Builds 2018 GCC Spec 79 Series 1HD-FTE + H152 - The Camel

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Lots of ways to offset wheelbase when you are putting a different body on a frame, especially with a lift etc. You’re fixing it all front to back and adding body mounts, doesn’t mean you have to chop anything. I can appreciate stock dimensions too though 😉


He has a factory bed, its is pictured earlier in the thread.

Also, we are all (my shop) up for a rock crawler 79 project, give us a ring to discuss! 😆

Cheers
 
Not sure why that was so unexpected. Did you think we were going to make it shorter and chop the bed or something like that? Not too concerned with having a tight turning radius.
Sorry if I came off rude. Not my intent at all. I just did not realize that the 79 wheelbase was 13" longer than an 80. @SNLC does top rate work, so I have no negative thoughts here at all.
 
Wow.... did not expect that! Plan to do 5 point turns on Black Bear Pass then.

Hey in terms of stretched 80 frames it could be a lot worse!
5849D0CF-0698-4153-8A26-B544D403DBA6.png
 
Has the notched design for the frame extension that you're using been modeled in a finite elements analysis or other stress modelling program to prove it's strength?

Is there any sort of documented best practice that you're aware of?

I've only seen how 4WD/247 (MGW) does theirs and it appears their method is slightly different.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with how you're setting it up - more curious the method is based on experience, engineering analysis, both, or something else.

Thanks and good work on this exciting project.
 
Has the notched design for the frame extension that you're using been modeled in a finite elements analysis or other stress modelling program to prove it's strength?

Is there any sort of documented best practice that you're aware of?

I've only seen how 4WD/247 (MGW) does theirs and it appears their method is slightly different.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with how you're setting it up - more curious the method is based on experience, engineering analysis, both, or something else.

Thanks and good work on this exciting project.

Experience and basic understanding of engineering. Plus using our brain cells. 🧠

You can go on youtube or plenty of other places to watch videos or read up. Just go search hot rod chassis modifications, extensions or similar. Oh ya, my main man Chris who is working with me on this (and everything else in the shop) has a BA degree in auto resto, this is my third chassis chop/stretch.

Cheers
 
Experience and basic understanding of engineering. Plus using our brain cells. 🧠

You can go on youtube or plenty of other places to watch videos or read up. Just go search hot rod chassis modifications, extensions or similar. Oh ya, my main man Chris who is working with me on this (and everything else in the shop) has a BA degree in auto resto, this is my third chassis chop/stretch.

Cheers

Take a peek under that LPB you have at the shop and see how Toyota did it. Not near as stout as your method in my opinion.

Thanks for the documentation. I’ve seen many Rockcrawlers done but it’s never this nice. Usually a vertical chop and a big ass diamond scab
 
Take a peek under that LPB you have at the shop and see how Toyota did it. Not near as stout as your method in my opinion.

Thanks for the documentation. I’ve seen many Rockcrawlers done but it’s never this nice. Usually a vertical chop and a big ass diamond scab


Here is a little hint on something we will be doing to finish it off. *cough* 79 chassis *cough*

527ECE47-C483-40C7-95D5-1D18C5B754DB.jpeg



Cheers
 
Has the notched design for the frame extension that you're using been modeled in a finite elements analysis or other stress modelling program to prove it's strength?

Is there any sort of documented best practice that you're aware of?

I've only seen how 4WD/247 (MGW) does theirs and it appears their method is slightly different.

I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with how you're setting it up - more curious the method is based on experience, engineering analysis, both, or something else.

Thanks and good work on this exciting project.

Sitting down finally today relaxing so can reply in more detail.

No, never stress tested or finite analysis. Simply basic engineering applied. Such as, triangles are stronger than squares and vertical loads are best spread across a / angle vs a | angle. As mentioned earlier in the thread, we had this c-channel bent up to match the stock frame dimensions, I like an inner sleeve vs a big external fish plate. We will be adding a dom crossmember at the extension as well, similar to the one on the factory 79 frame. The RLCA bracket is going back on as well and that ties the extensions back in even more. The inner and outer rails were done offset to spread the welds out across the extensions and add shear strength on the load vs simply cutting the frame in half vertical and splicing at the same location inner/outer. Ya know when using / angles the load across the work area is going to be equal | or - vs not being the case if you use vertical or horizontal angles. Think about the load on the chassis, weight is vertical and powertrain is horizontal so it is simply how we do things when it comes to chassis fab.

As mentioned before, lots if places to get info on chassis cutting, welding and fab. The best cut is a Z but that is the most difficult and perhaps overkill. Who knows maybe we will try one in the future. 🤷🏼‍♂️

Aussie they have to meet government engineering requirements and I do believe have any chassis mods x-rayed.

Cheers
 
Think about the load on the chassis, weight is vertical and powertrain is horizontal so it is simply how we do things when it comes to chassis fab.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I wonder if torsional loads would be enough to worry about. It makes me thing about the PR language that all auto mfrs spout with a new model saying that their new frame is XX% stiffer.

The recent TFL interview with one of the engineers or product managers for the new Tundra talked about how they like the fully boxed frame up front for rigidity for the cab but they like the c-channel in the rear for some flex.

The tech and learning in this thread is fascinating to think about and see - thanks for always sharing Ian.
 
Thanks for taking the time to reply. I wonder if torsional loads would be enough to worry about. It makes me thing about the PR language that all auto mfrs spout with a new model saying that their new frame is XX% stiffer.

The recent TFL interview with one of the engineers or product managers for the new Tundra talked about how they like the fully boxed frame up front for rigidity for the cab but they like the c-channel in the rear for some flex.

The tech and learning in this thread is fascinating to think about and see - thanks for always sharing Ian.

79 frame is 2-3x more buff than an 80 frame. Fully boxed all the way back and the rails are thicker plus way more crossmembers. Both frames have lots of inner gussets.

Also not arguing with Toyota engineers that is for sure! 😂 The old riveted frames are designed to flex. 🤷🏼‍♂️ The 80/70/100/200-series are not. My taco wasn’t, had to buff it up behind the rear axle. Land Cruisers post 40/60-series are an extremely ridged design. 200-series frames are super burley. I like the suspension to do the work.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom