Posts by Andy in Pa

  • TJ Lift Install and Tire Reccomendations

    Quote from Quantum73


    Definitely consider the Goodyear Duratrac. I am very pleased with mine so far as I didn't want as aggressive a tire as a MTR. I have no doubt it would do very well at RC or in any inclement weather.


    Not sure if it goes for all sizes, but Duratracs seem to have thin sidewalls that don't hold up well to abuse in rocks. If the plan is to go rock crawling with the Jeep, just be mindful of that. I have seen 31's and 33's on a 15" rim get slightly pinched and either blow out or bubble up the sidewall.

  • Jeep wj help. First post

    Quote from Cbrewer323


    I inspected the boot from all angles and there is no cracks in it.



    You turned the front wheels to full lock one way, jacked it up and spun it slowly while looking at the boot? It wouldn't take much of a hole/crack for water to get in and wear out the CV... How are your front brakes? Not down to the "squeaker" bar I hope, as that makes a very similar noise to what you posted a link to as well.

  • Jeep wj help. First post

    Sounds like a CV boot rubbing on something. The front axleshafts on WJ's have CV joints instread of u-joints, and I can see it making that noise when the CV boot rips, and/or the CV is worn out. If the CV boot is ripped, water could have gotten in there and rusted things up, making it squeak.

  • Plow Setup for a 95 YJ

    I know someone that has a plow that he used on a YJ. Its in Coatesville, Pa. The plow is built with heavy duty clear lexan, with a metal framework. Worked pretty good, but the YJ had a hard time pushing it. He had to put some sandbags in it to weigh it down.
    I know he wants to sell it, although I don't know how much he wants. He has everything for it too. I could probably get pics for you if your interested.
    Andy

  • Fsck my Jeep

    Quote from Spedly

    5.4*



    I agree with turtle. Ed needs a few more jeeps.


    OK... then technically it would be forward 3* (defined as not adjusting the lower CA, but lengthening the upper CA to push the top of the axle forward... assuming a 4 link frt suspension of course). Again, not knowing the whole story (or the type of Jeep), I still say it needs more caster. More caster increases that "return to center" feel in steering. Maybe the lower CA's are too short? Are the front wheels centered well in the wheel wells?

  • Fsck my Jeep

    Quote from astape


    caster was around 8.4 when measured by ntb then we moved it back 3* with no change in the steering. again camber/ball joints were in spec and cross camber ws good too.


    So when you guys were done it was at 11.4* caster? What type of Jeep is this?

  • Fsck my Jeep

    Have you checked the castor yourself with an angle finder/degree wheel? This sounds so much like not enough castor (for whatever reason, maybe you need more than 5 degrees), making it feel really floaty. Do you have a pic of the Jeep with the tire off, looking at (and level with) the rotor/lug nuts? Basically, the angle of the inner C in relation to the Jeep, sitting on flat ground (of course). Maybe a pic would reveal if you have enough castor. I am not familiar with your on-going problems with your Jeep, so you have probably tried adding more castor in already, but if not, I would give it a shot.

  • SPLIT from altierior's tire thread: : "Gearing the Trail Rig"

    Quote from KnoxRents

    Basically, if two Jeeps attack an obstacle and need identical wheel speed for momentum, the Jeep with the higher ratio will have much more pinion rotation speed and mechanical force applied to the axle shaft. When the tire hits something that stops it, the higher ratio will definitely snap a shaft first. No question.


    I get what your saying, and I agree completely. BUT... its not just about momentum, its about CONTROLLING the momentum. Its very simple... We all know how hard it is to control a Jeep with factory gears/oversize tires on a black/red trail in a hard line. You rev up the motor more to make an obstacle, then as you make it, the rpms that the Jeep was rev'ed up to--- to MAKE the line--- race it forward (once the hard line is made) down the other side much faster and you smack into the next hard spot with more speed, and all that speed/driveline torque load comes to an abrupt stop. Listen for the *SNAP*... ;D

  • SPLIT from altierior's tire thread: : "Gearing the Trail Rig"


    LOL... Just looks to me like we essentially said the same thing. Lower ratio gearing/oversized tires = the need for more rpms to attain the same amount of rotational force.
    Please re-read... I did not say the closest part ("part" is referring to the tires in my description), I said the next weakest link, which it seems to be axleshaft u-joints in Johns case.

  • SPLIT from altierior's tire thread: : "Gearing the Trail Rig"


    1. Yes, the torque is being supplied evenly, but it throws the balance off when larger tires are run with the same gearing. This means it takes more rpms to move those larger tires, which increases the chances for torque load on the drivetrain. What goes up must come down, so if you need to rev the Jeep to 1800 rpms to make an obstacle, then it has to come back down to idle. If your tire falls in a hole while those rpms are coming down, it increases the chance of breaking a weak link. Now this also happens with 4.56 gears and such too, but typically the rpms are not as high. There is a fine line... I have seen a few Jeeps with doublers but not beefed up axles blow out u-joints in Low-Low too. In that case they were on the back side of the curve, and were finding the weak link with too much torque.
    2. Your right, but that would be in the extreme OTHER direction. For instance, if the Jeep had 3.07 gears in the axles, and a 500HP LS1 under the hood. Basically, what part of the Jeep is contacting the ground and CREATING the resistance? (the tires) What is the closest weak link to that part? (in your case axleshaft u-joint) That is the part that will break. Strengthen that part, and the torque load will break the next weakest link. Get the rpms needed to crawl rocks down, (increase your gear ratio) and you stand a better chance of the weak links surviving more abuse.

  • SPLIT from altierior's tire thread: : "Gearing the Trail Rig"

    Sorry, the intent was not to cause a hijack... but we have had long discussions about this John... I'll try to explain my opinion as best as possible. Feel free to punch it full of holes.
    As has already been stated, it takes more rpms to spin 35" tires when rock crawling with 3.55 gears. RPM causes torque load on the drivetrain. Torque load, when stopped abruptly (finds grip, tire binds... any number of reasons), can break the weakest link. With 4.56 gears, this is not as big of a problem since it takes less rpms to turn the 35's (because the torque is transferred to the tires), which means less torque load on the drivetrain. 4.56 gears puts more torque to the tires, reducing the potential for torque load in the drivetrain.
    If you have a driving style that involves a heavy foot, especially with 35's and 3.55 gears, then you are exposing your drivetrain to more torque load. I agree with Knox Rents that the gearing needs to be balanced. If you consider that the auto XJ came with 3.55's and a 225 or 235 size tire, then to get it back to a "close to stock" ("close to stock"= balanced... yeah I know, but lets just go there for the sake of argument) rpm/mph level with 35" tires, 4.56 gears are needed.