Shift front axle forward?

[Tools R Us]

You sure "share" it a lot. ;p

I can share less, will start now.

Really doubt I'm the first to look at wristed arms, but not like there are a lot of custom arm choices out there to begin with.

Can't even find any of those slender arms that are supposed to be uber, can you point me to a distributor?

Regardless, I'd like to hear more than just "it doesn't work well" before deciding on something. If you want to provide details, I'd love to hear them. But so far you haven't exactly shared a whole lot on info on wristed arms. ;p

Wristed arms have been beaten to death, search.;p

 

[Ebag333]

I can share less, will start now.

Wristed arms have been beaten to death, search.;p

Sorry, didn't mean to scare you off. ;p

Have done quite a bit searching, only found wristed arms mentioned, never really discussed in depth. Got a thread you could link me to?

 

[kidglove13]

Snake Engineering from Aus. makes a different type of wristed arm but it is like $2000 or something crazy for the set
I have been researching these types of suspension to death
I am in the boat where I do not want spring dropping suspension but I want more articulation than the stock 80 configuration will give
I went over to Pirate and read til I was blue in the face as well as doing google searchs
From what I have found is that the Jeep long arm Y radius arm set up seems to offer more "fleX" than an 80 setup
Also from the questions I have asked others, the answers I get are dont waste your time and just do a proper three link and it is much easier
Who knows

 

[Nay]

Sorry, didn't mean to scare you off. ;p

Have done quite a bit searching, only found wristed arms mentioned, never really discussed in depth. Got a thread you could link me to?

The binding issue isn't due to the rotational ability of the arm - it is due to the close horizontal placement of the frame bushings. Look again at the Superior Engineering arms - taking one of the two arms off of the horizontal mount relieves a lot of the binding without changing the basic design/geometry. I think this is a fairly ideal solution for anybody who wants to keep a radius arm with four axle mount points.

The LT plates may be all you need. Here are my 37" Trxus using the LT plates. The tires aren't stuffing in the second pic, but I have measured during stuff and have never rubbed. I effectively have 3.5" backspace on an 8" rim using 1" spacers wheel spacers.

 

[LandCruiserPhil]

I know you're all hot and bothered about your narrow arms, but what you're describing is what the wristed arm is supposed to reduce or eliminate. Way I understand it wristed arms should also work similar for reducing binding, similar to your narrow arms and/or wider brackets. One might do better than the other, but seems to be two different methods to fix the same problem.

I've seen wristed arms for the 80 before (Aus site), but don't think I've seen any documentation on someone actually running them.

Had wristed arms for a couple years and wristed arms will give little to nothing. Narrow arms will net much more gain over wristed.
They do not reduce binding or side load ...see broken wristed arm.
Have we not talked about this before

 

[Ebag333]

The binding issue isn't due to the rotational ability of the arm - it is due to the close horizontal placement of the frame bushings. Look again at the Superior Engineering arms - taking one of the two arms off of the horizontal mount relieves a lot of the binding without changing the basic design/geometry. I think this is a fairly ideal solution for anybody who wants to keep a radius arm with four axle mount points.

The LT plates may be all you need. Here are my 37" Trxus using the LT plates. The tires aren't stuffing in the second pic, but I have measured during stuff and have never rubbed. I effectively have 3.5" backspace on an 8" rim using 1" spacers wheel spacers.

So if we moved the front mount on one of the arms to the top of the axle....

Wouldn't hard to do.


I don't think LT plates will fix my issue. According to rick, it doesn't move the axle, only rotates it. Mine needs to be moved forward, significantly.

 

[Nay]

So if we moved the front mount on one of the arms to the top of the axle....

Wouldn't hard to do.


I don't think LT plates will fix my issue. According to rick, it doesn't move the axle, only rotates it. Mine needs to be moved forward, significantly.

Yes, but remember that as you lift, the axle mounts are rotated back. When I installed the LT plates, which correct this issue, it did move the axle forward a bit. Easy to tell, because the driveshaft extends. May not be enough, however, depending on how big your tires actually are. In my pics, it's pretty easy to tell that there is enough clearance, but the Trxus are not a particularly wide tire.

And yes, if you put one set of axle mounts on a vertical plane while leaving the other alone, you reduce the rotational bind, but IMO retain the advantage of some resistance in the front suspension without excessively limiting flex.

 

[landtank]

I don't think LT plates will fix my issue. According to rick, it doesn't move the axle, only rotates it. Mine needs to be moved forward, significantly.

I went out and looked at my truck and there is some room to move the axle forward with my plates. They just need to be pilot drilled that way.

