Is 6 pak the ultimate rear travel shock for the 100?

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

sonk76

sonk76

10 Year 15 Year
Joined
Oct 4, 2009
Threads
86
Messages
997
Location
Philadelphia, PA
I just saw this in a magazine, installed on a Jeep:

http://www.metalcloak.com/MetalCloak-Long-Travel-Shock-s/229.htm

The technology looks pretty amazing, and seems like something that would allow for incredible articulation in the rear without the need for a crazy lift. Is there any reason that these couldn't be made to fit the 100? Seems like it could be possible to have your cake and eat it too in terms of great extended length without giving up compression stroke. May not be the answer for high-speed washboard, but for more rock-crawling type application seems pretty cool.

Anybody have any first hand experience with these?
 
Trunk Monkey said:
Maybe someone on a Jeep forum?
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw some reviews on Jeep forums (at least some seem to like them, though many are apprehensive about the the design.) I was hoping to see if anyone had tried to hook these up on a cruiser and had any first hand experience (e.g., it doesn't look exactly plug-and-play on the mounts, but not sure how much mods would be required to get them hooked up...)
 
bluecruiser said:
These were talked about in the 80's forum at one time.
Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that. It didn't look like anyone actually tried them though. Also, it seems like this would be less relevant on an 80 where there is more flexibility with increasing lift height if necessary.

I think in a vehicle like the 100 that is more lift limited, a solution like this could be more relevant.
 
It, IMHO, is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist...at least for the rear of our 100's.

#1) Due to the larger form factor you'd need to move the shock mounts to the rear of the axle for adequate space. Not difficult but costly if you can't do the work yourself...

#2) I assume the motivation for this shock on a 100 is for increased wheel down travel. Increase the travel much beyond about 10.7" (measured at the OEM shock location) and you're going to need to tether both sides of the coil spring...and stretching the coil isn't optimum for life of the coil, etc. not to mention negative pressure on the extended tire being of little practical use.

#3) Although I haven't measured the maximum articulation of the rear upper and lower control arms I'd guess you'd be getting close to the maximum at around 11" or so shock length before you'd need to completely modify all mounts/arms for additional articulation. And even at that without modding the panhard mounts you'll be shifting the rear axle, horizontally, at max droop to the point of tire rub/interference.

Its a huge amount of work and related cost for probably very little if any gain...its a slippery slope ;)

"You can put lipstick on a pig..." Although I've got a few dents in the belly pans of my 100 it has gotten me up down some fairly significant obstacles for an IFS truck. More so than the limited articulation of my current IFS set-up as a terrain limiter is the relatively long approach and departure angles required for abrupt angle trail obstacles along with paltry mid-chassis ground clearance. In terms of effectiveness these areas, again IMHO, increased mid-chassis ground clearance and less front and rear overhang would net us bigger overall gains than increasing the rear suspension travel...

But at the end of the day if I wanted to shift the performance "center" of this platform to more rock-crawling it would be far better to buy another rig with SA at both ends...

Just my $.02 and maybe all its worth ;)
 
Last edited:
spressomon said:
In terms of effectiveness these areas, again IMHO, increased mid-chassis ground clearance and ...
Click to expand...

Sorry to go off topic, but the first step would be raising the transfer case so it's not below the frame anymore. I hate that.

Has anyone explored this? Or "clocking it" like you can do in other yotas?
 
5Cruiser said:
Sorry to go off topic, but the first step would be raising the transfer case so it's not below the frame anymore. I hate that.

Has anyone explored this? Or "clocking it" like you can do in other yotas?
Click to expand...


Well...another potentially slippery slope thing that's been rolling around my brain for awhile: Raise the engine and tranny about 1" or possibly a little more to get rid of the hang down belly pan/tranny support. The cross member and/or Slee's belly pan would pretty much sit flush with the frame then...

This would also eliminate modding the radiator brackets, etc., when doing the 1" body lift...although sectioning the radiator brackets isn't that big o'deal...

However driveline angles would change and might pose an issue (vibes).

Another experiment waiting for a guinea pig :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom