I want it i need it.....its time

[fabr]

The rear a arms, rear heim attachment points. My earlier post is referring to putting both on the bottom a arm rather then rear of upper and lower. as I am going to a single pivot on top. I can go double pivot on the upper and back to this design ....just thought a single upper would be cleaner.

I'm not a big fan of those adjusters. They make life a breeze as you say but I just don't like  it on a lower arm. Almost all a arm suspensions use solid lower arms with the upper adjustable for camber/caster.  The uppers take far less punishment and due to that,IMO,they are where adjustments should be made. Yes, it does require pretty accurate fabbing of the lower solid arm. If I do another car(no,no plan to do so) I will not use heims for the pivots on lower arms. It will be delrin bushed pivots like the busa buggy.

[dsrace]

I  mentioned this because I have been questioning runnng both on the bottom arm. They worked well on the last build and I am not light weight. That was one on bottom and top of a 4 point mount. I assumed with that design that the solid fronts overlapping the mini tie rod rears would be offset enough to add some strength. The shock mounted to the front side of the. A arm too. So either I do that again or I go single heim only. 


Btw, I was finally contacted by a mod ad gd.com. they had to personally reset my acct. Not sure why, don't care,  but did read that post.  That post is also on sand asylum on fb. The owner/drivers hasn't stated exactly what cause the fire but 2 friends have stated his fuel tank was just a welded aluminum tank, no bladder. 

[fabr]

The vast majority are fabbed aluminum tanks. There has been waaayyyyyy toooooo many people burned or killed having fun. I don't plan on being one of them. Anything CAN happen but I have taken care to hopefully avoid it. Nothing other than PEX bladders or true fuel cell bladders for me. It's just not worth the risk,IMO.  After what happened to your "fuel cell" last time I shudder to think how lucky you were. I'll stop pestering you about it now ,it's your skin.

[dsrace]

The vast majority are fabbed aluminum tanks. There has been waaayyyyyy toooooo many people burned or killed having fun. I don't plan on being one of them. Anything CAN happen but I have taken care to hopefully avoid it. Nothing other than PEX bladders or true fuel cell bladders for me. It's just not worth the risk,IMO.  After what happened to your "fuel cell" last time I shudder to think how lucky you were. I'll stop pestering you about it now ,it's your skin.

Not once but twice in 2 days! And the pos cable was loose an arcing!! Guardian angel comes to mind!! Mine will be a lined tank, no doubts there, just which direction is in the air.



So only had a couple hrs to re work the rear a arm design. Do no tie rods and shallowness beds possible. The upper at wheel will be 7/8", not 3/4" as pictured.

Remember, I cut my olds ones up for mock up pieces so no critiquing  the roughness 

[dsrace]

Bent all the tubing up for the a arms last night. I used 1.5" od, 1" id 1020 dom, for the lower fronts, because the shocks will be mounted to those tubes. Considered making the entire lower a arm out of .25" wall but damn, its not fun to bend and heavy. I used 1.25" .120 wall 1020 dom for the back side and upper. The upper in the pics is the actual upper and the lower is just to make the jig fixture off of. Ill be 3/4" chromolly heims on all except upper wheel bearing carrier side.......thats 7/8" chromolly heim.

[fabr]

I like 

[dsrace]

I like 

Thanks

[dsrace]

I went round and round on the lower arms shape for a cosmetic look along with functionality. Really wanted to use the mini tie rods for easy adjustment but just had this nagging voice In the back of my head saying it will bend.

Not happy, cosmetically, with the upper but more then functional.  Had to be slightly wider then i wanted to catch that specific section of frame in the rear.  Couldn't move the front back to to clearance of the trans side cover bolts and the ability to remove the trans.  The lower, with some bracing , checks both boxes.

Width to length ration on rear a arms......lowers 78% and uppers 70%.

For those that do not know, I run 28" long axles and non plunge 930 cv's. When I ran the busa engine, these same cvs were limited to 35* of downward angle for close to 6 years. Then, the conversion to the turbo 2.3 and megasand, limited to 30* downward angle. I did so because I wanted to stretch the wheel base a touch to 117". Was hoping for 120" but close enough.  In doing so the axle had to run at a slight swept back angle. So technically that cv was again operating close to 35* at full droop.  Cvs maintain tq specs at higher angle but run hotter. Heat kills cvs where u joints are weaker at higher angles but run cooler.

So , I corrected that with this iteration. The axle is now straight out and I will prob limit the cv to 30* down angle. I suppose its time to retire them for new as well and rcv is slooooooow to return information or ship product.  Preliminary measurement shows ill be 113" wheel base with axles straight out and looking like 89 to 90" track width rear.

[dsrace]

and for the record, as enemy knows well........ after all the years running those cv's at those angles, i have only gotten one of them a touch warm . 

[fabr]

I like 

Thanks

Only thing I would have done differently would have been to carry the rear upper tune onto the threaded bung. Hindsight syndrome.........

[fabr]

I went round and round on the lower arms shape for a cosmetic look along with functionality. Really wanted to use the mini tie rods for easy adjustment but just had this nagging voice In the back of my head saying it will bend. As did I.

