Lifted Wagon Question

[GoldDiggerRoo]

I've noticed a lot of lifted wagons the rear wheel seems like it's been moved foward quite substantially. Just wondering if there is any way to avoid this or how much it plays a role in tire fitment?

 

I'm intending on going with a 3.5 kit from Ozified, I don't care much about having to cut the front fenders because I want to go with the largest tires I can on 15' Toyota wheels, I'm just afraid I'm gonna hit the door in the rear.

[Phizinza]

As far as I can tell the reason for this is because some lift kits don't lift the rear swing arm, but in stead drop the diff down and let the swing arm "swing" down. Personally I prefer the look of the swing arm dropped, but I can see how leaving it in stock position can help.

I don't know how the Ozified ones are made though, it looks like the swing arm drops down too.

[Roundeye]

I run 29x8.50x15 TSL Super Swampers on my '87 GL with a 4/4 Ozified lift with Toyota Tacoma rims. Minor fender trimming/rolling required. Minor "adjustments" to the footwell area with a hammer results in no (major) rubs at full flex/turn.

 

The tires appear forward but are really where they are supposed to be. Look at the geometry of the trailing arm. When the suspension is compressed, the wheel centers in the well. If it were centered at ride height, it would eat into the rear of the opening when compressed. It moves back as the wheel goes up.

 

[Phizinza]

*offtopic* I like those tires! Almost makes me think about continuing to mod for offroading...

[GeneralDisorder]

Actually - the reason a lot of us have that "look" is because rather than doing any blocks in the rear, we have just ratcheted down the torsion bar (EA81), or added strut extensions to reset the trailing arm lower. Since the trailing arms pivot point is not moved (nor is the diff or diff hanger - everything is still bolted to the unibody with NO blocks), the wheel swings down and forward as part of it's normal travel. When the suspension compresses, the wheel swings up and back into the wheel well. It does not affect travel or performance in any way - just looks different to the uninitiated. With 28" tires, I have over 15" under my rear diff, and with EA82 axle joints, I have the axle travel to use it too.

 

GD

[Phizinza]

How much lift is possible on the rear driveshafts before they are at such an angle that they wouldn't last a month? Wouldn't the angle on the propshaft be a little odd?

[GeneralDisorder]

I've NEVER worn out a rear joint. I've broken some off-road, but that was before I started using EA82 DOJ's. That said.......

 

It's very difficult to say how long a joint will last - at the stock angles the rear axles tend to last the lifetime of the vehicle and then some. On an off-road vehicle, the problem you run into is that the joint will only wear to a point, and then it will shatter into several peices. The problem is not just a matter of angle. It's angle, speed, and weight forces that all come together to wear out or sometimes just break the joint. A 28" tire spinning in the air at max travel that comes down to a sudden stop on a rock puts unbeleivable strain on the joint. The larger the angle, the more "leverage" the wheel has to break the joint cup. Think of trying to twist a 1/4" thick bolt held in a vice - if all you have is a screwdriver, you can't apply enough force by hand, or probably even by drill to break the bolt head off. Now if you use a lever - say a 12" breaker bar - you can easily break the bolt in half. Same situation with axles - the farther the travel goes off-center the higher the force magnification - till the forces involved are absolutely rediculous - enough to not only break the axle, but twist the stub right out of the diff, and I've even seen diff hangers ripped loose from the uni-body....

 

General rule is that speed is your enemy - gearing and weight are where all the gains are to be had on a subaru drivetrain.

 

GD

[ezapar]

General rule is that speed is your enemy - gearing and weight are where all the gains are to be had on a subaru drivetrain.

 

Have you ever watched the subarubicon video?

 

Did you see how many axles I got on video as they broke? Did you notice that none of the time the vehicles in the video were moving over 2 miles per hour?

 

Where do you get this stuff?

[GeneralDisorder]

Have you ever watched the subarubicon video?

 

Did you see how many axles I got on video as they broke? Did you notice that none of the time the vehicles in the video were moving over 2 miles per hour?

 

Where do you get this stuff?

 

Sure - weight of the vehicle was too much for the wimpy little stock axles. The more you weight, the more torque is required to haul your fat behind over an obsticle. That's simple physics.

 

IF you want to do extreme things with a stock subaru suspension and diffs, you need more gearing (ie - t-case), and you need to drastically reduce weight. The real enemy is mass - which if you check on the math is really just a function of speed - the faster you go, the more mass you have due to your velocity. Thus my assertion that what matters is gearing (to slow down) and wieght (to further reduce mass). I welcome you to defeat my logic.....

 

The other option is gearing, and heavier suspension components. That's far more difficult to accomplish unless you go solid axle. To me that's just admitting defeat (no offense to those that have done it - it's just not for me). The way of the future is independant suspension - GM proved it with the H1. I happen to like the idea, and eventually I'll find a way to build what I want.

 

GD

[Numbchux]

I'm on the slowest dialup I've ever seen in my life right now, so no pics....

 

BUT, I have quite a bit of experience here to contribute....having owned/wheeled both a BYB lifted EA82, and AA one.

 

GD has already said some of this, but I'm just going to repeat/rephrase some of it.

 

the BYB/PK/Ozified kit doen'st move the rear wheel forward almost at all, because the rear trailing arm mounts are dropped. newer ones do utilize a bit more axle angle, but still drop it. the AA and SJR kits leave that mount up against the body (still could easily be done with a BYB kit, but it's not described in the instructions) which causes the trailing arm the pull the back wheel forward, but because the pivot is in the front, it can't get any closer. This sounds like a huge disadvantage to not drop them, but it leaves that same bracket, and the fuel pump (which is also attached there) VERY vulnerable. and contrary to popular belief (all of which generated by those with no experience with the design), suspension travel is NOT limited by that design.

 

as for axle angles. the AA design is safe, but at the limit. I ran the 4" kit (not the 4/3, which leaves even more room for error by only lifting the rear 3") for awhile with it adjusted up another inch, and ate through 2 axles in the same weekend. but after dropping it back down to just 4" I have had zero problems, front or rear. and just to be safe, I added a 2" SJR diff shim for the front of the diff, so I can adjust the rear end up another inch, or even add accord springs (which I won't do, because those DO limit travel).

 

if you'd like to search, in my photo gallery on this site (click photos at the top of the page, and then I should be 4th on the top poster list), I've got a pic of my rear wheel, with a big red dot where the trailing arm pivot is, and you can see that the hub cannot get any closer to that point, and therefore clearance there is not an issue.

 

does that answer your question??

[GoldDiggerRoo]

Ok, yeah.... that helped a lot. I just don't want to have to hack into the door or anything, all of the metal behind the door is rusted out, so cutting it isn't even and issue, I just want as large as I can with the tires.

 

Good info though, makes sense. Thanks.

[Roundeye]

- which if you check on the math is really just a function of speed - the faster you go, the more mass you have due to your velocity. Thus my assertion that what matters is gearing (to slow down) and wieght (to further reduce mass). I welcome you to defeat my logic.....

 

GD

 

I believe you are attempting to refer to kinetic energy. Not mass (which is basically the same as weight here on Earth with a constant gravitational force). In which case weight should remain the same on this planet regardless of velocity.

 

Yes, I'm just funnin ya, so don't get all wound up.

[Numbchux]

if you want to get an idea about how much you can cut without getting into the door. look for MorganM's image gallery, or if it isn't there, look for posts by him. I had his old wagon, and he cut his body out there as much as you can without cutting the door. He fit 29s (235/75r15) on a 3" BYB lifted wagon

[4x4mudrat]

suspension travel is NOT limited by that design.

 

I think you might be wrong there. As the wheel travels in an arc it's travelling forward instead of down. The greater the angle on the trailing arm the more the wheel will travel foward and the less down travel you will have.

