Jump to content

carboy

Members
  • Content Count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About carboy

  • Rank
    Gunner

Previous Fields

  • Campsite
    olgiby
  • Your Ride
    yfz 450 R

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. carboy

    Stackers which lift?

    Hey Squatcher, question for you.... when you say "two cars", you're talking two full size, long travel cars? If so, I'm guessing both must be on load tires... do you have to strap down the suspension on one or both? I'm amazed you can do that with a wheel lift... it's all I can do using a belly lift and load tires on my car to get a caged SxS and sand car stacked, that is without having to strap down the front of the sand car. No doubt I could gain some clearance, but I honestly don't think enough to use a wheel lift. One other thing, do the front tires on your sand car ride on the fender boxes?
  2. carboy

    Stackers which lift?

    A wheel lift or deck platform is great for quads and probably the small RZR however, once you step up to a full size SxS, you're likely to encounter some clearance issues, that's where the chassis or belly lift comes into play. Not knowing the specifics of your car, I can only give you my experience... with a modern, long travel sand car/LED roof bar, I was able to put a couple of 450's on the wheel lift, send the lift to the top, that gave me enough clearance to put my car in with 35.5 x 17 /12.50 x 17 STU's. It quickly became evident that there was insufficient clearance between the lift and ceiling to squeeze a SxS up there with the wheel lift, making a belly lift a must. The lift in my trailer can be configured as both a wheel lift and chassis lift... although when configured as a chassis lift, the center rail (actually 2, but close together) are about 48" wide as opposed to maybe a 14"-ish wide single, dedicated belly lift center rail. Couple reasons this is important to know, first being a standard common width (64") SxS with stock offset wheels, can't straddle the two center rails. Second issue is, the two center rails are actually lifting the SxS near the tires by the lower control and trailing arms, not the chassis. You gain a lot of clearance however, things are still tight. I had both a RZR 4 and YXZ... with the stock cages, I couldn't get the lift up high enough to get my sand car in the trailer even utilizing loading tires. I caged both with TMW cages... that worked however, I really had to crank down the ratchet tie downs, compressing the suspension on the SxS until the control and trailing arms were level or parallel with the bottom of the frame. Even at that, I had maybe an inch of clearance from the top of the SxS cage and ceiling, and about an inch between the car light bar and bottom of the lift. I'm one who ties down my stuff by the control arms (obviously not on the belly lift), on the sand car I had to secure the front of the chassis to prevent it from rebounding, preventing contact between the lightbar and underside of the lift (front tires on the sand car sitting on the fender boxes). Of course you can always do a shorter cage on your SxS, for what it's worth, an X3 with an SDR cage is significantly shorter than caged YXZ's or RZR's, allows me to set the lift up high enough to put my car in the trailer with the big tires on it. Given what your future plans are, I would not do a dedicated wheel lift or deck platform lift, opting at minimum for a lift that can be configured as a wheel/chassis lift, or preferably a true dedicated belly lift, fabricating a couple of additional rails that can be fastened to the front and rear crossbars of the lift, turning your belly lift into a wheel/deck platform. Couple other things to consider such as the length of the lift as well as the width... with the size increase of modern SxS's , you want to make sure your belly lift is long enough between the crossbars to handle the wheelbase, be it your SxS or sand car. As an example, my Stinger lift measures 156" in overall length, 152" between the fore and aft crossbars. An X3 4-seater has a wheelbase of 135", with 30" tires, the distance between the tires (rear of rear tire, front of front tire) measured at spindle/hub centerline is approximately 165". Of course you might be able to flatten the tires or remove to get it to fit between the crossbars, but that's just more work. The lift configured as a wheel lift is adequate, albeit barely... the correct solution is a longer lift. As for width... some trailer manufacturers will recess the corner posts into the walls, just like some also offer a 98" wide ramp door door opening, important if you want to get out of the tire changing business (no load tires)... less so if you enjoy that task. Disclaimer... I'm sure there's cars out there that are well over that 98" width with sand tires that won't fit through the widest ramp door opening, so proceed at your own risk.
  3. carboy

