40 series rear bumper mounting, Kaymar bumper and others?

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

Fantom

Fantom

10 Year 15 Year
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Threads
336
Messages
5,169
Location
Port Coquitlam
Website
www.flickr.com
The search hasn't come up with anything useful.
Does anyone have pictures of how the Kaymar rear bumper attaches to the back of a 40?
Do they remove the rear cross member or just bolt to it?

Are there any rear bumpers for the 40 that remove the rear cross member or are all of them bolted to the the cross member?

Looking at what is out there that has the trailer receiver higher up and not below the cross member.
 
The rear crossmember is part of the frame. Unless it's rusted and needs to be replaced, it doesn't come out. It's riveted.

All bumpers would bolt to it.

It wouldn't be out of the question to cut a hole in the center of the four-bolt mounting point for the receiver and have the receiver pass through there.

My Downey receiver hangs further down than I would like, but I don't find that it drags very often, if at all.
 
Last edited:
Believe LCWizard makes a 4+ heavy duty replacement rear frame member for for installing his rear carrier.:meh: The problem with bumpers that bolt to the rear frame member is three was three different locations for the bumperettes over the years. If you plan on using those fixed nuts the pre 74s fixed nuts are in the wrong location to just bolt on. The 4+ frame member has the 74 and later style.
 
Interesting, my rear cross member is bolted in (all around), was wondering about that. Likely was replaced or taken off and cleaned when the previous owner did the aluminum tub in that case. Since the factory option is riveted then I can see why no one would be making them like that.
I don't like the 4+ bumper design, doesn't suit my needs. Looks like I'm back to the idea of making one.
So everyone out there is bolting to the face of the cross member then?
 
@Fantom
We don't consider our carrier a bumper per se. We designed it about 20 years ago when 90 percent of 40's were used quite aggressively.
Our main concern was departure and durability. We wanted a carrier that would allow you to pull the weight from the sheet metal and you could punish without worry. A bumper, in the case of a 40 would be an extension from the frame and require relocating the taillights as Kaymar does.
The 40 community didn't seem to support that design as Man-a-Fre, the long time sole distributor of Kaymar in the US, sold both ours and the Kaymar and had trouble selling a half dozen per year while they easily moved 80 or more of ours.
With more and more 40's being built as an investment and seeing less off road time, there may be a market for a Kaymar style bumper again.
I did a lot of measurements concerning departure angles. Adding the Kaymar to a stock 40 dropped the departure angle about 5 degrees. In the
90's I tried marketing a couple bumper carriers locally in Az but always had the same reaction concerning trail performance. .
Jason ( @reevesci ) Trail Tailor here is building a bumper style 40 carrier. You might contact him on this.
 
lcwizard said:
@Fantom
We don't consider our carrier a bumper per se. We designed it about 20 years ago when 90 percent of 40's were used quite aggressively.
Our main concern was departure and durability. We wanted a carrier that would allow you to pull the weight from the sheet metal and you could punish without worry. A bumper, in the case of a 40 would be an extension from the frame and require relocating the taillights as Kaymar does.
The 40 community didn't seem to support that design as Man-a-Fre, the long time sole distributor of Kaymar in the US, sold both ours and the Kaymar and had trouble selling a half dozen per year while they easily moved 80 or more of ours.
With more and more 40's being built as an investment and seeing less off road time, there may be a market for a Kaymar style bumper again.
I did a lot of measurements concerning departure angles. Adding the Kaymar to a stock 40 dropped the departure angle about 5 degrees. In the
90's I tried marketing a couple bumper carriers locally in Az but always had the same reaction concerning trail performance. .
Jason ( @reevesci ) Trail Tailor here is building a bumper style 40 carrier. You might contact him on this.
Click to expand...


Mine is the same as most others. Bolts to the rear crossmember. As Dave said, the lights must be re-positioned and cut into my bumper shell. I offer a few light options, pending the clients tastes. OE style, Clear LED or a 3 way LED.

J
SAM_1093.webp
 
lcwizard said:
@Fantom
We don't consider our carrier a bumper per se. We designed it about 20 years ago when 90 percent of 40's were used quite aggressively.
Our main concern was departure and durability. We wanted a carrier that would allow you to pull the weight from the sheet metal and you could punish without worry. A bumper, in the case of a 40 would be an extension from the frame and require relocating the taillights as Kaymar does.
The 40 community didn't seem to support that design as Man-a-Fre, the long time sole distributor of Kaymar in the US, sold both ours and the Kaymar and had trouble selling a half dozen per year while they easily moved 80 or more of ours.
With more and more 40's being built as an investment and seeing less off road time, there may be a market for a Kaymar style bumper again.
I did a lot of measurements concerning departure angles. Adding the Kaymar to a stock 40 dropped the departure angle about 5 degrees. In the
90's I tried marketing a couple bumper carriers locally in Az but always had the same reaction concerning trail performance. .
Jason ( @reevesci ) Trail Tailor here is building a bumper style 40 carrier. You might contact him on this.
Click to expand...

I understand the reasoning behind the design you ended up doing and it was a good solution. For my taste and application, especially since the rear cross member is already bolted not riveted on, I will be looking at other options. Thank you for the info.
 
Fantom said:
I understand the reasoning behind the design you ended up doing and it was a good solution. For my taste and application, especially since the rear cross member is already bolted not riveted on, I will be looking at other options. Thank you for the info.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Luke's (4x4labs) design will work for you. His would be the first and only design I know of that replaces the cross member. It would be good option in the resto phase with clear access to the frame or in your case where the necessary rivet removal has been done for you.
He's got a good reputation for quality and customer service and will most likely have a lock on that idea. Being as small as the market is for 40 parts each builder finds his niche and is better keeping it tight. It's better to build a very few things very well than a whole bunch of things poorly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom