idosubaru Posted January 13, 2019 Share Posted January 13, 2019 Nice work diving into new territory, very very good. Would there have been a stock axle that would have worked if you had wanted ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 14, 2019 Author Share Posted January 14, 2019 On 1/13/2019 at 3:01 AM, idosubaru said: Nice work diving into new territory, very very good. Would there have been a stock axle that would have worked if you had wanted ? Thanks brother! Not sure what you mean on the axle? Are you wondering if there was an off the shelf axle I would prefer instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 14, 2019 Author Share Posted January 14, 2019 13 Sun, Gotta make a little bit of room in my garage for my neglected G35, I lowered the car down on all 4's for a Test drive. The track width and wheel size is crazy compared to the front. Cant test the 4wd in this orientation but I can still drive it. Great news! Drives just fine so far, had it up to about 40 mph no weird sounds wobbles or anything abnormal. Of course I wasn't driving it like a grandma and started tossing it around as much as I could to see if I could feel irregularities or weak points. Seems fine so far and the brakes work amazing. I will be doing something a little different for the front end swap of course he width will match.. stay tuned! P.s the last image shows exactly where the rear wheel sits because of the pump in width. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_freddo Posted January 14, 2019 Share Posted January 14, 2019 MINT! Cheers Bennie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 Update: Made a junkyard front 5 lug brake setup from 4 different cars. So I should be knocking out the front setup shortly. Hubs/ spindles-91 legacy no abs Calipers & rotors off early 2000’s forester 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_freddo Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 The front end *shouldn’t* be too hard compared to the rear. EJ strut of choice, EJ hub, EJ lower control arm. Hardest part is fabricating the rear mount for the control arm. And you’d need to check the front mount is in the same position on the EA crossmember. My hunch is that it’s the same but I’ve never looked into it before. I’m looking forward to seeing if you come up with something different. Cheers Bennie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbchux Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 8 hours ago, el_freddo said: The front end *shouldn’t* be too hard compared to the rear. EJ strut of choice, EJ hub, EJ lower control arm. Hardest part is fabricating the rear mount for the control arm. And you’d need to check the front mount is in the same position on the EA crossmember. My hunch is that it’s the same but I’ve never looked into it before. I’m looking forward to seeing if you come up with something different. Cheers Bennie Or just bore the ball joint opening in the EA82 control arm for the EJ joint. Also need EA81 tie rod ends (EA82 uses smaller stud in the knuckle than EA81 or EJ, and EJ ones are too long). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, el_freddo said: The front end *shouldn’t* be too hard compared to the rear. EJ strut of choice, EJ hub, EJ lower control arm. Hardest part is fabricating the rear mount for the control arm. And you’d need to check the front mount is in the same position on the EA crossmember. My hunch is that it’s the same but I’ve never looked into it before. I’m looking forward to seeing if you come up with something different. Cheers Bennie Honestly that’s not a bad idea. Definatley giving me ideas!!! My initial plan was to cut the ball joint end off the EA arms and weld on a ej ball joint/ end of arm on. (Cut at red line) The idea was to plot my cuts so I could add 3/4” of an inch or so to account for the longer axle lengths and to match the rear, since the arms have to be extended anyway why add a piece and have to weld twice vs. just adding the EJ end and welding once to join them. But this is just ideas.. Suspension should be delivered this week! Edited January 21, 2019 by jdmleggy97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 21, 2019 Author Share Posted January 21, 2019 5 hours ago, Numbchux said: Or just bore the ball joint opening in the EA82 control arm for the EJ joint. Also need EA81 tie rod ends (EA82 uses smaller stud in the knuckle than EA81 or EJ, and EJ ones are too long). Thanks for the info on the tie rods. I knew the ea82 ones wouldn’t work. But I’ll have a look into the ea81 tie rods and see if they are a better suit. The ej ones compared arnt that much longer. And considering I’m going to extend the control arms out a little with that much thread left on the inner tie rod, I think it will be ok. One way to find out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbchux Posted January 21, 2019 Share Posted January 21, 2019 56 minutes ago, jdmleggy97 said: Thanks for the info on the tie rods. I knew the ea82 ones wouldn’t work. But I’ll have a look into the ea81 tie rods and see if they are a better suit. The ej ones compared arnt that much longer. And considering I’m going to extend the control arms out a little with that much thread left on the inner tie rod, I think it will be ok. One way to find out! Yea, if you're extending the arms, you'll probably be fine. The length is very similar, if not identical. BUT, the tab coming off the knuckle for the tie rod end is angled differently on an EJ knuckle than EA82/XT6. So with XT6 knuckles, you can just use XT6/EJ rod ends. But with EJ ones, you need shorter rod ends. This changes the geometry a bit, and gives the car a bit more Akermann angle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_freddo Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 11 hours ago, Numbchux said: Or just bore the ball joint opening in the EA82 control arm for the EJ joint. Also need EA81 tie rod ends (EA82 uses smaller stud in the knuckle than EA81 or EJ, and EJ ones are too long). This is the standard way to do it if going 5 stud and I totally agree. But jdmleggy has widened the rear track to “EJ spec”, so the front needs the same treatment to bring front and rear track width to be the same. I too did not know about the EA81 tie rod end swap when doing the “standard” 5 stud front end swap. Cheers Bennie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carfreak85 Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 14 hours ago, el_freddo said: This is the standard way to do it if going 5 stud and I totally agree. But jdmleggy has widened the rear track to “EJ spec”, so the front needs the same treatment to bring front and rear track width to be the same. There is no reason, besides aesthetics, that the F/R track needs to be the same width. Aerodynamics will suffer a bit, but outside of that it won't really change too much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_freddo Posted January 22, 2019 Share Posted January 22, 2019 5 hours ago, carfreak85 said: There is no reason, besides aesthetics, that the F/R track needs to be the same width. Aerodynamics will suffer a bit, but outside of that it won't really change too much. Leaving one track different to the other would seem like a half arsed effort, and I’ve not seen any factory Subarus look like the Citroën from back in the day. Isn’t there a handling issue with the front track less than the rear? Cheers Bennie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Zhiemer Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Many vehicles have a narrower wheel track rear to front, both the new Landcruiser and the older Ford F100/150 (I think by memory the F150 was 15mm narrower at the rear compared to the front) had a narrower wheel track at the rear than the front.The new V8 Landcruisers where so bad that on soft sand you could watch the rear end shake its booty as the rear wheels fought over which wheel was going to follow the front wheel tracks. It may affect the areo to some extent but on these old girls, I'd doubt you would feel the difference. Most high performance sports cars have a wider track at the rear than the front, particularly mid/rear engine mounted vehicles Handling issues may arise if the rear track is off center or camber, caster and toe-in/out was incorrect but that would be a fabrication thing mostly. Cheers, Al 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_freddo Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 For those else where in the Landcruiser Market, the track width is only an Australian thing due to our design rules with something about the distance the wheel bearing can be from the suspension mount. I didn’t know the rear end fought for the front wheel’s track in soft sand. Interestingly you can spend a couple of grand and have a certified kit fitted that brings the rear wheel out to match the front wheel’s track width. Cheers Bennie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Zhiemer Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Well there you go, I didn't know about the design rule thing, that's interesting. I figured and most other people I've spoken to about this have the same opinion, that it was due to the fitment of the V8 diesel as that seemed to coincide with when the difference occurred in the wheel track. Am going to have to do some research on this as its the first I've ever heard of it. Nice work el_freddo, thinking we need to change your name to wikifreddo. Cheers, Al 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, Al Zhiemer said: Many vehicles have a narrower wheel track rear to front, both the new Landcruiser and the older Ford F100/150 (I think by memory the F150 was 15mm narrower at the rear compared to the front) had a narrower wheel track at the rear than the front.The new V8 Landcruisers where so bad that on soft sand you could watch the rear end shake its booty as the rear wheels fought over which wheel was going to follow the front wheel tracks. It may affect the areo to some extent but on these old girls, I'd doubt you would feel the difference. Most high performance sports cars have a wider track at the rear than the front, particularly mid/rear engine mounted vehicles Handling issues may arise if the rear track is off center or camber, caster and toe-in/out was incorrect but that would be a fabrication thing mostly. Cheers, Al Not so much fabrication...persay, but adjustability. Granted there isn’t much adjustability with this rear end design from the get go. But she’s dialed in good trust me. I’ve been through the ins and outs of this before with the lifted impreza. Every lift component short of a few arms was made by me. Ain’t no biggie. Edited January 23, 2019 by jdmleggy97 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_freddo Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 12 hours ago, Al Zhiemer said: Well there you go, I didn't know about the design rule thing, that's interesting. I figured and most other people I've spoken to about this have the same opinion, that it was due to the fitment of the V8 diesel as that seemed to coincide with when the difference occurred in the wheel track. Am going to have to do some research on this as its the first I've ever heard of it. Nice work el_freddo, thinking we need to change your name to wikifreddo. Cheers, Al Al, I believe it’s due to the reintroduction of the 4 door wagon that’s sligthly smaller in size than the ute and troopie. They all share the same chassis, and thus the rear track on the ute and troopie is the same as that of the wagon (which has the same track width front and rear). But for some reason they made the ute and troopie a wider body with a wider front end track width. The turbo diesel V8 was just a coincidence at the time of the new model. I’ll be interested to see what you find Al, I remember this wagon model being the reason for the track width difference. Cheers Bennie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 25, 2019 Author Share Posted January 25, 2019 Delivery today! Super super cheap coilover suspension finally showed up! And when I mean cheap I mean cheap! I snagged the whole set for $180 shipped to my door! Honestly I won’t drive this car enough to be afraid of it failing if it even does, I’ve got more than enough to choose from so going cheap for this one scares me no bit! Besides that I went a different route than “Suberdave” he used 4th Gen legacy suspension and re drilled and welded the top hats. I chose the 3rd gen legacy suspension as the top hats are almost identically sized to older gen strut setups. Granted I have to open the holes a little and the camber adjustment I’m never goin to use is pointing the wrong way.... but hey. No welding lol. The rear suspension is the same as the 4th Gen legacy so mods will be similar to his to make them work! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 27, 2019 Author Share Posted January 27, 2019 So here’s the plan for the front... I snagged some front control arm ends off an impreza and the plan is to plot the cuts so I only have to weld once with the track width extension. I will be gusseting ofcourse for extra strength. Also with this I have no worries of the ball joint angle being wrong on the EA arms if I was to bore them out etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carfreak85 Posted January 28, 2019 Share Posted January 28, 2019 Cheap coilovers make me sad. Modifying control arms without doing geometry modeling first also hurts my heart... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 29, 2019 Author Share Posted January 29, 2019 (edited) On 1/28/2019 at 9:55 AM, carfreak85 said: Cheap coilovers make me sad. Modifying control arms without doing geometry modeling first also hurts my heart... Completely understandable, but have to proof the product first before you go all in. Just how I run things. Upgrades to better quality products can always be done! Geometry modeling would be awesome, I'd love to do that. But considering budget constraints the number of vehicles I have on hand which are far superior imo, I'm just not going that deep. Gotta pave the way and start somewhere my friend! Think of how far suspension modding has come with the s13/14 chassis with just back woods country techniques. I was hoping you would have liked the 3rd gen legacy top hat discovery considering everyone else redrills and welds lol Edited January 29, 2019 by jdmleggy97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 29, 2019 Author Share Posted January 29, 2019 1/29/19: Working With Angles Plotting ball joint angles with the EJ extended portion of the control arm. This is just an early proof of concept and not the final product, I'm a few steps ahead of this point already but as it stands ive added 1" in control arm length. Angle was tested with the suspension loaded as shown, personally I don't think I will run the car this low maybe an inch or two higher but you get the idea! future plans are build new control arms from tube and replace the bushing portion with a hiem joint as well as split the transverse link, thread both ends and add an adjustment sleeve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carfreak85 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 I love the 3rd gen Lego top hat discovery, but the other side of the coin is that you get minimal camber adjustment due to the incorrect orientation... I'd prefer to drill some new holes versus giving up the adjustment. I assumed you were just modifying the OEM control arms and were going to leave it at that. I have no problem with tubular control arms (which is what you meant when you brought up the Nissan S-chassis). Got it, up to speed now, carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdmleggy97 Posted January 30, 2019 Author Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, carfreak85 said: I love the 3rd gen Lego top hat discovery, but the other side of the coin is that you get minimal camber adjustment due to the incorrect orientation... I'd prefer to drill some new holes versus giving up the adjustment. I assumed you were just modifying the OEM control arms and were going to leave it at that. I have no problem with tubular control arms (which is what you meant when you brought up the Nissan S-chassis). Got it, up to speed now, carry on. yeah I think I'm going to make new top hats with correct orientation. even if I was to weld and re-drill holes I could not rotate the top hat in the correct orientation with out further modification aka. opening a can of worms, I did look into it though but there's just not a whole lot of room for play in that tower in stock form. But for anyone trying to use Stock Stuts/ lifted or solid top hat coilovers your good to go!! Edited January 30, 2019 by jdmleggy97 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.