90's throw back.....Manche build

mcutler said:
Technically this wasn't a 9" problem. Any housing can get bent, bent a few myself. This one came out from under Peter Basler's SRRS multi-year championship winning buggy. I'd say quite a few opportunities to bend a housing in that arena.

9" fords have been well proven in many forms of motorsports for decades. And certainly so in ultra 4. I chose this platform for weight and a fabrication standpoint. We'll see how they do, I'm sure...I will test them again.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they wouldn't hold up or that they couldn't be a good axle. All I said was I wasn't a fan of them. But it's not really a 9" as you would get from the junkyard so building one up to handle serious abuse isn't exactly budget friendly. I know offroading isn't budget friendly either but I see more strength being had for cheaper from a different axle as a big factor for me. Maybe it was the wrong time to voice my opinion but it was said in jest as that was why you were having the problem with it being bent, but that's my style use my opinion in a sarcastic way to make a joke. Anyway I'm glad you got it straightened out and look forward to the rest of the build.
 
Yes, they're certainly not budget friendly. But neither are 60's. 14 bolt, can be. Fortunately, for what I paid for these, even including the parts I had to purchase new, still was less than I could have built the two 60's that I already had (and paid scrap yard prices for); WITH comparable 300m shafts/joints/machined for 45°/aftermarket brakes; and would still weigh 3-400 pounds more. But as seen, buying used sometimes presents its own problems. I will say it took less labor to "straighten" this problem than it did to bore the spindles on my rear 60 for 35 spline...@ol'Jeeps.

No offense taken on the 9" comment. Hell, I may trash these the first trip, who knows. I appreciate any and all input in my threads; good, bad, indifferent, jokingly or sarcasm. It's all good. I'm glad anyone is interested in my builds.
 
I would be interested to see where these 9s fall weight wise. I went from yota axles on my samurai with rear drums all the way to built 60s rear discs and front ton brakes still and it was only 500 lbs more than the yota setup. That's as finished weight with the trusses steering ram etc etc all bolted on ready to ride. If you'd weigh your setup once it's complete and together I might would unbolt my axles and weigh them to see how much savings there is to be had in a real world setup and comparison. Be cool to actually have a real number.
 
Remind me once I tear down for paint, I'll weigh it all up. I've got pallet scales here. I could weigh the rear tomorrow (still waiting for caliper brackets), but the front is still short the truss, steering ram and upper link mounts.

I have recorded, in my suspension tuning notes, the unsprung weight of the copper crawler, and the weights of the raceline/sx combo. We could do some deductions from there and get a fairly accurate comparison for those particular combos.

If I compared unsprung weight there would be some minor discrepancies for the difference of trailing arms with 2.5 coilovers for the Manche versus aluminum links and axle mounted 2.0 c/o on my buggy.

Getting 500 pounds lighter on unsprung weight is huge when it comes to tuning coilovers. That heavier mass has much more inertia when traveling through compression stroke. Makes it more difficult to get it reversed into rebound. More unsprung=stiffer Valving= more pressure= more heat= possibility cavitation= reduction of effectiveness of the tune....etc etc.

auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160405_e813c5f5a9c1b537c711cbe209e323c8.jpg


There is one miscalculation in the pic, I transposed 413 for the rear axle when it should be 815.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to get my notes back out to get the exact weight difference between my two setups and I'll have to borrow my buddies scales he uses for his late model car. I'm just going to unbolt the wheels, links, and coilovers and weigh then put back together.

I agree more unsprung weight is harder to control but in my case it's not a race car and I felt the extra strength was worth the weight. So far it has worked out, no broken axle parts and buggy works better than ever.
 
Finally, front axle under the truck, everything moved into position, aside from the rear axle may move back another 1-2 inches, sitting at 115" wb now.

auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_9ba4711004ff10e3e4bd608411b2423e.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_da173b793c828f5e82cbb5c637e66176.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_e68c110937abcaecb526246955e62432.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_74a6bf4ce06644a92e48252f2b5b58a5.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_69869623eac9bb3b4897a389dfbc6e32.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_76d6fa8ca65c7cdcfc2dca3644549ce6.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_2706b1eb5cc4fd5426c27ace36c055e7.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_84e41bed8026c6e1b5b84becb78efdc3.jpg


auploads.tapatalk_cdn.com_20160406_6d80d1271c38133e0086a77cd949d309.jpg


Next workday will finally be gluing some junk together...
 
It's is an all aluminum ls2 6.0 from an '06 corvette, with 25,000 miles when I had them light up the dash, before the motor was pulled.

Internally, bone stock. GM advertised in '06 a hp rating of 400 crank. It was soon independently tested at 411. I'm using the Mast m90 computer and harness that is advertised with a 40 hp increase. I've never dyno'd anything, but by those reports and adding headers I would estimate it close to 460-475. Going from the lt1(300hp) that I built the buggy with initially, and soon installing this motor, it's a kick in the pants...
I'm excited to see how she does with the lower gear (5.43 vs 5.13), smaller tires (39 vs 43), and hopefully lighter weight.

Only aftermarket parts I've used are the Mast pan, accumulator, and now these headers. Previously in the buggy I used the stock f-body steel manifolds, slightly modified for my application.
 
mcutler said:
Lol, yea probably, but if I decided to go over budget for better performance, it would be to add bypasses all around, so as to keep the power I have to the ground...[emoji41]
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
HOLY COW...that's gonna be one awesome freaking MJ. nice work so far!! I'm mind boggled by the math that you involve in the geometry and suspension stuff, pretty awesome but way out of my league.
 
If you had asked me this morning where the motor and front axle were going to end up, I would have said that the axle was 2-3" further forward and the motor was 4-6" closer to the axle tube. Tough to say from the pictures how it's all going to come together, but are you going to have enough room in the footwell if the tire is stuffed and turned? It all looks pretty snug.
 
shawn said:
If you had asked me this morning where the motor and front axle were going to end up, I would have said that the axle was 2-3" further forward and the motor was 4-6" closer to the axle tube. Tough to say from the pictures how it's all going to come together, but are you going to have enough room in the footwell if the tire is stuffed and turned? It all looks pretty snug.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the footwell will get somewhat deleted. The combo of the 39" tire and wanting to keep it centered in the fenderwell, along with uptravel has shoehorned me to push the motor back. I wish I could push it back 4 more inches. The crank pulley was 18" behind the axle in the buggy. It's all part of this stupid challenge I put on myself. It would be easier to build a buggy, or if jeep had made an extended cab manche...But I've built a buggy, and enjoyed it. And now, everyone has a buggy....or is building one. But, how many people have a Comanche that performs like a buggy?... but the occupants stay dry and warm[emoji14]
....plus I can take one of my boys for a ride to get an ice cream cone.

One factor that will keep the tire from invading too much is the deep backspacing of the wheels, 4.75. This in turn brings the scrub radius down, allowing the outermost corners of the tire to make a smaller circle through the cycle. I will not sacrifice uptravel. I will drop tire size to 37 before I lose uptravel. I also will not delete the headlights or narrow the hood. And, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to dovetail or chop the bedsides, tailgate undecided...but I will have good approach and departure angles. Needs to look like a Comanche for me to feel I've done what I set out to do.

I have 16" 2.5 c/o for the front, and will soon be ordering my 14's for the rear along with 2.5" travel bumps front and 4" travel on the rear. Shooting for 18-20 wheel travel on rear axle with trailing arms with motion ratio, and a 1:1 ratio up front. If I can get the geometry where I need it, most likely won't use a sway bar, but the tube will be there in case I add it later.

Great question Shawn.
 
Back
Top