How exactly is your truck setup? Is it still stock arms and axle or do you have some sort of caster correction installed?

I ask as I don't mind re-evaluating my plates. Right now they are set to maintain the axles stock position but if moving them forward is a good idea and something worth while I'm up for altering them.

 

[Ebag333]

Stock arms, no caster correction. (I know, I know....)

Based on my rough measurements I need to go forward about an inch, but I need to flex it back out and remeasure.

I did finish ripping off my stock bumper cap as the tip of it would rub against the tire, but those bend quite far back. Not sure how much aftermarket bumpers (ARB et all) intrude into the wheel well.

 

[landtank]

Stock arms, no caster correction. (I know, I know....)

Based on my rough measurements I need to go forward about an inch, but I need to flex it back out and remeasure.

I did finish ripping off my stock bumper cap as the tip of it would rub against the tire, but those bend quite far back. Not sure how much aftermarket bumpers (ARB et all) intrude into the wheel well.

How are you determining the 1"? Is that to clear the tires at the rear contract area or something else? Nay has been running 37" tire for a while and I don't remember him needing an inch of forward movement on the front.

 

[Ozdunc]

I'd be doing your castor correction first, as the wheel will move depending on what method you use to do the correction.
Generally for a 4" lift on a corrected truck you should only need to go forward about 1/2" (13mm) to clear 37".

If you rush in a move it forward 1" it might work well but be over extended once you correct for castor. Which you should do, cause they really do handle so much better. No really.

 

[Nay]

I'd be doing your castor correction first, as the wheel will move depending on what method you use to do the correction

Agreed. The correction for rotating the axle back to 'centered' alignment can be more than you think. The wheelbase shortens by about 3/8" on a 4" lift - not inconsequential I wouldn't move the arms yet - there is clearance room to the front of the tire, but it's not that much.

My setup retains a good half inch clearance to the rear of the front well throughout the range of motion. Ebag33, what are the specs on your tires?

 

[Ebag333]

How are you determining the 1"? Is that to clear the tires at the rear contract area or something else? Nay has been running 37" tire for a while and I don't remember him needing an inch of forward movement on the front.

Guestimating, didn't actually measure it. Need to do so, can probably do it tomorrow.

But currently I can't compress the front all the way (not that it does anyway) due to contact against the rear portion of the wheel well.

I'd be doing your castor correction first, as the wheel will move depending on what method you use to do the correction.
Generally for a 4" lift on a corrected truck you should only need to go forward about 1/2" (13mm) to clear 37".

If you rush in a move it forward 1" it might work well but be over extended once you correct for castor. Which you should do, cause they really do handle so much better. No really.

I realize this. I also have a stock height 80, so can regularly compare handling between the two.

LT has said his plates don't move the axle, just rotate it. I am aware that different plates/bushings do move the axle differently, so will be taking that into account. Since some move the axle back, which would make the rubbing worse, want to have it all planned out before I do anything.

Agreed. The correction for rotating the axle back to 'centered' alignment can be more than you think. The wheelbase shortens by about 3/8" on a 4" lift - not inconsequential I wouldn't move the arms yet - there is clearance room to the front of the tire, but it's not that much.

My setup retains a good half inch clearance to the rear of the front well throughout the range of motion. Ebag33, what are the specs on your tires?

In the photo's in the first pic, you can see that there is a lot of room. Tire is turned to the left slightly, but not that much. When straight the lugs are just about even with the edge of the flare, so the edge of the tire is maybe 1"-2" off center.

Guestimating I'd say I have about 2 inches in front of the tire when compressed.


So I just went outside and jacked up one tire into the wheel well. While I didn't get it tucked up as high as in the photo's in the original post, it was clear that the tire had more room for clearance (not a lot, but some). Would still contact the rear of the wheel well, but at a slightly higher point.

So I think the problem in this case is due to the axle housing wanting to twist when flexed, which would cause the stuffed tire to get pushed back. (Which is exactly the reason why Bronco owners run wristed arms. Not saying I should run wristed arms, just that that is their solution to the same problem.)

 

[kidglove13]

When I moved my axle forward 5/8-3/4 inch I did mine based on getting better alignment of the front springs with relationship to the upper and lower spring perchs so that they were not bowed backwards from lifting and also to better line up the inner coil bumpstops which had a tendency to hit the inside of the coils at times
I also have alittle bit of a clearance issue with my custom PS slider mount which was done alittle different when I installed the sliders way back when, when I install the 37's I will have to deal with that I know for sure
I am currently runnning 35's so tire clearance played no part in my axle movement
I am getting my 37's mounted this week and I will report on the fitment of them after
I am runnning Ironman plates as a sidenote

 

[Nay]

So I think the problem in this case is due to the axle housing wanting to twist when flexed, which would cause the stuffed tire to get pushed back. (Which is exactly the reason why Bronco owners run wristed arms. Not saying I should run wristed arms, just that that is their solution to the same problem.)

I dont see how the stuffed tire can pull back any more than the length of the radius arm allows. The housing needing to flex is what causes the binding and lack of flex as you point out, and you hope your housing isn't twisting, so you are limited to the ability of the bushings to deflect (which is very little with the small 80 series bushings).

Independent of whether or not a wristed application would be good on an 80, tieroad clearance would seem to be a major challenge in adding a hinge, but maybe not?

I dunno - if you google this stuff and spend ten minutes reading, you pretty much get a few adherents to these old workarounds and everybody else says "I don't even know anybody who still runs a radius arm".

Which is perhaps the point: if it matters enough in performance, design a link system and get rid of the radius design forever. I think what Addicted Offroad did for this third gen Runner merits major consideration for a complete 80 series link design/kit:

Addicted's Project "Intervention" - Rising Sun Member Forums

 

[jlg32281]

How do the MAF bracket affect axle shift? Do they move it forward at all or do they maintain the same position? I realize they hang down and get in the way, but if they will allow me to fit the same wheel tire combo as ebag, worth it to me.

 

[kidglove13]

How do the MAF bracket affect axle shift? Do they move it forward at all or do they maintain the same position? I realize they hang down and get in the way, but if they will allow me to fit the same wheel tire combo as ebag, worth it to me.

You wont be saying that when you get hung up on them all the time if you wheel you truck

 

[Ebag333]

Ebag33, what are the specs on your tires?

Whoops, forgot to comment on this.

I'm running the military Baja T/A's. Tire specs are 37x12.5x16.5. Not sure how much of a "true" 37 it is or isn't. I know they're taller than my 35's which are 34.8", so I'm inclined to say that they are a true 37 or dang close to it. They measure 12.5" across the tread, so based on eyeballing the height and measuring the width, I'd say that they're pretty much bang on to their specs.

A bit of perspective in this pic making the 37 look taller/bigger than it is (compared to the 35) but the best one I have off hand.

Independent of whether or not a wristed application would be good on an 80, tieroad clearance would seem to be a major challenge in adding a hinge, but maybe not?

If the wrist was added in the right spot wouldn't be an issue (there have been 80 arms that were wristed already, so know it can be done). I don't think it's going to gain you much though, would help reduce binding but not much added to flex/movement. Also another spot to potentially fail.

Moving the front mount to on top of the axle seems to be a far better solution, also reduces much of the binding and doesn't give you a hinge that could wear out or fail over time. Much more difficult to break a static part than a moving part.

I dunno - if you google this stuff and spend ten minutes reading, you pretty much get a few adherents to these old workarounds and everybody else says "I don't even know anybody who still runs a radius arm".

Which is perhaps the point: if it matters enough in performance, design a link system and get rid of the radius design forever. I think what Addicted Offroad did for this third gen Runner merits major consideration for a complete 80 series link design/kit:

Addicted's Project "Intervention" - Rising Sun Member Forums

Completely redesigning the front suspension is far out of what I'm interested in. Seen too many people start off saying their going to do a complete redesign, and "it will be completely streetable." Few months/years later you see them posting "hey, anyone got a trailer that can pull my 80 to <insert run here>." Or they sell it. Or they quietly go back to the original setup.

I think that you could probably redesign the suspension and have it streetable, but I also know I don't have the skills to do so. Since this is my DD, I have to set limits, and not messing too much with the basic design is one of them.

How do the MAF bracket affect axle shift? Do they move it forward at all or do they maintain the same position? I realize they hang down and get in the way, but if they will allow me to fit the same wheel tire combo as ebag, worth it to me.

You wont be saying that when you get hung up on them all the time if you wheel you truck

x2 the MAF brackets are good only for a street queen.

 

[kidglove13]

I would just move the axle forward to where you want it and go from there
It is a small enough mod where it could be reversed easily if need be
Just move the axle and then re-evaluate it after you get the tires back on and wheel it a few times and go from there
Too much over thinking going on here
I dont think I posted on here when I moved my axle just for this reason

 

[Ebag333]

Too much over thinking going on here

Would it be the 80's tech forum if there wasn't a lot of over-thinking?