 

The real enemy is mass - which if you check on the math is really just a function of speed - the faster you go, the more mass you have due to your velocity. Thus my assertion that what matters is gearing (to slow down) and wieght (to further reduce mass). I welcome you to defeat my logic

 

Here is the link to a Wikipedia article on kinetic energy that might help you. The classical kinetic equation will provide the most benefit.

 

I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to say though. Could you maybe explain it again?

[WheaT_BeeR_MaN]

i sure do like how every thing has a reason, followed by math for an answer in numbers. i understand it but common scense has always worked for me.

[sayn3ver]

The real enemy is mass - which if you check on the math is really just a function of speed - the faster you go, the more mass you have due to your velocity.

 

I believe you are attempting to refer to kinetic energy. Not mass (which is basically the same as weight here on Earth with a constant gravitational force). In which case weight should remain the same on this planet regardless of velocity.

 

I believe weight can be used too, since weight is mass x acceleration. The faster the mass accelerates, the more "weight" it will "have" persay. Roundeye, you are also correct as its kinetic energy is increased when its speed is increased.

 

Its acceleration (both positive and negative) which ends up eating axles. Too much gas to fast or if traction suddenly become available and stops the spinning of the tire(s). The more mass(larger tires) creates more momentum(mass x velocity) which in turn adds more stress when the increased mass comes to a screeching halt. Rotation mass can be lessened with light weight wheels(forged aluminum, magnesium, etc) and tires, but generally, off road tires are heavy adding weight to the worst place, the outside of the circle.in return we recieve ruggedness needed to scale rocks.

 

IMHO, gearing is probably everyones best bet if running extreme axle angles. Although its no gaurentee, if you want to keep Independent suspension(ie no live axles), it you're only feasable option. Gearing will allow one to control the speed/acceleration of the tires, and take more advantage of the engines powerband without the need to ram, ramp, speed, jump over and through obstacles. Crawling is a nice feature.

 

I am definetly sure i already .

[GoldDiggerRoo]

if you want to get an idea about how much you can cut without getting into the door. look for MorganM's image gallery, or if it isn't there, look for posts by him. I had his old wagon, and he cut his body out there as much as you can without cutting the door. He fit 29s (235/75r15) on a 3" BYB lifted wagon

 

Thanks, yeah that's pretty much where I'm at, I shouldn't have to do much cutting on the drivers side as you can see but the pass is in better shape.

 

[Numbchux]

I think you might be wrong there. As the wheel travels in an arc it's travelling forward instead of down. The greater the angle on the trailing arm the more the wheel will travel foward and the less down travel you will have.

 

I'm not. the travel is limited by the shock. the arc just moves differently, not more, not less. I've back-to-back tested them (though didn't take any pics maybe later this summer we'll do it again), they flex virtually identically.

[4x4mudrat]

I've back-to-back tested them

Yes, I have too, also a system where the diff was lowered to the same height as the BYB lift system.

 

Both systems travel the same distance in the same arc which is limited by the ammount of travel in the shock.

 

However, relative to the horizontal, in the BYB system the wheel travels further down whereas the AA system the wheel travels further forward. You might be able to take time to notice that I was refering to down travel. Forward wheel travel here is useless.

[Numbchux]

Yes, I have too, also a system where the diff was lowered to the same height as the BYB lift system.

 

Both systems travel the same distance in the same arc which is limited by the ammount of travel in the shock.

 

However, relative to the horizontal, in the BYB system the wheel travels further down whereas the AA system the wheel travels further forward. You might be able to take time to notice that I was refering to down travel. Forward wheel travel here is useless.

 

there's no sense arguing this, but I will say this. down travel is limited by the shock. even with the trailing arm pulling the wheel forward, the shock stays virtually virtical, and so virtually all of it's extension goes straight down.

 

here's almost full downtravel right after installing the lift:

 

here's the pivot point pic:

 

MorganM's fender trimming: