4Wheel Underground FJ80 3Link....... Now available!!! ***A Full frontal attack***

[AMMO]

Perhaps some want to use coils with straps, or own coil overs already and plan custom hoops... Just saying, that would open the market to everyone.

Thanks,

-A

Nothing... Not going to entertain this suggestion?

 

[4WheelUnderground]

I was trying to give an appropriate response. But I'm having a hard time coming up with what I want to say.

 

[AMMO]

I was trying to give an appropriate response. But I'm having a hard time coming up with what I want to say.

Just seems strange why you would sell other "kits" this way for different platforms but not consider it for the 80.

Thanks.

-A

 

[4WheelUnderground]

Even with the reviews of two unassociated persons, I am still on a mission to prove a point about a 3 linked 80 and coilovers. With that said I would certainly be willing for the purchase of coilovers in the kit to be dismissed if the person already had coilovers and wanted them tuned. At the moment we do not offer shock mounting for any shock on the 80 series since out test platform was using some very unique coilovers much larger than what 99% of people will run.

As for standard springs and shock setups. I was hoping to get a few more kits out to the public for review before the kit is offered without coilovers.

 

[Wrench]

Excuse my ignorance but what is the advantage of running coilovers vs standard coil springs?

 

[4WheelUnderground]

Tuneability and performance. The ability to tune the cars spring rate and ride height as well as what point in the suspensions movement to become stiffer. Plus the added benefit that the springs (with preload) will always apply downward pressure to the axle and tires during 100% of its movement. Standard coil springs have no preload for ride height, no adjustment to become stiffer when needed and have limited down travel before they separate from their seat at which point they stop adding traction to the wheels because they aren't pushing on the axle. I view standard coils that drop out of their seat much the same many people do of double shackled leaf springs. Ya you have wheel travel but is it adding to your performance or your ego.

 

[Delancy]

I was trying to give an appropriate response. But I'm having a hard time coming up with what I want to say.

Better step back from the keyboard and go untie Brian, or if you've hacked into the account, log off now, 'cause there is NFW he typed that.

 

[4WheelUnderground]

Better step back from the keyboard and go untie Brian, or if you've hacked into the account, log off now, 'cause there is NFW he typed that.

Ha ha.

 

[4WheelUnderground]

Excuse my ignorance but what is the advantage of running coilovers vs standard coil springs?

I hope that answered your question if not I can try again.

 

[Wrench]

Yeah it did. Thank you.

 

[Delancy]

This on sale yet?

 

[jcardona1]

This on sale yet?

On sale or for sale? Because I've had my kit for weeks now

 

[Delancy]

On sale or for sale?

On sale, as in discounted, since the demand appears to be limited to a handful.

If 1000 say they can't wait for it, five will pay when it's time.

Are you waiting on knuckles, too?

 

[jcardona1]

On sale, as in discounted, since the demand appears to be limited to a handful.

If 1000 say they can't wait for it, five will pay when it's time.

Are you waiting on knuckles, too?

Yeah I'll be doing the Hellfires. Too true about those who put money where there mouth is. But I don't imagine Brian having a stockpile of these kits. Coilovers, springs and bumps are drop shipped. With templates setup for the brackets, you build-to-sell and keep inventory at a minimum.

 

[Delancy]

I don't imagine Brian having a stockpile of these kits.

The "sale" statement was tongue in cheek.......since it's so quiet I can hear crickets chirping.

 

[4WheelUnderground]

Ya its been quiet. Strange considering everyones distain for the existing design. Don't know if not enough people know about this product yet or no one is interested. I guess I'll wait and see.

 

[Delancy]

Mebbe you should throw in a couple of cool cup holders.....or mebbe sponsor both a crawler AND daily driver.

For S&Gs with the secondary benefit of putting on page 1:

Front-

1. Is it not possibly to cycle then order COs with internal bump stops, at least, maybe even limits?

I'm not seeing the real estate necessary, nor need for hydros, all things considered.

Know Glenn and I have discussed with coiled shocks, but always knew the travel range, knew when coils/links would bind, so may not be the same deal, I dunno, but if possible to address within the CO, seems logical, for the sake of real estate.

2. Same holds true for shock lengths.

Would it not be more beneficial to cycle and determine, after the links are established and shock mounts are built?

Rear-

1. Why does the same basic principle behind the front three link and panhard not apply to the rear, being raised lower link at axle, same separation at axle and frame, same placement of upper at the frame, same panhard angle?

2. Wouldn't the shocks be the same spec as the front?

Obviously, coil rate and length may vary, but the shock valving wouldn't, right?

3. In laymen's terms, what's the advantage to relinking the rear, say compared to correcting the angles of the OE 5 link?

Coils versus coil overs, same comparison?

Humor me, and assume there's nothing but frame rails and no body to deal with, as well, possibly extending the rear wheelbase by 10-12". (I'll assume you have a product for the rear, which we know is not the case).

Would the mini mounts not be sufficient, if the above conditions were met?

 

[kdxman]

Ya its been quiet. Strange considering everyones distain for the existing design. Don't know if not enough people know about this product yet or no one is interested. I guess I'll wait and see.

I am very interested , just saving up my pennies

 

[4WheelUnderground]

Expand quote for response please.

Mebbe you should throw in a couple of cool cup holders.....or mebbe sponsor both a crawler AND daily driver.

For S&Gs with the secondary benefit of putting on page 1:

Front-

1. Is it not possibly to cycle then order COs with internal bump stops, at least, maybe even limits?
Because there is no bind in the suspension there is no need to test cycle. You aren't working with limitations other then your frame and tire size, so no you don't have to bother with that kind of headache. As for internal bumps, like what? And why would you want to rely on a shock that is mounted with a 1/2" bolt to due the duties of stopping your vehicle consistently repeatedly. Eventually that bolt is going to bend or break. While a frame mounted bump system will live forever provided your frame doesn't rust though.

I'm not seeing the real estate necessary, nor need for hydros, all things considered.
There is plenty of real estate to work with. And I use a poly bump design that fits into an hydro bump can. So that a future upgrade to hydro can be done by simply turning a wrench and not a cut, grind and weld install.


Know Glenn and I have discussed with coiled shocks, but always knew the travel range, knew when coils/links would bind, so may not be the same deal, I dunno, but if possible to address within the CO, seems logical, for the sake of real estate.

2. Same holds true for shock lengths.

Would it not be more beneficial to cycle and determine, after the links are established and shock mounts are built?

So you want a custom length shock? So that you cant call and get replacement parts easily? And you want to build all of your mounting points and have them welded on with out putting a tire on and cycling the suspension to check for clearances?
Doesn't sound like the smartest way to do things to me. You lock your self in to what you "THINK" works without testing it first. I've gotten lucking on R&D before but not that lucky. That's like mini truck guys saying they are going to install coilovers on the outside of the frame and between the tire because when he put a tape measure to it and he has 4"s so a coilover will fit. Right up until the time you start cycling your suspension and realize the tire moves in closer and the swing of the axle makes the coilover hit the frame.

Rear-

1. Why does the same basic principle behind the front three link and panhard not apply to the rear, being raised lower link at axle, same separation at axle and frame, same placement of upper at the frame, same panhard angle?

First off that panhard position looks to be in the way for many other than stock spring and shock locations. Not that a panhard wont work there, just that one looks to be in the way to me. And while the idea of simply moving things up on the axle and leaving everything else the same sounds like a great idea. I haven't spent enough time under the rear end of one of these to make an informed decision. What I can tell you is all of your link lengths stay the same as stock. Good, bad or indifferent.

2. Wouldn't the shocks be the same spec as the front?

Nope! Not even close. Different weight = different spring and different valving.

Obviously, coil rate and length may vary, but the shock valving wouldn't, right?

3. In laymen's terms, what's the advantage to relinking the rear, say compared to correcting the angles of the OE 5 link?

With the factory predetermined location of said links you would be limited to certain handling characteristics that work while in factory form in combination with the factory front. For a better handling vehicle you'd want to address characteristics that change when the CG changes. A higher CG = greater weight transfer in three area's. Acceleration, breaking and body roll during a turn.

Coils versus coil overs, same comparison?

Valving is valving. Spring rates one coilovers are easily changed to tune per vehicle while standard coils aren't. Having custom springs made per application is expensive and with massive lead times. Example, we already know that one size doesn't fit all. So we build your cruiser you put standard springs on drive around and you're happy as a clam. Then you put stuff in your cruiser for a trip and notice the rear is sagging badly. Would you like to buy more custom springs sir. Please send me another $600. And wait another 15 weeks.

Coilovers on the other hand have off the shelf springs and those springs can be told when to engage and become stiffer so you don't have to buy new ones and so you can handle different amounts of weight with a few turns of a jam nut.

Humor me, and assume there's nothing but frame rails and no body to deal with, as well, possibly extending the rear wheelbase by 10-12". (I'll assume you have a product for the rear, which we know is not the case).

Would the mini mounts not be sufficient, if the above conditions were met?

The body is the problem as well is the gas tank. And geometry of links should never be the same from one platform to another. If it was then all vehicles would have the same exact setup. As in all factory vehicles from one OEM to another.

 

[Delancy]

Moar questions, kind sir.

I've been under the impressions, however wrongly misguided, that the centerline of the lower link bolt remain in line with the output flange of the TC, which is obviously not the case, here?

I'm not contesting your experience, merely trying to grasp what an acceptable distance is, if moving the lower link bolt closer to the axle, away from the output flange.

Appears this is but a few inches and in previous conversations with Jesse, he claimed there would likely never be a circumstance possible on any 80 Series front, flexy arms or linked, that a standard slip joint wouldn't suffice, but what is the limitation to that generalization? (Assuming that driveshaft was the concern for why folks maintain the lower link bolt at the centerline of the output flange.)

Can the lower link bolt be 12" away from the TC output flange?

This also leads into another of a multifaceted questioning, or explanation request of an observation.

Why not incorporate the front lowers and uppers into a cross member?

One thing that differentiates the 80 apart from every other damn Land Cruiser or Toyota, is the complete lack of TC options. They'll never change, at least, not within a reasonable timeframe and never with enough options or frequency to have to keep several "kits" around.

Seems a market opportunity....plus it feeds into killing a flock of birds with one stone, if the front and rear lowers and uppers could be incorporated into the crossmember, which the OE leaves a lot to be desired, along with possibility of a belly pan.

I know you're gonna cringe and will prolly never answer my call again, but ala Metal Mayhem, again, once you've more thoroughly developed a rear solutuon.

At the very least, an OE-ish crossmember only, with some stacked nickel welds on a rwsr extension to protect the TC, incorporating the link bracketry would be a very cool revision to consider, and one that's very marketable, very cheap (all things considered) to do.

Hell, could bolt up the apparatus and there'd be little user thought in finish welding, since there's only 1/8-1/4" slack in the (8) bolted crossmember connection, that the mounts are welded solid to the inner and outer frame rail.

Don't hate me.

My intentions are pure(ly selfish and motivated by my endeavors).

Gotta armor the front of the paper thin housing and with the inclusion of high steer and raised Panhard, it's seemed logical to me to incorporate a removable cover.

In my limited experience with a relatively mundane background in engineering, even the g string type face plate "should" being operative, extend from the lower lip of the housing to the top, where there's actual meat to support it, ala Delnancy Fab.

Can the tower be notched around similar and burned into the diff armor?

Any consideration given to extending the product line up to incorporate armor that plays well with the tower attachment, if not?

Few moar. Be right back.