It moves a little, so if you're looking for perfection it needs to be considered. I copied the PP towers and lower shock mounts and made my own for the front. So if we need can some up that's not a problem.
Colorado Krew Hangout
- Thread starter tworley
- Start date
It moves a little, so if you're looking for perfection it needs to be considered. I copied the PP towers and lower shock mounts and made my own for the front. So if we need can some up that's not a problem.
The pinion angle is the same whether the arms are short, mid or long.
Mine changed because I went from 3.5" to 4". I suppose it's not as much as I would imagine. Going back to the 90° thought, it's a target but not reality. The front isn't even close like the rear
Changes to the ride height will affect pinion angles
That was also on my mind, packaging dictates things a bit.
Functional perfection or just aesthetic? You may have noticed I don't care if mine looks kinda shitty
And if you have to rotate the pinion, you will affect the shock bias however small.
An odd detail that no one thinks about is that an outboard done after a mid or long arm will place the shocks towers slightly more towards vertical. If a rear stretch occurs later, this will leave a tiny bit more room to cut and move the frame arches backwards before the shock towers touch the rear face of the body where the tail lights live.
Imagine the outboarded shocks and towers located 90° to the lower short arm. Then change to a longer lower arm with a flatter angle. The existing shocks and towers will be not quite 90° to the new lower arms. And no one will notice and the shocks won't care.
Okay cool. Works out for me. And outboarding will allow you to fit longer shocks as well right?
That's one of the big reasons to outboard!
1. Longer shock for more travel
2. Set up the travel bias you want (we've all aimed for 50/50 on a 12" shock).
When you do this, you will have the shocks in your possession because you need them to build the mounts.
Okay cool. I figured it was the case... I guess I thought the big reason was for increased stability because your shocks are closer to the wheels
Ohh. I thought it was the opposite, put the mounts in and measure what you can fit in there. Who's build has a good write up of this?
The big reason to do this is to fit a shock that can be tuned. The shock is also going to be longer because that contributes to the tune, and more suspension travel is beneficial in the rocks, and the lower mount can be raised.
The wider shock stance is a bit of a byproduct of the process that also improves the tuned shock's ability to control movement.
I don't think I'd argue that's a lot of stability gained, what really improves stability is the tune and amount of travel before having to push the body up. Knowing what your shocks do and how they respond is a pretty meaningful change.
You are entering into the realm of building specifically for shocks and making the shocks work. The form of the mounts are determined by the function of the shocks.
If you end up liking the results, then you run the risk of wanting more of it because of how transformative the shocks are to the fundamental core of how the Jeep behaves and performs. Everything changes if you go down this road.