If you trim the bull bar. Better approach angle.. not bad!
35's vs. 37's
- Thread starter 619TOY
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
inner fender on sidewall or somewhere else like tread rub.
on the side of the tread just like posted above. But that is at full stuff and doesn't happen very often. Last time I was loaded down with gear for a 4 day trip to NC.
IMHO the panhard drop bracket is keeping it off the flares.
May sound bad but some strategic persuation with a porta power hydralic ram and pump system... Rentable autobody tool could help matters there a bit.. Maybe small spacers depending on flare side clearance.
Another option is "mini tubing" the rear fenders.. Google C5 corvette minitub ... You would be amazed to see how high class you can get with a dremel cutoff wheel.... Looked stock and made room for wider tires... Lots of classy ways to make room..
May sound bad but some strategic persuation with a porta power hydralic ram and pump system... Rentable autobody tool could help matters there a bit.. Maybe small spacers depending on flare side clearance.
Another option is "mini tubing" the rear fenders.. Google C5 corvette minitub ... You would be amazed to see how high class you can get with a dremel cutoff wheel.... Looked stock and made room for wider tires... Lots of classy ways to make room..
1/4" you mean or 1/2" ?
I think 1/2" is good, except for the short bus bar, it improves clearance otherwise.
Next we move the bar forward slightly.
I have a very short week this week and will hopefully be able to draw and answer all those previous questions so we know exactly how what you did differs from stock and better gauge it's impact on what you are seeing.
619toy is rubbing the rear of his flare not the outside. He's got Slee's 6" lift and I believe it's common to use upper rear adj control arms. If he has those then maybe that is poart of his rubbing issue with 315s.
Originally Posted by landtank
Yes but that just puts the axle back in the stock location because you are compensating for the axle shift from how you corrected caster.
This drawing shows that near same shift in the axle's location. The gray drawing is the axle in the stock location. The green drawing is the axle after pressing in OME bushings. And the red drawing is after slotting the front hole by 14mm.
I think if you were to install those brackets on a truck that didn't shift the axle you would create problems.
I know what Im seeing, its a definitive answer on your thoughts earlier in this thread that some research will answer for you, like above, where you said you 'think" if they were installed, but you also said in the same post it does put the axle back in the original location.
landtank said:
Where you go from a drawing you say it puts it back to the standard location, to you "think" it may cause a problem, to offering a pic with a measurement to 3 decimal places, that you say "it wasnt meant to provide exact measurements".
So perhaps if you can provide the links to threads you claim you answered previously, that I asked for, plus tell us what you find when you do your research this week, that would be great, then maybe you could go to why "stock" is better, in your opinion in this arrnagement, vs other than stock, and why.
And probably best if you start a new thread for your findings, so we can keep this one one track
[/I]
I know what Im seeing, its a definitive answer on your thoughts earlier in this thread that some research will answer for you, like above, where you said you 'think" if they were installed, but you also said in the same post it does put the axle back in the original location.
Where you go from a drawing you say it puts it back to the standard location, to you "think" it may cause a problem, to offering a pic with a measurement to 3 decimal places, that you say "it wasnt meant to provide exact measurements".
So perhaps if you can provide the links to threads you claim you answered previously, that I asked for, plus tell us what you find when you do your research this week, that would be great, then maybe you could go to why "stock" is better, in your opinion in this arrnagement, vs other than stock, and why.
And probably best if you start a new thread for your findings, so we can keep this one one track
you know what, skip it, I got better things I could be doing.
Adjustable uppers don't set wheebase, they set pinion angle and cannot force rear travel of the axle as that is defined by the longer lower arm. He is rubbing because he has a 13.5" wide 35" tires with a tall suspension that requires a high link angle (and therefore movement under compression) and a suspension design to up travel that forces the tire to compress further into the wheel well than it should.
On a 6" lift and 37's, I would raise the axle mount of the rear panhard 2-3" and ensure my shock travel was 40% up and 60% down and I'd stick with a 10" travel shock. At which point my 37's would fit about as well as his wide 35's do now. It's very simple when you have that much lift, and therefore travel to the first contact point, to play with.
Actually, I would leaf the rear (it would be flat and flexy and stable on a 6"-7" lift) and 3-link the front, but then as has been pointed out, I'm crazy. Rubbing 35's on a 6" lift when they can be easily made to not rub on a 3" lift is completely sane
- Thread starter
- #51
Just when I was about to give up on my own thread.
I think that the rear upper links have actually pushed my axle back a little because while the lowers have remained stationary, the uppers have been moved back by extending them to give the 90 degree pinion angle for the DC rear shaft.
I do like the idea of raising the axle panhard mount as opposed to lowering the frameside mount. I have only seen the frameside mount lowered so I guess I wasn't being very open minded.
I still really want to run 37's but I'm still not convinced it won't get me into yet another bucket of worms.
I'm still pretty worried about the steering aspect and have no objections to hydro assist if there were just a little more info out there.
My buddy in AK is running 37" super swampers (bias) and really likes them but he never had any rubbing issues at all with 35's either. Furthering my theory that different local's present different stresses to our rigs.
Maybe I've never given any serious thought to running bias ply's so I've never done any research but I've heard from other wheeler's that you "need" to run beadlocks to get the fullest potential out of them.
I think that the rear upper links have actually pushed my axle back a little because while the lowers have remained stationary, the uppers have been moved back by extending them to give the 90 degree pinion angle for the DC rear shaft.
I do like the idea of raising the axle panhard mount as opposed to lowering the frameside mount. I have only seen the frameside mount lowered so I guess I wasn't being very open minded.
I still really want to run 37's but I'm still not convinced it won't get me into yet another bucket of worms.
I'm still pretty worried about the steering aspect and have no objections to hydro assist if there were just a little more info out there.
My buddy in AK is running 37" super swampers (bias) and really likes them but he never had any rubbing issues at all with 35's either. Furthering my theory that different local's present different stresses to our rigs.
Maybe I've never given any serious thought to running bias ply's so I've never done any research but I've heard from other wheeler's that you "need" to run beadlocks to get the fullest potential out of them.
Thank you
I've drawn the the raise to the rear axle mount and it will give you about 2" more lift before rubbing the inner fender but at the cost of potentially rubbing the outer fender at about the 12:00 o'clock position.
If you are interested I'd be willing to flex my other wise stock suspension with a panhard frame drop to see how a 37" tire would fit.
Than trying to get a grasp on suspension ...
Also,
an A frame is a pretty easy model to do, and flick the panhard rod all together.
Than trying to get a grasp on suspension ...
Also,
an A frame is a pretty easy model to do, and flick the panhard rod all together.
Not sure about fabing an upper a frame without making a long arm rear while I was at it. I think the fuel tank is in the way of moving the upper arm upper mount forward.
There is much to consider in regards to links and geometry. Correcting the panhard was the simplest change that helped with tire clearance.
Lengtheneing the bottom arms 200mm [8"] and making the a frame fit into the top existing brackets works, [we have 2 trucks here with similar set up, one a supercharged comp truck on 37"s the other a 512 ci 600hp @ rw 6" lifted on 38's] and it gets rid of the panhard rod, and allows better flex, especially with swivels at one end of the lower arms.
I just got uniballs for my lower arms and panhard rods, to keep them looking factory.
We machined the hi mis spacers down to fit into the original cruiser brackets, and used 19mm spacers so they go stright on the toyota bolts, and with the locator ring welded onto the cruiser control arm at the diff end, will look factory when you stick your head under there, compared to heim jointed units.
We used 1" for the arms, and 7/8 fit onto the diff end of the panhards using the same method as above.
http://www.fullsizexjgear.com/Kartek/FK Rod ends/1inch-uniball-kit-s.jpg
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Threads
- 274
- Messages
- 23,204
- Location
- Chandler, AZ
- Website
- www.tontorecreationalliance.org
It sounds like your rubbing the flare on one side and the wheel well on the other? If so, you probably need to adjust the panhard to center the axle at stuff. My panhard is stock and it stuffs pretty even side to side.
... rear of flare and stock mounting points for mudflap.This usually knocks loose the lower flare mounting hardware which I reattach when I get home.
I trimmed the inside lower flare, from the mount tab up, that solved the flare rub problem. See the flare trim in the second pic.
Had my junk twisted up on the fork lift today, so shot some pix of the tire clearance. The only place where it has rubbed metal in the rear is the inner fender well before the wheel spacers. The 37x12.5 Coopers on 7.5" rims make for some "tall and skinny" tires that stuff well in the 80 fender wells. My first choice was Toyo's, but they are 1.5" wider in section width, so would need more flex limiting to clear.
Looking at it today, I think that it will clear with 2" bump stops. Will have to fab a set and see, would be nice to recover some of the stuff travel.
I think you should go bigger! Trial fit of a small version of my Arctic truck with 38.5" boggs.
Trial fit of a small version of my Arctic truck with 38.5" boggs.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Threads
- 274
- Messages
- 23,204
- Location
- Chandler, AZ
- Website
- www.tontorecreationalliance.org
I think you should go bigger!
For the type of wheeling that I do (I avoid slop) 10" tread width is plenty. Taller would be good, but those are about the biggest that will stuff in the wheel wells without cutting metal. For my setup, using as much of the available travel without cutting the body is the goal. It still needs some tuning, but very happy with the performance and ride.
Kevin, what is the offset of those rims?
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Threads
- 274
- Messages
- 23,204
- Location
- Chandler, AZ
- Website
- www.tontorecreationalliance.org
IIRC, the back space measured ~4.5" and rims are 7.5" wide.