[MrRocky]

So i realise alot of you on here have jimnys now.
I wheel with quite a few of varying spec levels and would really like to have a go at modding one but theres one thing stopping me....
Every "kit" or "lift" seems to be absolute garbage as do 90% of the aftermarket bits. Nothing seems to fit as described and components flog out quickly, sub 500km in some castor bushes case.
How can it be that no one has put together a package that just works ?
I want to like them and have a go at one but all i see is money pits and junk parts on a car barely designed to last with standard gear.

tell me im wrong please ?

[Gwagensteve]

MrRocky wrote:

on a car barely designed to last with standard gear.

There's your answer.

They aren't durable enough standard. Too much vulnerable bodywork and too small wheel arches. Front suspension that wasn't designed for any lift or with any engineering headroom.

If the car is high enough to require caster bushes its too tall for the front suspension to work properly.

I too would like to build one but I fundamentally don't think I could achieve an outcome I'd be happy with.

Steve.

[watermouse]

WIth Suzukis early PR disaster in the states I don't think they designed any car with lift in mind.
RUF certainly isn't pre-considered from factory and is our defacto standard for improving the front end of a Sierra.

I think if anyone put as much effort into a Jimny has you have put in to Piggles, Steve, they would probably be pretty happy with it.

FWIW I put Ridepro suspension bits with caster bushes in my Jimny in 2008 and it did exceptionally well for 6 years until I sold it. Yes, there were some issues down the line. I snapped a shock bracket off the front housing but fixed, reinforced and it didn't bother me again.

Who hasn't done this kind of thing to a Sierra to make it more capable and reliable?

I am not saying a Jimny will ever be better than a Sierra mod for mod but there is nothing stopping a Jimny from being built strong enough to be reliable, capable and just as much fun.

[Gwagensteve]

There is watermouse- it's the bulk of the body and the size of the guards. That forces the owner to run more lift and sustain more damage to run the same tyre and run the same terrain as a Sierra.

If I had put the same work into a jimny I'd put into Piggles it would have been totalled by now from all the flops.

[MrRocky]

All the susp kits claim to fit 31"s but guys i wheel with still scrubbing 235's hard even after guard chop. The rear seems to work awsome and would probably be awsome in a sierra but that front susp seems to leave the car unbalanced and unreliable.
These days i prefer a bit of an allrounder but just seems impossible with the jims. Who knows might play with an early g series jim down the track

[Gwagensteve]

Suspension lift doesn't fit bigger tyres? Who would have thought!

[monley]

Best handling/stable jimny ive been in was Kyles old one. 2" BL 31s standard springs with OME shocks, mini spool rear and auto t-case (from memory). This is the path id go down if i was to build another Jimmy. It was simple enough to still be reliable and surprisingly enough even kyle didnt break much

[Gwagensteve]

^this sounds pretty decent.

[Jezza86]

that's close to where i'm at now, 2" BL, stock springs, but 30"s don't limit your up travel or foul the shock. spring mount on the chassis. running a auto transfer but also have the TJ 27% gears for the manual transfer.

a manual transfer, with the tj 27% gears will mean i can do 100kph below vvt kick in rpm's in 5th. if i use the spedo ring off the auto transfer the spedo reads correct with 30's and the 4.3 diffs

cap locker and full float with disk breaks are going into the spare axle housing and diff once i have cap locker instructions

think with a AW4 it would be the best it could be without breaking a stock CV


edit: but guards are chopped up and the firewall bashed so the 30's don't touch at all, need longer control arms or some pretty small 31's!

[Gwagensteve]

I'll be the first to admit that I have limited experience with Jimny's, but from what I've seen the driveline can *just* handle a 30" tyre in local conditions. Step up to a 32 (235/85/16) and pretty much every driveline component behaves like it's made of glass.

There's a build being planned in Vic currently based on 35" Krawlers at very low lift. its going to be very interesting to follow, but I believe it's going to be based on Vitara rear housings front and rear and completely revised suspension geometry.

I agree that the rear suspension seems to work quite well - my issue with the rear is the high COG because of all that glass and bodywork. The front is a disaster, coils that almost bind stock, excessive roll stiffness, marginal caster, bendy arms, bendy housing, tiny diff gears. The very short front end and deep headlights mean the measurement between the bottom edge of the firewall and the back edge of the headlight is smaller than a Sierra and much more complex to refabricate. These are significant design issues that most owners are unable or unwilling to address on cars which are still reasonably new and valuable.

[tanshi]

Just ask Josh why he parted his Jimny out and went back to a sierra.

[Gwagensteve]

Jimny's are light duty urban vehicles. They happen to have live axles because it was the cheapest way for Suzuki to engineer that car in the mid 90's when they started. That's no longer the case and live axles, even as light as they are in a Jimny, will always be inferior for ride and handling.

Reminds me of the guy that wouldn't shut up about the "military heritage " of the first gen Kia Sportage. He claimed this made it superior to the Vitara. He was right insomuch as Kia rearranged some old parts to quickly produce a midsize 4WD wagon. That doesn't "military heritage" make. Likewise, the fact a Jimny has live axles doesn't make it a rugged 4WD.

I'm very surprised at the low km's parts fail at even on mildly built Jimny's. Some of this might be due to how far over GVM they end up, but 30,000km out of transfer cases and wheel bearings isn't anything to write home about.

Steve.

[sideways]

Gwagensteve wrote:

coils that almost bind stock

Steve, you say this a lot but I disagree.

I measured around/average 9mm gap between the coils on the compressed side on the bumpstop (flexed up with swaybar/shock pulled which gives as much travel as the shock towers have potential for). That's roughly 61mm of extra compression before bind. That leaves quite a lot of headroom for more turns and/or thicker coils, I don't think it's an issue unless you're trying to cram a massively longer custom coil in there, but that would be an issue in most 4WDs and unless you're 3 linking it you probably aren't going to get the travel to justify those coils anyway.

To add to your list of Jimny front end issues, the shock towers are very short. There's even (slightly) less space than a Sierra.

[Jezza86]

ive got 40000 with nothing broken, but i dod do a set of rear wheel bearings as i treated it like a boat before i had diff breathers...

[Gwagensteve]

sideways wrote:

Gwagensteve wrote:

coils that almost bind stock

Steve, you say this a lot but I disagree.

Basing this on OME equipped cars that basically never reach the bumpstop even when reversed up a ramp, and the photos of cars running 80mm lift springs both visually, go perilously close to bind/or actually do bind in my opinion.

I'm sure stock springs don't bind, but add an extra turn and an extra millimetre of wire diameter and that 61mm will get eaten into a fair bit.

I also think it's why the 80mm springs have a reputation for "settling" A coil that's been scragged can't "settle" unless it's being bound.

The options seem to be a very long soft spring and loose compression travel or a short spring with high rate which can't fully compress anyway.

It's a road biased suspension design with a short free length for the available travel which results in heavy compromise when increased rate or ride height are required.

[monley]

Some 80mm coil pics with 30mm spacer

[Seth2013]

my suspension doesn't bind - tires take out the body work way before that happens . (235 x 75 BUT on 15 x 8 rims -13 offset)

. . The Jimny is a product of market research - people don't care about a capable, compact and robust 4x4 anymore, and for the most part its true, hence the well selling ford ecosportboost whatever or that new mazda cx-mini-crap, compared to these two the jimny is built like a tank.

I agree the guards are the biggest issue, but there isn't a kit or decent looking bolt on aftermarket kit out there (except the ebay one - but not a fan). and again market research says why would you develop such a thing or for that matter anything for a jimny - everyone who buys a suzuki jjimny doesn't do it because they have unlimited money ( unlike developing a product for say a dual cab landcruiser).

my opinion of a very solid jimny would be a twin locked, auto transfer case 1 inch lift and 215 tyres on some rims with a tad more offset than stock.

Still I love my death wobbling - flare eating - clicks everytime it articulates - vibrates from the sierra transfer case change - ac that only works on fan speed 2 - gutless, Jimny. And on the positive side - I'll never be bored because I will always have something to fix

[greenzook89]

tanshi wrote:

Just ask Josh why he parted his Jimny out and went back to a sierra.

^this. Wilso and I were talking about this very thing the other day.

[Marko_SJ]

Last bloke with a Jimny I wheeled with threw rocks at my car declaring that "sierras are cheating".

I thought it was pretty funny.

[MrRocky]

Twin locked with baby 215 tyres isnt very capable first set of small ruts your screwed and the underbody/transfer/susp arms would be obliterated on rocks. Even the new gv (06+) fits 30.7" tyres with no lift required and has room, power, comfort and traction control.

[Gwagensteve]

215's suck. They're too small for Victoria by about three inches.

[vet 180]

I find that with Jimny's you either have to go all out or keep it pretty basic. I was looking for a long time for a cheap jim to build, I ended up buying new and deciding I will keep it simple.

I was considering 30's or 31's and gearing, but came to the conclusion that the snowball starts rolling pretty fast. One thing I don't like about most modded jims or even the kits I see is they are all too high. The jim in stock form is a tall skinny car, why people like 4inch of suspension lift and sometimes a body lift on top of that is beyond me. When i eventually do lift mine it will be 2 inchs MAX and wouldn't mind less than that. The jim has very good breakover and departure angles stock so it doesn't need a lot of lift. If you want to mod a Jim you have to be willing to hack guards and body. The guards just don't fit much stock.

The most rewarding jimny's seem to be simple builds. I think stock on 215/75R15 MT/AT's and everything else stock will be the most rewarding jim set-ups you can own. It wont be the most capable car ever, but will go a lot of places, last forever and be a crap load of fun in the process.

My eventual build will consist of 215/80R15 AT (28.5 inch) tires. I just hope they can fit in the guards as i have not found any information.
max 2 inch suspension lift, but might go lower, would even consider stock springs and longer shocks if I can make it work
And just go out and have fun.

This will provide around 1.5inchs of extra diff clearance once deflated (due to sturdier carcass of AT/MT's) and around 3 inches of extra chassis clearance, without compromising too much.

Steeping up to 31's to try and achieve that extra 1-1.5 of diff clearance (over the aforementioned set-up) really isn't worth the headache of compromised suspension design or hacked guards, expensive gearing, broken axles for myself as I also want the car as a reliable daily. But doesn't mean people haven't made it work before. I remember a build on here running 32's on stock height. If your willing to cut the guards they can be made capable

[vet 180]

MrRocky wrote:

Twin locked with baby 215 tyres isnt very capable first set of small ruts your screwed and the underbody/transfer/susp arms would be obliterated on rocks. Even the new gv (06+) fits 30.7" tyres with no lift required and has room, power, comfort and traction control.

This may be true, but a Jimny in stock form will have better approach, departure and breakover angles than a 06+ vit on 31's. It will also have much better articulation. So as long as you pick your line so you don't smash your underbody you will go a lot further with a stock Jimny than a vit on 31's.

Gwagensteve wrote:

.

I agree that the rear suspension seems to work quite well - my issue with the rear is the high COG because of all that glass and bodywork. The front is a disaster, coils that almost bind stock, excessive roll stiffness, marginal caster, bendy arms, bendy housing, tiny diff gears. The very short front end and deep headlights mean the measurement between the bottom edge of the firewall and the back edge of the headlight is smaller than a Sierra and much more complex to refabricate. These are significant design issues that most owners are unable or unwilling to address on cars which are still reasonably new and valuable.

I know its not the case in Australia, but over here i have not found a Sierra cheaper than a Jimny. In fact most are more that the new Jimny I just bought.....They are already considered a classic here and would probably get more attention on road than a G63!

[MrRocky]

I would say a stock swb ngv vitara on 245/75r16 tyres would be alot more capable than a stock jim. I wheeled our 2010 2dr vit and it went furtger than many locked larger rigs. The traction control works well on the rough stuff snd aproch/depatrure angles are quite good.
they may not flex but they are stable and can maintain hwy speed in top gear with a tyre size increase.

[vet 180]

MrRocky wrote:

I would say a stock swb ngv vitara on 245/75r16 tyres would be alot more capable than a stock jim. I wheeled our 2010 2dr vit and it went furtger than many locked larger rigs. The traction control works well on the rough stuff snd aproch/depatrure angles are quite good.
they may not flex but they are stable and can maintain hwy speed in top gear with a tyre size increase.

Cool rig!!! I was recently debating between the SWB vit and a new Jim. It was a hard decision. Went the jim in the end, has no issue holding highway speed, I do 120kph for long stints and had it up to 147kph. I went the Jim because the 2015 model gets the what I assume to be the same traction control as the vitara's.

[JuniorJoel]

I like to think that one can be made reasonably reliable and a half decent performer. Im running 33x10.5's on mine, 6.5's, fair bit of cutting and hammering of guards and a lot of bump stop extension and along as your willing to work around things anything is possible. But like everyone says you have lots of panels, not much wheel arch to work with but along as your keen with a grinder and a persuader (hammer) you can make bigger tyres fit.

[top jimny]

monley wrote:

...standard springs with OME shocks...

Can you run +40 mm OME shocks on stock springs? How is the ride? No bottoming out?

cheers

[vet 180]

top jimny wrote:

monley wrote:

...standard springs with OME shocks...

Can you run +40 mm OME shocks on stock springs? How is the ride? No bottoming out?

cheers

Or the springs going loose.

[Jezza86]

or falling out all together.

[greenzook89]

JuniorJoel wrote:

I like to think that one can be made reasonably reliable and a half decent performer. Im running 33x10.5's on mine, 6.5's, fair bit of cutting and hammering of guards and a lot of bump stop extension and along as your willing to work around things anything is possible. But like everyone says you have lots of panels, not much wheel arch to work with but along as your keen with a grinder and a persuader (hammer) you can make bigger tyres fit.

I think it largely depends on what model of Jim you have aswell. then there is also the fact people put on a TD 4 inch lift and think they have an instant comp truck

My ideal Jimny build would be 30s, twin locked, auto tcase... pretty much jimny_timmy's rig without all the aeroplane mode