benefit from a softer spring with more free camber. The stability and reduced leverage of SPUA allows much lower spring rates for improved ride and flex.

Steve.

[vet 180]

How much do you have invested into the current front axle? I.e. locker, gearing, bird-fields, wheel bearings, hubs etc.

The reason I ask is it may be easier and financially more beneficial to take a couple flex pics and put up the sky OTT, missing link, trussed housing and SPOA stuff ,all up for sale as a kit to someone that wants that sort of thing and starting again with a stock front axle. As you mentioned earlier where you live those mods are desirable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gwagensteve]

Samurai housings aren’t that plentiful in North America IIRC.

[Spokerider]

Gwagensteve wrote:

That’s not all that surprising, but with your current setup, that’s a lot of compromise for 5.5” of usable spring travel- stock samurai front springs have that much travel.

It’s normal for springs for SPOA applications to have relatively little free camber and a high rate, and you could use these springs as they are in a SPUA application, but you’d benefit from a softer spring with more free camber. The stability and reduced leverage of SPUA allows much lower spring rates for improved ride and flex.

Steve.

Can you give me an example of a softer spring than what I have now?
The 4 leaf yj "flat" springs....would they be a softer spring rate?
Other than buying OME's or Bonzeye......dunno if there are many other options in my parts.

[Spokerider]

vet 180 wrote:

How much do you have invested into the current front axle? I.e. locker, gearing, bird-fields, wheel bearings, hubs etc.

The reason I ask is it may be easier and financially more beneficial to take a couple flex pics and put up the sky OTT, missing link, trussed housing and SPOA stuff ,all up for sale as a kit to someone that wants that sort of thing and starting again with a stock front axle. As you mentioned earlier where you live those mods are desirable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lots invested......
Once I get the spua all dialed in, I'll have no need for the spoa parts.....so I'll re-home them to somebody.

[Spokerider]

What do you guys suggest for shock towers?

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/201441144 ... -l1000.jpg


As mentioned I have F250 shock towers, or...I could mod the Sky ones that I have and re use.

[Gwagensteve]

Firstly, to your springs.

You probably already have all the leaves you need to make packs up that will work. I'd play with what you have before you invest in new springs. I'd start with the 2" main and secondary leaves and see how the cars sits. if it rides soft but sits too low, you can have the springs reset for more lift, or even do it yourself if you have a press. IF that doesn't work you can progressively add leaves to get the height/ride where you want it. You can also play around with a leaf spring calculator. These are a little bit fiddly but interesting to work with. My guess is you'll find you want a spring rate around 125lb/" which is probably 50% lower than you have now, if not more. Lighter cars end up around 100lb/" a stock Samurai front is about twice that, which is part of the reason they don't sit far into their travel. A stock rear is 150lb/"

Going to OME Samuarai rear still requires tuning of the packs to get a good result and with the weight of your car I'd be unsure of what to recommend, and you'd have to make/buy new mounting bracketry, and start from scratch with axle location etc, and in theory, the longer YJ spring should work better.

If you can't get the existing YJ's to work, I'd buy OME YJ packs, but rest assured, you'll be pulling them apart to get them to work the way you want.


As for upper shock mounts, that's putting the cart before the horse. You don't know where your upper mounts will be because you don't know how much shock travel you need, what shock you'll run, or even exactly where the mount will be. Build the car without shocks and then, once you've fully cycled the suspension without shocks you'll have a travel figure (remembering to add 1" so you can't hard bottom the shock) then you can compare that to what you have, assuming they're the soft valving, or select something appropriate.

THEN you can work on mounts. The sky hoops *might* work. I've seen those F250 mounts and I don't like them. they really need bracing to the top of the rail as well as the face, and by the time you do that and then cut them up to get them in the right spot you're pretty much starting from scratch anyway. If you bolt them on like they are in the ford, you'll need to weld crush tubes into the chassis which is a huge pain.

