"TURDLE" or " How to mess up a perfectly good truck"

[Turdle]

Ah, a couple of points to make--

I see 14" of ground clearance with 35" tires. This is more than just a few inches gained, it is more than doubled.

The longer control arms and axles will increase the track width, and thus, increase wheel travel by at least 6" . I think a wheel off set could tuck the tires in a bit

I am curious as to the front dana 44 pig clearance, on 35" tires. Looking at the one in my driveway--I think hmm, that is kinda low actually. Not to mention the steering link being the first thing sticking out there.

Think of a 12" imbedded rock that aint moving--and no way to get a tire on a higher spot to raise the differential out of harms way.

I don't want to seem like I am arguing, I just want to point out how significant the benefits could be.

 

[Turdle]

I think Jon is after much more structural strength of the suspension, the framing, ball joints etc, than ground clearance. I don't think the ground clearance difference is that much, the diff, determines that.

I would also avoid Chevy parts, fabricating IFS parts to do the same thing. But I completely understand free parts and testing with them. Go for it Jon, I'd do it too.

Actually, the diff is tucked way up higher than the lower support bracket hangs down

like I said, the front clearance would more than double. ok, I need to get pictures for ya'll

back in a bit

 

[CDW6212R]

The longer axles do actually let the differential mount higher, but that much?

 

[410Fortune]

differentials will always hang down, you can shave them, you can protect them, you can raise them up a bit with larger tires, heck you could even go $$$ and go portal axles, but there will always be a diff hanging out down there

It is up to the driver to know where and pick a line accordingly, thats 90% of the fun, trying to keep rocks out of your undercarriage

 

[Turdle]

ok, first for sake of the argument here is the clearance of a Dana 44 with 35" tires

Ok, now I think it is important to understand what I am comparing this to.
When installing a 4" suspension lift to an explorer or mounty, while it is true you will gain tire clearance, you will actually loose a bit of front ground clearance due to the front lower control arm mounts being dropped. This creates a "new" front crossmember, referred to as a plow.
Here is the clearance with my v8, on 800 lb coilovers. A v6 will be about 2" higher, but still----

Now, here is the Blazer with 4" drop brackets-on 35's

The front diff, in both case, is tucked up out of harms way for the most part, as seen by the cv axle angles

We all know what the front explorer IFS parts look like, here are some shots of the Blazer IFS lift and steering

Torsion bars thru the control arms--seem a bit familiar?

The torsion bar mounts are moved way back, and, longer bars used. This gets the Key brackets out of the way better

Now you may see why the gears are turning on this--

As for the hated torsion bars, if it all works out, coilovers could be fitted easy enough with a blazer coilover kit-???

 

[crazyflights]

Jon, its good thought -but no offense you have lost your mind

 

[FROADER]

Ah, a couple of points to make--

I see 14" of ground clearance with 35" tires. This is more than just a few inches gained, it is more than doubled.

The longer control arms and axles will increase the track width, and thus, increase wheel travel by at least 6" . I think a wheel off set could tuck the tires in a bit

I am curious as to the front dana 44 pig clearance, on 35" tires. Looking at the one in my driveway--I think hmm, that is kinda low actually. Not to mention the steering link being the first thing sticking out there.

Think of a 12" imbedded rock that aint moving--and no way to get a tire on a higher spot to raise the differential out of harms way.

I don't want to seem like I am arguing, I just want to point out how significant the benefits could be.

Sorry, I thought the white one was done for. You're changing your mind too fast for me to keep up.

You're also comparing 35s on the chevy IFS to your 33s on the stock. I know, it's an inch difference of ground clearance from the tires, but anyway.

So...
The chevy arms will allow for more travel, than your stock setup, but it won't get used. Just like your current IFS has more travel then you will ever use. The amount of force to move those "springs" to make it usable in all situations is too high for being able to use its max travel when you actually need it. If you have it so it's nice and flexy on the dirt, then you'll probably crash on the street, because it will be way too soft. Unless of course you get a big ass sway bar, which is another thing in the way.

