Builds Cruisermatt's FJ62 Build-up (1 Viewer)

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

I started at Tahoe Sunday morning and finished for the night just past Mile marker 4.2. Basically didn't stop other then when I broke and when I was waiting behind those Jeeps.

There was only a few spots that were challenging but i still got over them all. Not sure what Decision Tree is but I'm going to guess it's the one I dented my right fender on :lol: is it the squeeze between the tree on the right side and big rock on the left side (when running the trail backwards) that's on the rightmost part of the trail? Past the hard part going up Big Sluice?

I think with a proper rear locker like an ARB or Harrop I would have done the whole trail in 8ish hours and been off it that evening.
I've been hearing some concerning technical information about the harrop. I heard it disengages in reverse by design and then must reingage again when forward movement is resumed.
 
Matt has a fearless ‘I can always do it’ attitude which I admire in a young person. So many people don’t just try anymore. Better to pat him on the back than stifle it. Not easy to do as a parent of a even younger child now in a world of intense worry. Thank you to him not being in public school.

A few times I’ve been handed that same ‘you can’t do it’ attitude and as soon as I hear it, the ‘are you daring me’ question pops in my head. We need to bring people up nowadays @Cruiserdrew esp the younger generations. They need to get back what has been lost. The sense of ingenuity, ambition, curiosity, accomplishment has really been driven out of the last few generations of people.
 
Last edited:
I've been hearing some concerning technical information about the harrop. I heard it disengages in reverse by design and then must reingage again when forward movement is resumed.

I've heard this as well. However have not seen any proof to support nor deny this claim
@Cruiserdrew has Harrops in some of his Cruisers, does this happen to you?
 
Looks good. I have always been curious as to how difficult it would be to get one of their bumpers to fit a 60.

Thanks. It was inspired a lot by that style. It would probably be more work then to just make one from scratch do to how a 4runner/pickup is completely different from a 60.
My left side 1/4 panel protection is actually almost completely broken off after my Rubicon run so I'm planning on re-doing them, I've had my 1/4 panel chop unfinished for years as well so I'll finish them up decently and then planning some sort of mini boat-side for the rear. Still in the day-dreaming phase on that project.
 
I've heard this as well. However have not seen any proof to support nor deny this claim
@Cruiserdrew has Harrops in some of his Cruisers, does this happen to you?

By their nature, they are activated with rotation driving the pins and activating the locker. But, just like arb, when there is a bunch of pressure on them when bound up they don't unlock. Never been an issue and the 60 I just had at Rubicon has a rear Harrop. No issues as usual. I've been very happy with them and run them in 3 trucks.

Newer ARBs seem to have fewer air leak issues too, so maybe they solved that problem. The ARB in the front of my 60 was resealed in 2016 and has been doing fine since. So I like ARBs too. But with a 20 year experience using ARB air lockers, I have to say that every single one has eventually developed air leaks, or needed a new bonded seal, or had some other form of failure that I just started a replacement program. When they work, they are great. When they don't, it's a complete disassembly.

But both are good lockers. The Harrops are simpler and require less maintenance (none) that I've gone that route.

I also ran a chinese air locker copy once-up front in my FJ40. It worked for about 3 years (2011-2014) But when it broke, it completely broke including the internal case. Lesson learned there. And I'm not particularly hard on stuff, doing trail obstacles slowly and with minimal power.
 
Last edited:
By their nature, they are activated with rotation driving the pins and activating the locker. But, just like arb, when there is a bunch of pressure on them when bound up they don't unlock. Never been an issue and the 60 I just had at Rubicon has a rear Harrop. No issues as usual. I've been very happy with them and run them in 3 trucks.

Newer ARBs seem to have fewer air leak issues too, so maybe they solved that problem. The ARB in the front of my 60 was resealed in 2016 and has been doing fine since. So I like ARBs too. But with a 20 year experience using ARB air lockers, I have to say that every single one has eventually developed air leaks, or needed a new bonded seal, or had some other form of failure that I just started a replacement program. When they work, they are great. When they don't, it's a complete disassembly.

But both are good lockers. The Harrops are simpler and require less maintenance (none) that I've gone that route.

I also ran a chinese air locker copy once-up front in my FJ40. It worked for about 3 years (2011-2014) But when it broke, it completely broke including the internal case. Lesson learned there. And I'm not particularly hard on stuff, doing trail obstacles slowly and with minimal power.

I'll take any ARB's you're discarding :)
 
Why is the goal to strive to mimicking the FJ60 motor and trans mount? It seems you should be trying to get as close to how this setup would be in a GM vehicle as the majority of your drivetrain is now GM. Or am I misreading some of the posts and that is what you are trying to do?
 
Why is the goal to strive to mimicking the FJ60 motor and trans mount? It seems you should be trying to get as close to how this setup would be in a GM vehicle as the majority of your drivetrain is now GM. Or am I misreading some of the posts and that is what you are trying to do?

You're misreading. The goal is to have a mounting solution that is soft enough to not only transmits the minimal amount vibrations/harness from the powertrain to the driver and reduce stress on drivetrain components, but rigid enough to have minimal powertrain movement to reduce torque loss and fatigue on things life shift boots, wires, hoses, exhaust, etc.

Copying the setup straight out of a GM would work for 99% of users. I am not 99% of users. I want to be able to dump the clutch and floor it in 1st gear low range without it pulling the rubber motor mounts apart or ripping the brackets off the frame.
 
This is the video I saw about it.


Thanks for posting that. I had been hearing the same thing. Sounds like an annoying design flaw that 95% of users probably won't ever notice. I always forget about the TJM lockers they look pretty neat.
 
Incredible. Meanwhile the people in the 100 forum are confused about their power lumbar
What species tree does that come from?
 
View attachment 2411211


Currently working on re doing my motor mounts before i pull the broken transmission out (as it's locating everything and I can actually sort of move the truck around under it's own power, albeit forwards in 2nd gear only). Unfortunately the 80 series rear link bushings i had been very happy with for the first two years of the engine swap started suddenly degrading hard a few weeks before I left for my trip and throughout the trip completely degraded into nothing, this resulted in the passenger side frame mount ripping completely off the frame on the Rubicon. Not sure if it's the heat, the flex gaps in the rubber that those bushings have, or if it's just because they had 250k miles as control arm bushings before they were engine mounts, but I think this setup was just a touch too rigid which was a contributing factor in the bellhousing cracking, and I should have plated the frame on the passenger side to begin with so I decided to just re-do the setup. The joys of experimentation. And I'll never resort to those awful AA universal motor mounts

Time for a new setup.

I'm using a Envoy/Trailblazer bracket/mount on the passenger side (this is actually a driver's side bracket and mount but I only have this side for whatever reason so it get's used, no functional difference other then some clearance needed on the AC compressor bracket). I've accumulated a nice pile of various mounts and brackets from LS engines I've pulled from different applications, this one seemed to offer the most amount of cushion/fluff and seemed to be the easiest to build for as it sits pretty flat compared to the more common Tahoe/Silverado mounts that need a weird, inverted 45-degree mounting. As mentioned I only needed to make a new frame bracket. I'm thinking this large fluid-filled mount will take out that harsh impact loading the passenger side (compression) sees when flooring it in low gear. Regardless, this time I way overbuilt the frame mount for this side, all 1/4", including the frame spreader plate.



View attachment 2411210
View attachment 2411213
View attachment 2411214



For the driver's side I'm sticking with a bushing/bolt setup, however loosing the 80 series suspensions bushing for a much larger (and fully rubber filled) leaf spring bushing for a Jeep Cherokee, it's large and has a easy OD, 2.5", and I had 2.5" pipe on hand, and it was about $8 and could get it same-day. Plus common easy replacement is a nice bonus.
Just need to finish welding the other side bracket to the frame and I will work on some frame tabs for this this side.



View attachment 2411222
I wish I went this way with my mounts. I really like the firmness and how it feels when you stomp on it, but it’s just too much.

I used the AA style mounts.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom