This Is Not A F-king Jeep

notaf-ingjeep · 10-23-09, 06:00 PM

Here you go, this is it as it is sitting. The Mormons love my window sticker!! No offense intended

notaf-ingjeep · 10-23-09, 06:02 PM

Here are some other shots!

notaf-ingjeep · 10-23-09, 06:05 PM

More! A photo of the custom pitman arm I tig welded the other day. Another with it attached to the scout II box.

notaf-ingjeep · 10-23-09, 06:10 PM

Here is another of the ports I put in the scout box. There are brass plugs in them now, my finger is pointing to the top port. The lower one should be obvious.

These Photos came from my movie camera, I still don't have a real snapshot camera. I just cut frames from some video I shot. It was a pain!

Also a photo of my other mistress!

MILLHOUSE · 10-23-09, 06:19 PM

Sweet Jeep

notaf-ingjeep · 10-23-09, 07:01 PM

[QUOTE=MILLHOUSE;4904342]Sweet Jeep

Quote]

Yeah thats the problem with being so proactive about it. It really only makes it worse! I do it just to make people laugh or to piss them off I really don't care otherwise. Believe it or not that sticker has actually gotten me into a fist fight in the past. That will just make me refuse to take it down.

Here are a couple more pics I have, One is the upper link mount on the axle. It is built from solid 5/8" thick plate and so are the gussets in the corners w/ 1/4" plate caps. At the time I felt like engraving a spider web on the piece in the center. I don't know if it will show in the photo. I used 1/2" plate on the actual mounting tabs, I decided to machine is down to 3/8" where the bolts are.

The other photo is my stainless twin stick shifter. I built it pretty easily, but no dust boot. The cruiser is so loud and leaky as is it just hasn't seemed worth building one. + I cant sew.

notaf-ingjeep · 10-24-09, 01:43 PM

Not sure why some of my photos came out distorted. The quality is because of the camera, it is designed to look like film, not like digital. I guess they are distorted because of being shot in a widescreen format. I'm just really not a computer person! I'll work on all of that.

handcannon · 10-24-09, 07:12 PM

My first thought when I looked at those pics was "fisheye lens". A fisheye lens always takes a distorted pic. Fisheyes are designed to take wide angle pics at very close focal distances. But then you posted that they were taken with your video camera so I'd say that your camera was set up with a variable focal length lens that was turned down to as short a focal length as possible.

Don

tgreening · 10-24-09, 08:46 PM

Nope, but it WAS inspired by a jeep, based on a jeep, and eventually reverse engineered from a jeep.

hedonist · 10-25-09, 09:05 AM

its always good to offend!

have a sticker on my that says:

"politics are confusing.. lets just vote how the bishop tells us to"

mookie · 10-25-09, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgreening

Nope, but it WAS inspired by a jeep, based on a jeep, and eventually reverse engineered from a jeep.

nobody wants to hear that shit man.....i took mine to weigh it at a local truck stop before our trip out west this summer and i kid you not at least 5 people told me what a cool/awesome/badass jeep i had...

notaf-ingjeep · 10-25-09, 11:51 AM

The Japanese are smart! They will let someone else do most of the work, then take the designs and improve them. You can't deny that these Landcruisers were built bullet proof compared to any jeep! The new Rubicon with the dana 44 axles is the toughest thing they have built. Its the only thing from their factory that could even compare, if you ask me. I dig early broncos, and even some internationals are cool, but you can't trump the cruiser!

You can build almost anything tough, but there are only a few that came that way stock.

Oh, there is no fisheye lens, but it does look that way. I did use the zoom while shooting it, as it was video camera (Panasonic dvx 100b). This camera has a fixed Leica dicomar wide angle lens, so it's intended to shoot a large image at close distance. It has a huge range and can be zoomed in to almost a macro lens. Its a really cool camera even though it is now dated, it was still expensive($2200) over a year ago. The distortion has something to do with the software I've been using, and how I exported the frames. It's the adobe premier cs3 program, not being a computer person it can be overwhelming. I am still learning it, I can do some basic editing just fine, but it's complicated. Honestly I'd usually just hire someone else to edit while I stand there and tell them what to do! When I stop spending so much on this cruiser I'll buy a still camera.

tgreening · 10-25-09, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookie

nobody wants to hear that **** man.....i took mine to weigh it at a local truck stop before our trip out west this summer and i kid you not at least 5 people told me what a cool/awesome/badass jeep i had...

Sorry, not meant to offend but just to rib a bit, and it IS the truth. The OP knows. For the record though, I feel your pain about people calling your ride a jeep. Jeep people get just as offended when someone runs around calling zuks, broncos, etc, jeeps.

tgreening · 10-25-09, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notaf-ingjeep

The Japanese are smart! They will let someone else do most of the work, then take the designs and improve them. You can't deny that these Landcruisers were built bullet proof compared to any jeep! The new Rubicon with the dana 44 axles is the toughest thing they have built. Its the only thing from their factory that could even compare, if you ask me. I dig early broncos, and even some internationals are cool, but you can't trump the cruiser!

You can build almost anything tough, but there are only a few that came that way stock.

Sure it was smart. Not all that innovative, but smart. Thinking about it though it's not much different then what jeep did. GM steering, ford ignition, chrysler transmissions, etc etc. They took a bunch of off the shelf parts (in the later years anyway) and assembled it all into the modern day jeep. Modern day being the last 30+ odd years.

Trumping the cruiser, like all things politics, religion, and 4 wheel drive, is much a matter of opinion.

They all have their good and bad points.

When I was in the Marine Corp my buddy had an FJ40. It was pretty cool but he spent a whole bunch of time under the hood. My other buddies CJ5 just ran. Mileage may vary of course.

Fast Eddy · 10-25-09, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notaf-ingjeep

The distortion has something to do with the software I've been using, and how I exported the frames. It's the adobe premier cs3 program, not being a computer person it can be overwhelming. I am still learning it, I can do some basic editing just fine, but it's complicated.

A TV monitor has 4:3 aspect ratio pixels, whereas a computer monitor has 1:1 pixels. You need to stretch it by 1/3rd horizontally. You can see that the lens is distorting the image substantially, but the lights are round.

Windows paint could probably handle this, but the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) is most of Photoshop for the price of $0.00: GIMP - Windows installers

Looking at where the control arms mount to the top of your rear end, I'm thinking that housing isn't thick enough to match the beef of your mounts. I'd box that whole thing and extend it way out along the housing.

notaf-ingjeep · 10-25-09, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgreening

Sure it was smart. Not all that innovative, but smart. Thinking about it though it's not much different then what jeep did. GM steering, ford ignition, chrysler transmissions, etc etc. They took a bunch of off the shelf parts (in the later years anyway) and assembled it all into the modern day jeep. Modern day being the last 30+ odd years.

Trumping the cruiser, like all things politics, religion, and 4 wheel drive, is much a matter of opinion.

They all have their good and bad points.

When I was in the Marine Corp my buddy had an FJ40. It was pretty cool but he spent a whole bunch of time under the hood. My other buddies CJ5 just ran. Mileage may vary of course.

There are no guarantees on condition with vehicles of this era. Regardless the little axles and drivetrain of a stock cj-5 are nothing compared to the cruiser drivetrain strength. Pound for pound toyota built the toughest stuff in the early days cruiser or mini trucks. I would disagree about not being innovative though, these landcruiser were state of the art 30+ years ago. To each his own! I thought this was a landcruiser only site, times have changed I guess.

tgreening · 10-25-09, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notaf-ingjeep

There are no guarantees on condition with vehicles of this era. Regardless the little axles and drivetrain of a stock cj-5 are nothing compared to the cruiser drivetrain strength. Pound for pound toyota built the toughest stuff in the early days cruiser or mini trucks. I would disagree about not being innovative though, these landcruiser were state of the art 30+ years ago. To each his own! I thought this was a landcruiser only site, times have changed I guess.

Again, debatable. A 70-80's era CJ could be had with a healthy V8, dana 44 rear axle, and one of the strongest trannys ever, be it standard or automatic. Hardly a lightweight.

I noticed that there were a whole slew of toyota specific forums and this one quite conspicuously located in the general tech section so I didn't think I was out of place, but I get the subtle hint. Have a good one.

Mace · 10-25-09, 08:50 PM

How those rear coilovers working out for you?

notaf-ingjeep · 10-26-09, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mace

How those rear coilovers working out for you?

They seem to work well, although they are mounted on steep angles. I know that the first 3 inches of up travel work as they should. But as you know when the shocks shorten the angles get steeper and efficiency drops. I am only running 5" of up travel total, but really haven't hit anything real hard yet, I've only done some minimal testing. I have had to redo my brake lines as they weren't long enough so it has been sitting again. The axle travels on a slight arc which seems to match the forward angle of the shocks, it follows the angle pretty well in both directions. I built them to be mounted on a 27-30 degree angle into the center at ride height. At full compression they are at like 48 degrees into the center, too steep. I am definitely pushing the limits, I had to be exact on my brackets. If I was off even a little the shock eyelets would bind. I can say that I got it right and there is no binding, it wasn't easy though. I didn't want to hack up my tub to mount them just a little better. Really to get them mounted in the best position, the frame is in the way and needs serious modification. So I may tube it when I buy a bender, or dovetail it like Mt Tubecrafter has done in his build. I want to give it a good run as it is, find out how well it will work first.

I am planning on air bump stops, I was thinking the 2.0 x 2.5" travel fox unit. With those mounted up and dialed in, they should pick up any dampening that the shocks are lacking because of their mounting. I may even want to go with the 2.5 dia. unit. I would want a adequate unit, as I don't want to over use them by pushing them pass their capacity. I wont know until they are mounted, and I feel comfortable to really testing it in that respect. I have also been considering the king bump stops. They sound like the best, but the price reflects that as they are more expensive.

It will also need some sway bars, I'll use a Currie anti-rock kit w/steel arms. I could mount those in front of the axle or behind it. Which is best? In the rear behind the axle would be the easiest for me.
This stuff gets real expensive real fast, and that doesn't include the time invested!

So far so good, the emulsion unit alone seems to be great. I don't do enough high speed driving on the dirt to feel I would need the remote reservoir. Mostly crawling w/ a heavy foot at times, that just seems to be my driving style. All in all I feel coilovers are far better than air shocks, at least on the "iron pig".

notaf-ingjeep · 10-26-09, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast Eddy

A TV monitor has 4:3 aspect ratio pixels, whereas a computer monitor has 1:1 pixels. You need to stretch it by 1/3rd horizontally. You can see that the lens is distorting the image substantially, but the lights are round.

Windows paint could probably handle this, but the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) is most of Photoshop for the price of $0.00: GIMP - Windows installers

Looking at where the control arms mount to the top of your rear end, I'm thinking that housing isn't thick enough to match the beef of your mounts. I'd box that whole thing and extend it way out along the housing.

That looks a lot better, now if you could do that to all the photos...............J/K. It is the aspect ratio for sure, just extracting the frames alone was time consuming. If I get some time, I'll fix them, I have a few more I can post as well.

I hear you on the mount, I think it will be fine. I have laid down a lot of weld there especially at the diff, and was sure to get good penetration. Some is mig and some is tig, but we will see what happens. It is all thick material, and I like it as is. The axle tube is around .250 thick, I will test it thoroughly, and carefully, it's all a bit experimental.

bustanutley · 10-26-09, 01:32 PM

While the geometry looks good, your lower link mounts are clearly nasty rock hangers. I would revise.

notaf-ingjeep · 10-26-09, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bustanutley

While the geometry looks good, your lower link mounts are clearly nasty rock hangers. I would revise.

They hang low for sure, but not lower than the t,case. They totally guard the drum as it hangs the lowest and would be exposed if the brackets were shorter. I left a ton of material there as well, it's 5/8" plate I machined a step in them to clear the heim. So it's about 1/2" thick were it will be getting bashed, and plenty below to damage. The cruiser drivetrain hangs low, so I didn't see the harm. I don't plan to change the drivetrain. I plan to update my skid plate with some "sleds" or "ramps" to take out that edge. I built the skid plate before the 4-link. After I do the front linkage it will be better as well. But your right, in hind site I might have mounted it all an inch or so higher in the frame. But I believe that it would change the arc that it travels on, and it travels just as it needs.

bustanutley · 10-26-09, 04:26 PM

Real Life experience: The frame gets dragged across rocks 10X more than anything between the frame rails. You drive over rocks not thru them, axle is in the way…. The only time the reasoning of them being as low as the t-case works is in ledge situations. Add on top that they are in the middle of the frame is going to bring the suck and frustration. I would lower the whole truck to keep your squat low and tuck the rod ends right against the frame with ramped brackets.

When I still had a stock t-case in my truck I clocked the entire drivetrain up, got rid of the e-brake and turned the drum off all in the name of clearance.

notaf-ingjeep · 10-26-09, 05:50 PM

I could move them up a little higher like I said. To stay true to the design of this 4-link they are gonna hang down no matter what. Some of those photos make it look worse than it is. I also planned on the skid plate helping the situation. I just haven't finished it yet, it would look better if it was. On top of that I could only make them 1.25 " shorter at most. There is no more frame to work with after that for the upper mounts. Also this would expose the t. case below.

One must consider also that the lowest part of the t.case is offset to the passenger side, and not in the center. I'm not gonna raise the whole drive train up, I feel the weight is better off low. I would however like to move the whole drive train back and extend the front axle forward more a few inches. This would center the weight between the axles, and make for better balance. Because of how I built the rear, if I did all this with a 4-link up front. I'd possibly even drop the whole drive train and inch or two along with moving it rearwards. As my lower brackets for the front 4-link would be the same, and hang just as low. I would have all the protection I'd need for the drivetrain. Lots of work to the firewall and such, but I'm all about the "mid engine" idea. This might not be the way most would do it, but nearly the same results could be achieved relating to center of gravity.

We'll see how much of a problem it is, I'm not exactly stoked on it either. I still think it is the best way to deal with "the nature of the beast" in this case. It won't be perfect no matter what. I went for protection, and also the path the axle travels having the mounts located in the frame where they are. If I moved them higher it would change the pivot point of the suspension in relation to the frame.

As it sets now it is right at the pivot point of the arc the axle travels on, at ride height. When the suspension travels up it the axle gets closer, and it does the same when it drops. This helps correct the forward lean of my coilovers in both directions of the suspension travel. It also helps keep the axle closer to square with the frame when it's all twisted up. I can't lower it any more as the coilovers wont fit how I wanted them to. Also I can't make the front suspension any lower than it is already without a 4-link, and major body work all around. Even with the 1.5" wheel spacers I installed my tires still rub under articulation. At this point it isn't a full on buggy, and I wanted a floor in the back for stuff. I want a 4-link up front, but it wont likely happen too soon. I'm ready to play with it.

FLYINGLOW · 10-26-09, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bustanutley

When I still had a stock t-case in my truck I clocked the entire drivetrain up, got rid of the e-brake and turned the drum off all in the name of clearance.

Sorry to hijack but how did you clock the entire drive train up? Re drill your tranny mounts on the bellhousing?

EWheeler · 10-26-09, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYINGLOW

Sorry to hijack but how did you clock the entire drive train up? Re drill your tranny mounts on the bellhousing?

x2. I would love nothing more than to have a flat belly without the bling transfercases & adapters right now.

mookie · 10-26-09, 07:02 PM

x3....how?

notaf-ingjeep · 10-26-09, 07:37 PM

Got all that aspect ratio figured and have new photos as well. Here is photo of the coilover towers.... well one of the two. Another photo of the upper and lower link brackets on the frame.

notaf-ingjeep · 10-26-09, 07:49 PM

Here are a couple more photos. One is of the cruiser before all this 4-link business, just soa in the rear. The other is one of my swampers all torn up because I like to get on it!

bustanutley · 10-27-09, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYINGLOW

Sorry to hijack but how did you clock the entire drive train up? Re drill your tranny mounts on the bellhousing?

I did it via spacers under motor mounts, rotated the whole assembly, but you could re drill the bellhousing. It wasn't perfectly flat between the frame rails but it was better. Here is what my skid looked like