|
|
|
Building a Universal Modified |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 4142434445 96> |
| Author | |
jpet 
Moderator Group 
Sponsor Member x 5 Joined: 30 Apr. 2008 Location: Ramsey, IL Status: Offline Points: 11173 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 28 Dec. 2015 at 3:18am |
Edit: I've read that Superlift springs are flexible, I've read that they are stiff. I've read that Ranchos are flexible, and I've read that they are stiff. There are only 2 spring options where I have found zero negative feedback for flex. They are YJ springs and Holbrook springs.
Edited by jpet - 28 Dec. 2015 at 3:25am |
|
|
CJ2A #29110 "General Willys"
MB #204827 "BAM BAM" "We do what we can, and we try what we can't" |
|
 |
|
|
Fltfndr
Member 
Joined: 01 Nov. 2013 Location: Clive, IA Status: Offline Points: 796 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 Dec. 2015 at 9:02pm |
|
When you say straight on, I assume you mean side view to show the amount of arch, length, placement of center bolt, etc. I should be able to get you pictures and measurements in the next day or so. Right now they are underneath my wife's car waiting out 6-9 inches of snow. Too bad Jeeps in January isn't sooner, I could bring them to Iowa City before I install them.
Regards, Fltfndr
|
|
|
Fltfndr
1948 CJ2A Restomod "Six Pac" The object of war is not to die for your country, but make the other bastard die for his. George S. Patton |
|
|
|
|
LesBerg
Member
Joined: 09 Apr. 2014 Location: Athol, ID Status: Offline Points: 1554 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 28 Dec. 2015 at 9:04pm |
|
I'm liking my 2.5 inch Rancho springs so far. They are stiff, but I only have about 50 miles on them. I need to get them out for some trail runs and break them in.
I can run my jeep across a local public scale for weight comparisons, if you'd like. I expect I'm about 75 to 100 lbs heavier than a standard jeep with the stretch. Axles are stock D41/D25, tires are Cooper Discover AT3s 31/10.5R15s on cheap white wagon wheels. I picked them up knowing they'd be a bit stiff on a bare, stock CJ2A; but I'm planning on adding a family-style roll cage, full insulated metal top, full length roof basket, two spare tires, hi-lift jack, 2 jerry cans, and camping/hunting/fishing gear. If there's any data I can send your way, I'd be happy to help! Les
Edited by LesBerg - 28 Dec. 2015 at 9:10pm |
|
|
1948 CJ2A 157713 24" Stretch "Old Ironsides"
1st Armored Div 6th Infantry Reg 3rd Infantry Bn Headquarters Company #161 rubigo in quo speramus - "In Rust we Trust" |
|
|
|
|
jpet
Moderator Group
Sponsor Member x 5 Joined: 30 Apr. 2008 Location: Ramsey, IL Status: Offline Points: 11173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Dec. 2015 at 12:43am |
Les, Thanks. I've got plenty of data on Ranchos. IMO, stiffness is a byproduct of lift or arch. If lift springs were flexible, they wouldn't be able to lift the vehicle up. They may break in over time but in order to do that, they have to weaken and then would not lift the vehicle as much because they would not be able to hold their arch. Perhaps I'm missing something but I just don't see any way around that other than adding length to the spring to go with the extra arch such as Holbrook. I like the idea of YJ springs since they are wider giving them strength yet flexible due to them being 45" long. Way cheaper than Holbrook and only about an inch of lift rather than 3" like the Holbrooks.
|
|
|
CJ2A #29110 "General Willys"
MB #204827 "BAM BAM" "We do what we can, and we try what we can't" |
|
|
|
|
Lee MN
Member
Joined: 13 Aug. 2008 Location: Harris, MN Status: Offline Points: 4950 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Dec. 2015 at 3:30am |
|
Back in my high school days I had an Fc150, w/snowplow, the front springs arched the wrong way from years of plowing and a very front heavy application. I installed a set of 2" lift Rancho's....... With the snowplow and a front heavy rig they flexed Zero, the only way they will be softer is removing a leaf..... I am not a Rancho fan
 .Lee 
|
|
|
LEE
44 GPW-The Perfected Willys 49 2A “If you wait, you only get older” 67 M715 American Made Rolling History |
|
|
|
|
rocnroll
Member
Sponsor Member Joined: 20 July 2005 Location: Tuscumbia, AL Status: Offline Points: 13585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Dec. 2015 at 5:06am |
|
Jeff, I know you've probably seen the different writeups on YJ springs but I like the way 'Frankie' rides on YJ springs.
