ToyRoverlander

No dragging brake? That can heat it up as well.

Buy them! They're great! I've run that size KM2 for 2 years before going bigger. I have no idea how they compare to the old ones regarding wear but a mate of mine had done way more than 50.000km on them and had about 1/4 tread left. Grip on wet tarmac is good for a MT tire. Resale value is indeed good. I sold my 5 tires with 10mm tread on them for €600. I used that money to swap to 315/65 mickey MTZ with the same tread depth:).

.... deleted the post. Noticed the head on yours is not a crossflow so what I wanted to suggest is not possible.

For very short periods an IC works as a heat sink, still cooling the inlet air temp even if there is little airflow. When speed picks up the IC will be cooled down again by the airflow.

EGT, not EGR, Big difference Boost is not something evil that will destroy your engine in no time at all when raised. It's just one of the ingredients to be able to make more power. Intercooling only goes so far. More boost in combination with an efficient intercooler lets you burn more fuel cleanly and safely (ie safe EGT) thus more power. It just has to be tuned properly, than it's all just fine and dandy. As long as it's a proper engine to start with, not a 2.5TD for instance. Tdi should be fine being a direct injected engine that has a stronger head than an IDI engine. Gturbo Diesel Performance builds turbo's for, among others, Cruisers and Patrols. There are plenty of them that run up to 30psi safely on a standard engine, some even more. He supplied a turbo to some Indonesians running a D4D engine (1KD-FTV) that now puts out 400hp/760nm at the crank at 40psi. They run it rich at 15:1 AFR. Have a look here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gturbo-Diesel-Performance/490891624305172 Even the old 1HZ that lots of people claim can't handle much boost can be fed more than 14psi, IF you keep AFR low, like in the 20's:1. I don't mind at all that my 3B boosts up to 20psi intercooled. Keeps AFR up and EGT down at higher rpm, As it doesn't has a boost compensator it does smoke like an old steamliner when you stomp it at low rpm. Like I said, boost is not an issue, it's the combination of boost, fuel and timing that can make or break an engine. More boost lowers EGT which is fine, you might get a bit more hp if it was running a bit rich. More fuel raises EGT which in turn can be brought down by a more efficient IC and/or more boost.

More boost in itself is not a problem, it's the combination of boost, fuel adjustment and timing that is important.

At low speed in low range there's usually hardly a load on the engine anyway, thus not much boost, thus no need for an intercooler thus no need for a fan Intercoolers are of interest when there's lots of boost, to cool all that air back down as much as possible to keep EGT's in control.

Nope, didn't measure anything. I'm not interested in actual inlet temps, I'm more interested in exhaust gas temperatures.. When there's hardly any heat put into the compressed air (low boost, low load on the engine) there's not much point trying to cool it down. When there's lots of boost and thus the inlet air does get warmed up a lot, that's when an intercooler comes into play to cool that air as much as possible.

Why? In low range slow stuff there's barely a load on the engine, hardly any boost at all and low egt's. No need for an intercooler. Unless you're doing sustained full throttle boghole crossings or something similar. I only get boost over 0.5bar when stomping the throttle in 3rd or 4th low gear in soft sand up hills with both lockers engaged.

So depending on what the EGT would be in a factory setup it might not matter much, 50C is not that much. Unless EGT are already near max at factory setup which I doubt. Still, an EGT gauge is highly advisable.

Torqueflite is old..... 4L80(E) is way more modern and very very strong. You would need either manual shift valve body or compushift. Does give you an overdrive gear and TC lockup. TH400 is plenty strong too but no overdrive gear or TC lockup. I'd like to see a well built 700r4 behind a mild (250-300hp) OM606. Lowest first gear, manual lockup possible on all gears except first and an overdrive. Full hydraulic box too.

Yes you can leave out the intercooler. EGT might go up a bit, that's the only thing that can happen. Fit an EGT gauge to see what's going on. Who knows, it might not even raise that much. If EGT's seem to get too high, reduce fuel a bit or increase boost a bit and go for a spin to check again. Or lift your right foot to reduce load on the engine, cheaper and easier solution

Doubt it very much.

Five years after fitting and my shocks are still fine! Those swivelmounts are not that hard to fabricate, they're quite simple.

Why not use a dual battery setup with a cut out switch and a single alternator? Saves a fair bit of fiddling to fit an extra alternator. That's basically how I've wired up my split 24V system. I can use either batterybank for either starting or auxillary power while I can totally disconnect the other bank.

The other thing is, with dislocating springs (and sufficiently long shocks) the drooping wheel can go down so far that the lower link angle gets really extreme with all its negative effects of trying to push the body upwards when it tries to walk under the vehicle. Usually the result of a very unbalanced suspension when people try to get as much articulation from the rear as possible to compensate for the crappy front end travel. I would prefer a balanced setup front/rear with retained springs. I've never driven one with dislocating springs but to me I would think it would feel way more predictable and stable with retained springs.

Here you can see how tall my spring saddles were in the days I was still running RR axles. I was running military lenght shackles too. The diff nose points up a fair bit making for funky ujoint angles. The u-bolt that sits on the diff side on the right hand side bows en bends out to be able to fit, but it would really need another solution. Also, look how little room there is between axle and bumpstop... I would rather look into leaf sprung LandCruiser axles, like 40series.

This should be fun. So basically it's gonna be a 4cylinder as that's basically the only option next to the straight 6 diesels. No V6 or older non electronic V8 diesels. No electronics means somewhat older engines. There's the indirect injected 2LT, a 2.4 4cylinder turbodiesel, I believe it fits the R series gearbox. It does have widely reported head cracking issues though. Good info about it to be found here: http://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/2lt-cylinder-head-cross-cut-the-reason-it-cracks-and-fails.762967/ and here: http://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/cracked-heads.446238/#post-6206724 This engine is found in Toyota LJ70 LandCruisers. Then there's the direct injected 1KZT, a 3litre turbodiesel 4cylinder, I *think* it fits that gearbox as well but not sure. Also head cracking issues but from info I've found less so than the 2LT. Much more power potential with this engine. Found in KZJ70 series Landcruisers, I believe the 90series had the electronic controlled version of this engine. Toyota and cheap don't go together in the same sentence . The LJ70 cruiser can be found anywhere for not much money, most are rusted to bits. Not much of an engine though. Why the limitation to the R series gearbox? With the 5speed H55f gearbox you can fit the bombproof 13BT engine (as found in BJ74 LandCruisers), it's a 3.4 litre 4cylinder direct injected turbodiesel. LOTS of power potential and truly bombproof. Pushrods, timing gears etc. Really good engine, but expensive to buy. Over here they go for €3000+ for the engine alone. Like I said, Toyota and cheap don't go together . Not many other options that I can think of at the top of my head at the moment I'm affraid.

Mine looked like this: I swapped it out for a resurfaced one just to reduce downtime, even though it has a lot of cracks, they did look to be on the surface only. I bet a lot would have to be taken of to get a good surface though, I have no clue how far you can go before it affects the clucht in any way, if it does at all which I don't think it does. Perhaps having a little step machined in the surface for the clutch cover to sit on and a new clutch and it might be ok again. How long did this one last before it was like this?

Is it an option to have this flywheel resurfaced/skimmed or are the cracks too bad? If it can be resurfaced perhaps they can add a step into it so the clutch cover sits like halve a millimeter lower than the surface of the flywheel. If it hasn't got a step already that is. I have to say that clutch cover looks really bad, cracked all the way through! The flywheel doesn't look too bad on the photo, but it's a photo, so could be way worse in real life. I just changed my flywheel/clutch and my flywheel was full of surface cracks and blue/black spots. Clutch cover looked like new.

I know a guy who sells the adapter plate and stuff to bolt a VW 1.9 to the suzuki gearbox. I don't know how much it is though. That engine/gearbox combo is tiny and quite light. I would think a cherokee has a big heavy engine/gearbox combination. They came in 4cylinder flavor as well if I'm not mistaken. But the gearbox/transferbox is quite bulky from what I remember.. Reliable as well those VW engines, and a dime a dozen in every scrapyard.

Interesting! Due to the very short wheelbase it would be difficult to fit an automatic I think. So you might be stuck with a manual. I think one of your goals would be to keep it as light as possible. Toyota LJ70 axles are not much wider than Series axles, have disc brakes (not 100% certain on rear discs), aftermartket stuff galore like lockers, shafts... the lot. They're relatively light but plenty strong for a lightweight 80", have good ground clearance due to the 8" diffs. Should not be too expensive to buy either. Engine wise I was thinking, you might laugh about this one, a VW 1.9turbo diesel with a suzuki gear and transferbox. I've seen this engine/gearbox (and 6.5:1 transferbox) combination in action in a 1700kg metaltop samurai on 35" rubber and was quite impressed. Plenty of power, revs well, It did good. Doesn't weigh as much as many other options either. Lenghtwise it shouldn't be too bad as it sits in a tiny little suzuki originally. You could keep the bulkhead standard. I wouldn't keep those ridiculous mushroom type pedals if it has those. PAS is quite easily done with a P38 steering box setup. Keep it softtop with a rollcage. This way it would be light, strong components and plenty of power to turn the wheels of your chosen size.

From everything I've read over the years it's good to aim for a horizontal vehicle roll axis. For some reason I always thought it had to be pointing slightly downwards towards the front as you say, but no idea why that would be. The difference between our vehicles is that mine is a softtop with a basic rollcage. It has all 4 batteries (split 24V system) between the chassis rails in front of the fuel tank. The engine/gearbox hangs quite low in the chassis. The whole suspension, springs axles wheels and stuff is very heavy. The result is a very low CoG. His vehicle has the same drivetrain, axles, suspension (only difference are my longer rear springs) but it is a 4door stationwagon with roller drawers and such in the back. Not only does it weigh about 200kg more than mine, his CoG must be a lot higher with the heavy tropical roof, sidepanels and full rear door. Batteries, 2 of them or located next to the chassis rails and there's one underneath a seat. I would say that our rollcentre heights are very close to each other but his has a much heavier setup, thus a higher CoG. When offroad, in offcamber situations, all that weight results in lots of body lean giving an uncomfortable feeling. Mine feels like it lets the suspension work harder and it keeps the body more level, giving a feeling of better stability. We have the same front springs (rear 3leaf parabolic springs), only difference is in the rear springs (his is on parabolic 4leaf, mine sits on 63" 3leaf + overload chevy springs). I'm sure that the higher weight of his vehicle, combined with a higer CoG resulst in all this. I'm not sure if it actually needs fixing on his vehicle, I think it would be something you have to learn to adjust to. It's the result of a lifted top heavy offroad vehicle. It would be very hard to do anything about it while sticking with leaf springs. On a leaf sprung vehicle the roll centre can be found by drawing a line between the chassis mount of the leaf spring and the chassis mount of the shackle, where it intersects the axle vertical line that's the roll centre. Leaf springs with a larger free camber will either be softer to obtain the same ride height or stiffer to raise the vehicle. When it raises the vehicle it also raises the CoG, and the roll centre together the same amount. So that doesn't do much. More cambered springs with raised spring mounts does indeed raise the roll centre, as long as the body stays at the same height it would work. Only problem is, there's is no way you can raise the mounts, only way to do it is by outboarding the springs and mounting them next to the chassis rail. Makes it difficult up front as the tires will hit the springs when turning. Not sure what you mean with shackles on top of the springs, you mean as in upside down shackles? The chassis mount lower than the leaf mount? That lowers the roll centre, so exactly opposite of what you want to achieve. Going to a linked suspension would be best.... but that's a helluva lot of work.

The relationship between height of CoG and roll centre is in my eyes more important than height of roll centre alone.. I can compare two vehicles, mine and that of a friend, which are almost identical but with one big difference. Mine has a way lower CoG. Roll centre height is about the same (sprung over on 35's so fairly high roll centre). On his vehicle the distance between CoG and RC is more than on mine which results in way more body lean on the street and less stability offroad. His setup, on the road, is way more comfortable than mine. Even though mine has relatively soft springs, it still feels bouncy. The huge unsprung mass pushes hard on the body as the distance between CoG and RC is so little. It's hardly possible to get the RC at axle centreline height, on the rear it's at the height of the A-frame balljoint. Only way to lower that is do a double triangulated 4link with the lowers converging at the axle. I think that when building a suspension it's a good idea to keep the relationship between CoG height and RC in mind.

Too bad the original knuckles only have a 2 bolt top cap with no room for additional bolts, this is an aftermarket 6 stud knuckle.