    New build in progress, The Handful

    LS too...
  4. carboy

    New build in progress, The Handful

    Restriction plug? Just to clarify, the freeze plug with the small hole in it has nothing to do with restricting the circulation of coolant through the engine and radiator, normal coolant flow doesn't travel this path. Coolant only travels through that port (where the freeze plug would go) when the engine is cold, the main thermostat is closed, thus the bypass section of the thermostat is open, allowing for coolant to circulate freely through the radiator, without being pushed through the engine. Yes, typically there are small bypass holes in the stock thermostat bypass section, so a small amount of coolant is always bypassing, problem would arise if that port was left open once operating temperature was reached. I've seen guys plug the bypass port with the freeze plug and run both the correct "two function" thermostat or an older "single function" thermostat successfully. The stock LS thermostat has to perform two functions correctly.... plug the bypass port once temp is up and open the pathway so coolant from the radiator can enter the engine. I think the thought is by plugging the bypass port, one potential failure point has been eliminated. The point I'm stressing is, the freeze plug is a must if you choose to run without a thermostat as it plugs the bypass portion of pump. Of course, some choose to go the freeze plug route, no thermostat... being in the warmer climate, most that I have talked to state they have no problems with low engine temps, although warm-up time is likely a little longer. FWIW, I ran the freeze plug with the stock thermostat for 4 years without any issues.... when I did a new water pump, I figured I'd go the OEM route, no freeze plug, a 180 degree "two function" OEM style thermostat, into that set-up now for 4 years, no issues. The thermostat you're running should look like this... https://www.summitracing.com/parts/mrg-6367 That section at the "bottom" with the 4 small holes in it is what plugs the bypass port once the engine temperature is up and the engine thermostat opens... if you open up those holes, you're just allowing more coolant to bypass the radiator, further reducing system efficiency, might have a greater impact at lower RPM as the water pump volume is reduced. At higher RPM. water pump might produce enough volume to overcome the enlarged bypass holes and force coolant through the block and into the radiator, but that's just a guess.
  5. carboy

    New build in progress, The Handful

    The info provided has absolutely nothing to do with any products someone is trying to sell... Griffin isn't pushing some high-zoot high flow water pump, or magical radiator that has the ability to flow water at a higher rate than brand x, so I'm not seeing the relevance . Now, if it was from Edelbrock pushing their high flow water pump, I'd get it... that said, these two paragraphs were from a lengthy article meant to be nothing more than an educational piece, not a sales pitch. Although you're likely not interested, perhaps others on this site might find it enlightening. http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/Cooling/
  6. carboy