Not happy, cosmetically, with the upper but more then functional.  Had to be slightly wider then i wanted to catch that specific section of frame in the rear.  Couldn't move the front back to to clearance of the trans side cover bolts and the ability to remove the trans.  The lower, with some bracing , checks both boxes. The lower carries most of the loads.

Width to length ration on rear a arms......lowers 78% and uppers 70%.

For those that do not know, I run 28" long axles and non plunge 930 cv's. When I ran the busa engine, these same cvs were limited to 35* of downward angle for close to 6 years. Then, the conversion to the turbo 2.3 and megasand, limited to 30* downward angle. I did so because I wanted to stretch the wheel base a touch to 117". Was hoping for 120" but close enough.  In doing so the axle had to run at a slight swept back angle. So technically that cv was again operating close to 35* at full droop.  Cvs maintain tq specs at higher angle but run hotter. Heat kills cvs where u joints are weaker at higher angles but run cooler.

So , I corrected that with this iteration. The axle is now straight out and I will prob limit the cv to 30* down angle. I suppose its time to retire them for new as well and rcv is slooooooow to return information or ship product.  Preliminary measurement shows ill be 113" wheel base with axles straight out and looking like 89 to 90" track width rear.

I can look,I think I have 3 new spares if it will help. You can replace when we go to LS.No hurry.

[fabr]

and for the record, as enemy knows well........ after all the years running those cv's at those angles, i have only gotten one of them a touch warm . 

My non plunge 930 ran quite cool also. I did kill one though I believe I got the cage in backwards. When I took it apart it was a bit hard to tell for sure. 

On a side note I have slightly hurt 2 of the 934 non plunge cv's after about 500 miles on big buggy.

[dsrace]

I went round and round on the lower arms shape for a cosmetic look along with functionality. Really wanted to use the mini tie rods for easy adjustment but just had this nagging voice In the back of my head saying it will bend. As did I.

Not happy, cosmetically, with the upper but more then functional.  Had to be slightly wider then i wanted to catch that specific section of frame in the rear.  Couldn't move the front back to to clearance of the trans side cover bolts and the ability to remove the trans.  The lower, with some bracing , checks both boxes. The lower carries most of the loads.

Width to length ration on rear a arms......lowers 78% and uppers 70%.

For those that do not know, I run 28" long axles and non plunge 930 cv's. When I ran the busa engine, these same cvs were limited to 35* of downward angle for close to 6 years. Then, the conversion to the turbo 2.3 and megasand, limited to 30* downward angle. I did so because I wanted to stretch the wheel base a touch to 117". Was hoping for 120" but close enough.  In doing so the axle had to run at a slight swept back angle. So technically that cv was again operating close to 35* at full droop.  Cvs maintain tq specs at higher angle but run hotter. Heat kills cvs where u joints are weaker at higher angles but run cooler.

So , I corrected that with this iteration. The axle is now straight out and I will prob limit the cv to 30* down angle. I suppose its time to retire them for new as well and rcv is slooooooow to return information or ship product.  Preliminary measurement shows ill be 113" wheel base with axles straight out and looking like 89 to 90" track width rear.

I can look,I think I have 3 new spares if it will help. You can replace when we go to LS.No hurry.

Thanks for the offer on the cv's. I have 2 new ones for now and will order 2 more. They offer a rebuild kit for the non plunge 934 but not the 930. I called and asked why, guy said he would ask the tech as he didn't see why they couldn't offer a rebuild kit for the 930 as well. Said he would call me back that day......that was 2 weeks ago!


As far as carrying the upper rear out onto the weld bung......that was my intention, but someone didn't cut the frame side to length first!  . So what you see is what happened. To be error on the side of caution, I drilled a 3/8" hole though the side of the tube before inserting the bung. Plug welded the bung in and then welded the end. I do agree with overlapping the two though.

[dsrace]

and for the record, as enemy knows well........ after all the years running those cv's at those angles, i have only gotten one of them a touch warm . 

My non plunge 930 ran quite cool also. I did kill one though I believe I got the cage in backwards. When I took it apart it was a bit hard to tell for sure. 

On a side note I have slightly hurt 2 of the 934 non plunge cv's after about 500 miles on big buggy.

I have to give the cv's credit. I have scorched one 4 or 5 times and I mean to the point that steam was coming out of the cv boot through the tear. That cv boot would balloon up then rip a seam. Always the same right hand trans side. Replaced that cv thinking itself was the issue and no change with the new one.  The others have worn pretty good for going on 8 or 9 years.

[dsrace]

So every weekend I plan to spend the whole weekend on the buggy, something decided to change my plans for me. I have been able to spend the last 3 nights on it. I finished the rear a arm fixture and built both uppers plus 1 lower as of last night.  My goal tonight is to build the last lower and begin hanging them. I have technicaly 2 possibilities for shock placement but imho only 1 option due to exh, fuel tank, radiator and intercooler placement.  The curve of the rear of the frame is a hinderence.  Its no issue with air shocks but 2.5 coil overs are a diff story and I need a location that I have to room to step up to 3.0 internal bypass c/o 's in the future.