Jump to content


Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, my lurker friend!

Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, an unparalleled Subaru community full of the greatest Subaru gurus and modders on the planet! We offer technical information and discussion about all things Subaru, the best and most popular all wheel drive vehicles ever created.

We offer all this information for free to everyone, even lurkers like you! All we ask in return is that you sign up and give back some of what you get out - without our awesome registered users none of this would be possible! Plus, you get way more great stuff as a member! Lurk to lose, participate to WIN*!
  • Say hello and join the conversation
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get automatic updates
  • Get your own profile and make new friends
  • Classifieds with all sorts of Subaru goodies
  • Photo hosting in our gallery
  • Meet other cool people with cool cars
Seriously, what are you waiting for? Make your life more fulfilling and join today! You and your Subaru won't regret it, we guarantee** it.

* The joy of participation and being generally awesome constitutes winning
** Not an actual guarantee, but seriously, you probably won't regret it!

Serving the Subaru Community since May 18th, 1998!

Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Solid rear axle


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 4RnrRick

4RnrRick

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 16 November 2004 - 11:42 AM

I've been thinking about this alot lately. Do you think 4" of lift is enough room out back for a solid rear axle conversion? What I mean by enough room is enough for some real suspension travel. I don't want it to be too tall since I still want to rally it. I would like it to look stock ish and not huge and have people be staring at my rear axle. Does that make sence?

The axle I would prefer to use is a Toyota narrow track rear (79-85 4wd 55" WMS) with some early 3.90 gears and a locker of course. Probably a cheap Lockright.

Still haven't decided if I want to just spring under it with leafs or do a nice 3 or 4 link with a panhard bar and coils. The link suspension would give me WAY better performance offroad but I'm not sure about mounting points yet for either one.

#2 ezapar

ezapar

    [OWB]

  • Moderator
  • 27,111 posts
  • Seattle

Posted 16 November 2004 - 11:59 AM

I bet it would work with a 4 inch. . .


But, if you are talking Rally X, they won't let you enter a lifted rig. Didn't you also say you wanted the Subie you put together to be your daily driver?

#3 MorganM

MorganM

    Do you Subaru?

  • Members
  • 8,390 posts
  • TwinCities

Posted 16 November 2004 - 12:34 PM

What doesnt make sense to me is trying to achieve lots of travel in the rear only.... the front has to go through first ;) Consider what needs to be done up front also if youre going solid rear for more travel !_!

#4 4RnrRick

4RnrRick

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 16 November 2004 - 12:54 PM

When I say Rally, I mean drive faster than normal on gravel/dirt roads - not competition wise....

I believe increasing the travel in the front or the rear will increase the performance of the vehicle. What the front doesn't do the rear will make up for. Well thats my idea. Just think about any of the "late model" 4wd's, They are typically independant front and solid axle rear. And they do OKAY. Sure solid axle front and rear would better but I got my 4runner for that stuff.

Also for my needs and desires, doing a Solid axle up front would just make it too tall. Pretty much the same problem for me with a dual case setup. Its just more than I'm looking for lift wise. And I really don't need that big of a tire, yet.....

#5 oddcomp

oddcomp

    Subaru Master

  • Members
  • 1,763 posts
  • longview ,wa

Posted 16 November 2004 - 12:59 PM

actually lots of rear travel can help the front
more than you think
when you sit down and think about how suspension works
one end of the car twists and the suspenion reacts

if one end of the car is more "giving than the other" then when the front moves the rest will more easily follow with less resistance so you in effect have a better chance of more than one or two tires on the ground

if that makes sense .. it does to me but i seem to be having a hard time expressing my theory lol

#6 bushbasher

bushbasher

    exhaust fume addict

  • Members
  • 1,707 posts
  • Sooke B.C. Canada

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:26 PM

I hate leafsprings so the idea of a 4link is nice, but there are not any places in the middle of the car that are good for mounting brackets. Using short arms would be alot easier cause you could use the stock suspension mounting areas which are reinforced. Putting leafsprings in is kind of a step backwards, who wants to add wheelhop to a car that never had it? And if you've got linkin' experience and dont mind throwing down some money for joints and tubing, go for it!

#7 4RnrRick

4RnrRick

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:39 PM

If I was going to go leafsprings, I would design the same type of traction bar that I have in my 4runner for the rear of the Subie. Basically its a ladder bar with a slip and twist joint on teh vehicle end that you centrally mount so it does not hinder articulation.

Another problem with leaf springs is departure angle. its much hard to get a steeper departure angle with the leafs hanging back there but you can use buggy leafs to gain added travel... Hummm

Also with rear link suspensions, the links really need to be longer than the distance to the stock suspension mounting locations. other wise when you flex they will bind easier and will cause lots of rear steer. Which in turn make it difficult to just go straight when you flex onto a obsticle. It much easier to design a link setup with longer links... Say atleast 40" lowers and 30" uppers.

Can you tell I have experience with both leafs and links......:brow: I just need to figure out what I want and if it will fit, so I don't have to do things twice.

Who has a solid rear axle with a low lift....

#8 oddcomp

oddcomp

    Subaru Master

  • Members
  • 1,763 posts
  • longview ,wa

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:42 PM

sub frame bolted /welded to what there is of the stock suby frame

use subframe as the mounting points for the 4 link front and rear with the center of the subframe being the mounting area for the suspension points for the 4 link

longer 4 link arms the more flex you end up with

and yes leaf sucks for aproach and departure angles

#9 Qman

Qman

    Happiness is... no lag!!

  • Moderator
  • 11,119 posts
  • Sumner

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:46 PM

Well, since I am one of two people with actual working knowledge of leaf springs on a Sube I'll see if I can shed some light on the past comments.


I've been thinking about this alot lately. Do you think 4" of lift is enough room out back for a solid rear axle conversion? What I mean by enough room is enough for some real suspension travel. I don't want it to be too tall since I still want to rally it. I would like it to look stock ish and not huge and have people be staring at my rear axle. Does that make sence?


Complete sense, Depending on what you use to suspend the rear end you may get away with 4" of lift.

The axle I would prefer to use is a Toyota narrow track rear (79-85 4wd 55" WMS) with some early 3.90 gears and a locker of course. Probably a cheap Lockright.


You'll want to use a later model instead. That rear end is quite close in width to the Nissan. To match the footprint of the front I had to add 2 1/2" spacers machined from block aluminum.

What doesnt make sense to me is trying to achieve lots of travel in the rear only.... the front has to go through first ;) Consider what needs to be done up front also if youre going solid rear for more travel !_!

You don't have to have insane travel in the front to achieve a good working relationship between front and rear. I used gen1 struts up front which allowed for a slight bit more downward travel. Having the rear suspension relaxed takes alot of stresses away from the front. It acts like the front has more travel than it really does.

I believe increasing the travel in the front or the rear will increase the performance of the vehicle. What the front doesn't do the rear will make up for. Well thats my idea. Just think about any of the "late model" 4wd's, They are typically independant front and solid axle rear. And they do OKAY. Sure solid axle front and rear would better but I got my 4runner for that stuff.

actually lots of rear travel can help the front
more than you think
when you sit down and think about how suspension works
one end of the car twists and the suspenion reacts

if one end of the car is more "giving than the other" then when the front moves the rest will more easily follow with less resistance so you in effect have a better chance of more than one or two tires on the ground


See above.

I hate leafsprings so the idea of a 4link is nice, but there are not any places in the middle of the car that are good for mounting brackets. Using short arms would be alot easier cause you could use the stock suspension mounting areas which are reinforced. Putting leafsprings in is kind of a step backwards, who wants to add wheelhop to a car that never had it? And if you've got linkin' experience and dont mind throwing down some money for joints and tubing, go for it!


You can experience "wheel hop" with any suspension set up. I do not experience wheel hop with mine. But I am not out beating the heck out of it either.

Pathfinders have a nice link set up for the rear suspension. You may be able to cut and paste that type of set up into your vehicle cheaply. The biggest thing to keep in mind is that when you do decide to do it and how to do it overbuild the mounting set up. It will save headaches and breakdowns later on down the trail.

#10 oddcomp

oddcomp

    Subaru Master

  • Members
  • 1,763 posts
  • longview ,wa

Posted 16 November 2004 - 01:48 PM

ahh mr q as expected you said what i thought but could not say :)
encore encore!!

#11 bushbasher

bushbasher

    exhaust fume addict

  • Members
  • 1,707 posts
  • Sooke B.C. Canada

Posted 17 November 2004 - 12:07 AM

You can experience "wheel hop" with any suspension set up. I do not experience wheel hop with mine. But I am not out beating the heck out of it either.


