I think that is what tricked my eye.
Doesn't matter what tricked your eyes. I told you what the axle widths were and if you know anything about me, you absolutely know I don't lie about that shit and have no reason to.
I think that is what tricked my eye.
I don't know the answer to this but would ask is it dismissed completely or is it a trade off for other reasons?
It could but it doesn't because as soon as it starts with "you need to build TJ suspension like a buggy" then it is fucked, not a little fucked, not partially fucked, wholly fucked. You can't translate something that you can build around a suspension design to something you have to design suspension around and that is where everyone loses it.
Didn't I read somewhere that a spring only function was to hold the vehicle up at predetermined height?
I’m pretty sure we are in TJ general discussion, are we not?
Plenty of places to go on the internet to discuss all kinds of suspensions. Since this is a specific TJ forum, I would say that is what we are here to discuss.
To compare a bomber car to a TJ is just dumb, I don’t have a better word for it.
Just because something works on one vehicle doesn’t mean it will work on another. This seems pretty obvious…
Something about apples and oranges?
I don't have the bandwidth to take on another forum and spend the time necessary to figure out which users are talking out their ass and which ones are credible, and we have a wide enough range of offroaders here, including at least one member that seems to play in both worlds, that we should be able to talk about it. It's sure as shit more relevant than the religion, guns, and politics subforums we have here.
yeah I get that, I think the Bronco example is extreme though. At the end of the day, a bomber chassis and a fully race-built LJ chassis both end up sitting on coilovers, over front and rear solid axles constrained by something like a triangulated 4 link in the rear and either the same up front with full hydro or a 3 link with track bar and drag link up front. Sure, one has a tube chassis and integrated cage and the other has a boxed ladder frame with a tub on it. What I want someone to say is what about that distinction makes it so the frame height in relation to the belly and UCA mounts is such a make or break characteristic that is somehow perfectly accepted and nearly universal with one, but dismissed as invalid and preposterous with the other.
As far as TJs go the obsession with spring rates is unfounded.
If you want to talk about spring rates and race cars, that's another story.
Didn't I read somewhere that a spring only function was to hold the vehicle up at predetermined height?
I’m pretty sure we are in TJ general discussion, are we not?
Plenty of places to go on the internet to discuss all kinds of suspensions. Since this is a specific TJ forum, I would say that is what we are here to discuss.
To compare a bomber car to a TJ is just dumb, I don’t have a better word for it.
Just because something works on one vehicle doesn’t mean it will work on another. This seems pretty obvious…
Something about apples and oranges?
The distinction is the tube frame chassis can build in enough suspension up travel to set that belly on the ground if the shocks are removed. LJ's cant do that because its a different animal. Sure You can back halve it and essentially remove the frame above the rear axle, run the upper shock mounts off the roll cage. In the front its usually the engine that stops the axle from going more up. So You can remove the front frame and stretch the wheelbase enough that the axle goes in front of the engine at full compression. Hard mount the engine off the front cage so the driveshaft doesn't hit the engine mounts. Hang the radiators off the back of the roll cage. but the 3 feet of TJ frame you have left really isn't a TJ anymore. Sure its all fascinating stuff but the point is...
Trying to make a TJ or LJ "LCOG" without making HUGE compromises and modifications will net you a useless turd of a jeep with 2" of up-travel that can't even handle the speed bumps at the mall at more than 5 mph.
The distinction is the tube frame chassis can build in enough suspension up travel to set that belly on the ground if the shocks are removed. LJ's cant do that because its a different animal. Sure You can back halve it and essentially remove the frame above the rear axle, run the upper shock mounts off the roll cage. In the front its usually the engine that stops the axle from going more up. So You can remove the front frame and stretch the wheelbase enough that the axle goes in front of the engine at full compression. Hard mount the engine off the front cage so the driveshaft doesn't hit the engine mounts. Hang the radiators off the back of the roll cage. but the 3 feet of TJ frame you have left really isn't a TJ anymore. Sure its all fascinating stuff but the point is...
Trying to make a TJ or LJ "LCOG" without making HUGE compromises and modifications will net you a useless turd of a jeep with 2" of up-travel that can't even handle the speed bumps at the mall at more than 5 mph.
There is really little benefit to a good honest discussion about much when so many are still struggling with just the basics. I'll be glad to discuss anything of value and importance the day that everyone accepts the truth about springs and pulls their heads out of their asses. You figure out how to make that happen and away we go, until then, not so much because why?
I didn't know there were people still stuck on the spring thing, other than the occasional forum noob that comes in trying to fix the crap riding TJ they just bought either already lifted or that they lifted with a $500 kit. But I don't read every thread here.
It is very much a thing, and not just with newbies. People with 20+ years of "experience" have come and argued about it very recently.
BEST NON WELCOME THREAD WELCOME THREAD EVER!
It is very much a thing, and not just with newbies. People with 20+ years of "experience" have come and argued about it very recently.
Isn't the point that 20+years experience doesn't guarantee you're not a newb!
it's certainly unfortunate that we all suffer for the sins of a few.