For John. N74L vs N101

[sleeoffroad]

Yes, the center of gravity might be slightly lower with the axle lower. What I am trying to says is that I believe John feels his truck is more stable since it does not lift it's rear wheel as often as it did on rutted roads.

However I do not believe it is more stable (by saying stable, I say less likely to roll over when pushed to the limits). Yes, in limited cases the wheel will droop out more and may or may not still be contact with the ground.

Does it help with traction, maybe, but only if the wheel has downforce on it and is actually allowed to grip. If the axle droops so far that the spring unloads and there is no downforce on the axle, then there is no pressure on the wheel and it will do zero to help with the traction to overcome the obstacle.

Can he drive further up a ramp or rock without lifting his rear tire. Yes, does that mean he is stable no. If you ever studied Ben's old 80 you would see that he could drive to the top of our ramp at the shop, however was that truck stable to wheel. No.

My ShortBus goes about halfway up our ramp, however it is 100% more stable than his truck used to be. Why? Less travel and retained springs that has both possitive and negative spring tension. So the axle is never allowed to droop freely. Once the axle starts pulling down on one side, it starts to pull the body down as well and thus leveling the truck.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

.6" extra travel would make no noticable difference to stability, though "if" the valving is different, it may help control movement.

Because of his bump stop spacer, his shock change has netted him 1.6" extra droop, but only .6" extra travel from what he had, by limiting the up travel to stop the shock bottoming on compression with 50mm bump stop spacers.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's been measured. Have you installed N74L shocks on the rear of a 100?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Yes, the center of gravity might be slightly lower with the axle lower. What I am trying to says is that I believe John feels his truck is more stable since it does not lift it's rear wheel as often as it did on rutted roads.

However I do not believe it is more stable (by saying stable, I say less likely to roll over when pushed to the limits). Yes, in limited cases the wheel will droop out more and may or may not still be contact with the ground.

Does it help with traction, maybe, but only if the wheel has downforce on it and is actually allowed to grip. If the axle droops so far that the spring unloads and there is no downforce on the axle, then there is no pressure on the wheel and it will do zero to help with the traction to overcome the obstacle.

Can he drive further up a ramp or rock without lifting his rear tire. Yes, does that mean he is stable no. If you ever studied Ben's old 80 you would see that he could drive to the top of our ramp at the shop, however was that truck stable to wheel. No.

My ShortBus goes about halfway up our ramp, however it is 100% more stable than his truck used to be. Why? Less travel and retained springs that has both possitive and negative spring tension. So the axle is never allowed to droop freely. Once the axle starts pulling down on one side, it starts to pull the body down as well and thus leveling the truck.

Christo: Sorry, I don't know how to answer this. I'm not a techno whiz. I get ideas, some we try (like this one) and some we don't. This one turned out way better than expected.

All my comments come from driving the vehicle afterwards on the same trails. The difference is HUGE. Whether it's 0.6 this or 23.54687 that or OME shock or Gypsum Springs.....I don't know and I don't really care. What I care about is that it works and so much better than before.

Another example: There's one washed out and crossaxled uphill I could rarely climb without lockers. TRAC wouldn't really work. (An old pic is shown below of me coming down it) Now, with the shocks I climb it and with TRAC barely kicking in. Why? I'm guessing it's because BOTH rear wheels are planted and since both wheels are planted, there more force on the front wheel that's crossed to the rear that used to lift. Am I right? I don't care. It just works and the thing just goes. Everything's easier.

My debating this is over. I'll answer questions to those who want help in doing it. To the non-believers....don't consider the modification if you don't believe it. I'm just trying to help others who want to better their 100-series. I'm smiling at the result....whatever it is.....0.6 or 26 inches.

 

[sleeoffroad]

Yes, but one should also be clear as to why the mod work and not say it is more stable. In the pick you just posted, what would it have helped if that wheel drooped 2" more?

However now add 200lbs of rear bumper and it might pull the back end down. Again, you have to compare apples to apples. I am not saying the mod does not work. What I am saying that the quest for ultimate articulation is not always the best answer to stability.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

Yes, but one should also be clear as to why the mod work and not say it is more stable. In the pick you just posted, what would it have helped if that wheel drooped 2" more?

Coming down? No help.

Going up? I now have the traction from 3 wheels and not just 2. Only my driver's front get air now.

 

[bulldog-yota]

So would the ideal be to have the static height be the center of the axle travel between droop and compresion?

 

[FirstToy]

So would the ideal be to have the static height be the center of the axle travel between droop and compresion?

For IFS,
That would give you equal droop and compression. The more you lift, the more droop you are loosing.
If centered = articulation 4" up/4" down
2" lifted= articulation 2"down/6" up (which is why you need to lower the bumpstop or your cv's/ shock will do it for you)

Is this the correct logic here?

This is actually very informative thread. Thanks Christo and DMC
some more questions:

-would you want the IFS to max out before the full droop of the CV joints?
In other words, make sure the shock or something else is the "limiting strap " and not the CV joints

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

For IFS,
That would give you equal droop and compression. The more you lift, the more droop you are loosing.
If centered = articulation 4" up/4" down
2" lifted= articulation 2"down/6" up (which is why you need to lower the bumpstop or your cv's/ shock will do it for you)

Is this the correct logic here?

This is actually very informative thread. Thanks Christo and DMC
some more questions:

-would you want the IFS to max out before the full droop of the CV joints?
In other words, make sure the shock or something else is the "limiting strap " and not the CV joints

This discussion addresses the rear shocks. I'd not try to fit L-shocks to the front of the 100. Even if they'd fit, that would be asking for failure.

 

[bulldog-yota]

IFS is probably a different discussion as you only want good enough droop so you don't bounce over every bump, more compression might be a good thing there. But with a solid axle you have more roomto play with, so what would the ideal be, center?

