Novak Conversions Jeep Wrangler TJ engine mounts

Sab-a-dab-a-doo! The back-country LJ build has officially started

I don't think I'm going to be out in the shop working on the LJ today. I'm going to help a neighbor with a project this afternoon instead. However, I have one other post to make today - regarding vehicle weight - that was spurred by a conversation with Mr. Blaine yesterday. As you can tell if you look at the first post in this build thread, I pay very close attention to the weight of a vehicle. It's something I learned in my racing career. I may have said it in other posts on here before, but paying attention to the weight of every part pays off in huge dividends.

Vehicle weight has an effect on your ability to speed up, slow down, and change direction. It also affects component durability. As a vehicle design engineer, you have to learn to ask yourself, "what can I do to reduce the weight of this part?" for every part that you design in order to be a good designer. If you only look at the weight of some components, you are missing many opportunities to improve your vehicle by making it as light as possible.

I keep track of my LJ's weight by tracking each modification's effect on the weight of the part using a spreadsheet. Currently, there are over 500 entries in my spreadsheet! Let me use excerpts from this spreadsheet to walk you through one evolving modification I recently completed (the body lift) to show you how weight was a constant part of my build strategy. For tire clearance, to fit the Atlas transfer case with a 1" drop skid, and to install the Mr. Blaine-designed Savvy mid-arm kit, I needed a 1.25" body lift. Initially, I bought and installed the Savvy kit to do that. Here's the effect of the Savvy kit on vehicle weight:
1737307208287.png


So, the LJ gained almost 8 lb by adding the Savvy body lift. Next, I raised the rear of my LJ's frame and incorporated the bumper into the frame, eliminating the rear Savvy lift bolts and pucks. Although the rear frame raise project added over 2-1/2 pounds to the vehicle (mainly because Mr. Blaine recommended making it very stout since a bent frame from a bumper impact sucks), removing the two rear Savvy lift bolts and pucks was a give-back of about 1-1/4 pound:
1737307956375.png


The next evolution was to replace the OEM body mounting brackets with the raised Genright brackets for more clearance. But how did that affect vehicle weight? Check the spreadsheet:
1737308144050.png


What a nice surprise - a savings of about a third of a pound! Less "hangy downy things," and a weight savings!

The final evolution was when I realized I could save even more weight by replacing the aluminum Savvy pucks with Mr. Blaine's acetal pucks. I looked up the densities of the two, and acetal is a little more than half the weight of aluminum - not too shabby! Here's the spreadsheet showing the net results:
1737310024242.png


By paying attention to weights, I was able to reduce over two-and-a-half pounds of weight gain with my body lift and simultaneously increase ground clearance outside the frame rails. It's a win-win!

And, just to close this out, here's a comparison showing that you can save over three pounds with the Black Magic Brakes body lift kit compared to the Savvy kit:
1737310405911.png


If you are diligent in comparing weights of every modification, you will reap many rewards as you use your rig! Lighter is better!
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'm going to be out in the shop working on the LJ today. I'm going to help a neighbor with a project this afternoon instead. However, I have one other post to make today - regarding vehicle weight - that was spurred by a conversation with Mr. Blaine yesterday. As you can tell if you look at the first post in this build thread, I pay very close attention to the weight of a vehicle. It's something I learned in my racing career. I may have said it in other posts on here before, but paying attention to the weight of every part pays off in huge dividends.

Vehicle weight has an effect on your ability to speed up, slow down, and change direction. It also affects component durability. As a vehicle design engineer, you have to learn to ask yourself, "what can I do to reduce the weight of this part?" for every part that you design in order to be a good designer. If you only look at the weight of some components, you are missing many opportunities to improve your vehicle by making it as light as possible.

I keep track of my LJ's weight by tracking each modification's effect on the weight of the part using a spreadsheet. Currently, there are over 500 entries in my spreadsheet! Let me use excerpts from this spreadsheet to walk you through one evolving modification I recently completed (the body lift) to show you how weight was a constant part of my build strategy. For tire clearance, to fit the Atlas transfer case with a 1" drop skid, and to install the Mr. Blaine-designed Savvy mid-arm kit, I needed a 1.25" body lift. Initially, I bought and installed the Savvy kit to do that. Here's the effect of the Savvy kit on vehicle weight:
View attachment 586806

So, the LJ gained almost 8 lb by adding the Savvy body lift. Next, I raised the rear of my LJ's frame and incorporated the bumper into the frame, eliminating the rear Savvy lift bolts and pucks. Although the rear frame raise project added over 2-1/2 pounds to the vehicle (mainly because Mr. Blaine recommended making it very stout since a bent frame from a bumper impact sucks), removing the two rear Savvy lift bolts and pucks was a give-back of about 1-1/4 pound:
View attachment 586809

The next evolution was to replace the OEM body mounting brackets with the raised Genright brackets for more clearance. But how did that affect vehicle weight? Check the spreadsheet:
View attachment 586810

What a nice surprise - a savings of about a third of a pound! Less "hangy downy things," and a weight savings!

The final evolution was when I realized I could save even more weight by replacing the aluminum Savvy pucks with Mr. Blaine's acetal pucks. I looked up the densities of the two, and acetal is a little more than half the weight of aluminum - not too shabby! Here's the spreadsheet showing the net results:
View attachment 586814

By paying attention to weights, I was able to reduce over two-and-a-half pounds of weight gain with my body lift and simultaneously increase ground clearance outside the frame rails. It's a win-win!

And, just to close this out, here's a comparison showing that you can save over three pounds with the Black Magic Brakes body lift kit compared to the Savvy kit:
View attachment 586817

If you are diligent in comparing weights of every modification, you will reap many rewards as you use your rig! Lighter is better!

super 30 and 35 are on the list?

Ditch that heavy transfercase for an np231?

Lightest tires and wheel combo?

You could save hundreds of pounds that way
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Tob and sab
super 30 and 35 are on the list?

Ditch that heavy transfercase for an np231?

Lightest tires and wheel combo?

You could save hundreds of pounds that way

:rolleyes: Oh, come on. If you continue that logic, no jeep = best weight savings, so sell it? Lose some pounds on the body == even better!

What @sab is trying to do is to be mindful of the changes he is making and making sure he understands where the weight additions (we expect there will be some in a build like this) come from. The weight vs capability tradeoffs are being made fully consciously rather than doing the build and finally ending up with a pig of jeep that is 1000 lb heavier than in stock for and then being surprised by it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyd and sab
super 30 and 35 are on the list?

Ditch that heavy transfercase for an np231?

Lightest tires and wheel combo?

You could save hundreds of pounds that way
It's funny. Mr. Blaine and I were discussing vehicle weight yesterday, which is what spurred me to write that post. My experience in racing was mostly road racing vehicles. I told him that I've had to re-calibrate my design methodology for building a rock-crawling-capable LJ because I never built a vehicle before that requires so much "useless" weight in order to keep it together (armor)... :ROFLMAO:
 
It's funny. Mr. Blaine and I were discussing vehicle weight yesterday, which is what spurred me to write that post. My experience in racing was mostly road racing vehicles. I told him that I've had to re-calibrate my design methodology for building a rock-crawling-capable LJ because I never built a vehicle before that requires so much "useless" weight in order to keep it together (armor)... :ROFLMAO:

Corner armor on a race car is more of a local stock car thing 😆

So long as you remember some of your choices make it much heavier than you need.no bigger than a 35" tire right? Super 30 and 35 would fit the bill.
An edelbrock head would save 40 lbs too!
 
It's funny. Mr. Blaine and I were discussing vehicle weight yesterday, which is what spurred me to write that post. My experience in racing was mostly road racing vehicles. I told him that I've had to re-calibrate my design methodology for building a rock-crawling-capable LJ because I never built a vehicle before that requires so much "useless" weight in order to keep it together (armor)... :ROFLMAO:

100% agree with your keep the weight down for performance philosophy. On the street or track, the benefits are obvious. On the trail, its maybe less intuitive that every pound you save is that much less traction you need to find to get up a rock obstacle or allows more floatation on a soft surface. The hard part is to stay light while building enough strength to protect the drivetrain (edit: and body).
 
Last edited:
It's funny. Mr. Blaine and I were discussing vehicle weight yesterday, which is what spurred me to write that post. My experience in racing was mostly road racing vehicles. I told him that I've had to re-calibrate my design methodology for building a rock-crawling-capable LJ because I never built a vehicle before that requires so much "useless" weight in order to keep it together (armor)... :ROFLMAO:
A point of clarification. The armor, reinforced rear crossmember, and other items of that nature are mostly to preserve the aesthetic and slow down damage to the sheetmetal. You can easily traverse many rock trails without a smidgen of armor and the stock bumpers with a winch plate and winch.

The doors may not close after a bit and it will look like hell, but it will get across the trails just fine. If you protected the underneath bits with some good skids, it would go over the same trails as it will when you are done. It will look like it, but it will do it.
 
