Jeep Trailer - Comparison pics of SOA and non-SOA

[Brian in Oregon]

Here are photos of a military M101 with the original spring position (spring under) compared to a civilian trailer (black and cream) with the spring over the axle (SOA). For comparison, the lunettes are at the same height off the ground (32").

Personally, I don't care for the SOA for my FJ40 because of the excessive height. I think putting 2" spacer blocks between the spring hangers and the chassis would be a better solution to match the hitch height of my FJ40. (I have a rotating pintle on the back of my FJ40.)

The side view of the SOA isn't all that bad. But the rear corner view really shows how "lanky" the trailers become with an SOA. Especially with the thin original military tires (700x16).

One disclaimer - I should have taken the photos with the original military tires on the M100. But, the replacement tires are only an inch smaller in diameter, so the difference is rather insignificant.

Keep in mind my pintle height, which is 32". A lower hitch height of around 28" would allow my M100 to ride level. A stock FJ40 with stock tires would actually give the M100 a slight nose down attitude. A higher hitch height, such as on an FJ40 with a SOA and large tires, would allow the SOA civilian trailer to ride level. The height of the hitch will be critical in deciding how an SOA will look with a particular FJ40.

 

[D'Animal]

Load the trailer and see how it settles and recheck the ride height.

What is the story with the long shackles on the black one?

 

[Brian in Oregon]

It's an optical illusion. The spring hanger is stock length, but in the picture it appears to be a shackle. And the C shackle has been replaced by a more traditional type of shackle, but it's the same length as the original C shackle.

As for a load, the trailer doesn't settle much.

 

[FJ40 MNTCRZR]

I did a spring over on my m100 and love it, rides well behind the 40. can't wait to wheel it this summer...

 

[kellyo]

I like your cruiser. Looks like mine.