I combined two sets of stock springs and made a little different pack than stock sets......you can pretty much tailor them to give you any ride you want. They are pretty flat springs though unless you are planning arched YJ springs. |
|
|
'47 CJ2A PU
'48 CJ2A Lefty "Common sense is not that common" |
|
|
|
|
LesBerg
Member
Joined: 09 Apr. 2014 Location: Athol, ID Status: Offline Points: 1554 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Dec. 2015 at 5:24am |
I understand, and agree completely. I went with Rancho primarily because the reviews on the Superlift springs said they sagged more over time than the Ranchos, and my plans for the jeep will add several hundred pounds to the truck. I can't afford to do this every five years or so when the springs sag, so that was a strike against the Superlifts. I expect that with the mods that Jpet has done, he'd be in similar water. These same reviews said that the Superlift springs were superior on the highway, which is a huge bonus in my book, bringing the Superlift / Rancho debate back into a dead heat. Honestly, it came down to the fact that 4Wheel Parts Warehouse opened up a store /distribution center over in Post Falls, which is about 35 minutes away. They stocked all the parts I needed (except one spring) in Rancho, and that was enough to tip the scales in Ranchos favor. Now I get to see if I made a wise decision. If I had the budget available, I would have looked for a shop to build custom springs tailored to give a factory style ride and height with an additional 300-400 pounds of gear. I'm hoping to maintain enough of the lift in the springs that with full kit I still sit higher than unloaded stock, or close to it. Not because I like the lifted look, but because I want the capability to run on any backroad in the Pacific Northwest with all my gear. I'm very interested to hear how Jpet's choice of spring works out. I'm always interested in the technical side of this stuff, and my biggest quandary about spring choice is that there just wasn't enough feedback about springs specifically installed on 2A / 3A jeeps. Almost everything I found was for full-size trucks. Personally, my dream would have been to find a couple of people that had used both, and could give a good comparison. They're probably out there, but I couldn't track them down. Thanks for sharing your experience. This is exactly what I was looking for before I made my purchase, and I'll keep it in mind if I have to go through this sometime in the future. Thanks, Les Sorry to hijack your thread, Jpet. Keep the mods coming, and keep us in the loop on your spring choice!
|
|
|
1948 CJ2A 157713 24" Stretch "Old Ironsides"
1st Armored Div 6th Infantry Reg 3rd Infantry Bn Headquarters Company #161 rubigo in quo speramus - "In Rust we Trust" |
|
|
|
|
jpet
Moderator Group
Sponsor Member x 5 Joined: 30 Apr. 2008 Location: Ramsey, IL Status: Offline Points: 11173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Dec. 2015 at 2:09pm |
 Which one of these two shapes do you think is more flexible? I know you guys already know all this, I'm just posting it for those who are following the thread and never really thought about it. Roc, I'll have to look at my pictures of Frankie. I might have you snap some shots of your shackles and lower shock mounts. The tough part is going to be making all this look like it belongs.
|
|
|
CJ2A #29110 "General Willys"
MB #204827 "BAM BAM" "We do what we can, and we try what we can't" |
|
|
|
|
rocnroll
Member
Sponsor Member Joined: 20 July 2005 Location: Tuscumbia, AL Status: Offline Points: 13585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 29 Dec. 2015 at 3:41pm |
|
Lower shock mounts are on the stock spring plates.
|
|
|
'47 CJ2A PU
'48 CJ2A Lefty "Common sense is not that common" |
|
|
|
|
oldtime
Member
Joined: 12 Sep. 2009 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 4184 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 1:34am |
|
If Wrangler springs are 45" then why not consider using rear CJ5 springs. They are 46-1/8 eye to eye.
I'm seriously considering using standard 42 " flatty springs at both front and rear. By the way I have a full set of 1" Superlifts laying around and they actually have less arch than the standard Willys springs. Go figure.....
|
|
|
Currently building my final F-134 powered 3B .
T98-A Rock Crawler using exclusive factory parts and Approved Special Equipment from the Willys Motors era (1953-1963) Zero aftermarket parts |
|
|
|
|
jpet
Moderator Group
Sponsor Member x 5 Joined: 30 Apr. 2008 Location: Ramsey, IL Status: Offline Points: 11173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 1:42am |
|
|
|
CJ2A #29110 "General Willys"
MB #204827 "BAM BAM" "We do what we can, and we try what we can't" |
|
|
|
|
oldtime
Member
Joined: 12 Sep. 2009 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 4184 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 2:02am |
|
I see.... offset pin that eliminates the frame length problems.
|
|
|
Currently building my final F-134 powered 3B .
T98-A Rock Crawler using exclusive factory parts and Approved Special Equipment from the Willys Motors era (1953-1963) Zero aftermarket parts |
|
|
|
|
jpet
Moderator Group
Sponsor Member x 5 Joined: 30 Apr. 2008 Location: Ramsey, IL Status: Offline Points: 11173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 2:25am |
|
|
|
CJ2A #29110 "General Willys"
MB #204827 "BAM BAM" "We do what we can, and we try what we can't" |
|
|
|
|
oldtime
Member
Joined: 12 Sep. 2009 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 4184 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 2:38am |
|
Yeah I guess I agree the wider spring basically means you can handle the same payload with less stack height.
