hawairish

So have you gotten things with the strut towers sorted out?

Yeah, I had something like that in mind, too. I've been passing some other ideas at TownDawg, guess I should've posted some up here. But yes, I had something like that in mind, with some random bends/curls so that whatever resin/epoxy approach would have something to fill around and create an anchor. Another one that crossed my mind was an external panel, similar to how some Jeeps have diamond plate covers for their quarter panel and taillight areas. There's no reason I have to reinforce inside the body, and this gives a little exterior armor...well, if I think I need it anyway. Would have to do it to the driver's side too to be cool. Currently, my thought has been on drilling holes directly to the inner metal panel. The OE reinforcement essential ties the quarter panel to an inner layer of steel. If I use longer bolts, I can anchor to both layers of steel, and could easily reach the hardware from the back side. I'd still use blind nuts, at least on the quarter panel; I'd have to check the angles of the interior panel. This approach might negate the need for any filler for the upper mount. I'd still fill the lower mount cavity regardless, since it needs to resist compression.

Well, the mounting surfaces on the spacers are identical and symmetrical, so they can logically be mounted to either tower location. That's 4 possible mounting scenarios, assuming the lower mount doesn't contact the body for a particular orientation and the spacers are identical instead of mirrored. If they are mirrored, then there are 8 mounting scenarios. That said, there's a 12.5% to 25% chance of getting it right. Weren't they supposed to be marked?

Ignoring the angle for a moment, if the 3 upper holes on the strut spacer aren't directly over the lower 3 holes, the strut spacer must be installed wrong. And here's why: the SFD moves everything directly downward. If the subframe spacers do that, so must the strut spacers. All four mounting surfaces on the strut spacers are identical, so in theory they can bolt to either side, in either orientation (presuming the angle doesn't cause one surface to hit the unibody at the bottom of the spacer). I have my truck notebook with me while traveling this week. It's got all my sketches and measurements taken around the truck, including dimensions, angles, and orientation of the strut towers. I'll see if I can mock up something in SketchUp to illustrate my point.

Yeah, I'd see about loosening that bracket and giving it some slack if possible. The steering rack clearly changed over the years, probably when the VG came around. May want to check with KrF to see how they addressed that. I built an extension bracket for mine...was pretty trivial, but again, the hoses/pipes are different. I mentioned to Colin he may need to loosen brackets of the lines depending on how much the rack was rotated. Though, one thing to note is that all those items stay stationary, but you just want to make sure they're not stressed as-is. The strut spacers are on wrong unfortunately. When mounted to the unibody, tube portion of the strut spacer should be vertical, not angled. When correct, the upper mounting holes will be directly above the lower holes. The purpose of the of the angles on the spacers is to make that mounting surface on the unibody drop linearly.

Yep, that hose coming down at a 45...where does that even go? I don't think I have anything like that on mine.

Yep, the beauty of the SFD...keeps the same ride qualities. Angles look good in the pics. Welcome to the SFD club! Bumper tuck looks good too. Looks like he was able to take a few inches out, no? Or maybe he was able to mount the push bar farther out than he was able to tuck the rest of the bumper? Think you can get a close up of the power steering hose that has the bracket connected to the middle of the cross member under the steering rack? The bracket is different than on mine, but I think you'll want to put a piece of metal plate/strap to between it and the cross member looks like it might be under some stress.

Any word from Hilltop? Inquiring minds wanna know!

Right on, man. That looks like a fun project! For something like that, what does the window end up getting fastened to after you've removed the material between the panels? Is there some sort of insert, then the window fits into it, or is it just one piece?

I rebuilt the LSDs over the weekend...a few times actually...and my 1st go-around produced 137 ft-lbs. Not bad I suppose; a bit above my projected amount. But when I built the 2nd one, I only got 80 ft-lbs. These were presumably supposed to be identical, but it's possible I put one additional new friction disc into the first one. After re-shuffling the discs around, I got more even numbers of 103 and 97...this time being (more) certain of the parity. I feel like I want more, maybe around 150. I tried cross-ref'ing side gear shims, but it's a crap-shot finding something with the right ID/OD. Best hope would be checking my open diff, but I'm not ready to pull it from the truck yet. I'm wondering if adding another spring plate (3 per side instead of 2) and pulling a friction disc to keep the nominal stack height would give me some extra clamping force, though I'd lose some friction surface. I'm kicking myself for not trying it earlier, but it'll have to wait a while a couple weeks. There's not an OE setup like that, presumably for a reason. Think it would exert too much extra force on the spiders? I can't imagine it being any more stressful than simply having a much higher break-away force with an OE configuration. Thoughts?

Yep, got the PM and replied.

Yeah, and I'm not trying to knock AC, btw. I've not tried them. Like NovaPath said, I don't think you can go wrong with either in terms of towing.

