For Science: GenRight's Tuxedo Build

[Mike_H]

I was cruising around the internets this monring, dreaming about built LJs (I really need to get out more) and I stumbled across this build

https://genright.com/pages/all-galleries/tuxedo-tj-to-lj.html
Its interesting to me that they didn't install the typical tracer suspension on this one. The links are tucked up pretty well.

I do see some things that I don't think are great, like the location of the lower link mounting on the axle or the lack of separation on the frame side. It may be the picture angle, but it really appears that the uppers are heading down hill. The lowers could be dropped below the frame a little more, (though maybe that is a result of the Too-High axle end mounts).

They also used their TJ to LJ kit and their backhalf kit....That must be how they got the 14" C/O in there without chopping a ton of the body.

I don't see a lot of up-travel built in either...This looks to be about 4-5" which is pretty short, IMHO.

To me, it looks like quite a few of the basics for a "do anything" rig are attended to well, and would be something that I would like to incorporate into a dream build of my own. It isn't a flat belly, but it's only dropped where necessary. No "undercarriage" to carry the links. It's got the fuel tank where it belongs. Full interior. What say the hive mind? Am I looking at this properly? Had to make these kinds of judgements based on pictures, but I'm using my eyecrometer to scale off known sizes in the picture to estimate what else I'm seeing.

 

[HornedToad]

Interesting they are still running the 231. It seems that the typical all out build usually has an atlas or similar.

 

[psrivats]

I think this is the 3rd time they are updating that particular Jeep? I remember watching a video in the past (and it was before the Tracer introduction) where they had put those COs on the Jeep and it was already the 2nd build. Probably kept the shocks setup as is and just did a body/frame stretch In guessing? Note sure what size tires those are, 115" wheelbase and Currie 70s so, I'm guessing 40s? Not sure where the wheelbase and tire size fall on the optimal/non-optimal spectrum.

The shocks .. I remember reading there is perhaps more shaft length hidden in the bottom "cup" but I could be wrong.

I'll leave suspension geometry stuff at this level of build to the people that understand it more clearly than I do

 

[Chris]

Get your popcorn ready for the return of Bill M

 

[Mike_H]

I think this is the 3rd time they are updating that particular Jeep? I remember watching a video in the past (and it was before the Tracer introduction) where they had put those COs on the Jeep and it was already the 2nd build. Probably kept the shocks setup as is and just did a body/frame stretch In guessing? Note sure what size tires those are, 115" wheelbase and Currie 70s so, I'm guessing 40s? Not sure where the wheelbase and tire size fall on the optimal/non-optimal spectrum.

The shocks .. I remember reading there is perhaps more shaft length hidden in the bottom "cup" but I could be wrong.

I'll leave suspension geometry stuff at this level of build to the people that understand it more clearly than I do

It’s on 40’s. One of the pictures I was able to open in a separate tab and zoom in. There was enough resolution to read the tire size.

I’d say 115” is pretty close for 40’s. Not sure what the belly measures, though I’d guess 21 or 22 inches based on the profile shot

 

[JMT]

I was cruising around the internets this monring, dreaming about built LJs (I really need to get out more) and I stumbled across this build

[URL][URL][URL][URL][URL][URL][URL]https://genright.com/pages/all-galleries/tuxedo-tj-to-lj.html[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

Its interesting to me that they didn't install the typical tracer suspension on this one. The links are tucked up pretty well.
View attachment 377822
I do see some things that I don't think are great, like the location of the lower link mounting on the axle or the lack of separation on the frame side. It may be the picture angle, but it really appears that the uppers are heading down hill. The lowers could be dropped below the frame a little more, (though maybe that is a result of the Too-High axle end mounts).

View attachment 377821


They also used their TJ to LJ kit and their backhalf kit....That must be how they got the 14" C/O in there without chopping a ton of the body.

I don't see a lot of up-travel built in either...This looks to be about 4-5" which is pretty short, IMHO.

View attachment 377824

To me, it looks like quite a few of the basics for a "do anything" rig are attended to well, and would be something that I would like to incorporate into a dream build of my own. It isn't a flat belly, but it's only dropped where necessary. No "undercarriage" to carry the links. It's got the fuel tank where it belongs. Full interior. What say the hive mind? Am I looking at this properly? Had to make these kinds of judgements based on pictures, but I'm using my eyecrometer to scale off known sizes in the picture to estimate what else I'm seeing.

Those are long-er links. I would call this a LCOG Long-er Arm build

Several things to observe here.

1. Difficult to see how much uptravel, but as you suggest, it isn't much, assuming the coilover is 14" travel.
2. There can't be as much uptravel as down travel as one can see from red markings from the side in photo below. If this is on a 14" coilover then it's not 50:50.
3. They are using a body lift (short green mark)
4. There is a pretty accentuated front stretch
5. There is a rear stretch (gas tank and visual make clear)
6. No clue how much clearance there is at the TCase
7. It does appear like the upper link is angled down relative to the flat plane of earth (idiosyncrasy's not accounted for) if my blue line is actually following that link). Note the disparity in link length.
8. It hasn't been in mud recently.
9. This is a TJXL with an arm rest.
10. The D-Rings are helping.

I comment with hesitation. Bottom line is I think this is a LCOG Long-er Arm build. Can't tell much more from my limited vision. Look at the IC if those are accurate representations of the arm angles.

 

[jjvw]

....That must be how they got the 14" C/O in there without chopping a ton of the body.

I don't see a lot of up-travel built in either...This looks to be about 4-5" which is pretty short, IMHO.

View attachment 377824

...

The rear axle tubes on the Currie 70 are 4" diameter. So the guess of 5" of up on a 14" coilover is about right. That's disappointing since I strongly suspect they could have gotten close to 7" if they wanted to, given the amount of work everywhere else.

A belly height would be nice to know. Out here, we drag our 19-20" bellies often on fairly typical 35" tire builds on 93ish wheelbases. More length without more belly height would be get really annoying quickly and point to why LCoG is flawed.

 

[jjvw]

Those are long-er links. I would call this a LCOG Long-er Arm build

Several things to observe here.

1. Difficult to see how much uptravel, but as you suggest, it isn't much, assuming the coilover is 14" travel.
2. There can't be as much uptravel as down travel as one can see from red markings from the side in photo below. If this is on a 14" coilover then it's not 50:50.
3. They are using a body lift (short green mark)
4. There is a pretty accentuated front stretch
5. There is a rear stretch (gas tank and visual make clear)
6. No clue how much clearance there is at the TCase
7. It does appear like the upper link is angled down relative to the flat plane of earth (idiosyncrasy's not accounted for) if my blue line is actually following that link). Note the disparity in link length.
8. It hasn't been in mud recently.
9. This is a TJXL with an arm rest.
10. The D-Rings are helping.

I comment with hesitation. Bottom line is I think this is a LCOG Long-er Arm build. Can't tell much more from my limited vision. Look at the IC if those are accurate representations of the arm angles.

View attachment 377970

The lack of vertical separation on the frame side rear upper has me suspicious that the low AS would make the front end light on steep climbs. If there are running a body lift, then it doesn't need to be the way. The arms also don't need to be that long. All they did was lengthen the arms as dictated by the added wheelbase. Which served to create ground interference behind the center skid where there didn't need to be. But now some people can ooh and awe over how long the arms are. Congrats? And by raising the axle side lowers to be even with the tube, they are increasing the forces on the upper axle mounts. Maybe that doesn't matter so much with the 4.0 still in there. But we have seen similar arrangements break the uppers.

 

[Mike_H]

The rear axle tubes on the Currie 70 are 4" diameter. So the guess of 5" of up on a 14" coilover is about right. That's disappointing since I strongly suspect they could have gotten close to 7" if they wanted to, given the amount of work everywhere else.

A belly height would be nice to know. Out here, we drag our 19-20" bellies often on fairly typical 35" tire builds on 93ish wheelbases. More length without more belly height would be get really annoying quickly and point to why LCoG is flawed.

View attachment 378004

Basing the relation of the belly height to the hub, I guessed belly height to be 21’ish inches. Break over may be compromised

 

[JMT]

The lack of vertical separation on the frame side rear upper has me suspicious that the low AS would make the front end light on steep climbs. If there are running a body lift, then it doesn't need to be the way. The arms also don't need to be that long. All they did was lengthen the arms as dictated by the added wheelbase. Which served to create ground interference behind the center skid where there didn't need to be. But now some people can ooh and awe over how long the arms are. Congrats? And by raising the axle side lowers to be even with the tube, they are increasing the forces on the upper axle mounts. Maybe that doesn't matter so much with the 4.0 still in there. But we have seen similar arrangements break the uppers.

I've been wondering about the mount location of the lower rear arm at the axle. If we lower it we create a hangy downy thing. If we put it even with the axle we avoid that but increase stress on the upper axle mount. Am I right in assuming the midarm is selecting the lesser of two weevils?

If they have a body mount they could add some AS and get better vertical separation at the frame. All in all, an expensive solution that didn't solve everything. I'm also wondering how close that rear upper mount is to the tub. With that little uptravel it may clear, but again, loss of up travel was the compromise.

That little dip at the mount behind (and in front of) the skid, yep.

The axles are really pretty silver, you can't argue with that.

 

[jjvw]

---

I've been wondering about the mount location of the lower rear arm at the axle. If we lower it we create a hangy downy thing. If we put it even with the axle we avoid that but increase stress on the upper axle mount. Am I right in assuming the midarm is selecting the lesser of two weevils?

If they have a body mount they could add some AS and get better vertical separation at the frame. All in all, an expensive solution that didn't solve everything. I'm also wondering how close that rear upper mount is to the tub. With that little uptravel it may clear, but again, loss of up travel was the compromise.

That little dip at the mount behind (and in front of) the skid, yep.

The axles are really pretty silver, you can't argue with that.

At the end of the day, they and we are dealing with the packaging restrictions of a TJ with a mostly full body. Compromises will exist. I doubt expense was a consideration with GR when they are spending $25k on axles.

If we want to use the Savvy mid arm as an example of what else could have been done that we know works very well, then we do know that the control arm geometry could be very different from what we see here. That means solid geometry with less physical interference. When you compare the Savvy MA to the factory mounts at the frame, the overall space they both occupy as an assembly is nearly the same. And where the lower axle mounts are concerned, Blaine himself has said geometry takes priority over a minor loss of ground clearance. And we know that the Savvy design could have been anything, including what GR does.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

. Look at the IC if those are accurate representations of the arm angles.

View attachment 377970

Somebody commented in a thread a few days ago that rigs destined for high speed whoops often targeted lower antisquat than what's ideal for crawling/climbing. I could see that here in the link design but I would think that should call for gobs of uptravel.

 

[Blackjack]

Somebody commented in a thread a few days ago that rigs destined for high speed whoops often targeted lower antisquat than what's ideal for crawling/climbing. I could see that here in the link design but I would think that should call for gobs of uptravel.

Yes a dedicated high speed rig would want to run a low AS to help lighten the front up but without the wheel travel to go with it what good is this thing?

 

[mrblaine]

The shocks .. I remember reading there is perhaps more shaft length hidden in the bottom "cup" but I could be wrong.

You are not wrong. I don't recall if it is approaching an inch of shaft that gets used up when the spring perch moves up around the shock body, but it is an amount that is not to be ignored.

 

[Jezza]

I can't comment on the quality of the suspension setup, as I am far from knowledgeable on proper suspension construction. I do however appreciate GenRight spending the time and money to continue developing and building parts for the TJ platform. Many other brands have discontinued or failed to innovate their products over time.

 

[Mike_H]

I can't comment on the quality of the suspension setup, as I am far from knowledgeable on proper suspension construction. I do however appreciate GenRight spending the time and money to continue developing and building parts for the TJ platform. Many other brands have discontinued or failed to innovate their products over time.

I was looking at the TJ to LJ kit they have today. Its not my bag, but like you said, its nice that someone still cares about us!

 

[psrivats]

Yes a dedicated high speed rig would want to run a low AS to help lighten the front up but without the wheel travel to go with it what good is this thing?

Can you expand on this a little further? Why do high speed rigs need to have (realtively) lighter front setup?

 

[mrblaine]

Can you expand on this a little further? Why do high speed rigs need to have (realtively) lighter front setup?

Usually easier to fuck up the geometry than it is to install enough horsepower to hold the front up on top of the smaller whooped out sections.

 

[DrDmoney]

The lack of vertical separation on the frame side rear upper has me suspicious that the low AS would make the front end light on steep climbs. If there are running a body lift, then it doesn't need to be the way. The arms also don't need to be that long. All they did was lengthen the arms as dictated by the added wheelbase. Which served to create ground interference behind the center skid where there didn't need to be. But now some people can ooh and awe over how long the arms are. Congrats? And by raising the axle side lowers to be even with the tube, they are increasing the forces on the upper axle mounts. Maybe that doesn't matter so much with the 4.0 still in there. But we have seen similar arrangements break the uppers.

This is the bracket they sell.

 

[jjvw]

This is the bracket they sell.

View attachment 378253

That is a bracket they sell. The other one doesn't require a body lift. The one in your link is taller than what a 1.25" body lift will create room for