If all other factors are equal then lesser stack height provides better flex than a thick stack but has a decreased payload. But the extra width will make up for payload decrease. It also depends on thickness of individual leafs within the stack height or the number of leafs. Gets kinda cofusing ....Ha ha ha Increasing the leaf count (by using thinner leafs) without increasing stack height increases the flex but decreases payload. Thick /thin... wide/ narrow... long /short... many/ few....Ha Ha Ha !
Edited by oldtime - 30 Dec. 2015 at 2:45am |
|
|
Currently building my final F-134 powered 3B .
T98-A Rock Crawler using exclusive factory parts and Approved Special Equipment from the Willys Motors era (1953-1963) Zero aftermarket parts |
|
|
|
|
rocnroll
Member
Sponsor Member Joined: 20 July 2005 Location: Tuscumbia, AL Status: Offline Points: 13585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 3:36am |
|
Since Ken touched on lesser stack height.....something else you need to consider, spring wrap.
Lesser stack height plus softer leaves generally equals much more chance of spring wrap. Your locker setup in conjuction with softer springs will also affect the chance of this happening. It's nothing that can't be remedied but should probably be addressed in your case and your intented usage. |
|
|
'47 CJ2A PU
'48 CJ2A Lefty "Common sense is not that common" |
|
|
|
|
oldtime
Member
Joined: 12 Sep. 2009 Location: Missouri Status: Offline Points: 4184 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 5:08pm |
|
Something more to think about..... Over the years Willys used 3 different spring manufacturers. Mather, Liggett and Eaton. The Mathers being the most common and IMHO the best. Unlike Superlift and Rancho, the originals used relatively thin individual leafs. The effectiveness for each individual spring leaf depends on two opposing forces. The molecular forces of grain tension and of grain compression. The belly or top of each leaf is under tension and the back or bottom of each leaf is under compression. The core (center) of each leaf is neutral. When the leaf thickness is increased then the distance from back to belly increases and yields increased resistance to flex (AKA higher payload). This increased resistance to flex via increased leaf thickness must be addressed or else the Rancho/ Superlifts would be way too stiff. That is partly why the Superlift and Rancho stack height is notably decreased. Truth is that the original thin leaves assembled as a relatively tall stack height allows for much increased service life. The individual thin leaves assembled as a tall stack are not being worked nearly so hard as fewer and thicker leafs with their increased tension and compression forces. That's why many of the old Mather springs are still going today. Many of them were simply not overworked. The harder one works the spring assembly the quicker it looses serviceability and begins to sag. If you plan to work the springs hard via flex increase and frequent use then your springs will simply wear out quicker. The trick to increased serviceability or longevity is to increase the spring mass. That is another main reason for increasing the length. The compression and tension effects are not as severe on the longer leafs. So ideally we want to run a long leaf to increase the mass and thereby increase the service life while simultaneously decreasing the destructive forces from overflex. To increase flex to its maximum we only desire enough compression/tension to handle the expected payload. In other words reduce the stack height to the minimum that handles the payload. At maximum payload the jeep should always have at least 1" distance from axle tube to axle bumper. The axle tube should ideally be allowed to touch but NEVER be allowed to rest down on the frame bumpers. Bottom line is to shoot for a long spring (increase mass and reduce opposing molecular forces) with relatively thin leafs (to increase service life) with minimal sufficient stack height (to increase the flex ability) So the longer standard spring packs are very near to ideal if the stack height is reduced to the minimum for the required payload. Remember axle bumpers should momentarily touch the frame bumpers under articulation but they should NEVER rest down on the axle tube when hauling maximum load. Within reason wider than standard leafs are better because wider increases payload via increased spring mass without increasing stack height which increasingly resists flex. Obviously if the leaf get too wide we encur problems with overall axle tilt. The axle does not want to rise on one side and droop at the other side. Orbit eye shackles are then suggested to alleviate that condition. Whew We ... Got That ??? Edited by oldtime - 31 Dec. 2015 at 12:58am |
|
|
Currently building my final F-134 powered 3B .
T98-A Rock Crawler using exclusive factory parts and Approved Special Equipment from the Willys Motors era (1953-1963) Zero aftermarket parts |
|
|
|
|
jpet
Moderator Group
Sponsor Member x 5 Joined: 30 Apr. 2008 Location: Ramsey, IL Status: Offline Points: 11173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 30 Dec. 2015 at 7:35pm |
 As far as spring wrap goes, I'll have to ask willytj how his does but I assume it will be no different than a YJ with a locker |
|
|
CJ2A #29110 "General Willys"
MB #204827 "BAM BAM" "We do what we can, and we try what we can't" |
|
|
|
|
Bob W
Member
Sponsor Member x 4 Joined: 08 Aug. 2005 Location: Monticello, NY Status: Offline Points: 1691 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 31 Dec. 2015 at 12:17am |
|
Most people I know with modified leaf sprung Jeeps use a single traction bar on the rear axle. I think spring over setups give more spring wrap/wheel hop than spring under.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 4142434445 96> |
| Tweet |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
john schiefer wrote: