Ironhead, he's Italian. Probably has more hair than an ape. That doesn't excite me.


If there are parts you don't understand ... please ask. The whole purpose of this thread is to teach, learn, and create discussion. Not everyone gets things the first time --- that's why you need to ask who/what/when/where/why/how



Joe

 

Hey Joe, I was just joking. I'm basically up to speed with everything you're doing (really interesting stuff) but everytime you post, and I mean EVERYTIME, we gotta wait for fantic to put his two cents in and then it goes back and forth and so on.

Just making an observation.

Carry on, guys!!!

 

Ahhhhh !



You'll have to take it up with Stef ..... he is the group know it all.



His aluminum contributions are intriguing tho ..... has me thinking away from 7075 and more towards 2024 (when the time comes). So he is serving some purpose.



Joe

 

You know what you should do with the aluminum bar? That would certainly excite you.

 

Only if it's chilled first.



Now please let me finish mowing the lawn




Joe

 

This thread would be boring without my 2 cents...

 

True, true.

 

Now that Fantic is finally done posturing .... I am going to resume posting here.



At this moment in time ... the crossmember is built enough that I can proceed to the next area ( At a later date, I will continue to build the crossmember and make some mods).


What to build ... what to build?



The arms !!







2 inch .250 wall DOM










Ballistic is now offering their forged joints in replacement for their old welded stud joints. Very nice stuff. My only gripe is they are a bit bulky. Nothing a bit of sanding can't fix.


Side by Side comparison of stock and sanded joints.

 

Here is a side shot of the Jimmy joint. You can see how the extra exposed centering ball allows for lots of articulation/deflection.






I mentioned a few posts up that I had a new centering ball machined. Despite all the cutting .... I still have 2 degrees more movement than any of the regular sized flex joints available. Only thing I lose was more money.







I chose to use the OE Factory lower control arm bushings to start this project. Mainly because, if I decide to switch to double joints .... I can easily lop off the extra length and install another joint. You can't easily add an extra 3 inches of tubing. Rubicon Express had a 1st generation arm that used the factory bushings. Great idea ... but the sleeve/wall material was too thin. Almost impossible to press out. So i decided to make my own sleeve that would allow me to press them out safely without fear of the arm slipping off the blocks.








Top arm .... 1st generation Rubicon Express Arm. Middle Arm .... EMF Double Jointed Arm. Bottom Arm .... EMF Long Arm for Project Tech Snob







And this is how the arms *roughly* look mounted to the crossmember ....

 

Please keep in mind that I would like to eventually switch to solid alum arms.


I just haven't taken the time to determine all the differences between 2024 and 7075 series aluminum. I'm guessing the main difference is the amount of elasticity and retention memory from minor bends.



I'll look into that more when I have a clear head.



Joe

 

I also wanted to throw some information out there. This project has not been trouble free by any stretch. I have screw-ups just like anyone else, despite being above / beyond mere mortals like you.



Shall I prove it ? With pleasure.


Below are the only brackets I had professionally cut. I drew them up with my old drafting tools and then transferred the measurements to CAD with some help (rusty with the program). Then had someone cut everything for me. They did an excellent job with what they were given.






So what's the problem? I didn't quite shape them right because of the different lengths (to make a 10° bracket).






The bottom side isn't as bad .... so I left them alone for now.







Welded up with the arm bolted in.







As with all my other tabs ... I made sure that any kind of joint would not hang below when it was articulated. This will allow me to run a flat skid completely underneath without interference. At the moment, I am running bushings and therefore will not have contact issues. However, I may change to joints later on and would like to be prepared.


The tabs are 1/4 thick and my "skids" will also be the same thickness. This will allow me to tie everything together to increase the rigidity of the assembly and withstand sideways impacts. I'm sure it is not difficult to notice the large size of the tabs. The LCA tabs will serve as the lower mounting points for my shocks. I wanted to make sure I had sufficient material to weld on 2 triangular tabs (later on) for the mounts.


Another thing I have done is relocated the LCA placement. I have already mentioned that the LCAs sit at 10° based on the suspension design I have chosen. However, I have also rotated the bolt center up and inwards. That is ... the bolt (and bushing/joint) sit correspondingly higher than stock and closer to the axle tube than stock.


Done by itself .. this will alter your suspension geomtetry and create some potentially unpleasant side effects (in particular, brake dive). However, since I incorporated this with the rest of the suspension, I accounted for this characteristic.


How much clearance did I gain?


Well ... a friend with a TJ on 37s stopped by. He measures 13.75 from the ground to the centerline of his LCA bolt. My setup measured just over 14.5 inches to the centerline of the LCA bolt. With 33s.


This setup is not completely flush with the tube. Anyone that looks can still see the LCA bracket sloping down from the tube. However, it's at a much shallower angle and doesn't drop as far down.


Don't worry folks ... there are plenty more mistakes ahead !

 

Let's change directions a bit, shall we ?



Track bar & steering mods have to go hand-in-hand on a Jeep. This is due to the direct affect they have on each other through their paths of travel.

On an ideal Jeep (like mine for instance ) the track bar and steering draglink sit at the same angle. This is judged by the end-to-end measurements, with no regards to the amounts or shapes of bends in the material. Additionally, both the draglink & track bar should be in the same plane. By this, I mean that they should both be about the same height. Your TRE at the pitman should be the same height as the joint/bushing of your track bar. And the axle end of your track bar should be blocked (from head on view) by the draglink. The last criteria (and often the hardest) is to try to get the draglink & track bar the same length. If this is not possible (depending on how you choose to mount everything) .... then one should attempt to make the bar as long as they can. The longer the arc, the less movement occurs at the pivot point. This will help to reduce any additional steering feedback and better controls your axle's path of travel.


There are many ways to build a steering system, perhaps too many ways. Inverted T, Inverted Y, and crossover are the most common styles (besides any kind of hydraulic ram setup). Each style has their pros & cons. I chose the inverted T setup, to be mounted on the top of the steering knuckle arm. Some of the reasons I chose this route: Higher clearance, commonly available parts, and retains the use of TREs.

One commonly noted drawback of this setup is "TRE roll" which means the instead of steering force being transmitted directly to the knuckle, some of it is wasted in the joint of the TRE. Once the joint's travel is exceeded, then the steering force is re-transmitted to the knuckle. This roll occurs in 2 places. One place is the Right Side TRE (at the knuckle) and the other is the TRE (from your draglink) where it attaches the the Right Side TRE. Often, this leads to a vague or dead spot in your steering. The higher your lift amount, the more pronounced the effect.


The passenger side TRE roll is mainly an issue related to the design itself. The TRE in question is actually from a Full Size Chevy pickup (with an attaching point for a steering stablizer). On the Chevy design, it only moves in a push/pull relationship with no sideways forces acting on it. When used in our applications, it's receiving an angled push from the draglink ... thus creating roll. The issue is further compounded by the steering arm itself. The Jeep steering arm is thinner than the Chevy one. As such, there is a larger gap created between the top of the arm and the bottom of the TRE. The smaller you can make the gap, the less roll you will have.


On the other end of the scale, we have some roll on the draglink. This is simply a matter the direction of the force applied by the pitman arm. The draglink drops as it goes from the pitman to the knuckle .... therefore, the force is both pushing down and out. The simple way to correct this is to change the angle. That can be done by means of: Less lift, drop pitman arm, high steer arms.



Tired of reading?


GOOD

 

Now that you have finished reading that long diatribe, you may look at the pretty pictures.



For my setup, I have chosen the OTK (over the knuckle) inverted T arrangement. As I am using Chevy steering knuckles, I do not anticipate the roll issues associated with the RH tie rod end (by virtue of thicker arm and supplied bumper/boot from Moog). I hesitate to say "will not" because it tends to bite me later on.







Because the track bar and steering systems work together ... I skipped back & forth between the two while building them. By now, everyone has seen my "new" design for the UCA mount. Looks great, doesn't it? Until you put the track bar mount on.







At almost full stuff (driver side) .... it's going to hit






During my research time, I anticipated raising the track bar mount at the frame end. Mainly because the axle end was raised as well (remember, keep it parallel). However, another reason for the raised track bar is to increase the roll center of your vehicle. A slightly higher roll center assists in countering the tippy feeling of a flop (when wheeling). It just so happened that I needed to raise the track bar to clear the truss. Dumb luck, I guess.










Cleaned the bracket of rust. Scored the trimming mark. Drilled the hole higher. The two extra holes you see are for a track bar brace that reaches over to the passenger side frame rail. The bracket is a Rubicon Express HD unit.






The particular axle end bracket I used requires a flex joint instead of a bushing (for the track bar). I had Rubicon Express send me one of their "small" SuperFlex joints, but with a 1/2 inch bolt instead of the usual 10 mm. Extra strength is always good, right? The RE HD track bar was cut slightly shorter because of the bracket relocation. If you notice in the picture, the bar has also been rotated. The bend normally comes straight down. I chose to have it sweep out and down. This helps ensure nothing contacts the track bar, as I pushed the axle forward just over 1 inch. Some creative cutting with a notcher was all that was required.

 

The track bar bracket has been cut, drilled, shaped up and remounted to the frame. Big difference in clearance.


Take note of the pitman arm. It's almost flat. Based on the height/climb of the track bar .... that was all I needed. It's also worth noting that the pitman arm is longer than factory. Your steering has a ratio between the pitman arm and the steering arm/knuckle. Often, when people swap in a different axle, the knuckles are longer than the factory ones. A lot of folks forget to change the pitman arm as well ... and then they report loss of turning radius, higher steering effort, and so on & so forth.



This particular arm is from a late 70s FS Wagoneer.









Here are some mounted up shots of the setup. This is not at "ride height"













If you compare the last shot to all the drivel I posted earlier ..... you can take notes as to what I did (and didn't) do.


1) Steering draglink & Track bar are parallel. I'm good there.


2) Steering draglink & track bar are almost in the same plane. It's closer than it looks in the pictures. I'm pretty good there (but not perfect)


3) Steering draglink & track bar are not the same length. Space constrictions did not allow me to make the bar any longer. The coil spring was in the way at the axle end of the bar. And I could not relocate the frame bracket out any further, because it would hit the driver side coil. Not so hot on this one.



Just goes to show you how everything is a compromise.

 

For the most part, I can say the front is done for the time being. There will be tweaks and corrections that I will post later. But for the sake of everyone reading this thread (and gripping their seats in anticipation) .... I will continue ahead.


One of the great things about the traditional hub/lockout assemblies is the ability to "unlock" and drive home if you destroy a front shaft. Because the spindle is supporting the vehicle weight (rather than the unit bearing & front outter stub) .... it is much quicker & easier to remove broken parts.



But a nagging thought kept coming to me. What about the rear? I've only seen a few rear shafts let go in that capacity. Busted C clips are one example of a potential failure. Twisted splines are another. Outright breakage is another story.


Whatever the case may be ... a busted rear shaft can stop things in a hurry because the shaft is transmitting rotational torque *and* holding up the vehicle. So what to do?


I liked the idea of the full floating setups seen on fullsize pickups. Like the front, the hub rides on its own spindle. Therefore, all the axleshaft does is transmit torque for forward (or rearward) motion. Only 2 caveats. 1) Didn't want full width 2) Didn't want 8 lug


Anyone that's visited me (I don't have many friends ) knows I have a collection of parts at any given time. Saw one of my D60 housings sitting on the floor unused and the thought process started. " How about cutting off the spindles and making a full floating D44 setup " was the idea I had. Before anyone jumps all over me again .... I already have a D44 ARB that I wished to reuse. The units are expensive and I do not see much strength gain from going to a D60 with my "little" 33 inch tires.



My XJ already had a factory 44 in place; however, it was not the best candidate for a full floating setup. I did not want to use the bolt on kits available (similar to the old Warn FF kit). That mean using real spindles & hubs. Going this route meant that I would have to account for axle width when putting this assembly together. As I researched ... I came to find out the GM 14 bolt has a slightly smaller hub body. Why is that important? I did not want to change to an 8 lug bolt pattern. That smaller body diameter makes it easier to retain the 5 lug pattern I already installed up front. No problem. Already had a dead GM14 bolt here I could work with.


I located a full width D44 from an F100 pickup truck. Based on measurements ... I needed more tube length so that I could cut away the flared ends (for the the semi floating shafts) and attach the spindles.


Let me tell you ... driving 2+ hours with a 37 year old axle in your wife's 2 year old car takes *****.