This just made me consider purchasing an 80 again...
DoUbLEr!!!!
- Thread starter Booger weldz
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
It's lower than that isn't it? Marlin gears give you 3.116:1. I had made a little chart the other day just, similar to what somebody else did above
I am happy to be corrected! I am setting aside money NOW so that I'm ready to go when they are. I have a HUGE space under the rear of my truck where the spare tire and chain hoist used to be. Seems like a prime spot to put in a very large fuel tank?? If there was enough interest, couldn't we have someone fab up a bunch?
While there is space there, and you can put an aux tank there and even maybe make it primary tank; I would think the folks using this gearing wouldnt want the tank hanging there for the type of wheeling they want based on this solution.
WAG
- Thread starter
- #64
I've made 5 fuel cells for people over the years using the factory parts, none on an 80, but all of which passed CA smog. If you remove the tank you open a reconstruction of the fuct link system as well. A completely different can a worms, but worth mentioning.
dirtyboots
Atrocious Driving
Is it your plan to fab a cell in the factory spare tire area?
Probably not...as I'm reading Kalifornia smog requirements...but it was a nice thought.
nukegoat
Should have bought a Jeep
I don know why you think the rear suspension is hopeless. Mine works great now. Stock fuel tank as well.
- Thread starter
- #68
My suspension endeavors exist to resolve the ill street manners. All the flex, etc is a welcome freebie in the redesign, but not at all on the top of the list of reasons I light a torch.
I would employ the stock frame side panhard mount long before using the upper link mount real estate you incorporated.
Nothing wrong with what you have done, I think it's awesome. I'm just not into it on my own truck because of my own thoughts on suspension design and personal experience.
I haven't touched the rear end of my truck because I thought the topic of this thread might happen.
Even my exhaust isn't finished. Though I daily drive the truck.
My suspension redesign puts a lower link right under the gas tank. It makes it super cumbersome to remove that tank. I never will have to, but the situation exists. Why not just move it?
If I move the tank, I can remove everything and start from scratch. That makes it simple. One can build the 'perfect' dual triangulated 4 link once everything's gone.
That's all I've eve done. Torch everything off the frame and start from scratch. Pretty sure that's where this goes for me. Though anyone can use this by beating up the stock tank with a 2lb sledge.
maxamillion2345
Franken-80
I put a plastic tank from a grand cherokee there and ditched the stock tank. It's not perfect but it works.
- Thread starter
- #70
I dunno what you've done for a rear axle but you can use a bazillion different tcases after the a343 adaptation to the 'black box' with this. If you've changed the tank and have a centered rear axle you can bolt anything from a dana300 to an atlas with this. Options are HuGe.
maxamillion2345
Franken-80
Well, I'm running a 14 bolt on chevy 63s and a getrag with an np205 (29 spline input 32 spline outputs) behind a cummins personally but... the WJ tank was cheapppp. I blocked off the stock hole for the fuel pump and then I used a hole saw, cut two holes, cut between em for the oval for the stock pickup/sender from the stock landcruiser tank, extended the wiring, the only difficult part was getting the fuel filler neck to work.
nukegoat
Should have bought a Jeep
What characteristic would you expect to get out of your rear suspension design that mine is lacking?
- Thread starter
- #73
Nothing. Your numbers are as good as anything I would make.
Just not reusing some of the factory parts/mounts. But cool with the factory panhard frame area.
Just not reusing some of the factory parts/mounts. But cool with the factory panhard frame area.
nukegoat
Should have bought a Jeep
Cutting it off allows for more freedom in exhaust routing. Not that mine isn't getting abused anyway
Agreed. However, as I'm sure you recall beno, making room wasn't the only problem with Mark's gear box.
Years ago when I was doing my build I was ready to drop all the dough and willing to cut my floorboard, gas tank, or whatever to make that thing fit. Until I talked to Christo who told me about all the technical problems they'd observed with Mark's box, like oil constantly boiling out of it...
