[Hybrid]

Why not try pulling the body lift out and see how that feels? That's the easiest option. It was the best thing I did for mine as far as stability goes. On and off road. Lower center of gravity, same amount of articulation. Looks tougher when the wheels tuck up into the guards too

[607CHA]

Body lifts helps with engine clearance, raised fuel tank, raised shock bar, roctoy ring.

Edit: front and rear bar are made to suit.

[Hybrid]

Fair enough.

[got_bar_work]

You could try inboarding the bump stop more
Or go to nt spring spacing

[607CHA]

What's inboarding mean?

[shep]

easier to trim the bump stop then to move it.


just cut it in half and see how it goes

[ablouse]

neofitou wrote:

I vote take out the body lift and get lockers.

X2

[atari4x4]

607CHA wrote:

What's inboarding mean?

the opposite of outboarding

moving the bumpstops closer in on the chassis.

[607CHA]

Would love lockers bit outta the price range atm. gonna chop bump stops. and go from there. can't remove body lift cause to much relying on it.

[Gwagensteve]

607CHA - don't cut your bumpstops.

How do you figure there is an extra 20mm of travel? is that from tip of bumpstop to the bumpstop land on the axle? Shocks should NEVER be able to bottom out. If they do, they will break the mounts off the chassis/axle. When I build shock mounts and place bumpstops, I always allow 25mm when the axle is hard on the bumpstop. that's to allow for the bumpstop to squish up, and they quash up WAY more than you think.

In any case, they are arguably not big enough in the first place. They are supposed to be progressive so that when you hit them hard they squish, slow down the axle and protect the axle etc from bending. Cutting them down will prevent this from happening.

As has been mentioned, over compressing your springs isn't a great idea either. 2" shackles over compress the springs 25mm. If you ran 2" shackles and cut the bumpstops you're going to be over compressing the springs nearly 50mm, and that will stuff them.

You talk to 60mm of clearance - is that between the top of the inner guard and the rear tyre when fully articulated? sure, that's normal. You've BL'ed with small tyres, and the rear arch isn't where the clearance problems are - it's quite possible to run 34's in the rear with a 2' bl and the tyre won't hit the inner guard.

I say don't worry about the "lost" 20mm - you never had it in the first place. the way to gain travel is downwards, and 3/4 elliptic, longer springs, longer shocks, longer shackles etc all help with that. Cutting bumpstops isn't how to do it.

I fully support in boarding though. To do it on the rear without moving all the spring hangers/pads inboard though will require running a front stop on the rear on a custom bracket. That's because the rear stop is on the axle.

This is a rear bumpstop land in boarded and dropped 2" to run big tyres, with the stock rear bumpstop removed and a front stop fitted.



Bumpstops are your friend. Inboarding 'stops adds leverage and improves articulation.

Steve.

[607CHA]

I was under my zook for 45min today until i fell asleep lol. but with the 3/4 elip it confuses me on how to do it. wouldn't the leaf used be sitting where the bumpstops hits. The shocks arnet a problem at the moment as i need to cut my shock bar on and move it up to make my shocks work.
With the 16" travel shocks it should still have 100mm spare when fully compressed.

Does anyone near morayfield qld have the 3/4 set up if could check out or come for a ride in.

[Gwagensteve]

Yes, the spring plate for the 3/4 will be where the existing bumpstop bracket is. That's why It works best with NT spring spacing.

Bumpstops are best kept as the stock "on the axle" style with a new land welded to the 3/4 spring plate.

Anything with sierra based springs doesn't need 16" travel shocks. Get the suspension working and buy shocks to suit. It's no bad thing to have the shocks limit droop a little because it stops everything flopping around.

Steve.

[boostedbrick]

With my 3/4 mount it now acts as the spot for the bump to hit. I removed the old upper bump and replaced it with 3/4 bracket in pretty much the same spot. You may want to use shocks to limit droop as you will start getting too much lateral movement at a certain point.. But if you don't go crazy with the shackle size and upper spring length this shouldn't become an issue I presume. Gwagensteve is spot on about NT spacing, would make it very easy to do..

[ablouse]

I forgot about the wt spacing mine is nt

[607CHA]

Ill have another look under today. will the top leaf from the front pack work

[boostedbrick]

Yep.

[607CHA]

Sweet. now to find where i put them.

[Gwagensteve]

607CHA - I see you've got all excited about 3/4 elliptic. You do realise it's not going to make any difference to your existing problem, It's only going to create a heap more?

Shock mounts, Shock length, shock choice, axle wrap, shackle length and angle, bump stop location all have to be addressed, along with the fact your car will be 100% illegal once it's done unless you seek engineer approval due to mounts being cut off/chassis work.

At the moment your car is legal(ish) and easy to put back to stock. That's not the case once you cut sick with a 3/4, and I'm not really even sure if you know why you are doing it.

Yes, it adds droop. Did you need droop in the rear? Is the lack of rear droop causing you problems?

A did 3/4 Elliptic on ablouse's car about 12 years go when it was owned by Grimbo. It ran VERY long Rancho shocks, which I see are no longer on it. I built one other car 3/4 and then pretty much forgot about it because it's not the be all and end all - the "lost" travel of not going 3/4 is more than made up by having a car that's stable and follows it's rear end when climbing.

It can be useful for balancing out a very flex front end (Ruf) but with a stock front end and no lockers it's likely to create a floppy, pig-rooty mess in the bush, even if it looks like a champ when flexed up.

There's more to getting a car to work than droop.

Steve.

[607CHA]

I see what your saying. Being legal really isn't a problem as it already is. with ruf, 16a, chopped out standard shock mount, welded in new mount, vitara tank conversion.

Im just looking to match the rear with the very capable front and since i have spare front packs that can be used it seems cheaper than lockers.

Really i'd just be happy with just another inch of up and down travel.

I know i could just do narrow track spacings but thats more work than i wanna have to do on this one.

[607CHA]

I see what your saying. Being legal really isn't a problem as it already is. with ruf, 16a, chopped out standard shock mount, welded in new mount, vitara tank conversion.

Im just looking to match the rear with the very capable front and since i have spare front packs that can be used it seems cheaper than lockers.

Really i'd just be happy with just another inch of up and down travel.

I know i could just do narrow track spacings but thats more work than i wanna have to do on this one.

[Gwagensteve]

You aren't going to gain any more up travel than you have now regardless of the suspension set up you do - all the gain is in droop. The way to gain up travel is with spring lift.

3/4 Elliptic isn't much different than narrow tracking the rear springs in all honesty, and I'd start with narrow tracking before I did 3/4 because of how much cleaner it is when finished and for the reduction in roll stiffness.

Steve.

[607CHA]

Alot to think about thanks Steve.