CJ handling problems after 4" lift
05-18-2005, 12:12 PM
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
Hi Tracy,
Nope, I wouldn't put my Jeep up on wobbly stilts, preferring to
radius my tub to fit 36" tires: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm
http://www.----------.com/jeep68sand2.jpg To keep the center of gravity
low to be able to run side hill.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Hey Bill,
> Have you seen one of these track bars used on a CJ?
>
> -Tracy
Nope, I wouldn't put my Jeep up on wobbly stilts, preferring to
radius my tub to fit 36" tires: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm
http://www.----------.com/jeep68sand2.jpg To keep the center of gravity
low to be able to run side hill.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Hey Bill,
> Have you seen one of these track bars used on a CJ?
>
> -Tracy
05-18-2005, 12:12 PM
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
Hi Tracy,
Nope, I wouldn't put my Jeep up on wobbly stilts, preferring to
radius my tub to fit 36" tires: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm
http://www.----------.com/jeep68sand2.jpg To keep the center of gravity
low to be able to run side hill.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Hey Bill,
> Have you seen one of these track bars used on a CJ?
>
> -Tracy
Nope, I wouldn't put my Jeep up on wobbly stilts, preferring to
radius my tub to fit 36" tires: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm
http://www.----------.com/jeep68sand2.jpg To keep the center of gravity
low to be able to run side hill.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Hey Bill,
> Have you seen one of these track bars used on a CJ?
>
> -Tracy
05-18-2005, 12:12 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
Hi Tracy,
Nope, I wouldn't put my Jeep up on wobbly stilts, preferring to
radius my tub to fit 36" tires: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm
http://www.----------.com/jeep68sand2.jpg To keep the center of gravity
low to be able to run side hill.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Hey Bill,
> Have you seen one of these track bars used on a CJ?
>
> -Tracy
Nope, I wouldn't put my Jeep up on wobbly stilts, preferring to
radius my tub to fit 36" tires: http://www.----------.com/pismo.htm
http://www.----------.com/jeep68sand2.jpg To keep the center of gravity
low to be able to run side hill.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Tracy Brooks wrote:
>
>
> Hey Bill,
> Have you seen one of these track bars used on a CJ?
>
> -Tracy
05-18-2005, 12:23 PM
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
"Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Mike,
> At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
front?
> The axel?
>
Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
this could explain your vibes.
> For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
the
> diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
on
> the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
both
> ends.
>
> -Tracy
The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
05-18-2005, 12:23 PM
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
"Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Mike,
> At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
front?
> The axel?
>
Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
this could explain your vibes.
> For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
the
> diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
on
> the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
both
> ends.
>
> -Tracy
The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
05-18-2005, 12:23 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
"Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Mike,
> At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
front?
> The axel?
>
Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
this could explain your vibes.
> For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
the
> diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
on
> the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
both
> ends.
>
> -Tracy
The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
05-18-2005, 12:23 PM
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
"Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Mike,
> At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
front?
> The axel?
>
Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
this could explain your vibes.
> For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
the
> diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
on
> the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
both
> ends.
>
> -Tracy
The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
05-18-2005, 12:33 PM
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
> news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mike,
> > At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
> front?
> > The axel?
> >
> Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
> this could explain your vibes.
>
> > For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> > being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
> the
> > diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
> on
> > the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
> both
> > ends.
> >
> > -Tracy
>
> The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
> the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
> parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
> rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
>
> Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
> shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
> will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
> getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
> corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
> will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
> the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
> significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
It would likely be better to put in the 1" taller engine mounts and
maybe help the angles better that way than a t-case drop.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> "Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
> news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mike,
> > At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
> front?
> > The axel?
> >
> Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
> this could explain your vibes.
>
> > For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> > being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
> the
> > diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
> on
> > the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
> both
> > ends.
> >
> > -Tracy
>
> The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
> the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
> parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
> rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
>
> Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
> shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
> will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
> getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
> corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
> will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
> the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
> significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
It would likely be better to put in the 1" taller engine mounts and
maybe help the angles better that way than a t-case drop.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
05-18-2005, 12:33 PM
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
> news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mike,
> > At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
> front?
> > The axel?
> >
> Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
> this could explain your vibes.
>
> > For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> > being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
> the
> > diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
> on
> > the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
> both
> > ends.
> >
> > -Tracy
>
> The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
> the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
> parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
> rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
>
> Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
> shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
> will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
> getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
> corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
> will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
> the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
> significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
It would likely be better to put in the 1" taller engine mounts and
maybe help the angles better that way than a t-case drop.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> "Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
> news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mike,
> > At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
> front?
> > The axel?
> >
> Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
> this could explain your vibes.
>
> > For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> > being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
> the
> > diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
> on
> > the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
> both
> > ends.
> >
> > -Tracy
>
> The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
> the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
> parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
> rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
>
> Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
> shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
> will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
> getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
> corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
> will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
> the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
> significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
It would likely be better to put in the 1" taller engine mounts and
maybe help the angles better that way than a t-case drop.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
05-18-2005, 12:33 PM
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: CJ handling problems after 4" lift
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> "Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
> news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mike,
> > At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
> front?
> > The axel?
> >
> Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
> this could explain your vibes.
>
> > For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> > being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
> the
> > diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
> on
> > the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
> both
> > ends.
> >
> > -Tracy
>
> The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
> the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
> parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
> rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
>
> Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
> shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
> will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
> getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
> corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
> will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
> the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
> significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
It would likely be better to put in the 1" taller engine mounts and
maybe help the angles better that way than a t-case drop.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
>
> "Tracy Brooks" <tracy.brooks@moderntech.com> wrote in message
> news:118micf2l0mg98e@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Mike,
> > At the risk of sounding even more stupid...what would I "shim" in the
> front?
> > The axel?
> >
> Yes. Just like you shimmed the rear - you shimmed the rear, right? If not,
> this could explain your vibes.
>
> > For the rear, I read an article which stressed the importance of the yokes
> > being parallel. When looking at the output of the tcase, and the iput of
> the
> > diff, in order for them to be parrallel, I would need to remove the shims
> on
> > the rear axel. This would then make the driveshaft angle very steep at
> both
> > ends.
> >
> > -Tracy
>
> The centerline of the crank, trans, tcase, and so on needs to be parallel to
> the pinion. With the lift you have, there is no way in hell you will have
> parallel lines with out shims. With the double cardan drive shaft in the
> rear, then this rule is modified somewhat.
>
> Your problem is gonna be on the front. You have so much lift from the
> shackles that you have lost your caster angle, and the way to get it back
> will make your driveline angles on the front even worse, and you could be
> getting vibes from there already. To add insult to injury, one of the
> corrective actions for the back is to drop the tcase some more, but this
> will exaserbate the trouble in the front some more. The saving grace is that
> the front drive shaft is so long that the angle differences will be less
> significant than for the rear, so the solutions might be workable.
It would likely be better to put in the 1" taller engine mounts and
maybe help the angles better that way than a t-case drop.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's