[Frontier4x]

I am making a hybrid leaf pack. Instead of buying extended travel shocks, I am going to fabricate brackets that will relocate the shocks and brake lines two to three inches higher to accommodate for the additional droop so I can save some money

Does anyone see how this wouldnt work?

 

[whistler]

No, if you extend the lower mount. Only problem you might find is that now your travel increased and the shocks may not have enough travel to accomadate the increase.
I don't know how brackets for the brake lines would help. Remember that they are attached at the calipers.
Tried messaging you but it didn't go through.
I don't like posting here anymore.

 

[Frontier4x]

Word. Thanks for the reply. T he idea is to fab brackets for the lower mounts to accommodate for the added flex. Good point on the brake lines. I will have to check out their body/frame mounting points and see if there's room to add some slack. Id like to save 90 bucks

 

[whistler]

Let say you increase the height by two inches. You do not have to extend the lower bracket two inches if you maintain the same shock angle. This is because of the ACF , angle correction factor. If you increase the angle you can go even less on the brackets but your shock efficiency will go down.
If you decrease the angle, you will have to extend the brackets more than two inches, depending on the new angle.
Spend way too much time here.

 

[Frontier4x]

Oh ok, ill have to figure out some numbers

This answers a few questions for the brake lines. But my idea of a bracket would be 1/8 or 1/4 wall square tube
Second Generation Nissan Xterra Forums (2005+)

 

[whistler]

Lot easier to just use .187-.250 thick DOM steel.
That is what I used. Top and bottom brackets.

 

[mtyler11]

I am making a hybrid leaf pack. Instead of buying extended travel shocks, I am going to fabricate brackets that will relocate the shocks and brake lines two to three inches higher to accommodate for the additional droop so I can save some money

Does anyone see how this wouldnt work?

under compression how much free travel do you have left in the shock?

A friend in PA, Chaosminion, did something similar to what I think you're talking about. He did, or wanted to do, several things at 1 time. He wanted stronger/thicker shockmounts, shorten their eye-to-axle distance, and swing the angle up so they were (closer to) parallel with the ground. He ran into an issue when he shortened them up and brought them close to parallel. He wound up keeping them shortened, but had to bring the angle closer to stock. His issue is he ran out of compression length/bottomed out the shocks nearly at ride height. I forget if this was with 2" of lift or 4" (around the same time he TS)

 

[whistler]

under compression how much free travel do you have left in the shock?

A friend in PA, Chaosminion, did something similar to what I think you're talking about. He did, or wanted to do, several things at 1 time. He wanted stronger/thicker shockmounts, shorten their eye-to-axle distance, and swing the angle up so they were (closer to) parallel with the ground. He ran into an issue when he shortened them up and brought them close to parallel. He wound up keeping them shortened, but had to bring the angle closer to stock. His issue is he ran out of compression length/bottomed out the shocks nearly at ride height.

I think you meant perpendicular to the ground.
The closer to vertical,(at full compression)the more efficient the shocks will work.
The most common reason for not doing this is because of the lack space for mounting. It allows for a shorter shock.
If the shock is vertical, the travel of the shock must match the total travel of the suspension. I believe that is why your friend ran out of shock.

 

[AndysLog]

thank you whistler. lol that would have been a rough one for me.

 

[mtyler11]

I think you meant perpendicular to the ground.
The closer to vertical,(at full compression)the more efficient the shocks will work.
The most common reason for not doing this is because of the lack space for mounting. It allows for a shorter shock.
If the shock is vertical, the travel of the shock must match the total travel of the suspension. I believe that is why your friend ran out of shock.

OK, lets see if I can describe it better... In relation to a theoretical ground plane, the stock axle shock mount is at a negative angle... (say -15 deg) He tried to bring it near 0 deg. Doing so he shortened the eye to eye distance for the shock. I don't believe it changed the angle of the shock (from stock) to greatly as the upper mount is still in its stock location. At the same time he shortened the axle mount, bringing the shock eye closer to the axle tube.
Is this still clear as mud or does it make sense? Only better way I can think to explain is crude drawings (I'm not great at drawings)

 

[whistler]

Are you saying he just changed the angle of the shock mount and not the angle of the shock itself?
So it is the axle mount that is parallel to the ground?
So the shock is extended more at ride height now?
I think I understand what you were trying to describe.
I am still confused as to what was the purpose in doing so.
Why would you want the axle mount parallel to the ground?
Just curious as to why.

 

[mtyler11]

Are you saying he just changed the angle of the shock mount and not the angle of the shock itself?
So it is the axle mount that is parallel to the ground?
So the shock is extended more at ride height now?
I think I understand what you were trying to describe.
I am still confused as to what was the purpose in doing so.
Why would you want the axle mount parallel to the ground?
Just curious as to why.

Ya, you got it. It resulted in the shock being more compressed at static ride height. His goal was to strengthen the shock mounts and to gain a scosh more clearance from the rocks. In the end he had to swing the angle back down but kept the shortened mount length (eye closer to axle tube). Initially he wanted to bring the lower mount so it was above the bottom of the axle, making the axle tube the lowest point (aside from the pumpkin itself)

 

[Frontier4x]

Thanks for the replies, I will be creating my tacoma+Frontier leaf pack this coming weekend so I will post up some feedback and pictures

 

[Frontier4x]

So I put together my hybrid leaf pack and it added lift and fixed my reverse arching springs, driveline thud, and ride quality. It added about 3.5 inches of lift after a week of driving it around.

Some advice to anyone with a C200K axle:

The other hybrid pack threads spec a 3.25 inch or 3.5 inch u bolt width. Our axle tubes require a three inch u bolt width.

These m226-oriented threads also call for spring plates with 2.5 inch width to best fit our 2 3/8" wide springs. These plates are far too wide and leave too much room on either side of the leaf springs. I know this because I initially bought all of these parts.

2.25 inch spring plates and 3 inch wide u bolts are a grood fit. I also ordered solid steel 2.25 inch axle (4) degree shims which likely fixed my driveline thud. I used a 3/8" center pin bolt, zinc, grade 8. After tightening the center pin on the compressed pack, I grounf the corners off the head so that it could fit snugly in the spring perch.

I drilled out the spring plate's center pin holes to accommodate the hex head nut on the pin. It is best not to grind this nut to fit so you can remove it if you ever need to in the future.

The Tacoma 3/1 pack was fairly new, purchased on craigslist for $140. These combined with my PRG aal to create a 9 leaf pack, or 8/1.

 

[Frontier4x]

My old shocks are currently acting as limiting straps, saving the brake lines. I bought a set of coilover shocks from advance auto with a 1200lb capacity and an appropriate amount of travel.

To install these, I ordered Nisstec's extended brake line kit. I also ordered a different set of grade 8 u bolts that are 3 inches wide but are 5/8 dia to better fit the wide holes (about 11/16") in the spring plates.

The bolts are raw steel, so they will get a light sandpaper treatment and then a zinc self etching primer spray.