Corner armor on a race car is more of a local stock car thing 😆

So long as you remember some of your choices make it much heavier than you need.no bigger than a 35" tire right? Super 30 and 35 would fit the bill.
An edelbrock head would save 40 lbs too!
You remind me of Lou who summarily dismissed Sri's build by saying it won't go offroad. Why the fuck do you care enough that he is counting calories to start being a dick about it?

Can you actually read his build thread, look at how he counts the weight per item to get the net change and then really think that he has overlooked some of his choices make it heavier? Seriously? That's just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.
 
100% agree with your keep the weight down for performance philosophy. On the street or track, the benefits are obvious. On the trail, its maybe less intuitive that every pound you save is that much less traction you need to find to get up a rock obstacle or allows more floatation on a soft surface. The hard part is to stay light while building enough strength to protect the drivetrain (edit: and body).
I think what some have missed is the smartness of choices. Having been in 100's of anti-aluminum discussions over the years, what is or should be obvious is every good choice you make that lowers the weight gives you the ability to carry the cargo you need for an extended stay and lowers the penalty in performance for having it.

It was common in those discussions for the dicks to try and point out that even if you saved 150 lbs by going with aluminum armor over steel armor, that's the same as having a passenger hop in the rig with you. They fully missed that yes, a passenger can do that, but with aluminum the penalty for that passenger is mitigated.

Had I known what Scott was doing when he talked me out of a belly skid, I might have made a different suggestion with a few experiments here. I would have seriously explored the option of seeing if we could bend some 5/16" or 1/4" 7075 and come up with a lighter weight method to put a stiffener across the back of it. I could probably cut 10 lbs. off the overall assembly. 7075 in the T-6 grade is around 70,000 psi yield. Normal steel sheet is about 35-40,000 psi.
 
I think what some have missed is the smartness of choices. Having been in 100's of anti-aluminum discussions over the years, what is or should be obvious is every good choice you make that lowers the weight gives you the ability to carry the cargo you need for an extended stay and lowers the penalty in performance for having it.

It was common in those discussions for the dicks to try and point out that even if you saved 150 lbs by going with aluminum armor over steel armor, that's the same as having a passenger hop in the rig with you. They fully missed that yes, a passenger can do that, but with aluminum the penalty for that passenger is mitigated.

Had I known what Scott was doing when he talked me out of a belly skid, I might have made a different suggestion with a few experiments here. I would have seriously explored the option of seeing if we could bend some 5/16" or 1/4" 7075 and come up with a lighter weight method to put a stiffener across the back of it. I could probably cut 10 lbs. off the overall assembly. 7075 in the T-6 grade is around 70,000 psi yield. Normal steel sheet is about 35-40,000 psi.

Its all about finding the right compromise. I think I’ve come at it backwards as compared to normal due to inexperience. My starting bias was very much towards light weight, mostly thinking about road performance in an already under powered vehicle. As I got into more challenging trails, the need for armor became apparent. I still wanted light for the original reason but also because I could see the off road advantages at that point. This lead to some expensive mistakes (1/4” aluminum T-case skid and 3/16” aluminum gas tank skid, neither of which did well with repeated hard rock contacts). I almost got aluminum sliders too (not the steel reinforced varieties). Reluctantly, I got steel sliders and a steel tank skid as well as a thicker aluminum T-case skid, all of which function very well but the weight penalty is real. And now a heavier rear axle is on deck (another spendy redo 🙄)
 
Its all about finding the right compromise. I think I’ve come at it backwards as compared to normal due to inexperience. My starting bias was very much towards light weight, mostly thinking about road performance in an already under powered vehicle. As I got into more challenging trails, the need for armor became apparent. I still wanted light for the original reason but also because I could see the off road advantages at that point. This lead to some expensive mistakes (1/4” aluminum T-case skid and 3/16” aluminum gas tank skid, neither of which did well with repeated hard rock contacts). I almost got aluminum sliders too (not the steel reinforced varieties). Reluctantly, I got steel sliders and a steel tank skid as well as a thicker aluminum T-case skid, all of which function very well but the weight penalty is real. And now a heavier rear axle is on deck (another spendy redo 🙄)
Not for nothing but I watched a gent absolutely destroy his armor, not to failure but the abuse was very high because he had convinced himself that lower was better so he was running about 2 1/2" of lift in JV. Approach angle sucked, departure angle sucked, and he drug on everything. Another inch and a half of lift would have stopped most of that crap and he was having no part of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Woodrow
A point of clarification. The armor, reinforced rear crossmember, and other items of that nature are mostly to preserve the aesthetic and slow down damage to the sheetmetal. You can easily traverse many rock trails without a smidgen of armor and the stock bumpers with a winch plate and winch.

The doors may not close after a bit and it will look like hell, but it will get across the trails just fine. If you protected the underneath bits with some good skids, it would go over the same trails as it will when you are done. It will look like it, but it will do it.
Yes, I understand this completely. As you, and some of the regular readers of this thread know, my rig is not a rock-crawler. It's rock-crawling capable. As the thread title says, it's similar to Sri's rig that you're building - a backcountry vehicle meant to get me into (and more importantly, out of) the remote areas I love to explore. If I wanted a rock-crawler, I'd likely build a buggy. Protecting the vehicle from major damage is part of my methodology. As is reliability.

@Rickyd, I don't believe you're being a dick, but I think you've missed the point of my build methodology. I'm not building the lightest rig I can possibly build. I'm building a rig that meets my needs, and taking weight into consideration at each step of the build. If you are being a dick, that's fine, too. Life is too short to worry about such things.
 
Not for nothing but I watched a gent absolutely destroy his armor, not to failure but the abuse was very high because he had convinced himself that lower was better so he was running about 2 1/2" of lift in JV. Approach angle sucked, departure angle sucked, and he drug on everything. Another inch and a half of lift would have stopped most of that crap and he was having no part of it.

Yep and I’m still a little low with 3” springs although I net a little over 4”. Belly height is only 19”. Rear frame tuck definitely helped but I do plan actual Currie 4” springs when I mid-arm/outboard and stretch a little.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psrivats and Mike_H
Yes, I understand this completely. As you, and some of the regular readers of this thread know, my rig is not a rock-crawler. It's rock-crawling capable. As the thread title says, it's similar to Sri's rig that you're building - a backcountry vehicle meant to get me into (and more importantly, out of) the remote areas I love to explore. If I wanted a rock-crawler, I'd likely build a buggy. Protecting the vehicle from major damage is part of my methodology. As is reliability.

@Rickyd, I don't believe you're being a dick, but I think you've missed the point of my build methodology. I'm not building the lightest rig I can possibly build. I'm building a rig that meets my needs, and taking weight into consideration at each step of the build. If you are being a dick, that's fine, too. Life is too short to worry about such things.

@sab I am really enjoying watching the evolution of both your jeep and mine. It is obvious that you enjoy the thinking/planning/building process and also explaining the "why" and documenting the progression. The attention to detail and you sharing your findings about weight and such are great to read and absorb and understand.

I thought made it very clear in the early posts in my thread that what Blaine is building for me is the realization of a dream of what I think as an ideal jeep (whether or not I "need" one) but maybe it was not as clear as it should have been. My '01 Forester, heck even the CJ-3B with how it currently sits is enough for what I need, but neither give the same feeling as being in a TJ that I know as been built right with attention to everything. To realize a dream, you need not just the vision but also the knowledge, understanding and the skills all of which I severely lack. In addition to all the mechanical wizardry @mrblaine also has a unique ability to understand what folks like me want but cannot quite clearly express - not sure how he does it, but it's very special and something not very many people really understand at all. Build threads like @Midnight LJR or @ObiWanWebWheelr all touch upon thsee intangible aspects and it all reads like exaggeration but I assure folks that it is not.

The need vs want discussion is always a philosophical one. The balance of those two is up to each individual and not my place to impose.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand this completely. As you, and some of the regular readers of this thread know, my rig is not a rock-crawler. It's rock-crawling capable. As the thread title says, it's similar to Sri's rig that you're building - a backcountry vehicle meant to get me into (and more importantly, out of) the remote areas I love to explore. If I wanted a rock-crawler, I'd likely build a buggy. Protecting the vehicle from major damage is part of my methodology. As is reliability.

@Rickyd, I don't believe you're being a dick, but I think you've missed the point of my build methodology. I'm not building the lightest rig I can possibly build. I'm building a rig that meets my needs, and taking weight into consideration at each step of the build. If you are being a dick, that's fine, too. Life is too short to worry about such things.

No,not trying to be a dick,a smartass yes,lol. Just bench racing weight savings since it was brought up. And throwing out a few ways to save quite a bit,though some of it is digression from your build.To me, being a dick would be telling you your build is done wrong or some insult to your person.

I think i understand your methodology. You are shaving weight within the framework of parts chosen.i wouldn't get rid of my d44s just to save weight
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sab
Novak Conversions Jeep Wrangler TJ engine mounts