95+ custom affordable "longarm" IFS kit (56K warning)

[gear_grinder]

hey, in some random shot brillance or stupidity, i decided i would think and see if could come up with a longarm IFS "kit" that eliminates balljoints and retains stock steering knuckles so you can use stock brakes, steering equiptment, stock lengthend CV shafts, etc... all while increasing track width and overall suspention travle while keeping as much of the stock parts and systems as posible.

when i was in my mid teen yrs, i decided i would tear apart my 4x4 fully independent suspention RC monster truck to see how it worked. Even though it was a toy, it still gave me basic ideas on how mechanical devices and forces interact.

now after replacing all the balljoints on my explorer and other vehicals, i see how the suspention on my RC truck would be superior AND cheaper to the conventional balljoint system.

The suspention on the RC truck used a system of drilled holes and rods with a "intermediate" knuckle (IK) inbetween the steering knuckle (SK) and the two A-arms.

the IK consist of a holow square shaped section of plastic that the CV shaft runs through, but is conected to the A-arms Via shafts that run parellel to the ground (IE 2 shafts, one for each a-arm), the shafts are located in the upper and lower section of the IK so that there is space for the CV shaft to pass through the center of it and out to the SK. this IK does the same job as the ball joints do when they point left and right in there sockets. The safts could basicly be substituted with bolts and the holes have steel stock drilled and bushings pressed in with a lubrication line for the bushings.

how ever there is even a simpler way to do this with less hassle of having a large IK that would cause posible clearance issues with the wheels and/or tires. T would use 2 small IKs (on for the upper and lower A-arms), like the one larger one but seperated and made to have as much clearance as posible.

the SK mounts to the IK via simple holes and shafts on the RC truck, but the shafts are positioned perpendicular to the ground so that this replaces the turing left and right of the ball joints in its socket.

this could be simply made like a kingpin in the end of the IK that mounts into the OE steering knuckle.

with a setup like this you could also swap to what ever steering knuckle you prefer. Take a 97-03 4x4 f150 SK for example, you would just have to have adaptor pins to fit into the IK that are made to the size and/or style of the balljont mounts in the knuckles. the resons for swaping to a SK would be stonger hub units and larger brakes. I asume f150s run larger and stonger hubs then 95+ explorers and 98+ rangers. I also asume that the front brakes on a f150 are much larger then explorers/rangers too.


You could do all this by modifying and mounting them to your stock a-arms. the worst part would be is that you would prolly have to cut out sections where the balljoints mount into the A-arms cut out and have mounting blocks welded and braced in place on the ends of the A-arms.

here are some pictres of the suspention on the RC truck:

and here are a few paint renderings of the IK and knuckle mounts: (I wish i had a good CAD program, )

IK mount

IK

where the bushings/bearings would be are where the big black cercles are, i was thinking you could use bushings like this:

you could apply this same concept vertualy any IFS.

some one could find some flaw in the design and make this tread a total fail, but thanks for reading anywho.

 

[gear_grinder]

no input on the idea???

 

[dkchrist]

some company make a kit that converts to uniballs but nothing like you want to try.

With enough time and skill anything is possible

 

[gear_grinder]

yah, is the uniball thing like what dixon is making?

I think its better if "ball" joints were complety removed, because in order to have catistrophic falure of my idea, you would have to sheer off the grade 8 9/16 bolts i would use or brake one of the mounts on the knuckles.

 

[Turdle]

Click the link in the first post of this thread-

http://www.explorerforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226379&highlight=dixon

 

[gear_grinder]

ya, what i'm asking is dixon IFS = uniball setup?

 

[dkchrist]

dixon runs high angle ball joints not uni balls IIRC. I can't remember the name of the company is trying to make the kit but i have been searching. I think that i saw it on dezertrangers.com the first time

 

[gear_grinder]

i've changed the design around alitte to be more cost friendly and take less fabrication time and effort.

Regardless it will require custom A-arms, or welding mounts on the existing A-arms for basic fitment. I expect lenghtend CV axles are manditory for working front drive, and depending on how much extra width tie rod extentions and brakeline extentions may also be needed.

i'll try it out on my explorer first, if it works well. i might think about producing kits in varying lenghts and tie rod extentions for longer kits. the CV axles would have to be cut and lenghtend at a drive shaft or machine shop, how ever i will look around for some intermeidat shaft that you may be able to swap into our "non-servicable" CV axles to cut down on fabrication costs.

 

[snoranger]

I got a few more pics for you to get ideas from:

 

[gear_grinder]

it looks like both of the trucks use the same pricipals with a intermediat knuckle and steering knuckle, just alittle differnt design.

mine was a radioshack special, yours is a actual compition RC.

 

[snoranger]

They call the "intermidiate knuckle" a hub carrier. I like the setup, but it seems like you would be adding more wear points to your front suspension. if you really want to try it, think about using (and modifing) an outer C from a solid axle (with kingpins). then you will have your hub carrier, knuckles, and brake set-up all in one package. Here's a pic of the same knuckle on a solid axle.

 

[IZwack]

hey, in some random shot brillance or stupidity, i decided i would think and see if could come up with a longarm IFS "kit" that eliminates balljoints and retains stock steering knuckles so you can use stock brakes, steering equiptment, stock lengthend CV shafts, etc... all while increasing track width and overall suspention travle while keeping as much of the stock parts and systems as posible.

