Bkennedy's SAS and Rebuild Thread

[BKennedy]

Looks good. looking forward to a long term report on the Daystar bump stops.

Hope I got the placement correct. Won't know until I get it to my secret testing area.

 

[BKennedy]

Got the passenger side done today. As always seems to be the case, it came out better after learning from the driver side. Plus, there was a little more room to work with.

You can see on the next pic why I chose the radius arm for a strike point. There really is no room any where else without major changes and those Duff RA's are very stout.

I made a crude but effective service tool for the bumps.

I also got lucky. I had removed the frame cross bar I made to hold the front of my trans skid plate to make it more easy to cut out the old bump mounts. When I went to re-install the cross bar, the mounting plate just touches the end of the gusset for the bump can on the passenger side. Did not even think about that cross bar when I made up the gussets.

 

[buford1972]

First off, great thread! I just spent several hours going over everything while covering the grave shift at work for the Christmas break. I think I have the solution to your mushy pedal... well actually, you already stated it in post #1283 . You have the brake lines at your master cylinder on backwards. The front Master Cylinder port goes to the rear brakes and the rear port goes to the front brakes. I went out to the parking garage and verified this on my 91 EX. You'll notice that the master cylinder reservoir is mounted at a slight upward angle. The rear section of the reservoir has a larger available volume of fluid (front disks w/ large pistons) and the front has a smaller available volume of fluid (rear disks/drums with smaller pistons in calipers/wheel cylinders). If you look at the link in post #1281 the picture shows that the first piston activates and pushes the second piston via hydraulic pressure (optimal) or by mechanical contact when nearing the end of its stroke as an O-s**t safety measure. Depending on who you talk to, front brakes perform about 70% of the vehicle braking. What you are experiencing is that the rear disks are doing the primary braking. When the first piston (rear calipers) reaches the second piston (front calipers) you have used up all of the master cylinder stroke which =mushy pedal and weak brakes. This is also why you have had some minor improvement when adjusting your rear proportioning valve.

 

[gmanpaint]

First off, great thread! I just spent several hours going over everything while covering the grave shift at work for the Christmas break. I think I have the solution to your mushy pedal... well actually, you already stated it in post #1283 . You have the brake lines at your master cylinder on backwards. The front Master Cylinder port goes to the rear brakes and the rear port goes to the front brakes. I went out to the parking garage and verified this on my 91 EX. You'll notice that the master cylinder reservoir is mounted at a slight upward angle. The rear section of the reservoir has a larger available volume of fluid (front disks w/ large pistons) and the front has a smaller available volume of fluid (rear disks/drums with smaller pistons in calipers/wheel cylinders). If you look at the link in post #1281 the picture shows that the first piston activates and pushes the second piston via hydraulic pressure (optimal) or my mechanical contact when nearing the end of its stroke as an O-s**t safety measure. Depending on who you talk to, front brakes perform about 70% of the vehicle braking. What you are experiencing is that the rear disks are doing the primary braking. When the first piston (rear calipers) reaches the second piston (front calipers) you have used up all of the master cylinder stroke which +mushy pedal and weak brakes. This is also why you have had some minor improvement when adjusting your rear proportioning valve.

If this is true for our setup, this would explain why I have had so many peddle issues since I did the ABS delete.

 

[BKennedy]

Thanks for the info. My brakes originally had the front to the front and the rear to the rear. I know the 94 is different (4 wheel abs) than the 91.

Can someone with a 99 verify which MC port goes to which brakes?

 

[BKennedy]

Got the passenger side bump installed. Takes about two minutes. Going to test it tomorrow. Bringing the other inserts and tools to modify (firmness, height, etc..) if needed.

By tools I mean two 9/16" wrenches and my custom Stinger service tool.

 

[BKennedy]

Bump tests were inconclusive as I could not find a twisty enough spot to really see how much they compress. Noticed a difference on the whoops type bumps, but not much. I moved them down a little, but I guess my suspension is fairly well dialed in so the bumps don't have to work much.

Drove up on a 3' tall rock, not engaging.

Drove up on a 5' tall rock, minor engagement. Need something pushing up the opposite tire to get front tire to go up in the fender well.

Oh, and why don't my yuppie neighbors understand why I am washing my Explorer in the rain? Why do I have to explain its because all that noise I was making the past few days left it covered with little particles of metal?? Why do I have to explain that since it was raining, and the Explorer was outside, I did not want to have it covered with little rust dots tomorrow?? I mean, isn't it obvious????

 

[Rick]

Plenty of chance to test them out in a few weeks

 

[Stic-o]

In reference to your MC. This is my '99, which still has the ABS module( it's just in dummy mode because no front sensors ). You can clearly see the forward facing line goes to the front and rear to rear. Because they are labeled

 

[Kirby N.]

I dig the bumps. I think I may need something similar soon. I was thinking the same landing location- thanks for sharing what you have learned.

 

[BKennedy]

I dig the bumps. I think I may need something similar soon. I was thinking the same landing location- thanks for sharing what you have learned.

I had bump stops on the radius arms where the square turns to tube since I did the SAS. I had to move the bumps forward to clear the cans and have the larger diameter bumps center on the arms. I also wanted to go as far forward as possible to make them more effective. After MLK weekend, I should have a Truckhaven Hills report on the bumps.

 

[BKennedy]

A couple of pics from my secret testing area:

 

[BKennedy]

Did not like the front bump can gusset on the driver side so it got a redo to better match the other side. Cutting torch is out of OX, so a little work with a reciprocal saw, cut off wheel and even my Dremmel got most of the old stuff out. Easy work to weld in the new gusset. Now both sides have the same gussets on the coil over hoop ends and the bump cans.

Old

New

 

[BKennedy]

Truckhaven bump review:

The Daystar Stinger Bumps did their job. Did not need any adjustment as far as location and internal bushings / spacers. They are limiting the suspension as hoped. They are allowing nearly an inch more compression on hard hits than slow crawler type flex compression.

The pics below shows the approx limits of compression at slow and fast speed hits.

I pulled them both apart and both of the bronze sleeve caps had loosened up at the threads. One each of the poly guides / bumps at the ends of the shafts also loosened. Thread locker on all threaded components now. Foam inserts are showing no wear.

All in all, they seem to perform well for what they are; progressive bumps. The fast hard hits were much smoother than the solid bumps I had before. I think having them mounted to strike the radius arms causes them to be used less, and have less pressure on them when used. Might make them last longer before rebuild. I set them up with a medium insert on the bottom and firm on top. Seems to work, and since the kit comes with two of each, gives me one complete rebuild.

Now, of course, the rear suspension bottoms out much more than the front. Maybe I need a set of these on the rear. Going to keep beating on these for a while to see how they hold up first.

 

[BKennedy]

After reading a posting in Kirby's build thread, I took the Explorer for a drive. Got it up to about 90 on the freeway, which was redlined. It was very smooth at that speed. It is at about 3000 rpm at 70

 

[Kirby N.]

And I thought I was geared low!

That is cool! Glad I inspired you- I take no responsibility if you get a ticket or a wreck

 

[BKennedy]

Yeah, I think its good for the driveline to max it out every so often. I think I have the ideal gear/trans/transfer case gearing for off road, maybe a slightly lower low range, but it works well.

Highway, 65 is a comfortable speed.

 

[Kirby N.]

Yeah, I think its good for the driveline to max it out every so often. I think I have the ideal gear/trans/transfer case gearing for off road, maybe a slightly lower low range, but it works well.

Highway, 65 is a comfortable speed.

Cool. Have you ever done the throttle cable mod? It made a big difference on acceleration.

I like my gear ratio too. I could definitely could use a deeper low range in the rocks.

 

[Maniak]

It is at about 3000 rpm at 70

I knew I was under geared but wow, compared to you I have 3.27's..

My 33's with 4.10's is just over 2k rpms at 70 mph... I was thinking of going to 4.88's when I got 35's but maybe I do need to go to 5.13..

Out this way the speed limit is 75 but I tend to cruise at 65-70... 70 works better since it puts me in the power band and at 65 mph I'm far enough out of the power band that I slow down up the slight grades when in OD.

~Mark

 

[BKennedy]

Cool. Have you ever done the throttle cable mod?.

Did that a long time ago. Its cheap, easy, and it works.

Mark, I have 5:13 gears and I think they work great with 35's. With the 700R4 trans it allows much more low speed throttle control.