It looks like you have quite a mix of material welded to your rails. I use 3mm/1/8" exclusively for welding doubling plates to the Suzuki chassis, which is only 2.5mm thick. I try to get onto two planes of the chassis with any bracket, and I don't weld across the corner of the rail. This stuff is mandated by the road authority approved engineers locally, who then sign off modified cars for legality.

I can't stress the importance of shock selection enough. SPUA Samurais barely need shocks at all (genuinely- they drive almost perfectly without them) due to their super light weight and the internal friction of the leaf springs. Using excessive shock valving will completely ruin the ride, regardless of how carefully spring rate was chosen. You might be considering using the Bilsteins you have now, but unless they have the soft valving you're never going to get the ride right - it will always be choppy.

Use this page to determine which valving you have:

https://www.shockwarehouse.com/site/bilstein_5125.cfm

the SKU is a partial Bilstein part # - for example, SKU 33-185552 is stamped on the shock body. and on the printed label ( I have one physically in front of me now)

Having the 170/60 valving is critical to suspension performance. The 225/70 isn't suitable for a leaf spring car.

The cheap Doetsch Tech shocks, along with OME N76 also have good valving, and as twin tube shocks, have slightly more travel for the same collapsed length as the 5100 series Bilstein, whish is a monotone shock with a floating piston, which eats up some space inside the shock.

Shock mounts really are the last step in the chain.

You can see the general arrangement of how I do front suspension in this photo.



This is RUF, 2" bump stop spacing, inboarded springs and bumps, Tracker power steering. OME N76 shocks on my mounts. The chassis extension is a little too long in this car, but this was built many years ago. It's still going strong. If we were building it now it would be built without the bumpstop spacing and with a shorter chassis extension to get the car closer to stock height.

[Spokerider]

Thanks for your advice Steve.

I have a few more questions please.

Leaf spring rate vs lift........I understand that I need a spring rate that provides enough flex for suspension compression and drop, yet a spring arc that provides the desired vehicle height while suspension is static / at rest. The spring pack I have now, is a 2" lift, aftermarket military wrap leaf for the main leaf, with the bottom 3 leaves being oem yj leaves from a 4 pack set. As mentioned, my zuk, with diesel and front bumper, is at 3.5" into the spring travel while at rest. Is this too stiff? Since I have not begun the spua conversion yet, I do not know at what height the zuk will sit with these spring packs, built as is. I don't know how many lbs compression per inch, they would be rated as is now. I do intend to add a receiver mounted winch when I go into the back 40 to hunt and explore, so that will be more weight. Ditto for the rear bumper......I will add a full sized spare tire, hi lift and 25L of fuel to the rear when off pavement. As a DD, I will not have / carry that that extra weight.
I do have a 10 ton press, so I could re-arc the leafs as needed.

Shocks......I have the Bilstein 185569. It appears that they are the 255 / 70 valving.
https://www.shockwarehouse.com/site/pro ... m?id=15026
That is NOT what I ordered [ on line ] but is what I received. Grrrrr. I wanted the 170 / 60 valving. Looks like new shocks will be needed.

Looking at your pic above, and the angle of the drag link. There is some angle there and it is not completely "flat". Do you get bump steer with it like that? Wondering if that is an acceptable DL angle, or if flatter is better......as i thot flatter was better.

Do you happen to know what the oem zuk taper is on the tie rod to drag link joint is? And, if you know of another TRE from some other vehicle that will work for that joint?
For my steering it would be nice to be able to keep the zuk tie rod and just make a new DL with an fj80 DRE on the pitman end and some other TRE for the other end that has threads to be screwed into DOM tube. Our motor vehicle laws prohibit welding on the steering here. If there is no easy alternative, I'll be making new tie rod and DL with DOM, and fj60 / fj80 TRE's and DRE's, and re-tapering the zuk knuckle holes for this.

Looking at your pic above, I see that the front shackles are vertical. Do you still have good suspension ride with essentially no forward angle to them?

Thank you.

[alien]

Don't forget that still needs a body dropped on it, so those springs are going to compress a fair bit with that extra weight.

[Gwagensteve]

I’ll respond tomorrow afternoon when I have some time Spokerider.

[Gwagensteve]

OK, back at home in front of a computer.


I'll preface this by saying that I think you have all the leaves you'll need to achieve the right result, but nobody can tell you exactly which ones to use. You'll have to work that out with some trial and error.

I'll try and step though each question.

We need to rephrase this as so:

Quote:

I understand that I need a spring rate that provides enough flex for suspension compression and drop, yet a spring arc that provides the desired vehicle height while suspension is static / at rest

Quote:

I understand that I need enough free camber to provide enough flex for suspension compression and droop, AND a spring rate that provides the sufficient compression travel when the vehicle is in motion at speed

The more spring rate - the less flex you'll have.

The more free camber the spring has- the more flex you'll have, so long as the rate is low enough you can reach the bump stops.

In my opinion, the desirable height at rest is as low as possible whilst maintaining adequate compression travel for the speeds you wish to travel.

The correct rate is the lowest rate that allows that minimum functional compression travel.

I know these are complex and interconnected factors. Thats why you could send yourself mad trying to research it out. So don't. Mock the suspension up with the 2" lifted main leaves you have They will provide sufficient travel. Then add leaves until you get the lowest ride height that permits enough compression travel. This will be an experiment and will take a little while to get right. You may even find you need a different mix of leaves right to left. (in our RHD cars we definitely do)

Quote:

Shocks......I have the Bilstein 185569. It appears that they are the 255 / 70 valving.
https://www.shockwarehouse.com/site/pro ... m?id=15026
That is NOT what I ordered [ on line ] but is what I received. Grrrrr. I wanted the 170 / 60 valving. Looks like new shocks will be needed.

Yes, those 255/70's will be terrible - You'll never achieve an acceptable ride. Ive run them with coils and they're still too stiff for a heavy Samurai. You MIGHT be able to run them in the rear if they're heavily inclined (which reduces effective rate) but you won't be able to get them under the car without putting them through the floor in a SPUA application in my opinion as they're so long. Id'd put shock choice to one side for the moment. Those 12" shocks will be a pain to mount - if you're reordering, you might find a 11 or 10" shock is plenty. It's easy to order over length so you're not leaving travel on the table, but in reality, an over-length shock is a bit of a problem - if the spring runs out of travel and the shock still has travel left, it can make the springs liable to bending when they're fully drooped and jammed into obstacles.

On to the questions about GregC's car.

Yes, the drag link is quite inclined. As Alien pointed out, the car is sitting much higher than it does with the body/ARB bar/cooling system/15 transmission coolers ( in joke) and those springs were brand new and hadn't been de-rated. Bump steer is not a significant issue with this car. Yes, flatter is indeed better, but there are limitations. With Samurai rear springs and a RUF, clearance between the tie rod and drag link is tight.

For reference, here is a car setup basically identically but with a (now impossible to find) tracker/sidekick drop pitman arm. (A now unavailable Calmini part... like everything else they "made") and the draglink angle is sweet. Except you can see the draglink has been touching the the rod.



and when the car is fully flexed... (sorry for the small image)



The drag link is now below the tie rod, making the drag link and sector shaft liable to damage on obstacles.

Your IFS pickup pitman arm will be just fine.

I don't know what the taper is on the Suzuki, sorry, but I think you have this

Quote:

keep the zuk tie rod and just make a new DL with an fj80 DRE on the pitman end and some other TRE for the other end

back to front. the TRE is pressed into the Samurai tie rod, the drag link has the tapered hole in it at the axle end. THAT's why I'm adverting replacing the tie rod with a COLISO unit. (If you ask nicely, I'm sure Greg will tell you what the part # is for the TRE's he uses) and then it's straightforward and exactly as you describe. Using the Suzuki tie rod isn't feasible unless you have a machine shop make you a new, longer drag link with a suzuki tapered hole at the axle end and a thread to accept a Toyota TRE at the box end, which seems excessively expensive and complex when you could use Toyota stuff throughout.

Quote:

Looking at your pic above, I see that the front shackles are vertical. Do you still have good suspension ride with essentially no forward angle to them?

Whilst the final angle ended up better once at full weight and with the springs flatter, yes, the extension is too long and as a result the spring hanger is too far forward. Part of the problem is that our engineering rules for road use don't permit the use of extended shackles, so we had to make shackle hangers work with stock shackle length. If we could engineer a 1" longer shackle the shackle angle would have ended up more like the car in the photo below, but the spring rate is so low that the shackle angle isn't a huge factor in ride quality. I think part of the reason cars with vertical shackles are considered having a terrible ride is it's normally associated with heavily arched "lift" springs and a suspension that's close to full droop at ride height. Thats not the case with Greg's car - see the bottom photo.


not that this car rode better - because it had very little compression travel at ride height.

However, you can see the range of shackle travel in this photo:

[Gwagensteve]

Oh and:

Quote:

I do intend to add a receiver mounted winch when I go into the back 40 to hunt and explore, so that will be more weight. Ditto for the rear bumper......I will add a full sized spare tire, hi lift and 25L of fuel to the rear when off pavement

Jeebus, that's going to be a heavy car.

A Samurai has 450kg/1000lb of payload and a GVM of 1350kg / 3000lb

That payload doesn't include the driver, any fluids, or fuel. Most of our SWB Samurais when packed for a trip are at or over GVM, with alloy G motors

Consider that whilst you've added torque with the diesel and can spring the car for any weight, that does't mean the chassis, wheel bearings, axlehousings, transfer case, and gearbox are up to all that extra weight to drag around, especially with the increased leverage and unsparing weight of heavy wheels and tyres and added torque of the diesel.

Just something to consider. Light Suzukis are reliable and capable.

Take that from someone who has a heavy Suzuki (who's trying to make lighter and lower)

Steve.

[Gwagensteve]

Oh a quick note about the silver car with the drop pitman arm. You'll note it has 2" bumpstop spacing, 2" over stock shackles, and doesn't have an engine in it.

We were concerned at the time that once properly settled, the drag link could end up below the tie rod at ride height

we were quite prepared we were going to have to take the drop pitman arm off in order to correct the draglink angle and prevent damage to the pitman arm/drag link/steering box.

[Spokerider]

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge Steve. It is helpful.
I'm just in the process of sourcing the FJ steering parts.

About those bump stops in your pics, what are they from? I like the pointed tips, for a "soft" bump before the suspension compression is totally stopped.

[Gwagensteve]

Standard Samurai front.

They're not especially soft.

I'm a bit confused by the TRE parts you're searching for. You need something like this kit

https://www.onlineautoparts.com.au/prod ... gJtsPD_BwE

otherwise you'll have no solution for the drag link to tie rod connection.

The 80 series doesn't have the combination tie rod end/drag link as the tie rod is behind the axle and the drag link is in front of the axle.

[Gwagensteve]

You'll need to ream the steering knuckles out using something like this

http://www.lowrangeoffroad.com/trail-ge ... 30324.html

and be aware that the land cruiser TRE's are quite bulky and can interfere with rim clearance.

[Gwagensteve]

Oh, and a note -I think you'll need a LHD version or the taper will be on the wrong side of the TRE on the tie rod. (I'm pretty sure I'm right about this)

[Spokerider]

Gwagensteve wrote:

Standard Samurai front.

They're not especially soft.

I'm a bit confused by the TRE parts you're searching for. You need something like this kit

https://www.onlineautoparts.com.au/prod ... gJtsPD_BwE

otherwise you'll have no solution for the drag link to tie rod connection.

The 80 series doesn't have the combination tie rod end/drag link as the tie rod is behind the axle and the drag link is in front of the axle.

Yes, I'm trying to buy this "555" brand kit from the USA. It is the FJ60 series kit for $108.
http://www.cruiseroutfitters.com/steering.html

I really only need the passenger side [ for me that's the right ] FJ60 tie rod with the drag link hole in it from that whole kit, and one FJ80 DRE. Even though they advertise selling single FJ60 TRE's they are all sold out, so it's the whole kit or nuttin.

Since I already have FJ 80 TREs.......yes, four of them......two LH thread and two RH thread, I figure I could either use an FJ80 tre in the drag link hole, the one in the tie rod, pretty sure the taper is the same 1.200" and the hole diameter is the same as an FJ80 hole. If it's not, I'll have that FJ80 reamer that I will be buying to put the correct taper in the hole for an FJ 80 TRE.
At the other end of the drag link, at the pitman arm, I need a DRE and not a TRE. An FJ80 DRE has the exact same taper and pin diameter as an FJ80 TRE. So a DRE WILL fit the FJ80 pitman arm that is on the zuk right now. The only difference between the fitment of the FJ80 DRE vs FJ80 TRE, is the thread size and pitch.
The TRE is M23 x 1.5 and thr DRE is M21 x 1.5"

It's the same with the FJ60 TRE's and DRE's.....the thread diameter and pitch are the same as the FJ80 parts.
Now, the FJ 60 DRE at the pitman end will ONLY fit the FJ60 pitman arm. The pin is too large for the FJ80 pitman that I have, and it's actually a ball joint and not a taper pin. I do have a FJ60 pitman, it's the un painted one, and with the most "drop" in my pics. So if I need a drop pitman, that FJ60 will be an option.


Getting back to FJ60 kits........they are not that common here in Canada. I can buy chinese knock off parts [ junk ], but don't wish to.
I've read that 555 brand is good, and so is Fuji brand, both are made in Japan and uses as an oem item part at the factory. There are chinese counterfit 555 parts.....junk. Not wanting chinese counterfit junk.
On ebay Canada, lots of Australian sellers of FJ60 kits come up. Cozza is one. Good quality or junk?
And this one;
https://www.ebay.com/itm/For-Toyota-Lan ... :rk:4:pf:0

Good or junk? For all I know, it could be oem toyota factory parts?

The other issue I'm trying to research is finding the M21 x 1.5" jamb nuts. LH thread and RH thread. If the kit does not come with them, I'll need to find them somewhere, but the thread diameter and pitch is very uncommon, and I have not found any such nuts to date.

[Spokerider]

Gwagensteve wrote:

Oh and:

Quote:

I do intend to add a receiver mounted winch when I go into the back 40 to hunt and explore, so that will be more weight. Ditto for the rear bumper......I will add a full sized spare tire, hi lift and 25L of fuel to the rear when off pavement

Jeebus, that's going to be a heavy car.

A Samurai has 450kg/1000lb of payload and a GVM of 1350kg / 3000lb

That payload doesn't include the driver, any fluids, or fuel. Most of our SWB Samurais when packed for a trip are at or over GVM, with alloy G motors

Consider that whilst you've added torque with the diesel and can spring the car for any weight, that does't mean the chassis, wheel bearings, axlehousings, transfer case, and gearbox are up to all that extra weight to drag around, especially with the increased leverage and unsparing weight of heavy wheels and tyres and added torque of the diesel.

Just something to consider. Light Suzukis are reliable and capable.

Take that from someone who has a heavy Suzuki (who's trying to make lighter and lower)

Steve.

Do you guys typically have a winch, heavier custom bumpers, carry a spare tire and have rock sliders? While out in a group of zuks, what you need to carry is less than when alone.
Yes, that's all added weight for my TT, but, since I'll be out alone when hunting or exploring, I need to be capable of self rescue

[Spokerider]

Gwagensteve wrote:

Oh, and a note -I think you'll need a LHD version or the taper will be on the wrong side of the TRE on the tie rod. (I'm pretty sure I'm right about this)

Yep, I need the LHD version of an FJ60 tie rod kit.

[Spokerider]

Gwagensteve wrote:

You'll need to ream the steering knuckles out using something like this

http://www.lowrangeoffroad.com/trail-ge ... 30324.html

and be aware that the land cruiser TRE's are quite bulky and can interfere with rim clearance.

Essentially, I'll be making the same steering as your Coliso guy sells.
Is there fitment issues with the TRE's and wheels with his kit?

[Gwagensteve]

I cab't comment on the quality of the respective TRE kits sorry.