I agree you can have wheel hop with the stock suby setup, but in my experience it is more of a vibration when it happens due to the lower unsprung mass, and the short suspension arms, and doesnt really bounce the vehicle around at all. With rear setups like yours in other vehicles (spring over with blocks) I have seen really bad cases of wheelhop, because of the leverage on the leafsprings making them bend into "S" shapes. I've ridden in a 3-linked yj and a cj5 with military wrap leafs on the same day same trail, and the difference was huge, the 3-link felt much more solid and planted. the cj5 now has a track bar, but the track bar really likes to twist the front drivers side up when hes climbing, which is kinda scary :-\

#12 Turbone

Turbone

    The Original Rob

  • Moderator
  • 12,125 posts
  • WA

Posted 17 November 2004 - 03:45 AM

I believe increasing the travel in the front or the rear will increase the performance of the vehicle. What the front doesn't do the rear will make up for. Well thats my idea. Just think about any of the "late model" 4wd's, They are typically independant front and solid axle rear. And they do OKAY. Sure solid axle front and rear would better but I got my 4runner for that stuff.



My 92 Mazda has this setup and I've taken it out on occasion with the HP and its gone where they have (dents included).

Isnt the reason for more lift(more than 4in?) in a solid rear axle setup is the room needed for the T-Case?

#13 4RnrRick

4RnrRick

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 17 November 2004 - 09:56 AM

Isnt the reason for more lift(more than 4in?) in a solid rear axle setup is the room needed for the T-Case?


With the dual T-case mod, you need the additional lift for the front diff so it can be mouted under the Transaxle. I'm wanting to do this without doing the dual T-case. So I was curious on how much do you need for just a solid rear axle.

I finally got around to measuring my EA82 and it looks to have a WMS (wheel mounting surface) around 60 1/2". So my idea of using a narrow track toy axle (55" WMS) is out , but the wide track Toyota axles (86-95) are 58" WMS and they have larger drum brakes than the early stuff. There are also disc brake conversions for both available also. And there is also a Full Floater kit which is available which would make installing a spool in the rear sweet. But then there is also the 60.75" WMS 95.5+Tacoma/4Runner rears that would match great. and some of those have the optioned TRD E-locker.

If you guys are curious why i'm wanting a Toyota rear end its because gears and lockers are readily available and cheap compared to the nissan/datsun stuff.

#14 Qman

Qman

    Happiness is... no lag!!

  • Moderator
  • 11,119 posts
  • Sumner

Posted 17 November 2004 - 10:58 AM

If you guys are curious why i'm wanting a Toyota rear end its because gears and lockers are readily available and cheap compared to the nissan/datsun stuff.


I completely agree. I wasn't aware of this before all was swapped in. I assumed that parts, ie, gears, lockers would be readily available. But, unfortunately, they are not available for the older stuff.

The wider rear diff will only require an inch spacer on both sides to match the footprint. Within a 1/4" per side anyway. The only thing I could see as a problem point would be still having to slam your way through things with the sube gearing. It will definitely help keeping the rear traction on the ground, but the gearing and reduction from the dual T-cases makes short work of most trails we've been on so far.

#15 4RnrRick

4RnrRick

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 17 November 2004 - 03:13 PM

....... but the gearing and reduction from the dual T-cases makes short work of most trails we've been on so far.


True but thats what my 4runner is for with its 223:1 crawl ratio. I just thinking for my use that 6-8" of lift with dual case is more than I want to put into a subie right now.

#16 Qman

Qman

    Happiness is... no lag!!

  • Moderator
  • 11,119 posts
  • Sumner

Posted 17 November 2004 - 03:26 PM

Point taken. That being the case after it's running hook in a LSD rear diff and see what it does. For basic wheelin' and rallyn' a 3" lift with 26's will do nicely as is.

#17 4RnrRick

4RnrRick

    USMB is life!

  • Members
  • 182 posts

Posted 17 November 2004 - 04:14 PM

I just stumbled across this on the web.

http://www.vibrateso...Ratios_Main.htm

It shows the available gear ratios for all different makes/models of vehicles. Looks like 3.90 gears in the Tacomas are pretty common!!! Still not sure if its available in the 8" E-locker or just the 8.4 Taco rear end. But both have aftermarket gears and lockers for them!! I wonder if I can find a Taco with 3.90 gears in the rear axle at my local wrecking yard for Cheap.

And I also found this which is a identification chart for Toyota model numbers.....
http://www.off-road..../axlecodes.html
http://www.brian894x...osanddiffs.html




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users