btw, if you are going to the trouble of fabricating a new mount then dont lower it but move it back and make new longer RA's.....you will have better bump steer, better traction and ability to soak bumps at speed and better flex
Printable View
btw, if you are going to the trouble of fabricating a new mount then dont lower it but move it back and make new longer RA's.....you will have better bump steer, better traction and ability to soak bumps at speed and better flex
The reason to move forward would be to be able to run larger tyres wthout fouling the floor/bulkhead.
There is not much clearance there. of course you could always do a body lift.
A friend runs 35s on a D1 with only a 2 inch body lift and std suspension height. It was in 4wd Australia last year.
Regards Philip A
Without sounding rude, have a reread of what I wrote. I noted the fact that the crank is in the wrong direction for castor correction and that the cranked arm in the first picture does ok for clearance you need to correct that bend plus additional for the castor correction with another bend at the diff end. And all this bending is making the arm shorter. Now if I had a D1 I could space the arm forward with a spacer between the arm and bush forward of the chassis (this is also does to correct slight diff housing alignments) but the D2 is a (better?) design.Quote:
Originally Posted by uninformed
As you've noted the lift plus crank will rotate the pinion more upwards, BUT if we correct castor of the diff with the arms then the pinion will be rotated back to standard.
no, I said if you lift a vehicle on its springs with stock arms, the pinion is correct as the diff is just traveling though its standard arc. If you correct the castor with the arm it will point the pinion down, yes it may be the same angle as stock, but as your diff to T/case relation has changed due to the lift it doesnt want to be stock......Quote:
Originally Posted by clubagreenie
some consider the D2 chassis end to be better, Im no engineer but I cant see the advantage...the original parrallel pin, in my mind, rotates with the twist of the RA. The chassis end, much to some peoples disbelief, does not limit travel in the front end....simple test, flex and droop your front end with no shocks etc, then undo an RA and see how far it travels up and down by itself. The stock OEM bushes have a tendency to "weld" themselves to restrict twist, super pro dont seem to have this problem
If you are getting serious about big lif and tyres, the stock 3 degrees castor may not be enough. Yes plenty get by and seems fine, as there are tollerances in the stock set up....but these lifts etc could be better
btw, take what I say with a big IMO.........I could be totally wrong
I've read a lot of comments on the forum about pinion angles with suspension lifts. Raising the suspension at the springs will not change the angle of the front universal joint, as the pivot point for the front propshaft- the uni joint at the transfer case front output- is almost exactly in line between the two radius arm chassis mounts. The angle of the pinion in relation to the road surface will change with suspension height, but not the angle of the front universal joint. The angle of the rear uni joint on the front propshaft will change with suspension travel, but it does so continually with normal suspension movement.
Cranking the arms will relieve the load on the arm-to-chassis bushes, will compound the effect on caster angle reduction with a spring lift, and will reduce the angle of the front uni joint. Caster bushes will win some of this back. Best way by far to correct caster is by slotting the ball flanges and leaving the arms alone. Dropping the rear of the control arms will ruin the relationship between the pivot points of the axle and the propshaft, not sure what other effect that would have other than making the splined joint travel in & out more.