This is an aside and not at all critical to you at the moment, but, as for weight - yes, our cars are all pretty much on or around GVM. Typically, for the cars we've measured, this is on ~33" tires, and a roll bar, a front bar, and typical load for a 4WDing trip. No extra fuel, no hilift, no camping equipment. We don't run rear bumpers, we don't run rear swing away tire carriers, rarely run spare tires, and relatively few of us run winches. We do carry tools and spare parts as we deem fit. That 450Kg gets eaten up crazy quick.

Some of the guys touring with Jimny's are nearly 400Kg OVER GVM.

You're not only (likely) over GVM, you're also probably running twice the factory torque and putting that into tires 17% over stock.

there's a lot of parts under the car that won't like that scenario.

You can't reduce your torque, and I'm sure you're unlikely to want to reduce tire size more, so the variable you have control to reduce load on the car is weight.

Many years ago we had a club member who ran a completely stripped out samurai with a stock 1.3, gears, RUF and 33" swampers. Didn't even have a passenger seat, no spare no bumpers, nothing. Outdrove everyone else on the trip.

Likewise, a club member has just swapped 35X13.5" Krawlers on steel beadlock rims for 35X10.5 KR2 race tires on beadlocked stock samurai rims. He's taken 70kg out of the weight of the car as a result.

I understand the concern about travelling alone and self recovery, but the old adage is true that if you take something you'll need it. I'm not sure if you've ever trail replaced a stock Samurai rear axle, but it's 3-4 hours of not much fun.

[vet 180]

Spokerider wrote:

Gwagensteve wrote:

Oh and:

Quote:

I do intend to add a receiver mounted winch when I go into the back 40 to hunt and explore, so that will be more weight. Ditto for the rear bumper......I will add a full sized spare tire, hi lift and 25L of fuel to the rear when off pavement

Jeebus, that's going to be a heavy car.

A Samurai has 450kg/1000lb of payload and a GVM of 1350kg / 3000lb

That payload doesn't include the driver, any fluids, or fuel. Most of our SWB Samurais when packed for a trip are at or over GVM, with alloy G motors

Consider that whilst you've added torque with the diesel and can spring the car for any weight, that does't mean the chassis, wheel bearings, axlehousings, transfer case, and gearbox are up to all that extra weight to drag around, especially with the increased leverage and unsparing weight of heavy wheels and tyres and added torque of the diesel.

Just something to consider. Light Suzukis are reliable and capable.

Take that from someone who has a heavy Suzuki (who's trying to make lighter and lower)

Steve.

Do you guys typically have a winch, heavier custom bumpers, carry a spare tire and have rock sliders? While out in a group of zuks, what you need to carry is less than when alone.
Yes, that's all added weight for my TT, but, since I'll be out alone when hunting or exploring, I need to be capable of self rescue

You will find a lot of guys on this forum will run a hand winch. Something like:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/8000-lb-Manual ... 2935727013

As it’s much lighter, cheaper and more reliable than an electric winch.

Regarding spare tire, a lot of guys carry a quality puncture repair kit, spare valves (where most tire issues originate from) and s can of tire foam. The ones that do run a spare run something tall, light and skinny to get them self out the shit only. The lighter the vehicle the less likely a puncture is. For sliders you will see a lot of guys incorporate the slider into the sil for clearance.

If you add up the weight benefit of just those few things mentioned:
No heavy front winch bar
No heavy front electric winch
No heavy full size spare
No heavy rear bumper with tire swing away carrier

You are looking at least 100kg. On a car that weighs 800kg to start with its well over 10% of the vehicles weight saved. Worth considering.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gwagensteve]

I'd massively advocate for a hand winch if you're exploring by yourself.

Here's an anecdote as to why.

A couple of years ago I put my car on it's side in a tight gully. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't drive the car back onto it's wheels. This isn't an unusual occurrence for me and where I like to drive, so it wasn't a cause for much concern. I assumed I'd just run out the electric winch, which I knew to be in good order, and right myself.

Except, the battery terminal was dirty/corroded, and when tapped the winch control to power out the first bit of line, the connector lost contact and the whole car died. Now I had a dead car (totally dead) on its side.

