hawairish

Yep, every now and then we do need a reminder about the absence of power valves in the MTs. I'm guilty of referencing them when other MTers have engine woes. My impression for swapping engines is that you can use the AT engine, but you need to swap over everything from the lower intake plenum and up. Otherwise, yes, finding an MT engine will be a challenge. The ATs are everywhere.

If you've got stock tires and no complaints about the towing performance, then stick with the stock ratio. Check the axle code per XPLORX4's response. If the backlash is off and the gears are okay, you can adjust the backlash. The rear diff uses side adjusters to move the carrier to adjust backlash. Since you're 2wd, you have the OE options XPLORX4 mentioned, plus 4.90's from the Xterra. The rear diff drops out, and is replaceable with units from any 96-04 Pathfinder, 00-04 Xterra, and 01-04 Frontier; no set-up required but the donor should be inspected. I'd stick with the lower gears, but I've never driven the 3.3L to know how it pulls. Changing from 4.363 to 4.636 was noticeable, but I probably wouldn't recommend lower gears unless they were paired with larger tires.

It's doable, but 2" W material would be better. For reference, this is what my current spacers look like: It's constructed of a piece of 2.5" sq. tube x 2.5" H x .250" wall, with 5.5" L x 2.5" W x .25" pads to make a 3" spacer (the height is irrelevant for this discussion, though; the 2.5" W base is what matters here). You could easily just use a 2.5" x 2.5" x 5.5" tube to replicate this like other spacers, normally 2" W x 4" H x 6" L for some of the traditional spacers. I did 5.5" L spacers to avoid having to notch anything for the passenger side where the brake lines come down (the metal guard shown in the pic). Here are the gotchas: 1. A 2.5" wide spacer is just a tad too wide. On the rear subframe, the width is perfect relative to the chassis. But, the unseen lower edge of the spacer actually sits atop a weld on the subframe, like so: For the rear spacers, you could obviously offset the holes on the spacer to get around that, but the spacer wouldn't sit flush. Also, if you do a simple tube approach, you have the radius edges to your advantage to some degree, but it may still be wide. 2. The front spacer is a little similar, but you can't offset the holes because of the lip on the chassis: Although this fits flat, it does barely contact similar weld on the subframe, it doesn't give much wiggle room for installation. The radius edge of the tube would help here. 3. A 2.5" sq. tube, presumably .250" if hitch steel, only leaves 2" of tool space inside the tube for tightening hardware. It's doable, but just be prepared to make a lot of small motions to get the upper hardware tightened. And if you orient the lower bolts tip-down (which you should), be sure to put those bolts in sometime before sandwiching things together, otherwise you might not have the clearance to insert the bolt or upper nut. That all said, eventually I will go to spacers with a 2"W base to get around those issues, or possibly convert these by welding on a 2"W x .25"H plate to the bottom of each spacer to clear the subframe welds (resulting in a 3.25" spacer).

Haha, you know it. Yours is also the only one with TPMS. I’m just jelly.

A little more lift over SFD height is fine, and in fact what I recommend. It's a trade-off for ground clearance over OE geometry. As for bumpers, I'd like to. It's a long term plan @TowndawgR50 and I have discussed. This may delay getting some of the bumper brackets out from my other thread; seems more convenient to have built, DIY, and builder parts options. The near term focus is SFDs, though.

All great points! Yes, those numbers are bench-test specs, and the value can increase under load due to the spider gear push-out. Yeah, I don't get why the numbers were so diluted for the 03-04. Stability controls would be a good guess, but I'm not even sure many of the vehicle had anything beyond ABS. Of the R50s I've seen with VDC (literally one), it didn't even have the LSD. I think Nissan just got a good deal on those spacers in the units, which consumed the space of 4 pieces in the clutch pack, and still allowed them to market the option. Good point about the fluid. Yes, an additive or LSD-safe gear oil is required. Just realizing I omitted specs from the 99-00.5 Frontier for some reason. MY99-00.0 trucks were 144-178 ft-lbs, then 00.5 went to 138-180 ft-lbs. But yes, both 00.5-02 Frontier and 00-02 Xterra LSD diffs make great swap options because they had the better numbers and because they used the same gear ratios, specifically 4.363 (48:11) and 4.636 (51:11) options, not the 4.375 (35:8) and 4.625 (67:8) options found on older Nissans. You can swap the entire 3rd member; completely bolt on. I've actually been sitting on my re-packed LSD for a while now, and re-acquired the other re-packed unit just the other week. Both eventually replaced by lockers, but I really enjoyed having it. Lokka + LSD made for a great combo. I suppose it's time to find those units new homes...

