wheelbase

E

emory70

Well-Known Member
as i've posted in other threads, i'm rebuilding a zilla 2 based truck i picked up on ebay. i'm gonna run a parma 67 ford pickup body (that i already have), which is a 10.5" wheelbase. the other clod i had years ago ran the same chassis and extended wheelbase suspension. i loved the truck, but never was happy with the way the body looked on it. this time, i want it to look right, with the wheels sitting in the fenders.

the first thing i did was make a new chassis brace to get the links parallel, and make shorter links to bring the rear axle in where i wanted it. when i checked axle movement, the gearbox struck the 3/8 solid dropouts. so i'm afraid the only thing left of the zilla 2 will be the rails and crossmembers. i'm working on other issues (axle trusses, shock mounts, and link mounts) while i decide how to modify the frame. still not sure if i wanna keep all the 4 link rods on the axle or go with a more common upper link mount.

the only chassis i've seen people run with a 10.5" wheelbase are stock, sassy chassis, and new era. all the "real" chassis use a long wheelbase. have i designed myself into a corner, or has anyone else out there had the same problem?
 
E

emory70

Well-Known Member
ok, i got my rear suspension in the testing stage. looks like the short wheelbase will work, but i'm gonna have to eliminate the zilla 2 solid rod dropouts. no room for the savage shocks. mocked up on the bench, i have right about 4" vertical travel. that brings me to a question for those more experienced than me in clod suspension building.

for a basher that's not afraid to go anywhere, how much travel should one try to achieve? i know the crawler guys like to have the magic 90 degree articulation, but what about vertical? i'm thinking that a whole lot is not really needed with the minimal sprung weight of a clod, but i'm using the wag method now.
 
E

emory70

Well-Known Member
does this count as talking to myself?

got the rear suspension figured out today. it's mocked up with prototype upper shock mounts. travel and articulation are good. no binding. also got my rear steer lockout made. getting closer.

if i had more than a cell phone camera, i'd post some pics. but then again, my wag method bud style probably doesn't need to be documented in progress.
 
S

SavedONE

Well-Known Member
-what do you mean by "solid rod dropouts" & "wag method", & the cell phone pics would help, need to get on the same page here, this may be why nobody's replied:)
 
E

emory70

Well-Known Member
it's a clodzilla 2, which has the 3/8" solid round rod pieces that connect the frame rails to the link mount/chassis brace. i figured that they are common enough that it didn't need an explanation. either way, i have the suspension figured out now.

wag method, it's a redneck term. wild guess. sometimes accompanies by the swag, stupid wild guess.

i'm not stressing. rcmt is the only place i go where most folks know more than i do about this stuff. i learn what i can and the rest is wag method.

i know what i'm building is weird. nobody does an aftermarket chassis with stock wheelbase.
 
E

emory70

Well-Known Member
i finally have the truck in one piece. many parts need to be remade prettier or modified, but i have everything where i want it. i wish it didn't have to be so tall, but that's one of the things i have to live with. i love the savage shocks. with the red springs, i think they will be just fine. plenty of travel and articulation for the bashing that's in the truck's future

and i finally got some pics up in the gallery. yay!

posting so Joe's blood preasure goes down. :tong W.G.






 
william g

william g

Retired
Moderator
When I saw that second picture I thought ''holy crap that's tall'' :)

Comming along nicely, though I hope your just bashing and not racing it? If your going to race it you will need to lower it some.
 
E

emory70

Well-Known Member
no racing. only a basher. but i saw last night that i'll need wideners to keep the tires off the shocks. grrr! i did want it lower, but the upper link mounts are only 1/4" from the frame rails at compression. i think i am at the limit of the zilla 2 chassis.

i'm sure once i get this thing drivable i'll hate the short wheelbase, but i like the old school monster look.

thanks for appeasing the angry mob, william
 
E

emory70

Well-Known Member
i don't think we are on the same page here. what is "normal" for suspension travel? i just measured, and i have right about 2" vertical. at full compression, the upper link mount nearly hits the crossmember. so i don't see how i can realistically lower it and have any decent travel. so i'm sure it's the framerails that are killing me.

i read a few articles by marty garza, of the overkill monster trucks. i tried to make my suspension as he suggested, with equal length parallel links, and for the angle of the links to match at full compression and extension.

when i first tried mounting the shocks (at a severe angle), i had 4" travel, but it was WAY too tall, and the travel wasn't even. so i brought it down to where it is now, with a near vertical shock placement.
 
B

Bubbabaxter

Well-Known Member
I had the same problems when I made upper 4-link mounts for a zilla 2 chassis. I ended up shortening the frame rails and moving the braces back. It alleviated the problems of the links hitting the crossmembers but it no longer looked like a zilla2, and to me that look was the major charm of that chassis.
 
E

emory70

Well-Known Member
now i find someone who understands.

i know chassis like the thundertech and cpe are better, but i want a short wheelbase old school truck. and i also want proper suspension geometry.

i have a new idea for upper shock mounts, and it will allow me to pull one pair of crossmembers out. i may do that to give the suspension a little more room

to the bat cave!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top