I don't know how "hardcore" I am. Only running 35s. No flat bed waiting at the trailhead. Don't hangout with the Potato Salad Hill crowd much. Most times I'm trying to get away from the crowd. I love a good technical challenge that tests the machine and my ability, but I don't necessarily go out of my way to find it. Just so happens there's usually a correlation between trail difficulty and the pristine and unpopulated.
I dig Booger's Taco pic with the kayaks on top. Not sure what the story is there but reminds me of what we're usually trying to do; get away from the Subaru crowd to have some fun, hiking, canyoneering, backpacking, whatever. Times when I could really use super low range are usually when I'm loaded down with kids and gear, someplace way out where it would seriously suck to break down.
Really appreciate Booger et al for pushing this forward. Stoked at the thought of having a doubler after decades of thrashing my junk on the rocks for poor gearing. TC reduction gears in the 80 have helped, but could definitely go lower.
I'm not too worried about making the thing fit. What I'm hoping for, and will be watching for, is strength and reliability...
Last edited:
orangefj45
Supporting Vendor
I just re-visited this thread and read it post for post.
One key "item" nobody has mentioned is "torque multiplication". If you're not sure what that is, then look it up. In a nutshell, it's a function of the torque converter. To get a realistic sense of your final drive ratio, you have to include it into the equation when comparing final drive ratios of an automatic versus a manual trans. There's no fixed "ratio" for it, but commonly it's set at 2:1 up to 2.5:1. The more torque your engine produces, the taller the number gets. The 1FZ isn't a torque monster but it's not a 4-banger either. So for the sake of argument, how about we split it down the middle and set the torque multiplication factor at 2.25:1.
Everybody here can do the match.
Not trying to hijack this post, but you gotta compare apples to apples.
I'm stoked that NWF and Paul are working on making this happen. In most cases, the Marlin gears will prove themselves sufficient. But for some situations, you'll want/need lower gearing. The black box should fill that void nicely.
Georg @ Valley Hybrids
One key "item" nobody has mentioned is "torque multiplication". If you're not sure what that is, then look it up. In a nutshell, it's a function of the torque converter. To get a realistic sense of your final drive ratio, you have to include it into the equation when comparing final drive ratios of an automatic versus a manual trans. There's no fixed "ratio" for it, but commonly it's set at 2:1 up to 2.5:1. The more torque your engine produces, the taller the number gets. The 1FZ isn't a torque monster but it's not a 4-banger either. So for the sake of argument, how about we split it down the middle and set the torque multiplication factor at 2.25:1.
Everybody here can do the match.
Not trying to hijack this post, but you gotta compare apples to apples.
I'm stoked that NWF and Paul are working on making this happen. In most cases, the Marlin gears will prove themselves sufficient. But for some situations, you'll want/need lower gearing. The black box should fill that void nicely.
Georg @ Valley Hybrids
1973Guppie
Supporting Vendor
good post george, so for someone whom plans to do 4.88 gears in the axles with marlin gears and 35's what would be the realistic low gear? I am a newb to autos.....
orangefj45
Supporting Vendor
That ends up being about 95:1
Prefect for that tire size if you ask me. And would work great with 37s also.
Prefect for that tire size if you ask me. And would work great with 37s also.
orangefj45
Supporting Vendor
There was some mention of another item to consider earlier in this thread .......... "Crawling thru your brakes".
This happens when you run a very low final drive ratio with an auto. The torque converter tries to do its job and send power thru the trans.
If you can stop the vehicle, the suspension will load up. That's if you can stop it. Given that we're talking about 80s here, you're pretty much running into physical limitations when it comes to the brakes, especially with 37" or larger tires.
So you'll be putting the transmission in N a lot to get the rig to stop.
Georg @ Valley Hybrids
This happens when you run a very low final drive ratio with an auto. The torque converter tries to do its job and send power thru the trans.
If you can stop the vehicle, the suspension will load up. That's if you can stop it. Given that we're talking about 80s here, you're pretty much running into physical limitations when it comes to the brakes, especially with 37" or larger tires.
So you'll be putting the transmission in N a lot to get the rig to stop.
Georg @ Valley Hybrids