The stock 2nd gen IFS knuckle has a tapered hole at the top where the ball joint goes into. If you are not using ball joints, then you will probably have to fabricate some other joint but will have to re-use the same hole to mount to -- which means you will have the same difficulty taking it apart and will have the same strength as running a ball joint because the taper is the same size no matter what.

Also, you mentioned using a kingpin -- well kingpins are probably three times harder to replace than a ball joint. A Dana60 kingpin for example, requires a 6 ft cheater pipe because its torque spec is somewhere over 500 ft lbs (source: http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/PR-Kingpin/index.html). I can understand using kingpins for competition applications where the vehicle is ran a few sets and its time for a total parts breakdown. But for the average shade tree mechanic, I think kingpins are a bit more involved.

I think you're idea is a step towards a new direction but keeping it simple with minimal parts is key in a sound design for mass production. Complexity has its advantages, especially in highly specialized areas (competition vehicles), but usually it leads to more headaches when the same concept is applied to the masses.

If you're going to go through all the trouble of making "IK"s and "SK"s, why not just fabricate an entire new set of A-arms that bolt right in to the stock holes on the chassis (with all new fabricated "outers")? Making new "IK"s and "SK"s introduces more parts into the system and makes it more complex. Simplicty is one of the attractive features of the solid axle design.

A more challenging approach is to tackle the other end of the arms -- that is to move the pivot arms towards the center of the vehicle to get longer arms. Of course you will have to worry about the engine and so on but this will give you about the same width as stock but give the front suspension more travel. In other words, cut the chassis, and go with an engine cage that supports longer arms.

 

[murphco]

if you just use a rod end on the upper a arms and a uniball at the spindle with a bushing on the lower arms you can machine a block for the f series unitized bearing and use the f series axle.normally a 930 cv and axle is used in the front when they get the added width and travel but depending on how much travel you want to get out of the front end will determine that.the inner axle mounting will have to be checked to see if the f series cv axles will fit ranger/explorer front diffs but if not an aluminum spacer/bolt battern change can be made.the rack can be used but the inner and outer tie rod ends will not handle the travel.you can buy a clevis that mounts to the rack and use rod ends on the inner and outer tie rods.its all been done before and if you went with the dixon kit all the work has been done for you.the added width in the front will look funny with the stock width rear so if you make your own f series style spindles up front you will have ththat bolt pattern.so getting the rear from one will make the rear the same bolt pattern and get the needed width to match the front.then there is the problem with the torsion bars,changing the length of the arms will change the effective rate of the bar not the mention having to get a socket machined for the t bar going into the new arm.coil overs and an upper mounting hoop solves that.either route is going to be money.

 

[gear_grinder]

i'm not going to make custom arms, i'm going to modify the stock arms to recive a "carrier". this is so you can retain the use of the stock torsion bars, shocks, mounting points, etc...

on that note, there is going to be no conected carrier like a SA or the RC trucks. it is going to be two small individual pivet points on the end of the A-arms that connect to the SK. So there will be a total of 4 IKs.

when you have a longer a-arm and a shorter a-arm with the same degree of rotation at the mounting point, the longer one will have more end travel up and down, as well as a lower or higher resting hight (giving lift). this is why i would increase the arm lenght.

to some of us, form folows function, and if it works good, it'll look good.

if your really worried about the track width being narrower then the front, get a wheel with less backspacing or wheel spacers.

i need to do a good drawing of this to give you guys a clear idea.

this isnt intended to be some bomb-ass prerunner suspention, this is to do a long arm setup that is durable, that anyone could make, and that anyone could afford to make or buy a kit from me.

 

[gear_grinder]

.normally a 930 cv and axle is used in the front when they get the added width and travel but depending on how much travel you want to get out of the front end will determine that.the inner axle mounting will have to be checked to see if the f series cv axles will fit ranger/explorer front diffs but if not an aluminum spacer/bolt battern change can be made.

i dont think you can make an adaptor to fit them, because the explorers front axle is fit with a shaft on each side and not a flang on the axle side like a full size chevy or IFS dodge for example.

 

[gear_grinder]

Also, you mentioned using a kingpin -- well kingpins are probably three times harder to replace than a ball joint.

its not going to use a kingpin, persay, its just a pin that will rotate in a machined bore and fit into the stock knuckle, taking the place of the rotation of the balljoint in its socket.

 

[dkchrist]

Check out brenthel industries it has the ball joint eliminating kits. there is a thread about them on this site just do a little searching.

 

[gear_grinder]

thats a nice kit, but isnt it the same one on the dixon kit site/thread??

i want to remove all of the ball and socket joints that carry the weight of the vehical and split the rotation and side swing motion between to very simple parts to keep cost low, maximize strenght, make it as easy as posible to instal, and to reduce load on one joint under high stress situations.

 

[gear_grinder]

Update, i've changed it again for simplicity and space reasons, i think i've got it to its final stage as v3.0. Uper control arms are going to have to be fabricated, due to the factory(factory replacements) being cast, however the lowers should be easily modified due to the fact of them being mild steel. i'm still thinking about some improvements to the design, mostly the lower pins and how that the part in the control arm that rotates (when you turn wheels left and right) will only be 9/16 in diameter. I've made alot of new discitions after examineing the camburg 6.0 performance Ranger EDGE kit and seeing videos of it in action.

I still need to have the CAD class @ my college make me some pictures.

My RX-7 is getting close to being ready and its getting warmer so that should be on the road shortly so i can start work on this.

thanks