No, shouldn't be any noticeable difference in steering. Did he rotate the steering rack? That's a must, otherwise the steering link will bind. Per Woodward, ideal angle is <20 degs; max is 32 degs. For mine, I was already close to max. After rotating, I ended up around 22 degs, I think. If the TREs are more level now (which they should be), then there's really no other source for hard steering.

The shop didn't take apart the strut, did they? Again, SFD can't cause this. Articulation is entirely strut related.

Makes sense. Well, can't attest for AC springs, but my impression from numerous threads is that the AC springs will give a truer 2" lift in the rear, which should hold firmly for your towing needs. Seems their front springs tend to introduce top-out on the strut, or an otherwise harsher ("truck-like") ride, though. I estimate the OMEs I have (front MD springs, struts, and rear springs; rear shocks are boxed up) have seen about 30K. I know the previous owner put them to work, and they still feel great to me. The other way I see it is that OME specializes in off-road suspension components. I'm certain that the AC springs are made by a 3rd party supplier that might specialize in springs, and I'm certain they've put the springs to the test. But, I can't say I've ever seen a negative comment about OME's Pathfinder components.

Wouldn't think so, but that would mean your struts are at the very end of their travel. Did you notice this before dropping it off? The SFD wouldn't affect this.

Hell yeah. The camera angle is just off enough where I can't tell if it's sitting level or not, but it probably still needs to settle up front anyway.

You thinking all 4 corners, or just the rears?

FYI: http://www.nissanpathfinders.net/forum/topic/38519-spring-dimensions/?p=752219

Yeah, though a rear HD spring would be nice, I'd think. They have light, medium, and heavy duty front shocks though, and the only difference between them was the length. Assuming they did that for the rear spring...more lift!

Dyamn! That's a load you got there. I run OME springs and they're great. I had to swap out my OME shocks when I added rear spacers, but the pair made for a super comfortable ride. Don't think I got a chance to tow with them. Earlier this year I made a few 50-mile trips towing completely full 6x8 trailers...and a fully loaded cargo area. With tongue weight, I'd say 400-500 lbs. effective cargo loads. Hopefully my numbers aren't exaggerated, but we really loaded things up. I was pleasantly surprised to not see the rear sag at all. I didn't experience any bouncing, either. It was a really solid drive each time. OME only makes a medium duty rear spring, btw.

Understandable. You live in CAN, not CA! But the nice part is that you'll have the option to either remove a front spacer, or increase the rear spacer size to dial it in. Though, on my setup, with 2" of front and rear spacers and OMEs around (MDs up front, no winch or bumper), I have a rake. Your setup should be no different if you don't use the strut spacers.

That seems like some really heavy duty stuff...do they sell it in soda-can sizes? But that's the idea. There are some cast polyurethanes that have a very low expansion rate, which is probably desirable. I was thinking it'd be pretty easy to get some cardboard pieces in there to give it a rough shape and support a bladder. I think this would work very well for the bottom mount, where the area just needs to resist compression For the top mount, I would need to find a way for it to either adhere to the quarter panel, or set around the mounting hardware somehow (the top area will want to pull out with the carrier open). I could probably tap into the material, or if pour around a bolt with a release agent, it would create a threaded hole perfectly...it wouldn't have to resist pull out forces...that's what the blind nut would be for. What I need is a sprayable, low viscosity, low expansion cast polyurethane.

If you don't use the KrF strut spacers, you'll sit exactly how you sit today, which means you can keep your OMEs + 2" spring spacers. It's when you use the strut spacers (in lieu of whatever strut spacers you've currently got) that you might need to think about longer rear springs. But...since your winch and bumper probably offset the lift from the OMEs (so let's assume 0" lift there), the strut spacers add 4", which should be a good pairing for your rear OMEs + 2". You might sit a little high up front maybe, but should be close to level I would think.

DUDE: AWESOME. Seriously, thank you for doing all that! So, there we have it: definitive proof that there is reinforcement. The reinforcement is what was preventing XPLORx4 from seeing or feeling the reinforcement. I think the biggest expectation until now is that a separate piece like this existed, which did for the WD21: Taken from: http://www.nissanpathfinders.net/forum/topic/31825-spare-tire-carrier-install/ I remember green180's approach where he took a steel plate and create a rough shape that contoured the quarter panel, but it's clear now that it should have been tied into some interior metal. I already have an unconventional solution, but I need to do some more research. Rather than try to replicate the shape with steel and working in confined spaces, I would think some sort of expanding/solidifying material would be a viable approach. Something like a structural foam, urethane, or resin that could be poured into the area and sets solid to fill the cavities behind the hinge areas and provide a solid structure that could be drilled or anchored into. Since it would be very difficult to create a sealed area in which to pour (except maybe the bottom area), I would plan to pour it into a bladder/bag and let it set while in place. It'd be very similar to those fillable packing foam systems, but with a more rigid material. I'll have to give this one more thought... Again, thanks for the pics and vids...and great idea about collecting those clips!