I've done a 2.5" SFD, with 1.5" strut spacers and OME MD springs and a set of camber bolts. Shouldn't have any issues with your setup. The 2" strut spacers give a little north of 2" lift because of the geometry of the suspension. Not sure it's 2.5", though, but perhaps somewhere in between. As long as you can weld, you can make the Accord link work. Just keep in mind that's a very custom approach. I'd still pony up for a Woodward link. If you ever increase to a larger SFD, you can just re-use the joints and swap in a longer shaft. Notably, if you're not in any rush to do the SFD, perhaps hold out a little longer? An SFD kit is in the works.

I'm curious about the noise. The LSD doesn't quite "engage" per se...whether straight-ahead or turning, the clutch pack is always under compression, but there is a change from no-friction to friction when making turns. Because there are also spider gears in the diff, any engagement sounds are might be attributed to those, and not so much the clutch pack (i.e., the "limited slip" part of LSD). I assembled this chart from FSM data when I repacked some LSDs a while ago: Pretty clear the R50 never got what other trucks got, and then Nissan dumbed everything down 03-04. Re-packing does require some work...and homework. Not so much adding shims but just increasing the friction for the clutch packs. This can be done by thickening the stack (replacing thinner pieces with thicker ones, or shims), by replacing pieces of one type with another, particularly in the case where similar parts are next to each other. For example, on 01-02 R50, a 2:9 ratio means that, those 2 friction discs are only in contact with 3 friction plates, at max, and the rest are just used for spacing (FP-FD-FP-FD-FP-FP-FP-FP-FP-FP-FP); all of the breakaway torque comes from the friction on those 10 pieces (5 per side). The 5:6 models had more than double the friction area, and consequently higher breakaway torques. However, you'd expect the 6:6 to have higher numbers, too, but the breakaway torque is also controlled by the nominal thickness of the pieces, plus any compression added by spring plates. That is to say the R50 LSDs used more thinner pieces, which would reduce stack compression and ultimately friction. In your real-world scenario, if you have an LSD and the tire is still spinning, that means the ground resistance on the tire that has traction is higher than the breakaway torque of the LSD. In that case, it behaves like an open diff because it's defeating the clutch pack and the spider gears (the "differential" of LSD) are allowing the excess torque to rotate the wheel with less traction.

Excellent description and analogy. I totally agree with Slart about the LSD. Even a weak LSD is going to be better than an open diff.

I just want your anime decal.

Maybe we just trade trucks and I start over.

Judging by the angle of the pic and wheel well gap front vs. rear, that seems normal operation to me. The hill seems more gradual on the passenger side, so it shifted the truck's weight over to the driver's side, mostly towards the rear. The passenger rear tire would have the least amount of traction, and a rear open diff would allow that tire to spin freely. Since both front tires would have traction, they would also spin.

Well, it's one of those dense composite plastics. The only reason it was of concern is because in my older ARB, the plastic cradle has a crack on it and appeared to interfere lightly with a spider gear. The crack doesn't compromise anything, as it's not in a critical location, but it's just one of those things that shouldn't occur (may have been from a prior disassembly by a previous owner?). The TJM engages the locking gear in the same manner as the old ARBs, but the TJM cradle is comprised entirely of steel parts. The new style omits the cradle all together, as all the moving parts have moved to the opposite side of the locker; it's a major improvement over the older style, in my opinion. New bearings are required and are not included with the ARB. The TJM also requires new bearings, but they are included. OEM bearings will not fit either locker. In the ARB Application Guide, lockers RD134, RD135, and RD136 (all H233B lockers, 31 or 33 spline) have a design note indicating the requirement and bearing part numbers: Timken 32010X and ARB 160116 (I think the ARB part is the Timken...yet 2x the cost). That bearing is also apparently used on ARB lockers for some Toyotas. Also, it appears that the Nachi E32010J bearings that came with my TJM have the same specs as the Timken: 50mm ID x 80mm OD x 20mm width (20mm cone width x 15.5mm cup width). The Timken's appear to be the cheapest and most-available option of the three.

I was pleased with quality of the ARB unit and accessories. I'll always have my concerns about the ARB actuation method, but I do still regard it as reliable. The new units are very stout, and similar in quality internally to the TJM. I chuckled at the cable ties, too, but then again, it's a useful accessory that no one provides (it would be better if they included the required bearings, though). My initial concerns when we were talking about TJM vs ARB was whether ARB was still using a plastic internal cradle from their previous design, which was used to push the locking gear over the side gear. No plastic on the newer design. Once he's got more details, I'll share some of my pros/cons/notes about it and the install. I may even do a separate review/install thread to mirror the TJM review I've got out there.

Not sure where I've posted it, but my recommendation for bumpstop extension is somewhere around half of whatever lift or tire amount size change being made. For example, if you went from a 29" stock tire to a 31" tire, a 1" extension would be suitable because your new tire will be able to reach 1" higher than before. It's a little different when factoring in lift, particularly if you changed to longer shocks, which would have longer compression amounts. You'd need enough extension to reduce/prevent the shock from bottoming out. If the goal is more articulation, the extensions can be omitted, but it'll likely just lead to unnecessary rubbing. Since you're using OE springs and likely OE shocks, you may only need to base the extension length on any tire size increase you've done. But, in your case, a 1" or no extension would be fine I think.

And we just changed out the springs on that truck the other month... I didn't take a look at the gap to see if there was change over the years, but I'd be pretty sure we were able to get a gap when they were installed. @Jax99 do you recall anything the other month...aside from the fact that we forgot to put them back in (lol)? With the coil spacers at the bottom, it's hard to tell what gap exists between the bag and lower spring perch. You might consider flipping the coil spacers to the top, as this would at least position the bag near the center of the spring, and give you an idea of what upper and lower gaps exist. As it sits right now, the lower portion of the bag might be expanding into the tighter wraps of the pigtail area of the spring or further into the coil spacers, which might cause unequal expansion and ballooning towards the top of the bag. Otherwise, if the lower gap seems adequate, perhaps removal of the bumpstop extension would be fine...but to ensure we're apples-to-apples here, are those OME or OE springs?

Yes, that, but also with some useful part numbers!

Understood. I definitely don't mean to make it a popularity contest. I only know RainGoat personally, but both he and Slart consistently provide exceptional responses and genuine interest in keeping threads informative and on track. In lieu of nominations, just voicing a compliment. My main concern is that of the current admins and moderators, you might be the only active one (excluding mjotrainbrain with only TOTM moderation; I'm glad that he still hangs around). Simple thought is that more help helps everyone, but the forum testing was likely an exception. Hopefully I don't fall into the list of forum testing flakes...admittedly, I was hesitant to volunteer in the first place due to work travel at the time, and only volunteered late because it didn't seem like testing was even progressing. Any testing I could contribute was done during odd hours, no less. Otherwise, half of my day job is usually application/software testing. Noted. I doubt anything I've seen has warranted use of the Report function, at least not for being inappropriate. Perhaps miscategorized, at worst, but usually unworthy of PMs or mentions to be a real issue. It's just a matter of cleanliness and usefulness, I suppose to avoid becoming pass-through sites like NICO where useful content is drowned by dead-on-arrival conversations. Nonetheless, thanks for the consideration!

@RedPath88 Bumping this up again, since there have been a few recent posts that warrant clean-up. Is this open to discussion? If nominations are accepted, @RainGoat and @Slartibartfast have my vote.

I believe it. Here's where I wish there was a catalog of OEM Accessories to find odd/rare items like those.

Yeah, jump on that. The style alone is hard to find. As for the lock...there's an integrated slot on the mount to put a padlock through it and one of the wheel stud holes. It was Nissan's way of locking it, as opposed to a simpler lug-nut lock. Given the design, you'll need to remove the "carrier" (tire mounts to it) from the "frame" (carrier mounts to it) in order to access the backside of the padlock to cut it off. Presuming the carrier didn't change much from the prior design, 4 nuts hold the carrier to the frame but you might have to get crafty reaching them around the tire. Edit: pic below of prior carrier model. Sorry I don't have the means to mark-up the image, but you can see the 4 nuts on the carrier between the vertical tubes of the frame. That oval-ish hole on the carrier is where the padlock inserts and comes through the little hole to the right, which lines up with a wheel stud hole. For anyone wanting a lock, I used a Rugged Ridge 16715.22 M12x1.25 wheel lock (http://a.co/d/1BPsRfC). If I could've found a set with 5 wheel locks, I would've gone that route.

Well done! I was telling @Astrorami the other week about taking a very similar approach. Definitely good use for that axle shaft...I'm sitting on a few WD21 shafts right now and I'm thinking one or two would be perfect for something similar. I was already thinking about using the splined ends for maybe making a test tool for rebuilding LSDs, that would give me use for the other end.

They used to have Aisin hubs for Nissans. Some of the ones for W/D21 will fit the R50, as long as the spline counts are the same (they changed counts at some point). I had a pair that I pulled from the JY, but they were 27-spline IIRC. Really solid units, wish I could've used them. Aisin also made (makes?) a lot of other Japanese OEM parts.

By looking? Experience I guess. Otherwise the diameter of the wire (excluding insulation) corresponds to a gauge; they’ve got some handy gauge tools available for quick determination, otherwise calipers and a chart can be used.

No problem. There tends to be a lot of variance and opinion when it comes to wire selection, but it really depends on usage/application. A chart like this is a lot closer to my wiring preference for most 12V electrical... ...except when wiring up a stereos/amplifiers, other high-draw lighting/accessories (compressors, winches); I'll almost always increase to the next gauge. You'll never hurt a system with wire that's too thick (keeping it reasonable), but at some point cost exceeds benefits. On the other hand, wire that's too thin will affect performance and is also a hazard. If unsure, jump a gauge. I'll usually choose a wire gauge based on 50%-100% of my expected nominal draw with the circuit loaded...this gives me some circuit overhead for any overdraw conditions, plus some wiggle room if I want/need to put another accessory on the circuit.