Shock Comaprison - Page 2

hoser · 08-05-08, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spressomon

It's not so much the CV angle as it is the steering arms. That is the limiting factor how high you can lift an IFS hundy. There's isn't a way to lower the rack to reduce the severe angle...

Hmm, are the steering arm bolts tapered? Could one flip the steering arms? What would be the repercussions. Okay, nevermind, don't mess with it. Changing the angle of the steering arms in relation to the lower A-arms might not be wise.

ringpinion.biz · 08-06-08, 10:58 AM

My shocks do allow for the downtravel as well, and I have run it up higher, but prefer to keep it as low as possible and still clear the tires. Another thing is, with full time 4wd the suspension droops as throttle is applied, this is amplified with greater lift height, as the arms are at greater angle. It also narrows the track and creates some weird torque steer when pulling away from a stoplight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Assassin_Offroad

As long as there is a minimum of 70mm down travel, the lift is fine with the styandard set up.

The shock length we use allows for the amount of down travel required.

ringpinion.biz · 08-06-08, 11:54 AM

Yes they are tapered, but it sounds like you answered your own question. I think even more down travel than whay you are I run would be pretty unusable. The track would be narrowed greatly through the suspension cycle. for mor travel it would be best to lengthen uppers/ lowers etc. I dont see this happening though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoser

Hmm, are the steering arm bolts tapered? Could one flip the steering arms? What would be the repercussions. Okay, nevermind, don't mess with it. Changing the angle of the steering arms in relation to the lower A-arms might not be wise.

Assassin_Offroad · 08-11-08, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringpinion.biz

My shocks do allow for the downtravel as well, and I have run it up higher, but prefer to keep it as low as possible and still clear the tires. Another thing is, with full time 4wd the suspension droops as throttle is applied, this is amplified with greater lift height, as the arms are at greater angle. It also narrows the track and creates some weird torque steer when pulling away from a stoplight.

You mean the weight transfers, and the front lifts? not droops ?

With not quite right shock valving, and/or spring rate, this will happen with a lift, though with the wheel alignment correct, for the new height [not factory settings] the torque steer [even from the TD units we do power upgrades on to 200+ KW and 600NM] is minimal, still more than standard, but alot is controlled by the wheel alignment, and if the front tyres get up onto the outer tyre edge under acceleration, it will torque steer.

ShottsUZJ100 · 08-12-08, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringpinion.biz

Another thing is, with full time 4wd the suspension droops as throttle is applied, this is amplified with greater lift height, as the arms are at greater angle. It also narrows the track and creates some weird torque steer when pulling away from a stoplight.

How interesting. The 100's I've been in actually raise "up" when on the gas, especially the front. If I let the gas off the vehicle then lowers.

I've also never experienced any difference in torque steer between stock and all three lift heights I've had my own 100 at.

ShottsUZJ100 · 08-12-08, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

How interesting. The 100's I've been in actually raise "up" when on the gas, especially the front. If I let the gas off the vehicle then lowers.

I've also never experienced any difference in torque steer between stock and all three lift heights I've had my own 100 at.

This is a still shot from the DVD Video "Legendary Land Cruisers". You will see in it that the front is actually raised in comparison to the rear. While the normal rake of my 100 is lower in the front, you can see at 70MPH the rake is more level by the look of the wheel wells to the tire tops.

hoser · 08-12-08, 05:23 PM

Wider tires and reducing the wheel offset (going more negative) will also promote more torque steer. Wheel adapter/spacers is the equivalent of reducing wheel offset. Some feel the trade off is worth it, some don't.

spressomon · 08-12-08, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

This is a still shot from the DVD Video "Legendary Land Cruisers". You will see in it that the front is actually raised in comparison to the rear. While the normal rake of my 100 is lower in the front, you can see at 70MPH the rake is more level by the look of the wheel wells to the tire tops.

I always wondered what an LC looked like doing 70mph off-road

ringpinion.biz · 08-12-08, 06:30 PM

yes the front of the vehicle does raise, and the suspension droops, keeping the tires on the pavement. As the suspension droops or extends the track is narrowed, and all other areas of the suspension geometry are changed. Some tolerate this more than others, or would know how to tell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottsUZJ100

How interesting. The 100's I've been in actually raise "up" when on the gas, especially the front. If I let the gas off the vehicle then lowers.

I've also never experienced any difference in torque steer between stock and all three lift heights I've had my own 100 at.

ShottsUZJ100 · 08-13-08, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ringpinion.biz

and the suspension droops

Ah! Ah! Gotcha. Didn't read that other post correctly.

1loudLX · 08-13-08, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoser

Wider tires and reducing the wheel offset (going more negative) will also promote more torque steer. Wheel adapter/spacers is the equivalent of reducing wheel offset. Some feel the trade off is worth it, some don't.

I loved having a 3.78" wider track when I had my stock tires, handled on road like a beast.