I couldn't push it over. The battery is under the passenger seat and was pretty inaccessible. At a pinch, I probably could have removed the passenger seat, cleaned the terminal, got the winch running, winched it over, then put the seat back, but that would have been a nightmare of a job.

As I wasn't alone on the property, a couple of club members drove over and helped out, but had I been alone, it would have been a nightmare of a job. (that's even if the winch could have righted the car - it might have just swung it across the track) ... or it would have taken 10 minutes to fix with a hand winch.

I've swapped to soft shackles, reworked a lot of my rear tray to 1.0mm sheet rather than 1.6 or 2mm, ditched my fuel tank skid and raised the tank to avoid needing one- my car is still a heavy pig, but I'm trying.

Rear bars with tire carriers on them are the #1 offender. they're ALWAYS stupid heavy.

[Gwagensteve]

The incident concerned. It was in there good.

[alien]

I love that you even tried to 'drive' out of that =)

[Spokerider]

I have one of these.......
https://www.honeybros.com/media/ecom/pr ... 8_main.jpg

Also have a good tire plug kit that goes with me.

By law, I do need to have a rear bumper of sorts....the tire carrier / swing away part of the rear bumper is not really much more weigh......maybe an extra 30 lbs

The front bumper I made is prolly close to 80 or 90 lbs in total. Never did weigh it. I did make it strong and heavy enough to winch and lift the vehicle up from.

In time, I may fab up some aluminum bumpers to lighten the rig......a good excuse to build more with the TIG.


About my wheels.......15 x 8 with 2.5" back set.....and the "tall" top hat version of the 2001 Tracker caliper discs that I have...... What would it take to put on 15 x 7 wheels, or even the oem zuk wheels? The less-tall Tracker rotors?

Can 31" x 10.5 be "successfully" be used on the oem narrow zuk wheels?

[alien]

31x10.5 require a 7" rim minimum without using bead locks. Stock is 5.5"!

[Gwagensteve]

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been a but busy.

OK, I had another look at the COLISO steering, and no, it doesn't look like it will cause interference regardless of rim backspacing so long as the rim is fairly conventional. I'm sure there's some extra bulk around the TRE if the rim is extra thick and has lots of backspacing.

On to the weight thing - I know we're well off topic now, but I think low weight is intrinsic in the way we build Suzuki's to get the best out of them.

Your hand winch is more than adequate. No need to take another piece of gear that's less versatile.

Yes, I'm sure you need a rear bumper by law. The standard rear bumper weighs very little. With a 16X4.5" rim and 6.50 16 NDT on the back door, you have an aggressive trail spare that's the weight and width the rear door was designed to support, in the event you have a non-repairable tyre failure, and a 6.50 is close enough to a 31 in diameter it will work fine to get you home in an emergency. They're also a tube tire, giving you another level of repairability.

90lb for a front bumper is crazy heavy. I just weighed my front winch bar, and it's 44lb. an ARB winch bar is 52lb. I think my front bar is too heavy (too much 5mm in it) but it does also form my front clip mounts and support a winch. The problem with making things that bolt into a Samurai strong and heavy is that the car isn't - sooner or later all that steel is bolted to a 2.5mm thick chassis which you can flex easily with a pinch bar in the front rail, so you're just transmitting the force down the line to some weak spot.

On to your rims-

You don't have tall hats, you have shallow hats, that's where the interference is coming from. To use rims with more backspacing you'll need rotors with a taller hat (more offset from the mounting face to the rotor. These will require the corresponding calliper. I don't now what you got in your market - there is obviously some difference from what we got. Perhaps Fordem could help determining part # for the North American market.

As Alien points out, you need 7" rims to run a 10.5" tire. shoot for around 3.5" BS.

[fordem]

Gwagensteve wrote:

Perhaps Fordem could help determining part # for the North American market.

I can look up part numbers, but they don't provide any detail on hat height - if you say the rotor for this Suzuki is taller than this one - I can look up the part number on the Aussie side and see if it was used on the US side.