ghetdjc320

Also those away bar links are crazy long lol

So, from the pics, swapping the long shackles there to stick shackles should lower you back down to about 5.5” in the rear. Removing the front coil spacers should bring it down another 2 or so inches. Those shocks are almost maxed out! Your also missing the rear bump stops over the axle. Going lower will actually require more work. If you can settle on about a 5.5” lift you can simply modify what you have there

That’s what I run and it’s a great quality replacement. Better design than the original.

Let’s save that subject for another 100+ post thread. But by the time he masters the #10 I’d say it’s time for the drivers license

Once that screw has been mastered anything will be easy. Setting up R&P, building a stroker, swapping axles converting to front leafs, supercharging and eventually,,, driving it down the road. Nothing will be hard once you master the #6 pan head Phillips.

I think this is what happens when we all try to “help” . It doesn’t hurt to tell someone to search for the info occasionally. A simple “how to remove screws in a tight space” search would have been golden.

I’m definitely in it just for kicks

Yep that’s a bit of a drive lol. Otherwise I’d be happy to!

I think the last time we had a “Hot Topic” thread a few weeks ago it got deleted for oh so many reasons.

The straight 6 is a great design on paper. An overhead cam and cross flow head design would really make quite a difference in what we could do with one. Direct injection, coil on plug and a good tuneable efi system could really get things going in a NA engine.

I can only image what kind of a thread there will be for an axle swap or stroker build. They have a lot of screws

Corrected that one for you lol

Awesome thanks for those specs

Yeah agreed. I just used the level on the tube to make sure my axle itself was level before taking the measurements. The camber was taken from the machined face of the knuckle where the unit bearing bolts in and the caster was taken from both the ball joint and the inner C just behind the ball joint. Both give the same reading and are in good spec. It’s primarily the camber angle that has me concerned. I’m getting a lot of premature tire wear on the outer half of the passenger tire and I would venture to guess that the positive camber isn’t helping. Granted, that figure may change with the weight on the ground so I’ll have to try that. It drives and tracks excellent but I’m tracking down some accelerated tire wear and a light clanking noise when the truck shifts weight around corners. New tires will be in order once this is fixed

Yep those are the measurements I took. Camber off the knuckle unit bearing surface, caster off of the top of the inner c. Are the actual figure I’m shooting for looking right though? At this point I need a 2* offset upper ball joint to get my camber back to between .5-1* negative camber. Going to also reinforce the C’s. I didn’t realize how much flex there was there. If camber is tested with full weight on the axle then perhaps I can lift that corner by the knuckle or some good point that would simulate that weight.

Somehow you got the trim off with that screw still in there so why remove it . You can just bash it back on.

Just wanted to get some input regarding the numbers were shooting for in alignment. Caster 5-7* Camber 1-2* negative Toe .000-.125 inward Are these figures about right? Currently i have a lot of wear on the outer half of the tread of my passenger tire and have attributed this to the 1* of positive caster I’m seeing at the knuckle to unit bearing surface. This was checked with the axle adjusted dead level with the jack and the passenger wheel off so there was no weight on the inner C.

SYE output seal replaced. It had started a slow leak. Replaced with SKF seal and all is good. It’s the little projects like that which are the most satisfying anymore it seems.

The ability to disconnect and keep from spinning axle shafts, ring and pinion, front driveshaft and front tcase output are nice features. Remember the YJ, MJ and XJ all started with a vacuum disconnect axle to keep from spinning the front shaft and tcase output among other things. That front tcase output rear pilot bearing is a real pain to replace. Many who go from cad to solid shafts have to balance the front driveshaft as well. In addition I did pickup about 1-1.5mpg average over a few thousand miles of driving while unlocked. That’s all I can say regarding the pros of locking hubs. But it is absolutely true that they can be a real pain to get engaged and disengaged. Looks stupid trying to rock your Jeep back and forth to get the hubs to engage or dealing with ice or mud seizing them up. I feel like the wheel bearings are definitely more maintenance than unit bearings also but maybe that just my experience with them.

Do you have experience with them? Locking hubs are a neat concept and can lessen some wear as well as provide slightly less drag. They can also be a royal pain to get engaged or disengaged. The later model grand waggys did not have a locking hubs and we’re just locked all the time. Some had a vacuum disconnect though which if it wasn’t for the vacuum actuator itself failing, is not a bad idea. Old school is not always cool. There was a lot of crap made in almost all of automobile history and it continues today.

@Minuit Were the oem speakers 8ohm?

I’m assuming you have a 3/4” snout on the ax15 going into a renix 4.0 crank?

Sweet! The pilot bearing you need should be an off the shelf item at the auto parts store.

Very very true. Really nothing to be gained going to an LP44 vs an HP30 given the complexity and expense of the swap. I sure did like my locking hubs on my waggy D44 but when your hubs are frozen or full of mud and your trying to get them engaged it truly is miserable.