New Man-A-Fre lower control arms installed!

[4WD Toyota Owner Magazine]

Got the new Man-A-Fre rear lower control arms with spherical ends installed yesterday. These beasts are BEEFY. Haven't had a chance to wheel it like last weekend where I did a billybob ramp test but I'm looking forward to seeing how the sphericals work under flex. I can tell you this, I'm ready for Cruise Moab or any rocks and not worry about taco'ing these arms!

pics here:

http://www.4wdtoyotaowner.com/FZJ80.html

Dave

 

[landtank]

I know this is like lighting a match in a powder shed but...

Considering that you first need to get the rear drop bracket over an obstacle, how much danger of damage do you think the OEM rods where in?

I mean the brackets kind of run interference don't they.

 

[LukeO]

Here I was expecting control arms that did not require drop brackets too.

Does this suggest Man-a-fre feels it necessary to replace stock arms to accomodate the drop brackets? Are the drop brackets causing factory arms to fail?

 

[97cruiser]

This is gonna be a 2 bucket

 

[landtank]

This is gonna be a 2 bucket

I'm being serious here. On a lifted truck that doesn't use drop brackets the arms are at a steeper angle and can be an area of first contact which would take the brunt of the force on impact and possibly bend. But with the drop brackets that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Walking Eagle]

I'm being serious here. On a lifted truck that doesn't use drop brackets the arms are at a steeper angle and can be an area of first contact which would take the brunt of the force on impact and possibly bend. But with the drop brackets that doesn't seem to be the case.

Sure seems that way.

 

[Walking Eagle]

Got the new Man-A-Fre rear lower control arms with spherical ends installed yesterday. These beasts are BEEFY. Haven't had a chance to wheel it like last weekend where I did a billybob ramp test but I'm looking forward to seeing how the sphericals work under flex. I can tell you this, I'm ready for Cruise Moab or any rocks and not worry about taco'ing these arms!

pics here:

http://www.4wdtoyotaowner.com/FZJ80.html

Dave

Before and after RTI would have been great.

 

[-Spike-]

I imagined the focus was on the additional flex and not the strength of the arms, but if you're going to make new arms for the flex, why not make them beefy? Anyway, the arms fit either stock of drop bracket setups, so the only thing that matters is the flex factor, the strength is there for either.

-Spike

 

[clownmidget]

shamelessly re-posted from the other thread on these...


By placing the threaded section up at the frame mount end it is relatively protected, and can be sheathed even more or protected by a skid, the stock superior ride quality OEM bushings can be maintained and the "need" for the $$$ rod ends disappears as the control arm can simply rotate on its axis by using the threads. Far, far much more than you would every hope of achieving using the fancy ends. The bushing ring will bind up against the limits of the bushing or its mount at some point. $500 for a pair of those arms is a lot of cash for someone to toss into a "problem" that could be addressed for a lot less. Several folks have already demonstrated how to simply cut and sleeve the existing stock arms for under $100. You can just as easily add threaded inserts to allow all the rotation on that long axis as you'd ever hope to need for maybe another $100 and that's being generous.

Of course this all applies to the panhards as well. Put in an adjustable insert and voila' it allows it to rotate = no bushing bind.

 

[-Spike-]

Is there an issue with allowing threads to move constantly? Seems like they're not a close enough tolerance to keep dirt out, which would cause wear. There must be a reason that vices and other devices that are intended to move regularly via the threads utilize a special squared thread design (ACME thread? Is that right?). Of course you could use a modified shock boot to keep dirt out if that was the only concern, are there others?

My Slee adjustable panhard inserts are supplied with lock nuts, and instructions to tighten them well. Christo, any words of wisdom here?

-Spike

 

[Darwood]

Is there an issue with allowing threads to move constantly? Seems like they're not a close enough tolerance to keep dirt out, which would cause wear. There must be a reason that vices and other devices that are intended to move regularly via the threads utilize a special squared thread design (ACME thread? Is that right?). Of course you could use a modified shock boot to keep dirt out if that was the only concern, are there others?

My Slee adjustable panhard inserts are supplied with lock nuts, and instructions to tighten them well. Christo, any words of wisdom here?

-Spike

Also I'll gurantee that you will get rattling from the threads. For a trail only rig this might be ok, but I personally can't live with rattling from my suspension. This is why Slee provides lock nuts on their adjustable arms and rods.

 

[landtank]

I didn't think the rear was a big problem for binding. People who don't drop their bump stops can easily get the axle to flex until the tire rubs. Also I thought I read about some longevity concern with these joints on a DD.

 

[clownmidget]

Dar - I repsectfully disagree. I have the lock nuts "snug" probably less than 30-ft/lbs and have not had any rattling issues nor ever had one come loose. However, under enough torque the rod is able to rotate on its axis. It only moves at most 15-deg. So if you believe that a 30-deg rotation only a handful of times would result in those threads loosening and creating a rattle that's ok. This only applies to my front and rear panhards as I do have my rear upper control arms tight and my rear lowers aren't adjustable. All I was trying to point out was that the JDM arms would probably fxn nicely for the flex attributes of rotation on the axis vs. the adjustable length fxn. Ideally the bushings would get maxed out before the rotation would occur but I really don't think it'd make much of a difference. 15-deg of rotation on the axis would be near impossible to match with any bushing design without re-doing the bracket. For all the threaded inserts and adjustable links widely available from sand rails, rock buggies, etc. I was just pointing out the desired effects could be accomplished much more cheaply and perhaps produce better results in the advertised benefits of more flex.

But as Rick points out, even with a bodylift to raise your fenderwells your rear links won't have any problems dealing with articulation. ActionJackson has had 37's and now 40's that completely stuff and droop just fine with the stock links and me and several others are running 37's with the same results. The maintenance, price and fxn of the oem rubber bushings is hard to beat.

Also I'll gurantee that you will get rattling from the threads. For a trail only rig this might be ok, but I personally can't live with rattling from my suspension. This is why Slee provides lock nuts on their adjustable arms and rods.

 

[lcwizard]

the drop brackets are not required to run the lower arms. the misalignment bushings in the sphericals allow the arm to be used in the stock brackets with the stock 18mm bolts. The lowers will not have adjustable length. the spherical will allow more unrestricted twist than your suspension is capable of so the stock mounting brackets and the remaining bushing will see zero twisting loads. The sperical is a 1" bearing part# NPB16T manufactured by QA1. It is a heat treated 440C stainless construction so hopefully there should be no corrosion issues. load rating is 82,200 lbs. Misalignment angle is 9 deg without misalignment bushings but over 20 degrees with our misalignment bushings.
The material in the arms is 2" , 3/8 wall DOM. The bushing end uses the stock
UPPER control arm bushing. Yes, the upper. It's a bit smaller diameter and three bucks cheaper.
hopefully this answers a few questions



hopefully this answers some questions

Here I was expecting control arms that did not require drop brackets too.

Does this suggest Man-a-fre feels it necessary to replace stock arms to accomodate the drop brackets? Are the drop brackets causing factory arms to fail?

 

[lcwizard]

retail on the QA1 sperical is less than 35.00 (www.cheperfomance.com). I believe that's in line with the stock rubber bushings.
As far as maintainence, the sphericals are much easier to install and I've gotten over three years on a set of smaller (3/4") on competion vehicles. Don't personally know beyond that but even if you replace them every two years thats
17.00 a year each.

QUOTE:
[But as Rick points out, even with a bodylift to raise your fenderwells your rear links won't have any problems dealing with articulation. ActionJackson has had 37's and now 40's that completely stuff and droop just fine with the stock links and me and several others are running 37's with the same results. The maintenance, price and fxn of the oem rubber bushings is hard to beat.[/QUOTE]

 

[lcwizard]

QUOTE=clownmidget]Dar - I repsectfully disagree. I have the lock nuts "snug" probably less than 30-ft/lbs and have not had any rattling issues nor ever had one come loose. However, under enough torque the rod is able to rotate on its axis. It only moves at most 15-deg. So if you believe that a 30-deg rotation only a handful of times would result in those threads loosening and creating a rattle that's ok. This only applies to my front and rear panhards as I do have my rear upper control arms tight and my rear lowers aren't adjustable. All I was trying to point out was that the JDM arms would probably fxn nicely for the flex attributes of rotation on the axis vs. the adjustable length fxn. Ideally the bushings would get maxed out before the rotation would occur but I really don't think it'd make much of a difference. 15-deg of rotation on the axis would be near impossible to match with any bushing design without re-doing the bracket. For all the threaded inserts and adjustable links widely available from sand rails, rock buggies, etc. I was just pointing out the desired effects could be accomplished much more cheaply and perhaps produce better results in the advertised benefits of more flex. ]


a lot of unreseached speculation here.
the "near impossible 15 degree rotation" is not only matched but exceded with the MAF control arms. Because the eyelet on the spherical end is smaller diameter, mounted in the stock bracket, the arm rotates 16 deg counter
clockwise from flat and 16 deg clockwise from flat. about 32 degrees total

 

[4WD Toyota Owner Magazine]

Here I was expecting control arms that did not require drop brackets too.

Does this suggest Man-a-fre feels it necessary to replace stock arms to accomodate the drop brackets? Are the drop brackets causing factory arms to fail?

Hi Luke,

Drop brackets are NOT, repeat NOT required to run these arms. I already had the drop bracket lift kit installed.

Rick makes a decent point but they're still excellent because the last time I wheeled at Moab, I slip-slided backward off a step-up and put a big crease in the arm. In a case like that, these big daddies would come in mighty handy and a drop bracket wouldn't have mattered. Attached is a photo of me using a MAX Tool to get it back in shape while Bill Burke (on right) holds it.

For those without a drop bracket kit, they'd be great. For me it's one less thing to worry about. I'm bringing my old arms to Cruise Moab in case someone else crushes one and needs one.

Dave

 

[4WD Toyota Owner Magazine]

photo

guess it didn't attach

 

[4WD Toyota Owner Magazine]

Before and after RTI would have been great.

Way ahead of you...of course that's next...just need time to get 'er done...


next weekend most likely.

DZ

 

[Darwood]

Dar - I repsectfully disagree. I have the lock nuts "snug" probably less than 30-ft/lbs and have not had any rattling issues nor ever had one come loose. However, under enough torque the rod is able to rotate on its axis. It only moves at most 15-deg. So if you believe that a 30-deg rotation only a handful of times would result in those threads loosening and creating a rattle that's ok. This only applies to my front and rear panhards as I do have my rear upper control arms tight and my rear lowers aren't adjustable. All I was trying to point out was that the JDM arms would probably fxn nicely for the flex attributes of rotation on the axis vs. the adjustable length fxn. Ideally the bushings would get maxed out before the rotation would occur but I really don't think it'd make much of a difference. 15-deg of rotation on the axis would be near impossible to match with any bushing design without re-doing the bracket. For all the threaded inserts and adjustable links widely available from sand rails, rock buggies, etc. I was just pointing out the desired effects could be accomplished much more cheaply and perhaps produce better results in the advertised benefits of more flex.

I've been half-heartedly following this thread so I didn't realize you also intended to have lock nuts on the threaded lower control arms. The snugging up will help with the rattling. I thought you were referring to unlocked threads. I've had this combination before on my ZJ and they rattled like crazy even though they had grease fittings for the threads. I could get rid of the rattling for a week but that required greasing the thread every week, which isn’t so much fun.

Even the Slee rear upper control arms with only one lock nut rattled for me. I wound up putting a 2nd lock nut on the unlocked side to get rid of the rattling. I've noticed that Slee now provides 2 lock nuts on their upper control arms, I assume for the same reason I added one.