I need to go ahead and do my fuel filter as well. Thanks for the reminder. 
Builds 1994 HZJ73 Wine Red Flex Dream (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fishbulb
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
- Thread starter
- #222
HEY, YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR FUEL FILTER TOO!I need to go ahead and do my fuel filter as well. Thanks for the reminder.
Just wanted to give you a follow-up on this, since I looked over it and made some measurements:
You would be correct: the 45" universal bar will work almost perfectly. You might have to do a bit of a cut-down to take it back to 44" or so, but it could probably work as-is.
The TJ-style bushings would definitely work; they'll just have to be custom-made. The crossmember bore is about 46mm, or 1-13/16", so you could get the bushing out of 2" round stock. Only about 8" would be required, and that's not an expensive piece of material.
I think the axle-side bushing mount could be repurposed into a double-shear mount, and it could likely be made from very basic material. Maybe slice down a piece of box tubing, or put a laser-cut piece of plate into a brake; either wouldn't be too hard, and that area of the axle is already built to take the load of the bar.
So, the hard part will be the arms. When you turn a tire inward, it healthily passes the plane that a straight arm would occupy and travel within...so, any arm mounted at the outside edge of the crossmember would have to feature a pretty sharp pair of bends in order to clear the tire. Rather:
Pictured: So much less room for activities.
Top center of the picture is the tubular crossmember; it's the dry spot amidst the rainwater. The tire is the tire, obviously, and it's kinda-sorta-maybe at full lock; I think it'll actually turn in another 1/2" from this position, but this is where it wanted to rest without me holding it further in...so call it 3" from the frame at full lock. That clearance was based on a 33", so with a 35" you might lose another half-inch of clearance, but in either case the situation is the same: the arms are going to have to bend inward immediately after the connection point to the bar, run almost all the way to the frame, and then bend back outwards and run parallel to the frame. The actual clearance between arm and frame would probably have to be determined by where the link would be mounted - I think mounting it inboard of the arm would make for the least problems on the axle - but regardless: it's a sharp pair of bends in a very tight space. Currie offers pre-bent arms, but the only ones that look like they would even be close to workable are the RJ-282101-101 arms; these have a 2.5" offset, which probably isn't enough, but - again - a press-brake could help with that.
Anyway: sorry for the hijack, but that's what I think would have to happen in order to get one in place via the crossmember. It's an interesting notion, so I may do a little bit of R&D on the idea; shoot me a PM if you're seriously thinking about working on it at any point in time.
You would be correct: the 45" universal bar will work almost perfectly. You might have to do a bit of a cut-down to take it back to 44" or so, but it could probably work as-is.
The TJ-style bushings would definitely work; they'll just have to be custom-made. The crossmember bore is about 46mm, or 1-13/16", so you could get the bushing out of 2" round stock. Only about 8" would be required, and that's not an expensive piece of material.
I think the axle-side bushing mount could be repurposed into a double-shear mount, and it could likely be made from very basic material. Maybe slice down a piece of box tubing, or put a laser-cut piece of plate into a brake; either wouldn't be too hard, and that area of the axle is already built to take the load of the bar.
So, the hard part will be the arms. When you turn a tire inward, it healthily passes the plane that a straight arm would occupy and travel within...so, any arm mounted at the outside edge of the crossmember would have to feature a pretty sharp pair of bends in order to clear the tire. Rather:
Pictured: So much less room for activities.
Top center of the picture is the tubular crossmember; it's the dry spot amidst the rainwater. The tire is the tire, obviously, and it's kinda-sorta-maybe at full lock; I think it'll actually turn in another 1/2" from this position, but this is where it wanted to rest without me holding it further in...so call it 3" from the frame at full lock. That clearance was based on a 33", so with a 35" you might lose another half-inch of clearance, but in either case the situation is the same: the arms are going to have to bend inward immediately after the connection point to the bar, run almost all the way to the frame, and then bend back outwards and run parallel to the frame. The actual clearance between arm and frame would probably have to be determined by where the link would be mounted - I think mounting it inboard of the arm would make for the least problems on the axle - but regardless: it's a sharp pair of bends in a very tight space. Currie offers pre-bent arms, but the only ones that look like they would even be close to workable are the RJ-282101-101 arms; these have a 2.5" offset, which probably isn't enough, but - again - a press-brake could help with that.
Anyway: sorry for the hijack, but that's what I think would have to happen in order to get one in place via the crossmember. It's an interesting notion, so I may do a little bit of R&D on the idea; shoot me a PM if you're seriously thinking about working on it at any point in time.
- Thread starter
- #224
Hot diggity, you are on it! Sorry I haven’t replied yet… I started a new position at work and I’ve been in over my head. I feel like one of those people that lied on their résumé, but I didn’t actually lie.Just wanted to give you a follow-up on this, since I looked over it and made some measurements:
You would be correct: the 45" universal bar will work almost perfectly. You might have to do a bit of a cut-down to take it back to 44" or so, but it could probably work as-is.
The TJ-style bushings would definitely work; they'll just have to be custom-made. The crossmember bore is about 46mm, or 1-13/16", so you could get the bushing out of 2" round stock. Only about 8" would be required, and that's not an expensive piece of material.
I think the axle-side bushing mount could be repurposed into a double-shear mount, and it could likely be made from very basic material. Maybe slice down a piece of box tubing, or put a laser-cut piece of plate into a brake; either wouldn't be too hard, and that area of the axle is already built to take the load of the bar.
So, the hard part will be the arms. When you turn a tire inward, it healthily passes the plane that a straight arm would occupy and travel within...so, any arm mounted at the outside edge of the crossmember would have to feature a pretty sharp pair of bends in order to clear the tire. Rather:
Pictured: So much less room for activities.
View attachment 3726625
Top center of the picture is the tubular crossmember; it's the dry spot amidst the rainwater. The tire is the tire, obviously, and it's kinda-sorta-maybe at full lock; I think it'll actually turn in another 1/2" from this position, but this is where it wanted to rest without me holding it further in...so call it 3" from the frame at full lock. That clearance was based on a 33", so with a 35" you might lose another half-inch of clearance, but in either case the situation is the same: the arms are going to have to bend inward immediately after the connection point to the bar, run almost all the way to the frame, and then bend back outwards and run parallel to the frame. The actual clearance between arm and frame would probably have to be determined by where the link would be mounted - I think mounting it inboard of the arm would make for the least problems on the axle - but regardless: it's a sharp pair of bends in a very tight space. Currie offers pre-bent arms, but the only ones that look like they would even be close to workable are the RJ-282101-101 arms; these have a 2.5" offset, which probably isn't enough, but - again - a press-brake could help with that.
Anyway: sorry for the hijack, but that's what I think would have to happen in order to get one in place via the crossmember. It's an interesting notion, so I may do a little bit of R&D on the idea; shoot me a PM if you're seriously thinking about working on it at any point in time.
I won’t be tackling this anytime soon, as funds are short at the moment, but it will be kept on my list. I will for sure reach out to you when I’m ready to tackle this.
PS. I appreciate your well thought out and super detailed posts. I am a man of very few words and it is reflected into my keyword also.
- Thread starter
- #225
I put new front motor mounts in today. Holy guacamole what a night and day difference. It’s like driving a new car. Hecks ya!
I ordered a new rear motor/trans mount from the crap company of Cruiser Parts and they did not disappoint. They sent me the manual version (that doesn’t fit) when they advertised NOS auto trans mounts. They did not offer a refund and verified that they sent me the wrong part and even stated that they intentionally sent me the wrong part because they no longer had any auto trans mounts. They never responded to a request for a refund so I made a dispute via PayPal and received my money back the next day.
Chodes.
I ordered a new rear motor/trans mount from the crap company of Cruiser Parts and they did not disappoint. They sent me the manual version (that doesn’t fit) when they advertised NOS auto trans mounts. They did not offer a refund and verified that they sent me the wrong part and even stated that they intentionally sent me the wrong part because they no longer had any auto trans mounts. They never responded to a request for a refund so I made a dispute via PayPal and received my money back the next day.
Chodes.
Anything special for swapping those mounts? I am assuming for the engine it is unbolt and lift the engine with a hoist enough to slip the old mounts out and the new ones in. And the transmission is support it with a jack and undo the cross member and swap the mount?
Sorry you had to deal with wrong parts, never fun.
- Thread starter
- #227
I only swapped the two front mounts for now. The correct rear one is on order.
It was my first time ever swapping motor mounts. You just listed most the steps. I loosened up the rear trans mounts and also the fan shroud. The shroud was stopping the engine from being lifted up due to the fan pressing on it. I didn’t use a hoist. I just used my floor trolley jack and a piece of wood to lift the motor in a safe spot.
Been there and felt that; you'll settle in, so don't sweat it. Always know your value and accept it for what it is.
Absolutely; I'm glad I can help...and hopefully I'll have it all sorted out by then, anyway.
That's ridiculous; you don't just substitute a known-wrong part. I'll make sure that I don't order from them when I need a tranny mount.
Proper use of the word. Nicely done.
- Thread starter
- #229
I aligned my gear selector indicator and swapped from steel rope to synthetic. Huge and easy “performance” upgrade. Dropped about 60 pounds off the front of my Cruiser. The Factor 55 is a pain in the pee hole as it’s hard to find bolt heads that fit into the small recessed holes while being the correct size and thread pitch to line up with the enclosed square nuts on the Comeup winch. The hawse is finger tight for now as even thin walled 19mm sockets don’t fit into it. Internet ordered bolts are on the way.
AEV rubber winch isolator for the win keeping the winch hook flush at a low cost.
AEV rubber winch isolator for the win keeping the winch hook flush at a low cost.
Last edited:
Not the first time I've seen that happen with a Factor 55 hawse. I'm...not a fan of that company. Yeah, that's the polite way to say it. But: good on you for finding a workable solution.
- Thread starter
- #231
Slee Off Road makes a very similar one. I wonder if theirs will allow a 19mm socket to tighten the bolts. If so, I could also just return this one easily as I bought it via Amazon.Not the first time I've seen that happen with a Factor 55 hawse. I'm...not a fan of that company. Yeah, that's the polite way to say it. But: good on you for finding a workable solution.
This is my current favorite. Disclaimer: I'm also very biased, because TRE has always taken very good care of me. They also have legit safety thimbles, and I have very strong opinions on them as well.
- Thread starter
- #233
Do they have an offset version?
Funny you posted this as my synthetic line is from TRE
I don't think they do; that's kind of a specialty item...but Slee generally has decent stuff, so I'm sure that would work.
How'd you end up with a TRE line but not a thimble? Inquiring minds wish to know...
How'd you end up with a TRE line but not a thimble? Inquiring minds wish to know...
- Thread starter
- #235
This is the thimble option I selected on checkout. It’s their standard without any extra charge.I don't think they do; that's kind of a specialty item...but Slee generally has decent stuff, so I'm sure that would work.
How'd you end up with a TRE line but not a thimble? Inquiring minds wish to know...
It's not an incorrect option. I just happen to like the safety thimble better. But it's all personal preference, you know? 
I think you over thinking this. A few degrees caster change is not going to change the toe enough for you to read without a micrometer !Sorry for stepping back a bit, but I was catching up on your thread and I wanted to clear something up:
Yes... it most certainly does. Think of it this way:
Let's say that you have zero degrees of caster right now - rather, the kingpin axis points directly downward from the axle/wheel/tire's center of rotation - and let's say that your tires are slightly toed-in at the front; let's call it 1/4" of toe-in. Now, do something extreme: rotate the axle 180°, so the pinion is not just pointing a bit more up or down, but pointing forward. It's ridiculous to imagine, but this is 180° of either positive or negative caster (and it really isn't either one, but bear with me)...and guess what's happened to you toe-in? Answer: it's now reversed. You have 1/4" of toe out. You changed the caster, and with it, the toe.
Now, let's step back to reality. You actually have a couple of degrees of positive caster on your front axle, which creates something of a self-righting torque in your steering; it's the opposite of a negative-caster shopping trolley, which - as we all know from childhood - simply cannot steer itself. If you change that caster, you change the toe measurement as well... it's just not by very much. The question is whether or not "not by very much" is important. Short answer to that pondering: yes, it's important. I've had as little as 1/32" - 0.8mm - be the difference between a good, solid return-to-center and overly-twitchy steering, or between "this feels okay" and "there's a huge dead spot in the steering."
This being said: in most cases - lookin' at you, solid front axles! - toe isn't that sensitive, but caster changes can and do impact it. I've anecdotally found it to be increasingly vital as the wheelbase shortens. Also, the toe setting is the last thing to adjust when making changes in the front end; I like to measure it off the brake rotors with two 36" levels, each of which is marked with a center point, and 1/4" increments to show me where to put the tape in order to mimic actual rolling tire diameters. Works pretty well.
Okay, derail concluded...and thanks for the info on the Frontrunner rack/sale. My bank account hates you, but thanks all the same.
I highlighted the key word, there. In this case, I haven't done any kind of calculations to figure out the amount of toe change, but it doesn't impact the answer: caster change does impact the toe, and that's all I was pointing out. I agree that it's not by much - especially when static - but there is a change.
That being said: I'd really like to know how much the toe changes on this platform, but I haven't taken everything on the front end apart and measured/cycled it, because that's a lot of work...and I'm allergic to work.
No but you Suggested 1/32 could make a difference.
I’m not smarter enough to do the calculation But I’d say it was in the thousands, so in theory your correct but in impractical application it’s not gonna change anything.
Cheers