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

It's been measured. Have you installed N74L shocks on the rear of a 100?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

John, like I have explained for you numourous times already, our shock makes the same travel as you have now, with better valving, so the truck rides better, and is more stable, so we havent needed to dick around then think we dicovered the world by making .6" more travel..... do the sums, the tape measure doesnt lie, its a very basic mathmatical sum to work out the .6" gain you made.

We use a shock nearly 100mm longer extended for bigger tyres and more lift.......... thats why we dont bother with N74L's...

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

So would the ideal be to have the static height be the center of the axle travel between droop and compresion?

Ideal normally would be 1/3 up travel to 2/3 down travel, of the total travel available.

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

-would you want the IFS to max out before the full droop of the CV joints?
In other words, make sure the shock or something else is the "limiting strap " and not the CV joints

The 100 front end uses the shock as the top out stop, and that is why so many have had trouble with top washers turning inside out and pulling the nut through the mount on the top shock mount, especially when lifted to high, because there is a magic No you should not exceed in down travel with the 100 front end.

OME LTR's have also had some failures with the eye breaking off the botom bottom of the shock.

In both cases above, because the top ball joint then max's out in travel, once the shock doesnt prevent the down travel,the ball joint can snap off, allowing the wheel to fold out at the top, and even become detatched from the vehicle, with a arms still attached.

We developed a very heavy duty washer set for the top of ours with a biger shaft, and bigger washer seats to prevent any of this happening.

The IFS 100 lifted when we stick to our droop no's works out 1/3 droop and 2/3 up travel.

 

[Greg B]

We use a shock nearly 100mm longer extended for bigger tyres and more lift.......... thats why we dont bother with N74L's...

How is this possible on an IFS 100? The top shock mount is very close to the body and the lower mount can't go much lower. How can you have a shock that is 4" longer (100 mm) when extended but doesn't bottom out on the up-stroke (compressed)? Do you have pics of a 100 with this suspension flexed out?

Also, how are you lifting more than the standard 2-3 inches? Are you changing the IFS bits to allow for the extra lift?

 

[dclee]

John, like I have explained for you numourous times already, our shock makes the same travel as you have now, with better valving, so the truck rides better, and is more stable, so we havent needed to dick around then think we dicovered the world by making .6" more travel..... do the sums, the tape measure doesnt lie, its a very basic mathmatical sum to work out the .6" gain you made.

Unfortunately, I think you're talking to a brick wall...

 

[bulldog-yota]

This thread is pretty useful, so it seems for axles try to achieve 1/3 up and 2/3 down and IFS 2/3 up and 1/3 down seems like the ideal to achieve witout blowing the budget with long travel,drop kit,etc. Good ratios to work to it seems. Would it be realistic to make this statement??

Stability and ability of the suspension is obviously more important than ultimate lift and or flex.

What you use to achieve it is obviously a different discussion. My understanding is that the 74Ls are 2.6" longer extended and 1" longer compressed, so it will give 1.6" more travel than the normal 74s.

And with IFS up front the rear axle has to work a bit more, problem I'm facing currently . Wish they could make an IFS with the strength and travel of an axle or an axle that can ride and handle like IFS. Can dream can't we.

 

[FirstToy]

Thanks Darren- all good info

it makes one think of the whole system and not get tunnel vision.

 

[dclee]

What you use to achieve it is obviously a different discussion. My understanding is that the 74Ls are 2.6" longer extended and 1" longer compressed, so it will give 1.6" more travel than the normal 74s.

Of which, as Mr. McRae points out, you'll lose another inch by putting in a 50mm / 2" bumpstop spacer. If you do this, you'll have limited yourself to just a 0.6" gain in travel. Basically, you don't gain any flex, you've just dropped the suspension a couple inches from the frame. Nothing wrong with that, but certainly not a panacea.

 

[ShottsUZJ100]

And with IFS up front the rear axle has to work a bit more, problem I'm facing currently .

What's buggin' you about your truck? What type off 4-wheeling do you do?

 

[tabraha]

How is this possible on an IFS 100? The top shock mount is very close to the body and the lower mount can't go much lower. How can you have a shock that is 4" longer (100 mm) when extended but doesn't bottom out on the up-stroke (compressed)? Do you have pics of a 100 with this suspension flexed out?

Also, how are you lifting more than the standard 2-3 inches? Are you changing the IFS bits to allow for the extra lift?

I definitely have my curiousity peaked by this as well. Please give us at least a couple specifics that this setup provides. I'm not asking for trade secrets but amount of lift gained and up/down travel would satisfy a little curiousity. Also, I would assume you have different diff drop kit than what we are using for the 2" lift? If not how many diffs comeback looking like spaghetti-o's or is that a non-issue? Maybe your setup is a 2" lift with more droop but it sounds like it would be providing at least 3" or so; I'm sure quite a few of us are curious about this setup!!!

 

[ats4x4dotcom]

We have a comp shock which is 760mm long, and convert the top rear mount on the vehicle to an eye mount, allowing it to be mounted higher near the floor especially with a body lift to run 37's, using a bump stop spacer to stop the 37's dining on fender when articulated, this shock is 450 ish mm closed.

The spring has to be held captive with these shocks normally also.

This also works on the 105/80 with our 10" travel front shock to suit 5" lifts on the solid axle models.

I run these shocks on my nissan patrol [simiar config suspension to live axle cruiser] with 6" springs and 40" tyres, with no body lift, [bigger flares and lots of cutting] and the valving is an improvement over OME, especially for a heavy truck.

When we flex the truck with the forklift, you can measure 40" under the lifted tyre, at road pressures, with the vehicle on opposite corner bump stops, maxed out articulation. [cant find that pic on home puter]