    New build in progress, The Handful

    Allow me to apologize up front if this sounds like I'm stepping on toes, the notion that one must impede or restrict flow to allow for more efficient heat transfer is a myth. Think about it... as you're now leaving coolant in the radiator longer to cool down, you're also leaving that same coolant in the engine longer, allowing it to get that much hotter. Add to that, what would be the point of installing a "high performance" water pump with a higher flow rate to then just restrict or slow it down? As to the freeze plug, that's placed in the water pump to block the bypass port of the pump... it doesn't act as a restrictor to slow down the movement of coolant through the radiator rather, it's just blocking off the bypass. The small hole does allow for a small amount of coolant to bypass however, it's primary function is to address the air pocket issue. I know some of these old notions have been around for 50-plus years (or longer), but there's just no truth to this "flow restriction" idea. There's a whole bunch more to cooling systems and heat transfer that may or may not be of any interest to most, here's two paragraphs from Griffin Thermal Products that are relevant to this discussion; Heat spontaneously transfers from hotter objects to cooler objects. The rate at which this transfer occurs depends primarily on the difference in temperature between the two (the delta-T). When the difference is great, the transfer occurs extremely rapidly. As the temperature difference decreases - the rate of heat transfer decreases exponentially. This fact is an expression of Newton's Law of Cooling and understanding it is critical to dispelling one of the greatest and most-often quoted myths surrounding cooling systems. A good example of this law can be seen when quenching a red-hot piece of steel in a bucket of water. At first, the temperature difference (delta-T) between the red-hot steel and the water is huge - therefore the initial heat transfer occurs at a great rate - the steel initially cools very fast - almost instantaneously. However, after this initial cooling, the delta-T is much smaller, so the remaining cooling occurs much more slowly. If you removed the steel after a second or two - it has cooled a lot - but it will still be warm. To continue cooling the steel to the temp. of the water, you have to leave it in there quite a bit longer - because as it cools - the rate of cooling continually decreases as well. In short - initial cooling is fast, but subsequent cooling occurs more and more slowly until cooling that last little bit takes a long, long time. If you choose to run without a thermostat, do not use a restrictor. The restrictor will do nothing for you except reduce coolant flow which ultimately reduces cooling. Years ago restrictors were popular for two reasons that do not hold true today. First, as we have discussed, older radiator designs (large cross-sectional area copper tubes) were poor at promoting the necessary coolant turbulence in the radiator, so a restrictor was used to cause the coolant to begin tumbling as it exited the engine and entered the radiator. Secondly, with engines that had the thermostat located in the outlet of the engine combined with down-flow radiators that had a fairly low pressure radiator cap on the high pressure inlet side, if the thermostat was removed the increased pressure seen by the cap from the water pump could cause the cap's rating to be exceeded and the valve to open and purge coolant. Since this opening of the rad cap is what regulates system pressure, it meant that the overall system pressure would now be lower - the cap would open sooner than if the thermostat were in place holding backpressure in the cylinder head. Since system pressure was now lower, coolant vapour point was lower, and therefore the coolant's ability to effectively carry-off heat from the engine at higher temps reduced. This in turn would result in eventual overheating. Many folks erroneously assumed that the overheating was due to the coolant flowing through the radiator too quickly with the thermostat removed, that it didn't have time to cool in the rad. As a result, restrictors were used to "slow the flow of the coolant" and the car stopped overheating. Unfortunately, these folks didn't understand the real cause and effect of the overheating that they experienced after removing the thermostat, and this led to two enduring myths that persist today. What was really happening was that the removal of the thermostat didn't cause the coolant to flow too fast to cool (we know this is an impossibility), but rather caused a condition where either system pressure (and therefore coolant vapour point) was lowered or where the rad purged coolant which caused the car to overheat. The end result was the same - the car overheated - but the cause and effect were confused and so the myths that a) removing a thermostat can cause a car to overheat and b) coolant can be pumped too fast through a radiator to cool properly began. Neither of these are true. Of course, today's cross-flow radiators that locate the rad cap on the low-pressure side, do not subject the rad cap to the maximum pressure created by the water pump and so are not susceptible to the pump forcing coolant past the rad cap. We also know now that all systems benefit from maximum flow - never from reducing flow. Ultimately, reducers reduce the flow of coolant which actually hurts system cooling efficiency, not improves it.
  7. carboy

    New build in progress, The Handful

    One other thing, while I'm confident many will either disagree or at minimum allege hair splitting, looping the heater hose is creating another passage for coolant to flow between the supply and return sides of the water pump, much like that bypass port... enough to be a problem? Probably not however, we do know there's a supply (hot) port and a return (cold) port on the water pump... that said, connecting those two ports together now allows a percentage of heated coolant to re-enter directly into the cold or return side of the water pump... without first passing through a radiator, be it a heater core or the engine radiator. I know, probably insignificant however, if you're looking to maximize the efficiency of your cooling system, these two ports should be capped.
  8. carboy

    New build in progress, The Handful

    I think you're misunderstanding what Chingon619 and Kraut are referring to... the "hole" that's deep inside the water pump where some insert the freeze plug, is a bypass section of the pump. If you choose to run without a thermostat, that hole/port/water passage must be plugged to force water from the the block into the radiator. When cold, the thermostat opens that bypass port, creating a passage between the supply and return lines from the radiator, resulting in a short cycling of coolant. One could surmise some coolant from the block is undoubtedly moving through the radiator however, certainly not enough to keep things under control. Back to the freeze plug, the small hole Chingon610 is referring to is not for circulating coolant rather, it's just an air bleed to help with those air pockets... drilled into the top of the freeze plug. If you're going to run a thermostat, make sure it's the correct one that has two sections on it- the conventional portion of the thermostat that's familiar to us old guys, but also at the tip of the thermostat is the section that opens and closes that bypass. I'm assuming the idea behind this setup is to reduce engine warm-up time... primarily for emissions, but also to get that heater working a little more quickly for those living in the colder climates, don't take that to the bank, but seems logical to me.
  9. carboy

    Parking Brake on Sandcar - Ideas?

    This.
  10. carboy

    Parking Brake on Sandcar - Ideas?

    Transporting on an open trailer? I understand wanting to have that extra layer of security, a "last ditch, when all else fails" system to keep your car from rolling off the trailer (or into something in a toy hauler or enclosed)... or if you would just like to have a parking brake, with the thought that you might use it on other occasions, I get it. But seriously, if you invest in a quality set of tie-downs/axle straps or wheel nets, along with properly affixed, quality anchor points on your trailer... and secure the car properly, your car's not going anywhere. When I say quality tie-downs, I mean just that... from a reputable company, straps and hardware that have a proven track record in the auto transport arena. I know people will take issue with my next comment, but IMHO, the yellow cheapie Harbor Freight ratchet straps don't fit the quality bill. Add to that, I've seen a lot of duners use only two of those HF straps to secure a car... running from one side of the trailer to the other, looped through the front and rear of the chassis or control/trailing arms. I totally understand the concern and desire to add another layer of security however, I don't think this is the right solution. Recently, there was a GD.com thread addressing the "transporting in gear" topic, and it is a fact that some engines are sensitive to counter rotation and have been known to skip cam timing. That said, if the car is secured properly, in gear or not, it's not going anywhere. Your car won't be able to rock back and forth, potentially spinning the motor backwards, so personally I wouldn't see any harm in putting your car in gear after your 4 tie-downs are tightened. If you still have the want for a parking brake, but it requires too much effort, is rumored or proven to be less effective, or if there's a reason you can't install decent anchor points (I know some toy haulers can be difficult) perhaps you might consider a couple wheel chocks. You could temporarily affix the fore chock to the trailer deck utilizing a simple, drop-in pin system, extending through the chock into the trailer floor, then add an aft chock and either secure it to the deck or attach it to the forward chock. There's a bunch of different ways you could chock a tire... just one idea.
  11. carboy

    Hitches

    I'm using a Curt Commercial Duty Class V hitch (2.5" receiver) on my coach, 20,000 pound draw, 2,700 pound tongue weight. You can get them through etrailer.com, pretty reasonable and free shipping.
  12. carboy

    Color Change Question

    LOL, so true with many cars however, not all. I don't want to speak for others however, I know my car isn't the only one out there that doesn't bottom out on the chassis. My long travel has right at 8" of clearance at the rear skid plate and if I remember correctly, 11" at the front at full squat (35.5 x 17 STU's and 12.50 x 17 STU's up front). I have a suspension set-up sheet that I had to submit to Fox when I had the shocks rebuilt/revalved, it's quite a lengthy form and this is one of the many dimensions they ask for. I have the sheet stashed, will double check that front measurement. As you might surmise, the springs are removed, then all 8 shocks are put back on the car, then allowed to bottom. Funny, back when I was looking to buy a car, that belly pan bottoming out issue was something that I vowed to avoid like the plague... having suffered through the first year of the original RZR, that thing use to bottom out the chassis right under the seat pans... hurt so effin' bad, no BS, after one season, I sold it and bought another new Rhino to satisfy my "steering wheel" needs (on YFZ's back then). Weird thing was, even with Elka shocks and springs (pretty much all there was back then for RZR turn key shock upgrades), the bottoming out was totally unpredictable... the hard, sharp hits when you expected it to bottom, nothing... yet the gentle rollers coming into a bowl, that thing would slam into those so hard, gave me an instant headache. But I digress... working back towards the topic, having adequate chassis clearance at full suspension squat or bottoming was a must have for me... when I finally found my car, the seller specifically stated in his add the chassis clearance when bottomed. That along with a bunch of other info I considered critical, was such a compelling add, I drove 140 miles after just returning from a weekend lake trip to check the car out... buying it that afternoon. (Maybe just a good salesman?!) My car had 23"/24" of travel front/rear respectively... I say had because during the shock rebuild, Fox also install hydraulic top-outs, which ate up a little shock travel, so no doubt I have less than that now... maybe 2 inches? Don't know and it didn't matter... the hydraulic top-outs are awesome, I run without straps, you can't feel when the shocks top out now, no "thuds" or clunking, they're absolutely smooth. To clarify, I'm talking full wheel travel here, full droop to full squat... not chassis downward travel at ride height. It's been 3 years since I had Fox do my shocks, I don't recall the ride height setting regarding compression/extension shock stroke, maybe 60/40%? So, at ride height I've got something close to half of those wheel travel figures before the shocks bottom... of course minus that loss of shock stroke length and resulting effect at the hub center. There was a thread on here not too long ago regarding this very issue, setting up suspensions to alleviate chassis bottoming... fun read. And even on a car that for whatever reason lacks adequate chassis clearance at full squat, if not horrible, spacers can be placed in the shocks, albeit at the expense of those wheel travel figures. I think that's the lesser of two evils... I'd gladly give up some travel to keep my chassis from going subterranean... but, that's just me. Oh, one other advantage I have is, my car is a mid-engine... virtually no chassis overhang behind the rear tires, nothing out there to hit on those sharp transitions. Lastly... what do I consider long travel? I'd think once you break that 20-21 inch figure, to me... I'd think you're there. Again, it's subjective... I'm not aware of a guidebook with definitive numbers, that said, I'm confident there's a boatload of GD.com peeps out there whose definition differs from mine, that's fair enough!
  13. carboy

    Color Change Question

    Although subjective, I would consider it a mid-travel... as I recall my buddy was told or thought it had roughly 17-18-ish inches of wheel travel. I have a long travel car, in comparison, with similar wheel width and backspacing, the track was narrower, upper/lower control and trailing arms were shorter... that combined with a little less shock length, given the similar placement, I'd think that travel assessment was fairly legit. As a side note... don't know what you have now or what you're buying, strictly my opinion here... but the travel thing, it's just a number, good selling point or bragging rights . Sure, it's good to know and great if you have it... but I don't believe those big numbers to be critical or particularly useful for the dune scene. Of course, if bashing through the whoops is your forte, then sure... the more the better. It's been my experience, while truly "duning", I don't see those of us with long travel cars carrying any more speed through the dunes than mid-travel cars... and will readily admit, while chasing some of these mid-travel cars, as they say... "made this fat kid sweat"!
  14. carboy

    Gear One Back Up and Running Soon

    Any update to the Gear One resurrection?
  15. carboy

    Color Change Question

    Here's the story my buddy received from the gent he bought the car from in 2010... reportedly the original owner. Extreme built the car in 2003/2004, as Elwood45 stated, it is titled as a 2004 however, when first built, it was not sporting the Blue Angels theme (unknown original design/colors). Then in 2007, the car went back to Extreme for the Blue Angels theme, who reportedly did the entire makeover. Interestingly enough, the original owner told my buddy that he had no past or present affiliation with the Blue Angels rather, he got his inspiration after seeing some low flybys from Blue Angels aircraft while out in the dunes. He said he just thought it would be kinda cool, something unique... that, it certainly was. I would think Extreme can verify or debunk this story... let us know what they say!

More Links

©2001 GlamisDunes.com.
All rights reserved.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.