That "show your flex" thread for 2nd gens is actually pretty damn funny. I'm sure you've noticed, but the front on all of them has moved maybe 2" and the rear is doing all the work. Even articulation/flexation/travel front and rear is the best working rig.

When you're done with the chevy IFS swap and you go wheelin' with Mark in his new truck, do you think your 14" of ground clearance stiff as **** IFS will out perform his?

And your 12" imbedded rock situation. A solid axle pig isn't centered, your IFS is.

No arguing here either, just trying to get inside your head. :

 

[CDW6212R]

I've got two questions after those pics. First your LCA's are angled up to the BJ's, the Blazer BJ's are angled down. That's lift and ground clearance not fairly compared, the angles must be identical to compare ground clearance.

2nd, how long is the blazer torsion bar from the back to the LCA closest point? You can modify the Explorer LCA to use the rear hole instead of the front hole for the TB. Does that still provide a more rearward location for the rear mount?

I want to agree with you that the Blazer parts will help. But you may not be gaining as much as you think given the above comparisons.

 

[Turdle]

I've got two questions after those pics. First your LCA's are angled up to the BJ's, the Blazer BJ's are angled down. That's lift and ground clearance not fairly compared, the angles must be identical to compare ground clearance.

2nd, how long is the blazer torsion bar from the back to the LCA closest point? You can modify the Explorer LCA to use the rear hole instead of the front hole for the TB. Does that still provide a more rearward location for the rear mount?

I want to agree with you that the Blazer parts will help. But you may not be gaining as much as you think given the above comparisons.

The Mounty limit straps will stretch before it is that high. serious.

I am suggesting using all components from the blazer-control arms also. I fail to understand how it would not be just as high.

 

[CDW6212R]

Well if you crank your TB until the LCA is at the same angle as the blazer, the basketball may roll right under there.

If the TB's are actually the same length laying on the ground, then the Explorer mount can be moved back to obtain the same result with the Explorer TB. Shoot, use a longer bar and make your LCA accept it in the rear hole if that was a main goal.

I think Colin has a better point though, he's saying that the effective wheel travel would be much more with the solid axle and coil springs. I was just hinting that it doesn't look like as much clearance will be gained with the Blazer parts in place of what you have. It appears that the body of the truck has to raised up to make room for more suspension travel.

 

[gmanpaint]

Would you be changing the integrity of the original frame or cross member by trying this?

Meaning: Is there any chance of not being able to go back to the stock IFS set up or do the SAS, if this does not work?

 

[Turdle]

Well if you crank your TB until the LCA is at the same angle as the blazer, the basketball may roll right under there.

If the TB's are actually the same length laying on the ground, then the Explorer mount can be moved back to obtain the same result with the Explorer TB. Shoot, use a longer bar and make your LCA accept it in the rear hole if that was a main goal.

I think Colin has a better point though, he's saying that the effective wheel travel would be much more with the solid axle and coil springs. I was just hinting that it doesn't look like as much clearance will be gained with the Blazer parts in place of what you have. It appears that the body of the truck has to raised up to make room for more suspension travel.

no TB to crank on the mounty. Even if I had 950 lb springs It would only be 2" higher. What is there that you do not understand about the fact that the explorer IFS is at it's limit here-- The limit strap would limit up travel before it was this high anyway. no way to get beyond that Don. Downward travel only goes so far.

what you do not see, is the 4" LOWER bar behind the skid plate. this hangs 4" below the stock cross member.
In other words PLOW

 

[CDW6212R]

I am trying to help really, and I'm limited by not seeing what you see, and not having practical experience off roading. I've wished for unlimited funds and building a "trophy truck" kind of toy. They make it look easy at high speeds, and rock crawlers are way over my head.

You have all the right pieces there to mock things up, in your head, on paper or for real. Take your time planning it, and pondering the other ideas.

 

[Turdle]

Would you be changing the integrity of the original frame or cross member by trying this?

Meaning: Is there any chance of not being able to go back to the stock IFS set up or do the SAS, if this does not work?

Cutting out the IFS support brackets to do a solid axle swap means no turning back, and, is more likely to result in comprising the stock front cross member for diffy clearance during flex. Especially if a dana 60 is used. I do not see how to keep it there and have a solid axle. So, another cross member will need to be made further forward.

On the other hand, the stock cross member might be just trimmed enough to fit the chevy IFS front axle up in there. Remember, it just needs to fit, not move around and fit. It would be solid mounted up into the point the dana pig would reside during flex. sorta.

It could be slid over a lower lip into position, without fear of that lower lip being there. Meaning, short of trying it for sure, the cross member might just need a notch taken out.







I don't see how trying the IFS stuff just for kicks would hinder a SAS , other than waste time. Either way the Mounty frame will be cleaned of stock bracketry.

Right?

 

[Turdle]

I am trying to help really, and I'm limited by not seeing what you see, and not having practical experience off roading. I've wished for unlimited funds and building a "trophy truck" kind of toy. They make it look easy at high speeds, and rock crawlers are way over my head.

You have all the right pieces there to mock things up, in your head, on paper or for real. Take your time planning it, and pondering the other ideas.

I know you are, which is why I really need you to understand where the base line is. Thanks Don.

 

[CDW6212R]

I've seen the space around the oil pan and differential enough to see how tight it is there. Lifting the truck up does free up some precious space. How to use it though is the big question. I like the looks of the lift brackets for that blazer, they move the UCA as well as the lower. From what pictures I've seen of the Explorer stuff, they aren't that great. The strength issues are one thing, are the brackets and all even lower than stock?

I get the impression you are saying that the Explorer stuff would need to be reworked, and the Blazer parts are closer to what is needed. The coil spring wheel travel is another issue though. Colin may well be right for real hard off road use.

 

[gmanpaint]

I don't see how trying the IFS stuff just for kicks would hinder a SAS , other than waste time. Either way the Mounty frame will be cleaned of stock bracketry.

Right?

I understand what has to be done for the SAS.

I am wondering what has to be done for the Chevy IFS to be retro fitted.

Is there major modifications done to the frame where, 1)-If you wanted to go back to the stock IFS, is possible, 2)-Still be able to do the SAS the way it needs to be done.

I also understand this is a "brain storming" for this idea. I am throwing out there what was not asked yet is all. Unless I missed something already said.

 

[Turdle]

I am almost positive, once an SAS has begun there will never be a " go back to IFS" option. Once the control arm mounts are cut off, the truck is effectively "ruined" so to speak. OK, I assume someone real good could weld new ones back on but you know what I mean.
Then, once again the front cross member has to go north a bit or something--

 

[dkchrist]

Jon, why not stay ford parts and use f150 front suspension? The front of all the 97+ trucks have a High pinion 8.8 which is much better for the front end than the GM 8.5 and the mounts are very similar.

As I see it off the shelf parts will be a nuisance to use in the LT IFS department. The Limiting factor not matter how you slice it is the CV axle shaft. You need high angle stuff and a better front diff (the D35 can and will split w/ a locker)

 

[gmanpaint]

I think my poor or lack of, communication skills are shining through here


In a nut shell:
Will you be able to go back to stock IFS?

Or will you be forced to do a SAS?

If this does not work?

The only reason I am bringing this up is so by chance, you mess up the rig to render it useless, or not affordable to repair.

For the SAS, the cross member has to come off, steering rack removed, coil buckets attached or leaf mounts, longer arms, and a steering box has to be installed, either externally or internally, hydro steering, or one of the many linkage/bar options has to be mounted to something. I think I got it

Hope I got it this time, sorry for dragging it out.